lecture iii-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


century；　and　continued　to　exist　in　the　north　and　south　of　the
country　down　to　the　seventeenth　and　eighteenth　centuries。　The
chief　characteristic　of　this　holding　consisted　in　the　fact　that；
though　the　land　remained　undivided　and　lay　open　as　it　had　done
for　centuries　before；　every　member　of　the　household；
nevertheless；　was　the　possessor　of　a　share　in　the　various　fields
belonging　to　the　family。　These　shares　were　not　equal；　but　varied
according　to　rights　of　inheritance　appertaining　to　each　of　the
holders。　Should　the　brothers　and　nephews　decide　on　living
separately；　they　would　abandon　the　old　system　of　using　in　common
the　produce　of　the　early　harvest；　and　divide　the　area　of　the
arable　land　in　unequa1　shares；　proportioned　to　the　rights　of
inheritance　possessed　by　each　member　of　the　household。　The　extent
of　the　shares　was　not　fixed。　The　soil　varied　in　fertility；　and
all　the　shareholders　alike　appreciated　the　advantages　of
vicinity；　each　partner；　therefore；　received　the　right　to　enjoy　a
certain　portion　in　each　of　the　fields　possessed　by　the　village。
These　portions　were　not　strictly　defined；　but；　as　a　rule；
represented　the　half；　third；　fourth；　eighth；　and　so　on；　of　the
field　according　to　the　heritage　which　was　acknowledged　to　belong
to　each　partner。
　　　　Let　us　suppose　the　case　of　one　commune；　the　family　consisting
of　three　brothers　living　and　two　nephews；　the　sons　of　a　fourth
brother　deceased。　The　share　of　each　of　the　brothers　would　be
one…fourth　part　of　each　of　the　different　fields　in　the　village；
whilst　that　of　the　nephews　would　not　exceed　an　eighth。　Each
partner　having　a　right　to　sell　his　ideal　portion；　or　a　part　of
it；　to　a　stranger；　as　well　as　to　a　relative；　the　village　would
soon　become　occupied　by　neighbours　owning　the　most　unequal
portions　in　field。　These　neighbours　would　maintain　the
obligations　which　common　possession　is　apt　to　establish；　the
meadows　for　the　greater　part　of　the　time　would　be　kept　undivided；
subject　here　and　there　to　a　yearly　distribution　according　to　the
wants　of　each　homestead；　but　these　wants　being　as　a　rule　the
same；　the　custom　would　prevail　of　dividing　them　into　equal　parts
for　the　purpose　of　mowing。
　　　　The　pasture　and　forest　land　would　also　remain　subject　to　a
community　of　ownership；　and　would　sometimes　belong　to　several
neighbouring　villages；　which　in　that　case　would　constitute　a
larger　area；　similar　to　the　German　〃mark；〃　and　known　under　the
name　of　〃volost。〃　Each　of　the　inhabitants　of　the　〃volost〃　would
be　allowed　an　unlimited　use　of　the　undivided　area；　it　being　too
extensive　to　be　easily　exhausted。　It　would；　however；　be　an　error
to　suppose　that　this　general　and　unlimited　enjoyment　of　the
undivided　mark　was　but　the　result　of　that　freedom　which　all
possessed　as　to　unoccupied　ground　（the　res　nullius）；　for　a　person
who　was　not　an　inhabitant　of　the　village　or　villages　constituting
the　mark　or　〃volost；〃　would　have　no　right　to　enjoy　its　pastures
and　forest　lands。　That　this　was　the　case　is　proved　by　the　fact
that　no　one　might　dig　a　piece　of　ground　belonging　to　the　forest
unless　the　digging　were　authorised　by　the　whole　community　of
shareholders。　Such　a　right　of　prohibition　could　not　have　been
enjoyed　unless　the　community　was　the　owner　of　the　〃mark。〃
　　　　The　natural　evolution　of　agrarian　communism　did　not　go
further　than　this　in　the　northern　parts　of　Russia。　It　went
further；　however；　in　the　south　　in　those　vast　and　fertile
steppes　which　lie　on　the　eastern　and　western　banks　of　Dnieper；
and　which　for　centuries　constituted　a　part　of　Poland。　The　recent
researches　of　Professor　Louchizky　have　brought　to　light　the
following　facts；　which　were　quite　unknown　and　some　of　which　were
directly　contradicted　by　former　historians。　Undivided　households
and　their　immediate　successors；　villages；　composed　of　sharers　in
the　same　ground；　were　in　the　beginning　well　known　on　the　eastern
bank　of　the　Dnieper。　The　undivided　〃mark；〃　on　which　every
homestead　had　the　right　to　take　fuel　and　to　pasture　its　cattle；
is　known　in　this　region　under　the　name　of　lands　belonging　to　the
〃gromada；〃　or　commune。　They　are　sometimes　called　also　common　or
village　lands。　The　colonists　who；　during　the　sixteenth　and
seventeenth　centuries；　crossed　the　river　in　order　to　occuPy　the
free　steppes　in　the　modern　Government　of　Tchernigov；　migrated　in
companies；　organised　on　the　model　of　undivided　or　partly　divided
households。　These　companies　were　called　〃skladchina；〃　from　the
verb　〃skladivat；〃　which　means　to　put　something　in　common。　The
area　on　which　the　colonisation　took　place　was　so　boundless　that
