lecture iii-第4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！


small　payment。
　　　　The　abandoned　ground　returned　each　time　to　the　volost；　which
always　took　measures　to　find　some　new　occupier　who　might　relieve
the　mark　from　the　increase　of　taxation　produced　by　the　departure
of　the　previous　occupier。　Instances　of　such　new　occupation　are
regularly　reported　in　the　following　terms：　〃All　the　peasants　of
the　volost　have　allowed　such　and　such　persons　to　settle　on　the
lots　（jrebii）　left　free　by　the　departure　of　such　and　such
persons。　The　mir　（this　word　means　the　whole　community　of
shareholders）　has　conceded　this　lot　to　〃　（here　follows　the
name）。　The　shares　of　each　particular　household　having　no　distinct
limits；　we　are　induced　to　think　that　the　possession　of　a　lot；　or
jrebii；　conceded　no　other　right　than　that　of　having　a　distinct
share　in　the　open　fields　of　the　village。　Each　household　possessed
larger　or　smaller　strips　of　ground　in　the　different　fields
contained　in　the　village　area；　and　also　had　the　right　to　mow　a
distinct　portion　of　the　village　meadow；　while　the　enjoyment　of
the　waste　and　of　the　forest　land　was　free　to　all　the　inhabitants
of　the　volost；　and　no　rules　determined　precisely　the　use　which
each　householder　was　allowed　to　make　of　it。
　　　　You　may　see　from　what　I　have　said　that　the　runrig　system　and
equality　of　shares　were　as　little　known　to　the　village
communities　of　Old　Russia；　and　specially　of　Muscovy；　as　to　those
of　medieval　Germany　or　England。　No　better　known　was　the
correspondence　which；　according　to　Mr　Seebohm；　existed　in
medieval　England　between　the　quantity　of　ground　owned　by　each
household　and　the　part　it　took　in　the　ordinary　labour　of
agriculture。　Tillage　performed　by　families　possessing　in　common　a
〃carruca；〃　or　sort　of　plough　worked　with　three　or　four　pairs　of
oxen；　was　quite　unknown　to　my　forefathers；　who　were　in　the　habit
of　cultivating　the　ground　with　small　ploughs；　drawn　very　often　by
a　single　horse；　a　fact　noticed　in　the　epic　poems；　and
particularly　in　the　ballad；　the　chief　hero　of　which　is　a　simple
peasant；　Micoula　Selianinovich。　The　same　mode　of　tillage；　I　may
add；　is　still　in　use　among　the　peasants　of　Great　Russia；　where
the　ground　is　not　nearly　so　heavy　as　is　the　black　soil　of　our
Southern　provinces。　The　only　thing　that　depended　upon　tenure　of
land　was　taxation；　the　householder　paying　a　larger　or　smaller
proportion　of　the　land　tax；　according　to　the　number　of　plough
lands　sown　by　his　seed。
　　　　This　is　almost　all　we　know　of　the　free　Muscovite　village
community。　Our　information　is　fuller　as　to　the　economic
arrangements　of　those　dependent　communes；　which　were　established
on　the　possessions　of　the　higher　clergy　and　the　monasteries。
According　to　Professor　Gorchacov；　to　whom　we　are　indebted　for　a
very　circumstantial　description　of　the　inner　life　of　these
bodies；　each　manor　regularly　contained；　next　to　the　demesne　land；
a　large　area　occupied　by　the　dependent　households。　Each　of　these
households　was　obliged　to　perform　agricultural　labour　on　the　area
belonging　to　the　landlord；　and　in　return　possessed　the　right　to　a
share　in　the　autumn　and　spring　fields；　owned　in　common　by　the
customary　tenants　of　the　manor。　The　existence　of　these　two　fields
may　be　traced；　at　least　in　the　central　Governments　of　Russia；　as
far　back　as　the　beginning　of　the　sixteenth　century；　as　they　are
mentioned　in　a　charter　issued　in　the　year　1511。　The　peasants　had；
before　the　end　of　that　century；　the　right　of　free　removal；　the
land　quitted　by　a　peasant　household　returning　to　the　community　of
the　villagers。*　Besides　the　feudal　lord；　the　state　also　had　a
claim　on　the　community　in　the　shape　of　a　land　tax；　which　the
village　assembly　was　itself　authorised　to　collect。　The　area　held
by　the　village　was　accordingly　divided　into　ploughs　（sochi）；　and
smaller　divisions　called　viti；　which　corresponded　to　a　distinct
part　of　the　work　of　a　plough。　To　make　these　financial
arrangements　clearer　to　an　English　public；　I　will　say　that　the
customary　land　of　the　village　was　divided　into　hides　and
virgates。　The　quantity　of　land　contained　in　each　virgate　varied
from　one　village　to　another；　but　the　virgates　of　the　same　village
were　equal；　in　that　respect　the　manor　of　mediaeval　England
presents　the　greatest　similitude　to　that　of　mediaeval　Russia。
Both　have　this　also　in　common；　that　each　household　was　taxed
according　to　the　amount　of　arable　land　it　owned。　One　household
paid　for　one　〃vit；〃　or　virgate；　another　for　two；　a　third　for　half
a　virgate；　and　so　on。　The　vit　or　virgate；　just　as　in　England；　was
not　a　number　of　fields　surrounded　by　distinct　boundaries；　but　a
