vill2-第5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！

es　after　the　mother。*　It　is　not　difficult　to　see　why　the　Roman　rule　did　not　fit；　it　was　too　plain　for　a　state　of　things　which　had　to　be　considered　from　three　different　sides。*　The　Roman　lawyer　merely　looked　to　the　question　of　status　and　decided　it　on　the　ground　of　material　demonstrability　of　origin；*　if　such　an　expression　may　be　used。　The　Medieval　lawyer　had　the　Christian　sanctification　of　marriage　to　reckon　with；　and　so　the　one　old　rule　had　to　be　broken　up　into　two　rules…one　applicable　to　legitimate　children；　the　other　to　bastards。　In　case　of　bastardy　the　tendency　was　decidedly　in　favour　of　retaining　the　Roman　rule；　equally　suiting　animals　and　slaves；　and　the　later　theory　embodied　in　Littleton　belongs　already　to　the　development　of　modern　ideas　in　favour　of　liberty。*　In　case　of　legitimacy　the　recognition　of　marriage　led　to　the　recognition　of　the　family　and　indirectly　to　the　closer　connexion　with　the　father　as　the　head　of　the　family。　In　addition　to　this　a　third　element　comes　in；　which　may　be　called　properly　feudal。　The　action　of　the　father…rule　is　modified　by　the　influence　of　territorial　subjection。　The　marriage　of　a　free　man　with　a　nief　may　be　considered　from　a　special　point　of　view；　if；　as　the　feudal　phraseology　goes；　he　enters　to　her　into　her　villainage。*　By　this　fact　the　free　man　puts　his　child　under　the　sway　of　the　lord；　to　whose　villainage　the　mother　belongs。　It　is　not　the　character　of　the　tenement　itself　which　is　important　in　this　case；　but　the　fact　of　subjection　to　a　territorial　lord；　whose　interest　it　is　to　retain　a　dependant's　progeny　in　a　state　of　dependency。　The　whole　system　is　historically　important；　because　it　illustrates　the　working　of　one　of　the　chief　ingredients　of　villainage；　an　ingredient　entirely　absent　from　ancient　slavery；　whereas　medieval　villainage　depends　primarily　on　subjection　to　the　territorial　power　of　the　lord。　Once　more　we　are　shown　the　practical　importance　of　the　manorial　system　in　fashioning　the　state　of　the　peasantry。　Generally　a　villain　must　be　claimed　with　reference　to　a　manor；　in　connexion　with　an　unfree　hearth；　he　is　born　in　a　nest；*　which　makes　him　a　bondman。　The　strict　legal　notion　has　to　be　modified　to　meet　the　emergency；　and　villainage；　instead　of　indicating　complete　personal　subjection；　comes　to　mean　subjection　to　a　territorial　lord。　　　　　This　same　territorial　element　not　only　influences　the　status　of　the　issue　of　a　marriage；　it　also　affects　the　status　of　the　parties　to　a　marriage；　when　those　parties　are　of　unequal　condition。　Most　notable　is　the　case　of　the　free　wife　of　a　villain　husband　lapsing　into　servitude；　when　she　enters　the　villain　tenement　of　her　consort；　her　servitude　endures　as　long　as　her　husband　is　in　the　lord's　power；　as　long　as　he　is　alive　and　not　enfranchised。　The　judicial　practice　of　the　thirteenth　century　gives　a　great　number　of　cases　where　the　tribunals　refuse　to　vindicate　the　rights　of　women　entangled　in　villainage　by　a　mesalliance。*　Such　subjection　is　not　absolute；　however。　The　courts　make　a　distinction　between　acquiring　possession　and　retaining　it。　The　same　woman　who　will　be　refused　a　portion　of　her　father's　inheritance　because　she　has　married　a　serf；　has　the　assize　of　novel　disseisin　against　any　person　trying　to　oust　her　from　a　tenement　of　which　she　had　been　seised　before　her　marriage。*　The　conditional　disabilities　of　the　free　woman　are　not　directly　determined　by　the　holding　which　she　has　entered；　but　by　her　marital　subordination　to　an　unfree　husband　（'sub　virga；'　Bract。　Note…book；　pl。　1685）；　For　this　reason　the　position　of　a　free　husband　towards　the　villainage　of　his　wife　a　nief　is　not　exactly　parallel。　He　is　only　subject　to　the　general　rules　as　to　free　men　holding　in　villainage。*　In　any　case；　however；　the　instances　which　we　have　been　discussing　afford　good　illustrations　of　the　fact；　that　villainage　by　no　means　flows　from　the　simple　source　of　personal　subjection；　it　is　largely　influenced　by　the　Christian　organisation　of　the　family　and　by　the　feudal　mixture　of　rights　of　property　and　sovereignty　embodied　in　the　manorial　system。　　　　　There　are　two　other　ways　of　becoming　a　villain　besides　being　born　to　the　condition；　the　acknowledgment　of　unfree　status　in　a　court　of　record；　and　prescription。　We　need　not　speak　of　the　first；　as　it　does　not　present　any　particulars　of　interest　from　a　historical　point　of　view。　As　to　prescription；　there　is　a　very　characteristic　vacillation　in　our　sources。　In　pleadings　of　Edward　III's　time　its　possibility　is　admitted；　and　it　is　pointed　out；　that　it　is　a　good　plea　if　the　person　claimed　by　prescription　shows　that　his　father　and　grandfather*　were　strangers。　　　　　