vill3-第44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！
ble。 They do not square at all with the rules and tendencies of private ownership and individualistic husbandry。 The individual proprietor will naturally try to fence in his plot against strangers； to set up hedges and walls that would render trespassing over his ground difficult； if not impossible。 And he could not but consider intermixture as a downright nuisance； and strive by all means in his power to get rid of it。 Why should he put up with the inconvenience of holding a bundle of strips lying far apart from each other； more or less dependent because of their narrowness on the dealings of neighbours； who may be untidy and unthrifty？ Instead of having one block of soil to look to and a comparatively short boundary to maintain； every occupier has a number of scattered pieces to care for； and neighbours； who not only surround； but actually cut up； dismember； invade his tenement。 The open…field system stands in glaring contradiction with the present state of private rights in Western Europe； and no wonder that it has been abolished everywhere； except on some few tracts of land kept back by geographical conditions from joining the movement of modern civilisation。 And even in mediaeval history we perceive that the arrangement does not keep its hold on those occasions when the rights of individuals。 are strongly felt： it gives way on the demesne farm and on newly reclaimed land。 At the same time； the absence of perpetual enclosures and the intermixture of strips are in a general way quite prevalent at the present time in the East of Europe。 What conditions do they correspond to？ Why have nations living in very different climates and on very different soils adopted the open…field system again and again in spite of all inconveniences and without having borrowed it from each other？ There is absolutely nothing in the manorial arrangement to occasion this curious system。 It is not the fact that peasant holdings are made subservient to the wants of the lord's estate； that can explain why early agriculture is in the main a culture of open fields and involves a marvellous intermixture of rights。 The absence of any logical connexion between these two things settles the question as to historical influence。 The open…field arrangement is； I repeat it； no lax or indifferent system； but stringent and highly peculiar。 And so it cannot but proceed from some pressing necessity。 It is evidently communal in its very essence。 Every trait that makes it strange and inconvenient from the point of view of individualistic interests； renders it highly appropriate to a state of things ruled by communal conceptions。 It is difficult to prevent trespasses upon an open plot； but the plot must be open； if many people besides the tiller have rights over it； pasture rights； for instance。 It involves great loss of time and difficulty of supervision to work a property that lies in thirty separate pieces all over the territory of a village； but such a disposition is remarkably well adapted for the purpose of assigning to fellow villagers equal shares in the arable。 It is grievous to depend on your neighbours for the proceeds and results of your own work； but the tangled web of rights and boundaries becomes simple if one considers it as the management of land by an agricultural community which has allotted the places where its members have to work。 Rights of common usage； communal apportionment of shares in the arable； communal arrangement of ways and times of cultivation these are the chief features of open…field husbandry； and all point to one source the village community。 It is not a manorial arrangement； though it may be adapted to the manor。 If more proof were needed we have only to notice the fact； that open…field cultivation is in full work in countries where the manor has not been established； and in times when it has not as yet been formed。 We may take India or tribal italy as instances。 The system as exhibited in England is linked to a division into holdings which gives it additional significance。 The holding of the English peasant is distinguished by two characteristic features： it is a unit which as a rule does not admit of division； it is equal to other units in the same village。 There is no need to point out at length to what extent these features are repugnant to an individualistic order of things。 They belong to a rural community。 But even in a community the arrangement adopted seems peculiar。 We must not disregard some important contradictions。 The holdings are not all equal； but are grouped on a scale of three； four； five divisions virgates； bovates； and cotlands for instance。 And the question may be put： why should an artificial arrangement contrived for the sake of equality start from a flagrant inequality which looks the more unjust； because instead of those intermediate quantities which shade off into each other in our modern society we meet with abrupt transitions？ A second difficulty may be found in the unchangeable nature of the holding。 The equal virgates are in fact an obstacle to a proportionate repartition of the land among the population； because there is nothing to insure that the differences of growth and requirements arising between different families will keep square with the relations of the holdings。 In one case the family plot may become too large； in another too scanty an allowance for the peasant household working and feeding on that plot。 And ultimately； as we have seen； the indivisible nature of the holding looks to some extent like an artificial one； and one that is more apparent than real。 Not to speak of that provincial variation； the Kentish system of gavelkind； we notice that even in the rest of England large units are breaking into fractions； and that very often the supposed unity is only a thin covering for material division。 Why should it be kept up then？ Such serious contradictions and incongruities lead us forcibly to the conclusion that we have a state of transition before us； an institution that is in some degree distorted and warped from its original shape。 In this respect the manorial element comes strongly to the fore。 The rough scale of holdings would be grossly against justice for purely communal purposes； but it is not only the occupation of land； but also the incidence of services that is regulated by it。 People would not so much complain of holding five acres instead of thirty； if they had to work and to pay six times less in the first case。 Again； a division of tenements fixed once and for all in spite of changes in the numbers and wants of the population； looks anything but convenient。 At the same time the fixed scheme of the division offers a ready basis for computing rents and assessing labour services。 And for the sake of the lord it was advisable to preserve outward unity even when the system was actually breaking up： for dealings with the manorial administration virgates remained undivided； even when they were no longer occupied as integral units。 Although the holdings are undoubtedly made subservient to the wants of the manor； it would be going a great deal too far to suppose that they were formed with the primary object of meeting those wants。 If we look closer into the structure we find that it is based on the relation between the plough…team and the arable； a relation which is more or less constant and explains the gradations and the mode of apportionment。 The division of the land is no indefinite or capricious one； because the land has to be used in certain quantities； and smaller quantities or fractions would disarrange the natural connexion between the soil and the forces that make it productive。 The society of those days appears as an agricultural mass consisting not of individual persons or natural families； but of groups possessed of the implements for tilling the land。 Its unit of reckoning is not the man； but the plough…beast。 As the model plough…team happens to be a very large one； the large unit of the hide is adopted。 Lesser quantities may be formed also； but still they correspond to aliquot parts of the full team of eight oxen。 Thus the possible gradations are not so many or so gentle as in our own time； but are in the main the half plough…land； the virgate； and the oxgang。 What else there is can be only regarded as subsidiary to the main arrangement： the cotters and crofters are not tenants in the fields； but gardeners； labourers； craftsmen； herdsmen； and the like。 If the country had not been mainly cultivated as ploughland； but had borne vines or olives or crops that required no cumbersome implements； but intense and individualistic labour； one may readily believe that the holdings would have been more compact； and also more irregular。 The principles of coaration give an insight into the nature of these English village communities。 They did not aim at absolute equality； they subordinated the personal element to the agricultural one； if we may use that expression。 Not so much an apportionment of individual claims was effected as an apportionment of the land to the forces at work upon it。 This observation helps us to get rid of the anomalies with which we started： the holding was united because an ox could not be divided； the plots might be smaller or larger； but e
