lecture iii-第3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！


equal　shares　was　quite　unknown　when　colonisation　first　began；　but
that　this　did　not　prevent　a　peculiar　kind　of　agrarian　communism；
the　foundations　of　which　are　to　be　traced　in　the　internal
constitution　of　the　undivided　household；　and　that　this　form　of
social　existence　was　known　to　Russia　at　the　beginning　of　her
history；　and　was　diffused　all　over　her　empire；　as　may　be　seen
from　the　frequent　occurrence　in　medieval　documents　of　terms　like
〃the　hearth；〃　〃the　fire〃　（pechische；　ognische）。
　　　　All　the　districts　we　have　passed　in　review　had　one　thing　in
common；　serfdom　was　almost　unknown　to　them。　The　peasants　of
Archangel　for　instance　were　always　named　〃svoiezemzi；〃　which
means　independent　possessors　of　the　soil。　Social　distinctions
remained　almost　unknown　to　the　Little　Russians　down　to　the　end　of
the　eighteenth　century　when　Catherine　the　Second　introduced
amongst　them　the　notions　of　a　feudal　nobility　and　serfdom。　The
Cossacks　of　the　Don　remained　free　up　to　the　time　of　Nicholas。　I
am；　therefore；　right　in　saying　that　agrarian　communism　is　not　the
direct　result　of　serfdom；　since　it　has　been　shown　to　exist　in
regions　where　serfdom　was　unknown。
　　　　A　careful　study　of　old　Russian　documents　does　not　add　much　to
the　strength　of　this　argument。　The　illiterate　peasants　could　not
consign　to　writing　the　economic　arrangements　they　entered　into；
and　in　this　fact　lies　the　true　reason　why；　out　of　the　various
categories　into　which　the　Russian　peasantry　was　divided　during
the　middle　ages；　none　is　less　familiar　to　us　than　the　free
villager；　the　occupier　of　the　so…called　〃black　hundreds〃　（chernia
sotni）。　The　commune　was　completely　independent　in　matters　of
internal　concern；　there　was　no　need　for　the　government　or　for
judicial　charters　to　meddle　in　its　system　of　land　tenure。　What
information　we　can　gather　from　them　of　the　external　organisation
of　the　volost　or　commune　proves　however　the　prevalence　of　a
communistic　and　democratic　mode　of　existence。　The　assembly　of　the
people；　the　folkmote；　called　in　the　South　Western　provinces　of
Russia　the　〃veche；〃　more　often　〃the　copa；〃　was　formed　of　all　the
house…elders　of　a　volost。　It　possessed　the　right　of　making　local
bye…laws；　of　choosing　the　elders　of　the　commune　or　〃starostas〃；
of　distributing　among　its　members　the　direct　taxes　which　the
government　imposed　on　agriculture　and　on　the　different　industries
of　the　nation　（sochi　i　promisli）。　Persons　were　also　chosen　by　the
commune　to　assist　the　judges　in　the　exercise　of　their　duties；
playing　n　this　occasion　the　part　reserved　in　medieval　Germany　to
the　so…called　Schoffen　and　in　old　Sweden　to　the　〃nemd。〃*
　　　　As　to　the　relation　in　which　the　volost　stood　to　the　ground
that　it　occupied；　this　subject　is　partly　illustrated　by　the
following　facts。
　　　　We　possess　a　small　number　of　private　charters　and　judicial
records；　belonging　to　the　fifteenth　and　the　sixteenth　centuries；
from　which　we　may　see；　that　the　true　owner　of　the　soil　was　partly
the　village　and　partly　the　〃volost；〃　or　association　of　villagers。
To　give　you　an　instance　of　what　I　am　saying；　I　will　cite　the
precise　text　of　some　of　these　charters。
　　　　In　1555　a　lawsuit　began　between　a　squire　（votchinnik）　called
Nefediev　and　the　peasants　of　eighteen　villages　all　belonging　to
the　volost　of　Almesch。　The　question　which　the　judges　had　to
decide；　was　whether　some　pastures　belonged　to　the　volost　or　to
the　squire。　Witnesses　named　by　each　party　from　among　the　oldest
inhabitants　of　the　locality　declared　that　the　peasants　were　the
real　possessors　of　the　ground　in　dispute；　and　that　their
ownership　went　back　to　a　period　beyond　the　memory　of　man；　and　the
judge　decided　that　the　claims　of　the　squire　were　null　and　void。
　　　　In　the　case　just　mentioned　we　find　ourselves　in　presence　of　a
sort　of　undivided　mark；　composed；　like　that　of　Germany；　of　a
certain　number　of　villages　possessing　lands　in　common。　These
lands　are　pastures。　Other　charters　of　the　same　period　show　us
cases　in　which　the　undivided　area　of　the　mark　or　volost　was
composed　of　forest　ground。　Expressions　like　the　following　are
frequent　in　the　documents　just　mentioned：　〃The　forest　belongs　to
the　commune　（selo）　and　the　villages　in　common　（vopsche）；　or
〃this〃　piece　of　forest　ground　has　been　given　to　me　by　the　volost
（the　mark）；　the　elder；　and　the　peasants。〃
　　　　No　one　had　the　right　to　clear　the　forest　or　reclaim　the　waste
land　lying　within　the　limits　of　a　volost；　unless　authorised　to　do
so　by　the　elders　and　the　assembly　of　peasants。　This　fact　appears
clearly　in　the　following　instance：　in　1524；　three　persons　found
