THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY.
[Sidenote: The agricultural life.]
So long as people continued to lead a wandering shepherd life, the
institution of the patriarchal family afforded a sufficient and
satisfactory basis for such cordial union as was possible. It was a
condition of society in which the relations of the different members to
each other were extremely simple and confined within very narrow
boundaries; but these habits of life prevented the existence of any very
complicated social order, and at the same time gave a peculiar force and
endurance to those customs and ties which did exist. For while the
different tribes had no settled dwelling-places, the only cohesion
possible was that produced by the personal relations of the different
members one to another. Those beyond the limits of the tribe or
household could have no permanent connection with it. They were simply
‘strangers,’ friends or enemies, as circumstances might determine, but
having no common interests, connected by no abiding link, with those who
were not members of the same community. When a family became so numerous
that it was necessary for its members to separate, the new family,
formed under the influence of this pressure, would at first remember the
parent stock with reverence, and perhaps regard the patriarch of the
elder branch as entitled to some sort of obedience from, and possessing
some indefinite kind of power over, it after separation. It would,
however, soon wander away and lose all connection with its relatives,
forgetting perhaps in the course of time whence it had sprung, or
inventing a pedigree more pleasing to the vanity of its members. But
when men began to learn to till the soil, by degrees they had to abandon
their nomadic life, and to have for a time fixed dwelling-places, in
order that they might guard their crops, and gather, in the time of
harvest, the fruits of their labour. Cattle were no longer the only
means of subsistence, nor sufficiency of pasture the only limit to
migration. A part of their wealth was, for a time, bound up in the land
which they had tilled and sowed, and to obtain that wealth they must
remain in the neighbourhood of the cultivated soil. Thus a new
relationship arose between different families. They began to have
neighbours--dwellers on and cultivators of the land bordering their
own,--so that common interests sprang up between those who hitherto had
nothing in common, new ties began to connect together those who had
formerly no fixed relationship.
The adoption of agriculture changed likewise the relation of men to the
land on which they dwelt. Hitherto the tracts of pasture over which the
herdsman had driven his flocks and cattle had been as unappropriated as
the open sea, as free as the air which he breathed. He neither claimed
any property in the land himself, nor acknowledged any title thereto in
another. He had spent no labour on it, had done nothing to improve its
fertility; and his only right as against others to any locality was that
of his temporary sojourn there. But when agriculture began to require
the expenditure of labour on the land, and its enclosure, so as to
protect the crops which had been sown, a new distinct idea of the
possession of these enclosed pieces of land began to arise, so that a
man was no longer simply the member of a particular family. He had
acquired new rights and attributes, for which the patriarchal economy
had made no provision. He was the inhabitant of a particular locality,
the owner and cultivator of a particular piece of land. The effect of
this change was necessarily to weaken the household tie which bound men
together, by introducing new relations between them. The great strength
of that early bond had consisted in its being the only one which the
state of society rendered possible; and its force was greatly augmented
by the isolation in which the different nomadic groups habitually lived.
The adoption of a more permanent settlement thus tended in two ways to
facilitate the introduction of a new social organization. By increasing
the intercourse, and rendering more permanent the connection between
different families, it destroyed their isolation, and therefore weakened
the autocratic power of their chiefs; and at the same time, by
introducing new interests into the life of the members of a family, and
new relations between different families, it compelled sometimes the
adoption of regulations necessarily opposed to the principles of
patriarchal rule. We must remember, however, that the change from a
nomadic to a settled state took place very gradually, some peoples being
influenced by it much more slowly than others. Agriculture may be
practised to a certain extent by those who lead a more or less wandering
life, as is the case with the Tartar tribes, who grow buckwheat, which
only takes two or three months for its production; so that at the end of
that time they are able to gather their harvest and once more wander in
search of new pastures. And it is from its use by them that this grain
has received in French the name of _blé sarrasin_ (Saracen corn) or
simply _sarrasin_. We may suppose that the earliest agriculture
practised was something of this rude description; and even when tribes
learnt the advantage of cultivating more slowly germinating crops, they
would not readily abandon their nomadic habits, which long continuance
had rendered dear to them; but would only become agriculturists under
the pressure of circumstances. The hunter tribes of North American
Indians, and the Gipsies of Europe, serve to show us how deeply rooted
in a people may become the love of wandering and the dislike to settled
industry.
[Sidenote: The village community.]
