vill2-第26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！

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