vill3-第25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！


aise　a　class　which　acted　as　a　kind　of　nervous　system；　connecting　the　different　parts　with　a　common　centre　and　establishing　rational　intercourse　and　hierarchical　relations。　The　libertini　had　to　fu1fil　kindred　functions　in　the　ancient　world；　but　their　importance　was　hardly　so　great　as　that　of　medieval　sergeants　or　ministeriales。　We　may　get　some　notion　of　what　that　position　was　by　looking　at　the　personal　influence　and　endowments　of　the　chief　servants　in　a　great　household　of　the　thirteenth　century。　The　first　cook　and　the　gatekeeper　of　a　celebrated　abbey　were　real　magnates　who　held　their　offices　by　hereditary　succession；　and　were　enfeoffed　with　considerable　estates。（33*）　In　Glastonbury　five　cooks　shared　in　the　kitchen…fee。（34*）　The　head　of　the　cellar；　the　gatekeeper；　and　the　chief　shepherd　enter　into　agreements　in　regard　to　extensive　plots　of　land。（35*）　They　appear　as　entirely　free　to　dispose　of　such　property；　and　at　every　step　we　find　in　the　cartularies　of　Glastonbury　Abbey　proofs　of　the　existence　of　a　numerous　and　powerful　'sergeant'　class。　John　of　Norwood；　Abbot　of　Bury　St。　Edmund's；　had　to　resort　to　a　regular　coup　d'閠at　in　order　to　displace　the　privileged　families　which　had　got　hold　of　the　offices　and　treated　them　as　hereditary　property。（36*）　In　fact　the　great　'sergeants'　ended　by　hampering　their　lords　more　than　serving　them。　And　the　same　fact　of　the　rise　of　a　'ministerial'　class　may　be　noticed　on　every　single　estate；　although　it　is　not　so　prominent　there　as　in　the　great　centres　of　feudal　life。　The　whole　arrangement　was　broken　by　the　substitution　of　the　'cash　nexus'　for　more　ancient　kinds　of　economic　relationship；　and　by　the　spread　of　free　agreements：　it　is　not　difficult　to　see　that　both　these　facts　acted　strongly　in　favour　of　driving　out　hereditary　and　customary　obligations。　　　　　We　have　considered　the　relative　position　of　the　unfree　holdings；　of　the　domanial　land　around　which　they　were　grouped；　and　of　the　class　which　had　to　put　the　whole　machinery　of　the　manor　into　action。　But　incidentally　we　had　several　times　to　notice　a　set　of　men　and　tenements　which　stood　in　a　peculiar　relation　to　the　arrangement　we　have　been　describing：　there　were　in　almost　every　manor　some　free　tenants　and　some　free　tenements　that　could　not　be　considered　as　belonging　to　the　regular　fabric　of　the　whole。　they　had　to　pay　rents　or　even　to　perform　labour　services；　but　their　obligations　were　subsidiary　to　the　work　of　the　customary　tenants　on　which　the　husbandry　of　the　manorial　demesne　leaned　for　support。　From　the　economic　point　of　view　we　can　see　no　inherent　necessity　for　the　connexion　of　these　particular　free　tenements　with　that　particular　manorial　unit。　The　rent；　large　or　small；　could　have　been　sent　directly　to　the　lord's　household；　or　paid　in　some　other　manor　without　any　perceptible　alteration　in　favour　of　either　party；　the　work；　if　there　was　such　to　perform；　was　without　exception　of　a　rather　trifling　kind；　and　could　have　been　easily　dispensed　with　and　commuted　for　money。　Several　reasons　may　be　thought　of　to　explain　the　fact　that　free　tenements　are　thus　grouped　along　with　the　villain　holdings　and　worked　into　that　single　unit；　the　manor。　It　may　be　urged　that　the　division　into　manors　is　not　merely　and　perhaps　not　chiefly　an　economic　one；　but　that　it　reflects　a　certain　political　organisation；　which　had　to　deal　with　and　to　class　free　tenants　as　well　as　servile　people。　It　may　be　conjectured　that　even　from　the　economic　point　of　view；　although　the　case　of　free　tenants　would　hardly　have　called　the　manorial　unit　into　existence；　it　was　convenient　to　use　that　class　when　once　created　for　the　grouping　of　villain　land　and　work：　why　should　the　free　tenants　not　join　the　divisions　formed　for　another　purpose　but　locally　within　easy　reach　and　therefore　conveniently　situated　for　such　intercourse　with　the　lord　as　was　rendered　necessary　by　the　character　of　the　tenement？　Again；　the　grouping　of　free　tenants　may　have　originated　in　a　time　when　the　connexion　with　the　whole　was　felt　more　strongly　than　in　the　feudal　period；　it　may　possibly　go　back　to　a　community　which　had　nothing　or　little　to　do　with　subjection；　and　in　which　the　free　landowners　joined　for　mutual　support　and　organisation。　It　is　not　impossible　to　assume；　on　the　other　hand；　that　in　many　cases　the　free　tenant　was　left　in　the　manorial　group　because　he　had　begun　by　being　an　unfree　and　therefore　a　necessary　member　of　it。　