some　salt　wells　on　the　shores　of　Dvina　in　the　midst　of　a　dark
forest。　They　addressed　a　petition　to　the　Government　asking　to　be
recognized　as　the　legal　possessors　of　the　place；　and　they
supported　their　demand　by　the　following　argument：　〃Not　one　of　the
surrounding　marks　or　volosts　has　any　appurtenances　in　the　place。〃
Had　it　been　otherwise；　had　the　wells　been　situated　on　the
appurtenances　of　a　volost；　no　private　person　could　have　made　the
demand　just　mentioned。　The　marks　or　volosts　jealously　watched
over　the　integrity　of　their　boundaries；　and　that　from　the
earliest　times。　In　the　〃Lives　of　the　Saints；〃　those　early
monuments　of　our　written　literature；　complaint　is　sometimes　made
of　peasants　doing　their　best　to　get　rid　of　a　hermit；　established
in　a　neighbouring　forest；　〃because；〃　says　the　hagiographer；　〃they
feared　he　would　assign　to　some　monastery　a　part　of　the　ground
they　owned。〃*
　　　　The　charters　give；　as　I　have　already　said；　very　little
information　about　the　internal　arrangements　of　the　volost　and
village；　all　we　know　is　that　the　settlements　were　very　far　from
resembling　those　large　assemblages　of　people　which　are　known　in
our　days　under　the　name　of　〃slobodi。〃　As　a　rule　the　〃derevnia〃　or
village　contained　few　hearths；　and　the　villages　were　scattered
over　the　whole　area　of　the　volost。　The　wastes　and　forests　were
used　in　common；　while　the　meadows　and　arable　fields　became　the
object　of　private　appropriation。　No　equality　of　shares　seem　to
have　existed；　the　charters　constantly　mentioning　the　〃best　men；〃
〃the　men　of　wealth；〃　（jitii　liudi）　side　by　side　with　the　〃smaller
men〃　（molodschii）。　Some　few　seem　to　have　had　even　no　part　at　all
in　the　possessions　of　the　soil；　being　known　under　the　name　of
podsousedi　or　podsousedki；　which　means　living　under　the　authority
of　a　neighbour　or　villager　（sosed）。　These　persons　were　regularly
employed　as　agricultural　labourers。　Some　few；　the　so…called
〃bobili；〃　were　possessed　of　small　parcels　of　land；　resembling　in
that　the　cottarii　of　Domesday　Book。　The　agricultural　area　owned
by　each　homestead　was　known　by　the　name　of　〃jrebii；〃　which　means
a　lot；　and　the　sense　which　men　of　the　thirteenth　and　fourteenth
centuries　attached　to　this　term　is　revealed　to　us　by　an　old
Russian　translation　of　some　parts　of　the　Byzantine　codes；　the
Prochiron　and　the　Eclogue。　This　translation　in　certain　points
appears　to　be　a　kind　of　adaptation　of　Greek　legislation　to　the
conditions　of　the　Russian　people。　One　of　the　paragraphs　of　these
so…called　〃Books　of　the　Law〃　（Zakonnii　Knigi；　chap。　xii）　contains
the　following　sentence：　〃If　a　division　of　land　shall　take　place
by　which　some　person　shall　injure　the　interest　of　others　in　their
plots　（jrebii）　the　division　must　not　be　maintained。〃*
　　　　The　jrebii　being　a　plot　of　land　enjoyed　by　a　single　household
out　of　the　agricultural　area　of　the　mark；　a　plot　which　need　not
necessarily　be　equal　to　those　of　the　neighbours；　we　are　right　in
saying　that　the　village　community　of　the　free　peasants　of　Muscovy
was　like　that　of　the　Cossacks　of　the　Dnieper。　This　likeness　is　to
a　certain　extent　obscured　by　the　financial　arrangements　which　the
Muscovite　volost　entered　into　in　order　to　secure　the　yearly
payment　of　the　land　tax；　these　arrangements；　as　well　as　the　tax
itself；　being　quite　unknown　to　Little　Russian　communes。
　　　　The　Muscovite　administration　formerly　empowered　the　volosts
to　distribute　the　taxes　imposed　on　the　villages；　according　to　the
quantity　of　cultivated　land　together　with　the　commons　thereto
annexed；　possessed　by　them。　The　sum　to　be　paid　by　the　inhabitants
of　each　subdivision　of　the　mark　was　then　divided　among　the
various　households　according　to　the　extent　of　their　possessions。
The　unit　of　taxation　was　the　land　of　a　plough。　I　mean　the　amount
of　land　which　one　plough。　working　the　whole　day；　could　turn　up。
This　unit　was　known　by　the　name　of　〃socha。〃　Some　homesteads　owned
two；　three；　or　more　of　these；　but　there　were　others　who　held　only
a　portion　of　this　unit；　just　as　in　mediaeval　England　there　were
households　owning　entire　virgates；　or　the　half　or　third　part　of　a
virgate；　and　in　Germany　there　were　holders　of　〃mansi　pleni　et
mansi　dimidii；〃　〃ganze　und　halbe　Hufen。〃　As　serfdom　was　unknown
and　no　mutual　responsibility　in　matters　of　taxation　bound　the
peasant　to　the　soil　he　occupied；　undivided　households　very　often
quitted　their　dwellings　in　order　to　settle　in　some　neighbouring
country；　on　lands　still　free　of　occupation；　or　on　those　liberally
accorded　to　new…comers　by　their　private　owners；　on　condition　of　a
small　payment。
　　　　The　abandoned　ground　returned　each　time　to　the　volost；　which
always　took　measures　to　fin