It was probably to the difficulty of supporting existence produced by
the increase of population that the more continuous pursuit of
agriculture was due; and it would therefore be first regularly followed
by the less warlike tribes, whose territory had been curtailed by the
incursions of their bolder neighbours. No longer able to seek pasture
over so extended an area as formerly, and with perhaps an increasing
population, they would find the necessity of obtaining from the land a
greater proportionate supply of subsistence than they had obtained
hitherto. Agriculture would therefore have to be pursued more regularly
and laboriously, and thus the habit of settlement would gradually be
acquired. Under this influence we may discern a change taking place in
the social state of the Aryan tribes. Gradually they become less nomadic
and more agricultural; and as this takes place, there arises also a
change in the relations of peoples to each other. We should naturally
expect considerable variety in the effects produced on different nations
by the adoption of a settled life. The results depend upon climate and
locality, upon the kind of civilization chosen, and the special
idiosyncrasies of the people who adopt it. All these elements had their
share in moulding the life of the Aryans when they became an
agricultural people. Yet we find, nevertheless, one special type of
society to have been the prevailing type among them. This form of
society is called the Village Community. It possesses some features
apparently so peculiarly its own, that it would be difficult to decide
on the cause of its adoption or growth. It will be safer with our
present limited knowledge to be satisfied with noting the more marked
characteristics of this form of society, and the localities in which it
may be traced; and not attempt to determine whether it is to be regarded
as a natural resultant of the settlement of patriarchal families, or as
inherited or evolved by some particular groups of tribes.
The village community in its simplest state consisted of a group of
families, or households, whose dwellings were generally collected
together within an enclosure. To this group belonged a certain tract of
land, the cultivation and proprietorship of which were the subject of
minute regulations. The regulations varied in different localities to a
certain extent, but they were based on the division of the land into
three principal parts, viz. (1) the land immediately in the
neighbourhood of the dwellings, (2) another part specially set aside for
agricultural purposes, and (3) the remaining portion of the surrounding
open country, which was used only for grazing. Each of these divisions
was regarded as in some sort the common property of the village; but the
rights of individuals in some of them were more extensive than in
others. That part of the land which was annexed especially to the
dwellings was more completely the property of the different inhabitants
than any other. Each head of a house was entitled to the particular plot
attached to his dwelling, and probably these plots, and the dwellings to
which they were annexed, remained always practically in the ownership
of the same family. The area of this section, however, was very
insignificant when compared with the remainder of the communal estate.
In this the arable land was divided into a number of small plots, each
or several of which were assigned to particular households. The mode of
division was very various; but generally speaking, either each household
had an equal share assigned to it, or else a share in proportion to the
number of its males. Redistributions of the shares took place either at
stated periods, or whenever circumstances had rendered the existing
division inequitable. Each household cultivated the particular share
assigned to it, and appropriated to its own use the crops produced; but
individuals were never allowed themselves to settle the mode of
cultivation that they might prefer. The crops to be sown, and the part
of land on which they were to be sown, were all regulated by the common
assembly of the whole village, as were also the times for sowing and for
harvest, and every other agricultural operation; and these laws of the
assembly had to be implicitly followed by all the villagers. The third
portion, open or common land of the village, was not divided between the
households at all; but every member of the community was at liberty to
pasture his flocks and herds upon it.
In their relations to each other the villagers seem to have been on a
footing of perfect equality. It is probable that there existed generally
some sort of chief, but his power does not appear to have been very
great, and for the most part he was merely a president of their
assemblies, exercising only an influence in proportion to his personal
qualifications. The real lawgivers and rulers of this society were the
different individuals who constituted the assembly. These, however, did
not comprise all the inhabitants of the village. Only the heads of the
different families were properly included in the village assembly. But
the household had no longer the same extended circle as formerly, and,
so far as we can gather, there seems to have been little check on the
division of families and the formation of new households.
It must be borne in mind, however, that we have no existing institution
exactly resembling the village community, such as we may suppose it to
have originally been. As with the patriarchal family, we meet with it
only after it has undergone considerable modification, and we have to
reconstruct it from such modified forms and traditions as remain to us.
Many minor details of its nature are therefore necessarily matters of
speculation. The community, however, may still be found in a changed
form in several localities; notably among the peasantry in Russia, where
it bears the name of the _mir_, and among the native population of
India. Its former existence among the Teuton tribes is attested by the
clearest evidence. With each of these peoples, however, the form is
somewhat varied from what we may conclude to have been its original
nature; in each country it has been subject not only to the natural
growth and development which every institution is liable to, but to
special influences arising from the events connected with the nation’s
history, and from the nature and extent of its territory. But before we
inquire what these different influences may have been, let us notice
first certain leading characteristics of this group, and consider how
they probably arose.