union　of　ideal　shares　in　the　different　fields　of　the　village。　In
the　lands　of　the　monastery　of　Constantine；　for　instance；　the　vit
was；　at　least　during　the　first　part　of　the　sixteenth　century；
equal　to　the　right　of　occupying　five　desiatines　in　each　of　the
three　fields　of　the　manor；　a　desiatine　being　equal　to　two　acres。
First　introduced　in　order　to　secure　an　equal　distribution　of
state　taxation；　the　system　of　hides　and　virgates　became　later　on
the　basis　of　the　levy　and　distribution　of　feudal　dues。　Instances
frequently　occur　in　sixteenth　century　charters　of　the　labour
performed　by　each　of　the　households　being　in　direct　ratio　to　the
number　of　virgates；　or　viti；　in　its　possession。　Under　such
conditions；　no　equality　could　exist　as　to　the　amount　of　ground
possessed　by　each　villager。　This　equality　was　not　demanded　by
anybody　on　account　of　the　abundance　of　land　and　the　facility　of
removal。　The　peasant　who　thought　himself　aggrieved　could　seek
better　terms　on　some　neighbouring　manor；　removals　were　frequent；
and　the　commune　was　always　busy　seeking　for　persons　who　might
wish　to　become　occupiers　of　the　vacant　ground　of　an　abandoned
virgate。
　　　　I　shall　proceed　no　further　in　the　study　of　the　social
arrangements　of　the　Russian　manor　because　they　appear　to　be；　so
far　as　the　ownership　of　land　is　concerned；　very　like　those　of　a
free　village。　This　is　not　surprising　to　one　who　knows　the　small
difference　which　exists　between　the　arrangements　of　a　German
manor；　or　Hof；　and　those　of　a　free　commune；　or　Dorf…gemeinde。　The
proprietor　was　too　well　pleased　to　see　his　yearly　revenue
guaranteed　by　the　unpaid　service　of　the　villeins；　to　meddle　with
their　internal　arrangements。　The　villeins　were　accordingly
allowed　to　choose　their　own　executive　officers；　to　have　their
elders；　their　〃good　men；〃　or　judicial　assistants；　and　to
apportion　taxes　and　arrange　the　land　ownership　at　their　regular
meetings；　or　folkmotes。　Such　being　the　case；　I　see　no　reason　why
the　agrarian　communism　practised　by　the　Russian　peasantry　should
be　much　affected　by　their　loose　dependence　upon　the　landlord；　at
least；　before　the　time　when　serfdom　was　completely　established
and　the　peasant　was　prevented　from　removing　from　the　manor。
　　　　The　general　characteristic　of　the　old　Russian　community　may
be　given　in　few　words：　it　was　a　kind　of　ownership；　based　on　the
idea　that　the　true　proprietor　of　the　land　was　none　other　than　the
commune。　The　rights　of　the　commune　to　the　soil　occupied　by　the
individual　households　appears　in　the　indivisibility　of　the　waste
and　forest　lands；　and　in　the　fact　that　vacant　shares　are
regularly　disposed　of　by　the　commune；　and　that　nobody　is　allowed
to　occupy　a　piece　of　ground　lying　within　the　limits　of　the
village　common；　unless　he　is　authorised　by　the　local　authorities。
Arable　land　and　meadows　are；　as　a　rule；　in　the　hands　of　private
households；　which　pay　taxes　and　perform　manorial　labour　in　direct
proportion　to　the　amount　of　land　they　own。　This　ownership　does
not　suppose　the　existence　of　certain　limits　which　nobody　is
allowed　to　infringe。　It　implies　only　the　right　to　have　a　definite
share　in　the　three　fields；　which　constitute　the　agricultural　area
of　the　village。　The　shares　are　not　equal；　but　differ　in　direct
proportion　to　the　payments　which　the　household　is　called　upon　to
make；　partly　to　the　State；　and　partly　to　the　lord　of　the　manor。
Periodical　redistributions　are　unknown；　and　no　mention　is　made　of
the　run…rig　system　of　some　modern　English　and　Irish　manors。
　　　　Thus　constituted；　the　old　Russian　village　community　appears
to　be　very　like　that　of　medieval　England　with　its　system　of　open
fields；　its　hides　and　virgates。　It　may　be　also　compared　to　the
German　mark；　so　far　as　the　mark　is　composed　of　a　set　of　villages
subdivided　into　units　partly　financial；　partly　territorial；
called　Hufen；　and　securing　to　their　private　holders；　like　the
English　virgates；　the　right　to　have　a　distinct　share　in　the
arable　fields　and　in　the　meadows　of　the　village。
　　　　Now　that　we　are　aware　of　the　peculiar　features　of　the
medieval　village　community；　let　us　ascertain　the　reasons　which
have　produced　a　complete　revolution　in　its　interior　organisation
by　the　introduction　of　the　principle　of　equal　division　of　the
soil　among　its　individual　members；　and　the　system　of　periodical
allotments　of　ground　in　order　to　secure　this　equality。
　　　　Two　facts　seem　to　have　contributed　to　this　result；　the　first
was　the　increase　of　population；　which；　as　we　have　already　shown
in　the　instance　of　Little　Russian　communes；　sooner　or　later
induces　the　majority　of　persons　holding　small　shares　to　force　the
rest　to　proceed　to　a　redistribution　of　the　soil。