All　such　suppositions　seem　prima　facie　admissible　and　reasonable　enough；　and　at　the　same　time　it　is　clear；　that　by　deciding　in　favour　of　one　of　them　or　by　the　relative　importance　assigned　to　each　we　shall　very　materially　influence　the　solution　of　interesting　historical　problems；　in　order　to　appreciate　rightly　the　position　of　the　free　tenements　in　the　manor　we　have　to　examine　whether　these　tenements　are　all　of　one　and　the　same　kind　or　not；　and　this　must　be　done　not　from　the　legal　standpoint　whence　it　has　already　been　reviewed；　but　in　connexion　with　the　practical　management　of　the　estate。　I　think　that　a　survey　of　the　different　meanings　which　the　term　bears　in　our　documents　must　lead　us　to　recognise　three　chief　distinctions：　first　there　is　free　land　which　once　formed　part　of　the　demesne　but　has　been　separated　from　it；　then　there　is　the　land　held　by　villagers　outside　the　regular　arrangements　of　the　rural　community；　and　lastly　there　are　ancient　free　holdings　of　the　same　shape　as　the　servile　tenements；　though　differing　from　the　latter　in　legal　character。　Each　class　will　naturally　fall　into　subdivisions。（37*）　　　　　Under　the　first　head　it　is　to　be　observed　that　domanial　land　very　often　lost　its　direct　connexion　with　the　lord's　household；　and　was　given　away　to　dependent　people　on　certain　conditions。　One　of　the　questions　addressed　to　the　juries　by　the　Glastonbury　inquest　of　1189　was　prompted　by　this　practice：　it　was　asked　what　demesne　land　had　been　given　out　under　free　agreement　or　servile　conditions；　and　whether　it　was　advantageous　to　keep　to　the　arrangement　or　not。　One　of　the　reasons　which　lay　at　the　root　of　the　process　has　been　already　touched　upon。　Grants　of　domanial　land　occur　commonly　in　return　for　services　rendered　in　the　administration　of　the　manor：　reeves；　ploughmen；　herdsmen；　woodwards　are　sometimes　recompensed　in　this　manner　instead　of　being　liberated　from　the　duties　incumbent　on　their　holding。　A　small　rent　was　usually　affixed　to　the　plot　severed　from　the　demesne；　and　the　whole　arrangement　may　be　regarded　as　very　like　an　ordinary　lease。　An　attenuated　form　of　the　same　thing　may　be　noticed　when　some　officer　or　servant　was　permitted　to　use　certain　plots　of　domanial　land　during　the　tenure　of　his　office。　It　happened；　for　instance；　that　a　cotter　was　entrusted　to　take　care　of　a　team　of　oxen　belonging　to　the　lord　or　obliged　to　drive　his　plough。　He　might　be　repaid　either　by　leave　to　use　the　manorial　plough　on　his　own　land　on　specified　occasions；　or　else　by　an　assignment　to　him　of　the　crop　on　certain　acres　of　the　home　farm。（38*）　Such　privileges　are　sometimes　granted　to　villagers　who　do　not　seem　to　be　personally　employed　in　the　manorial　administration；　but　such　cases　are　rare；　and　must　be　due　to　special　reasons　which　escape　our　notice。　　　　　It　is　quite　common；　on　the　other　hand；　to　find　deficiencies　in　the　normal　holdings　made　up　from　the　demesne；　e。g。　a　group　of　peasants　hold　five　acres　apiece　in　the　fields；　and　one　of　the　set　cannot　receive　his　full　share：　the　failing　acres　are　supplied　by　the　demesne。　Even　an　entire　virgate　or　half…virgate　may　be　formed　in　this　way。（39*）　Sometimes　a　plot　of　the　lord's　land　is　given　to　compensate　the　bad　quality　of　the　peasant's　land。（40*）　Of　course；　such　surrenders　of　the　demesne　soil　were　by　no　means　prompted　by　disinterested　philanthropy。　They　were　made　to　enable　the　peasantry　to　bear　its　burdens；　and　may…be　to　get　rid　of　patches　of　bad　soil　or　ground　that　was　inconveniently　situated。（41*）　In　a　number　of　cases　these　grants　of　demesne　are　actual　leases；　and　probably　the　result　of　hard　bargains。　　　　　However　this　might　be；　we　find　alongside　of　the　estate　farmed　for　the　lord's　own　account　a　great　portion　of　the　demesne　conceded　to　the　villagers。　The　term　'inland；'　which　ought　properly　to　designate　all　the　land　belonging　directly　to　the　lord；　is　sometimes　applied　to　plots　which　have　been　surrendered　to　the　peasantry；　and　so　distinguishes　them　from　the　regular　customary　holdings。（42*）　Such　concessions　of　demesne　land　were　not　meant　to　create　freehold　tenements。　Their　tenure　was　precarious；　the　right　of　resumption　was　more　expressly　recognised　in　the　case　of　such　plots　than　in　that　of　any　other　form　of　rural　occupation；　but　the　rights　thus　acquired　tended　to　become　perpetual；　like　everything　else　in　this　feudal　world；　and　as　they　were　founded　on　agreement　and　paid　for　with　money　rents；　their　transformation　into　permanent　tenures　led　to　an　increase　of　free　tenements　and　not　of　villainage。　We　catch　a　glimpse　of　the　process　in　the　Domesday　of　St。　Paul's。　In　1249　a　covenant　was　made　between　the　Chapter　of　the　Cathedral　and　its　villagers　of　the　manor　of　Beauchamp　in　Essex：　in　consequence　of　the　agreement　all　the　concessions　of　demesne　land　which　had　been　made　by　the　farmers　were　confirmed　by　the　Chapter。　The　inquests　show　that　those　who　farmed　the　estates　had　extensive　rights　as　to　the　use　of　domanial　land