The first thing that we notice is the change in the source of authority
in the Village Community as compared with that which existed in the
patriarchal family. The ruling power is no longer placed in the hands of
an individual
[Sidenote: The assembly of householders.]
chief, but is vested in an assembly of all the householders. The second
marked peculiarity is the common possession of nearly all the land by
the village, combined with the individual possession of goods of a
movable nature by the different members. These may be said to be the two
essentials of a true village community. Now the change from the
patriarchal to this later social form may have taken place by either of
two processes--the extension of an individual family into a community,
or the amalgamation of various families. Probably both of these
processes took place; but wherever anything like the formation of a
village community has been actually observed, and the process has
occasionally been discernible even in modern times in India, it is due
to the former of the two causes indicated. This mode of formation also
appears to have left the most distinct impress on society, and we will
therefore notice first how it probably acted.
When a family had devoted itself to agricultural pursuits, and settled
in a fixed locality, one of those divisions of its members might take
place which probably were of frequent occurrence in the nomadic state.
Although theoretically we speak of the patriarchal family as united and
indivisible, yet as a matter of fact we know that it could not always
have been so, and that families must frequently have either split up, or
else sent off little colonies from their midst. Now, we have seen how
marked an effect the settlement of the family must have had in
preserving a permanent connection between that family and the households
which sprang out of it. The separation between the older and the younger
households would be by no means so complete as formerly. The subsidiary
family would continue in close intercourse with the elder branch, and
would enjoy with it the use of the land which had been appropriated. In
course of time it might happen that a whole group of families would thus
become settled near each other, all united by a common origin and
enjoying in common the land surrounding the settlement. The desire for
mutual protection, which would often be felt, would alone be a strong
inducement to preserve the neighbourhood between those who through
kinship were allies by nature and tradition. Thus, though each separate
family would continue in its internal relations the peculiarities of the
patriarchal rule, the heads of the different families would be related
to each other by quite a new tie. They would not be members of one great
family all subservient to a common chief. They would be united simply by
the bond of their common interests.
In this way, no doubt, sprang up a new relationship between the family
chiefs, a relationship not provided for in the construction of the
patriarchal family. We might expect perhaps that a special pre-eminence
would be accorded to the original family from which the others had
separated, and possibly some traces of this pre-eminence may here and
there be discovered. Why we have not more traces of it may be difficult
to explain. For upon the whole the relationship among the different
heads of households seems generally to be one of equality. As we do not
know exactly by what process families became divided, it is useless to
speculate how this equality arose. Alongside of this new reign of
equality among the different patriarchs or heads of households, went a
decrease in the power of the patriarch within his own circle. The family
had ceased to be the bond of union of the community at large, albeit the
units composing the new combination were themselves groups constructed
on the patriarchal type; so that the fact that they were now only parts
of larger groups had the effect of weakening the force of patriarchal
customs. When the household was the only state of which an individual
was a member, to leave it was to lose all share in its rights and
property, to become an outlaw in every possible sense. But when the
family became part of the village, the facilities for separating from it
were necessarily increased. Households would more readily subdivide, now
that after separation their component parts continued united in the
community. Thus by degrees the old patriarchal life decayed, and gave
place to this new and more elastic social formation. The importance of
an individual’s relation to the family became less, that of the family
to the community became greater; so that in time the community took to
itself the regulation of many affairs originally within the exclusive
power of the patriarch.
With these changes in social life came new theories of rights and
obligations. A new lesson was learnt with regard to property. It is
difficult to discern whether, in the older, the patriarchal society, the
property was regarded as exclusively that of the chief, or as belonging
to the family collectively. The truth seems to be that the two ideas
were blended, and neither was conceived with any clearness or
completeness. In the village community for the first time the two forms
of property, personal and communal, became fully distinguished; each
kind, by defining and limiting, producing a clearer idea of the other.
The land, the bond of union, and the limit of the extent of the
community, remained the common property of all; in part, no doubt,
because the idea of possessing land was still so new that it had not
been thoroughly grasped. The produce of the land, whether corn or
pasture, was, on the other hand, rather regarded as a proper subject of
private possession. At first, perhaps, in obedience to the habits of an
earlier life, even this may have been looked upon as common property.
But it did not long continue so, as the separation of the households
remained too complete to permit of any community with regard to the
possessions of the individual homestead, or of the produce required for
the support of each household; and this enforced separation of household
goods soon extended to the live stock, and to the produce of the
harvest.[54]
[Sidenote: Law.]