each　homestead　was　allowed　to　sow　yearly　as　much　ground　as　it　was
able　to　till。　When　the　harvest　was　once　reaped　the　land　was
abandoned；　and　a　new　piece　occupied　for　agricultural　purposes。
You　can　easily　see　that　this　was　a　proceeding　similar　to　that　of
the　ancient　Germans；　of　which　Tacitus　says：　　〃Arva　per　annos
mutant　et　superest　ager。〃
　　　　I　need　not　tell　you　that　as　long　as　the　population　was　small
enough　to　allow　of　a　yearly　change　of　soil　for　cultivation；
redistribution　was　never　thought　of；　no　mention　is　ever　made　of
the　run…rig　system　which　characterises　the　modern　village
community。　But　as　it　is　impossible　that　shares　should　be　equal
without　recourse　to　some　such　method；　we　must　not　look　for
equality　under　the　conditions　just　stated。　Even　in　the　eighteenth
century；　when　the　growth　of　population　had　diminished　the　area　of
arable　land；　periodical　redistribution　remained　unknown。　If　some
amount　of　equality　was；　nevertheless；　secured；　it　was　due　to　the
control　which　the　commune　began　to　exert　over　its　members。
Private　appropriation　of　soil　was　no　longer　allowed；　except　on
the　condition　of　its　being　made　at　certain　fixed　periods；　and
under　the　supervision　of　the　authorities。　Twice　a　year；　in　autumn
and　in　spring；　the　whole　commune；　with　its　cattle　and　its
agricultural　implements；　went　out　into　the　open　field。　At　the
command　of　the　village…elder；　the　head　of　each　homestead
proceeded　to　trace　with　his　own　plough　the　limits　of　the　ground
he　intended　to　sow；　and　no　one　was　allowed　to　extend　his
cultivation　beyond　the　limits　thus　settled。　By…and…by　the　right
of　retaining　these　private　parcels　of　ground　was　extended　to　a
period　of　three　years；　at　the　end　of　which　they　returned　to　the
commune；　and　a　new　appropriation　of　the　arable　area　was　ordered
to　be　made。
　　　　Hitherto　I　have　spoken　of　the　mode　in　which　land　was　enjoyed
so　far　as　it　applied　to　arable　land　alone。　Let　us　now　say　a　word
about　the　meadows；　forest　land；　and　pastures。　The　first　were
owned　on　conditions　similar　to　those　first　mentioned。　At　the　end
of　May　a　day　was　fixed　when　all　the　villagers　were　assembled　for
the　hay　harvest。　Each　householder　marked　with　a　scythe　the　limits
of　the　meadow　he　intended　to　mow。　It　was　the　duty　of　the
village…elders　to　see　that　these　limits　were　strictly　observed。
Forests　and　pastures　were　so　abundant　that　no　measuring　was
needed　to　regulate　their　use。　Non…division　and　common　enjoyment
remained　the　general　rule；　several　villages　very　often　possessing
equal　rights　to　take　fuel　and　to　pasture　cattle　in　the　same
forests　and　wastes。
　　　　Whilst　this　was　the　state　of　things　on　the　banks　of　the
Dnieper；　a　similar　evolution　took　place　on　those　of　the　Don。　An
area；　even　larger　than　that　of　the　south…western　steppes　in　the
middle　of　the　sixteenth　century；　awaited　the　arrival　of　those
Great　Russian　colonists；　who　founded　the　so…called　Territory　of
the　Don…Cossacks。　For　a　while　the　ground　was　declared　to　be　the
common　property　of　the　whole　community；　and　each　family　was
allowed　to　sow　and　mow　wherever　it　liked；　but　by…and…by　large
villages　called　〃stanitza〃　were　formed；　and　the　first　division　of
the　ground　took　place。　Each　village　received　its　own　area　of
arable　and　meadow　ground；　pasture　and　waste　land　remained　the
common　property　of　the　whole　people；　or；　as　it　was　said；　of　the
whole　〃army。〃
　　　　The　unlimited　right　of　private　homesteads　to　appropriate　as
much　soil　as　each　required　was　scrupulously　maintained　by　these
stanitzas；　a　fact　which　in　the　end　produced　great　inequality　in
the　distribution　of　the　land。　This　inequality　was　established　in
favour　of　a　minority　of　families　out　of　which　the　elders　of　the
people　were　regularly　chosen；　but　as　those　who　were　possessed　of
but　small　parcels　of　land　formed　the　majority；　various　economic
arrangements　were　regularly　made　at　the　village　folkmotes　where
this　majority　was　all　powerful；　redistributions　of　land　in　order
to　equalise　the　shares　were　very　often　prescribed　and　the　system
of　run…rig　tenure　made　its　first　appearance。　This　took　place
almost　in　our　own　time；　some　few　stanitzas　continuing　even　now　to
maintain　their　ancient　privilege　of　private　appropriation。
　　　　I　might　continue　my　survey　of　the　beginnings　of　the　modern
system　of　village　communities　by　a　description　of　the　economic
arrangements　still　in　use　among　the　Cossacks　of　the　Terek　or　of
the　Oural；　but　if　I　did　so；　I　should　only　have　to　repeat　the　same
facts；　and　that　in　order　to　deduce　the　following　conclusions。
That　the　modern　system　of　periodical　redistribution　of　land　in
equal　shares　was　quite　unknown　when　colonisation　first　began；　but
that　this　did