vill3-第44部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

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