vill2-第26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！
e tenure more than at personal status。 Terms which have in view the general economic condition of the peasant； vary a good deal according to localities。 Even in private documents they are on the whole less frequent than the terms of the first class； and the Hundred Rolls use them but very rarely。 It wOUld be very wrong to imply that they were not widely spread in practice。 On the contrary； their vernacular forms vouch for their vitality and their use in common speech。 But being vernacular and popular in origin； these terms cannot obtain the uniformity and currency of literary names employed and recognised by official authority。 The vernacular equivalent for villanus seems to have been niet or neat。（19*） It points to the regular cultivators of the arable； possessed of holdings of normal size and performing the typical services of the manor。（20*） The peasant's condition is here regarded from the economical side； in the mutual relation of tenure and work； not in the strictly legal sense； and men of this category form the main stock of the manorial population。 The Rochester Custumal says（21*） that neats are more free than cottagers； and that they hold virgates。 The superior degree of freedom thus ascribed to them is certainly not to be taken in the legal sense； but is merely a superiority in material condition。 The contrast with cottagers is a standing one；（22*） and； being the main population of the village； neats are treated sometimes as if they were the only people there。（23*） The name may be explained etymologically by the Anglo…Saxon geneat； which in documents of the tenth and eleventh century means a man using another person's land。 The differences in application may be discussed when we come to examine the Saxon evidence。 Another Saxon term … gebur … has left its trace in the burus and buriman of Norman records。 The word does not occur very often； and seems to have been applied in two different ways…to the chief villains of the township in some places； and to the smaller tenantry； apparently in confusion with the Norman bordarius； in some other。（24*） The very possibility of such a confusion shows that it was going out of common use。 On the other hand； the Danish equivalent bondus is widely spread。 It is to be found constantly in the Danish counties。（25*） The original meaning is that of cultivator or 'husband' the same in fact as that of gebur and boor。 Feudal records give curious testimony of the way in which the word slid down into the 'bondage' of the present day。 We see it wavering； as it were； sometimes exchanging with servus and villanus； and sometimes opposed to them。（26*） Another word of kindred meaning； chiefly found in eastern districts； is landsettus； with the corresponding term for the tenure；（27*） this of course according to its etymology simply means an occupier； a man sitting on land。 Several terms are found which have regard to the nature of services。 Agricultural work was the most common and burdensome expression of economical subjection。 Peasants who have to perform such services in kind instead of paying rents for them are called operarii。（28*） Another designation which may be found everywhere is consuetudinarii or custumarii。（29*） It points to customary services； which the people were bound to perform。 When such tenants are opposed to the villains； they are probably free men holding in villainage by customary work。（30*） As the name does not give any indication as to the importance of the holding a qualification is sometimes added to it； which determines the size of the tenement。（31*） In many manors we find a group of tenants； possessed of small plots of land for the service of following the demesne ploughs。 These are called akermanni or carucarii （32*）； are mostly selected among the customary holders； and enjoy an immunity from ordinary work as long as they have to perform their special duty。（33*） On some occasions the records mention gersumarii； that is peasants who pay a gersuma； a fine for marrying their daughters。（34*） This payment being considered as the badge of personal serfdom； the class must have consisted of men personally unfree。 Those names remain to be noticed which reflect the size of the holding。 In one of the manors belonging to St。 Paul's Cathedral in London we find hidarii。（35*） This does not mean that every tenant held a whole hide。 On the contrary； they have each only a part of the hide； but their plots are reckoned up into hides； and the services due from the whole hide are stated。 Virgatarius（36*） is of very common occurrence； because the virgate was considered as the normal holding of a peasant。 It is curious that in consequence the virgate is sometimes called simply terra； and holders of virgates yerdlings。（37*） Peasants possessed of half virgates are halfyerdlings accordingly。 The expressions 'a full villain'（38*） and 'half a villain' must be understood in the same sense。 They have nothing to do with rank； but aim merely at the size of the farm and the quantity of services and rents。 Ferlingseti are to be met with now and then in connexion with the ferling or ferdel； the fourth part of a virgate。（39*） The constant denomination for those who have no part in the common arable fields； but hold only crofts or small plots with their homesteads； is 'cotters' （cotsetle； cottagiarii； cottarii （40*）； etc。）。 They get opposed to villains as to owners of normal holdings。（41*） Exceptionally the term is used for those who have very small holdings in the open fields。 In this case the authorities distinguish between greater and lesser cotters （42*）； between the owners of a 'full cote' and of 'half a cote。'（43*） The bordarii； so conspicuous in Domesday； and evidently representing small tenants of the same kind as the cottagers； disappear almost entirely in later times。（44*） We may start from this last observation in our general estimate of the terminology。 One might expect to find traces of very strong French influence in this respect； if in any。 Even if the tradition of facts had not been interrupted by the Conquest； names were likely to be altered for the convenience of the new upper class。 And the Domesday Survey really begins a new epoch in terminology by its use of villani and bordarii。 But； curiously enough； only the first of these terms takes root on English soil。 Now it is not a word transplanted by the Conquest； it was in use before the Conquest as the Latin equivalent of ceorl； geneat； and probably gebur。 Its success in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is a success of Latin； and not of French； of the half…literary record language over conversational idioms； and not of foreign over vernacular notions。 The peculiarly French 'bordier' on the other hand； gets misunderstood and eliminated。 Looking to Saxon and Danish terms； we find that they hold their ground tenaciously enough； but still the one most prevalent before the Conquest … ceorl … disappears entirely； and all the others taken together cannot balance the diffusion of the 'villains。' The disappearance of ceorl may be accounted for by the important fact that it was primarily the designation of a free man； and had not quite lost this sense even in the time immediately before the Conquest。 The spread of the Latin term is characteristic enough in any case。 It is well in keeping with a historical development which； though it cannot be reduced to an importation of foreign manners； was by no means a mere sequel to Saxon history。（45*） A new turn had been given towards centralisation and organisation from above； and villanus； the Latin record term； illustrates very aptly the remodelling of the lower stratum of society by the influence of the curiously centralised English feudalism。 The position of the peasantry gets considered chiefly from the point of view of the lord's interests； and the classification on the basis of services comes naturally to the fore。 The distribution of holdings is also noticed； because services and rents are arranged according to them。 But the most important fact remains； that the whole system； though admitting theoretically the difference between personal freedom and personal subjection； works itself out into Uniformity on the ground of unfree tenure。 Freemen holding in villainage and born villains get mixed up under the same names。 The fact has its two sides。 On the one hand it detracts from the original rights of free origin； on the other it strengthens the element of order and legality in the relations between lord and peasant。 The peasants are custumarii at the worst they work by custom； even if custom is regulated by the lord's power。 In any case； even a mere analysis of terminological distinctions leads to the conclusion that the simplicity and rigidity of legal contrasts was largely modified by the influence of historical tradition and practical life。 Our next object must be to see in what shape the rights of the lord are presented by manorial documents。 All expressions of his power may be considered under three different heads； as connected with one of the three fundamental aspects of the manorial relation。 There were customs and services clearly derived from the personal subjection of the villain； which had its historical root in slavery。 Some burdens again lay on the land； an