There　is　a　curious　explanatory　gloss；　in　a　Cambridge　MS。　of　Bracton；　which　seems　to　go　back　at　least　to　the　beginning　of　the　fourteenth　century；　and　it　maintains　that　free　stock　doing　villain　service　lapses　into　villainage　in　the　fifth　generation　only。*　On　the　other　hand；　Britton　flatly　denies　the　possibility　of　such　a　thing；　according　to　him　no　length　of　time　can　render　free　men　villains　or　make　villains　free　men。　Moreover　he　gives　a　supposed　case　（possibly　based　on　an　actual　trial）；　in　which　a　person　claimed　as　a　villain　is　made　to　go　back　to　the　sixth　generation　to　establish　his　freedom；*　It　does　not　seem　likely　that　people　could　often　vindicate　their　freedom　by　such　elaborate　argument；　but　the　legal　assumption　expounded　in　Britton　deserves　full　attention。　It　is　only　a　consequence　of　the　general　view；　that　neither　the　holding　nor　the　services　ought　to　have　any　influence　on　the　status　of　a　man；　and　in　so　far　it　seems　legally　correct。　But　it　is　easy　to　see　how　difficult　it　must　have　been　to　keep　up　these　nice　distinctions　in　practice；　how　difficult　for　those　who　for　generations　had　been　placed　in　the　same　material　position　with　serfs　to　maintain　personal　freedom。*　For　both　views；　though　absolutely　opposed　to　each　other；　are　in　a　sense　equally　true：　the　one　giving　the　logical　development　of　a　fundamental　rule　of　the　law；　the　other　testifying　to　the　facts。　And　so　we　have　one　more　general　observation　to　make　as　to　the　legal　aspect　of　villainage。　Even　in　the　definition　of　its　fundamental　principles　we　see　notable　discrepancies　and　vacillations；　which　are　the　result　of　the　conflict　between　logical　requirements　and　fluctuating　facts。　　　　　The　original　unity　of　purpose　and　firmness　of　distinction　are　even　more　broken　up　when　we　look　at　the　criminal　and　the　police　law　where　they　touch　villainage。　In　the　criminal　law　of　the　feudal　epoch　there　is　hardly　any　distinction　between　free　men　and　villains。　In　point　of　amercements　there　is　the　well…known　difference　as　to　the　'contenement'　of　a　free　landholder；　a　merchant　and　a　villain；　but　this　difference　is　prompted　not　by　privilege　but　by　the　diversity　of　occupations。　The　Dialogus　de　Scaccario　shows　that　villains　being　reputed　English　are　in　a　lower　position　than　free　men　as　regards　the　presumption　of　Englishry　and　the　payment　of　the　murder…fine；*　but　this　feature　seems　to　have　become　obliterated　in　the　thirteenth　century。　In　some　cases　corporal　punishment　may　have　differed　according　to　the　rank　of　the　culprit；　and　the　formalities　of　ordeal　were　certainly　different。*　The　main　fact　remains；　that　both　villains　and　free　men　were　alike　able　to　prosecute　anybody　by　way　of　'appeal'*　for　injury　to　their　life；　honour；　and　even　property；*　and　equally　liable　to　be　punished　and　prosecuted　for　offences　of　any　kind。　Their　equal　right　was　completely　recognized　by　the　criminal　law；　and　as　a　natural　sequence　of　this；　the　pleas　of　the　crown　generally　omit　to　take　any　notice　of　the　status　of　parties　connected　with　them。　One　may　read　through　Mr　Maitland's　collection　of　Pleas　of　the　Crown　edited　for　the　Selden　Society；　or　through　his　book　of　Gloucestershire　pleas；　without　coming　across　any　but　exceptional　and　quite　accidental　mentions　of　villainage。　In　fact　were　we　to　form　our　view　of　the　condition　of　England　exclusively　on　the　material　afforded　by　such　documents；　we　might　well　believe　that　the　whole　class　was　all　but　an　extinct　one。　One　glance　at　Assize　Rolls　or　at　Cartularies　would　teach　us　better。　Still　the　silence　of　the　Corona　Rolls　is　most　eloquent。　It　shows　convincingly　that　the　distinction　hardly　influenced　criminal　law　at　all。　　　　　It　is　curious　that；　as　regards　police；　villains　are　grouped　under　an　institution　which；　even　by　its　name；　according　to　the　then　accepted　etymology；　was　essentially　a　free　institution。　The　system　of　frank　pledge　（plegium　liberale）；　which　should　have　included　every　one　'worthy　of　his　were　and　his　wite；'　is；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　a　system　which　all　through　the　feudal　period　is　chiefly　composed　of　villains。　Free　men　possessed　of　land　are　not　obliged　to　join　the　tithing　because　they　are　amenable　to　law　which　has　a　direct　hold　on　their　land；*　and　so　the　great　mass　of　free　men　appear　to　be　outside　these　arrangements；　for　the　police　representation　of　the　free；　or；　putting　it　the　other　way；　feudal　serfs　actually　seem　to　represent　the　bulk　of　free　society。　The　thirteenth…century　arrangements　do　not　afford　a　clue　to　such　paradoxes；　and　one　has　to　look　for　explanation　to　the　his　tory　of　the　classes。　　　　　The　frankpledge　system　is　a　most　conspicuous　link　between　both　sections　of　society　in　this　way　also；　that　it　directly　connects　the　subjugated　population　with　the