The effects produced by their new relation to each other upon the
individual members of this group were very important. Hitherto such idea
of law as existed was confined to the mandates or traditional
regulations of the patriarchs. Law was at first inseparably connected
with religion. It was looked upon as a series of regulations handed down
by some ancestor who had received the regulations by Divine inspiration.
This notion of the origin of law is so general, that it is to be met
with in the traditions of almost every nation. Thus we find the
Egyptians reputing their laws to the teachings of Hermes (Thoth); while
the lawgivers of Greece, Minôs and Lycurgus, are inspired, the one by
Zeus the other by Apollo. So too the Iranian lawgiver Zoroaster is
taught by the Good Spirit; and Moses receives the commandments on Mount
Sinai. Now, though this idea of law is favourable to the procuring
obedience to it, it produces an injurious effect on the law itself, by
rendering it too fixed and unalterable. Law, in order to satisfy the
requirements and changes of life, should be elastic and capable of
adaptation; otherwise, regulations which in their institution were
beneficial will survive to be obnoxious under an altered condition of
society. But so long as laws are regarded as Divine commands they
necessarily retain a great degree of rigidity. The village community, in
disconnecting the source of law from the patriarchal power, tended to
destroy this association. The authority of the patriarch was a part of
the religion of the early Aryans; he was at once the ruler and the
priest of his family; and though this union between the two characters
long continued to have great influence on the conception of law, the
first efforts at a distinction between Divine and human commands sprang
from the regulations adopted by the assembly of the village. The
complete equality and the joint authority exercised by its members was
an education in self-government, which was needed to enable them to
advance in the path of civilization, teaching them the importance of
self-dependence and individual responsibility.
Those who learnt that lesson best displayed in their history the
greatness of its influence, having gained from it a vigour and readiness
to meet and adapt themselves to new requirements such as was never
possessed by those absolute monarchies which sprang out of an enlarged
form of the principle of patriarchal government. The history of the
various states which arose in Asia, each in its turn to be overwhelmed
in a destruction which scarcely left a trace of its social influence,
exhibits in a very striking manner the defects which necessarily ensue
when a people ignorant of social arts attempts to form an extensive
scheme of government. The various races who have risen to temporary
empire by the chances of war in the East, have been in very many
instances nomadic tribes whose habits had produced a hardihood which
enabled them to conquer with ease their effeminate neighbours of the
more settled districts, but whose social state was not sufficiently
advanced to allow them to carry on any extended rule. Used only to their
simple nomadic life, they were suddenly brought face to face with wants
and possessions of which they had hitherto had no experience, and which
lay beyond the bounds of their customs or ideas. They contented
themselves with exacting from the conquered such tribute as they could
extort, leaving their new subjects to manage their own affairs much as
they had done before, till the conquerors, gradually corrupted by the
luxuries which their position afforded, and having failed to make for
themselves any firm footing in their new empire, were in their turn
overwhelmed by fresh hordes of nomadic invaders.
Such, indeed, may be the fate of any nation. Such was the fate of Rome.
Her mighty empire, too, fell; but how different a record has she left
behind from that of the short-lived monarchies of the East! Having
learnt in her earliest infancy, better perhaps than any other nation,
how to reconcile the conflicting theories of the household and the
community, she never flagged in her study of the arts of government.
Early imbued with a love of law and order, her people discovered in due
time how to accommodate their rule to the various conditions of those
which came under their sway. Her laws penetrated to the remotest
boundaries of her state, and the rights of a Roman citizen were as
clearly defined in Britain as in Rome itself. Thus the Romans have left
behind them a system of law the wonder and admiration of all mankind,
one which has left indelible marks on the laws and customs, the arts and
civilization, of every country which once formed part of their
dominions.
Such were among the changes resulting from the adoption of the village
community; but their influences only gradually asserted themselves, and
the extent of their development was very various among different
peoples. In India, the religious element in the household had always a
peculiar force, and its influence continued to affect to a great extent
the formation of the community. There this organization never lost sight
of the patriarchal power, and has exhibited a constant tendency to
revert to that more primitive social form. Among the Slavonic tribes the
community seems to have found its most favourable conditions, and some
of the reasons for this are not difficult to discern. The Slavs in
Russia have for a long time had open to them an immense tract of thinly
inhabited country, their only rivals to the possession of which were the
Finnish tribes of the north. Now, the village community is a form
peculiarly adapted for colonization, and this process of colonizing
fresh country by sending out detachments from over-grown villages seems
to have gone on for a long time in Russia; so that the communities which
still exist there present a complete network; all are bound by ties of
nearer or more distant relationship to each other; every village having
some ‘mother-village’ from which it has sprung.[55] Having a practically
boundless territory awaiting their settlement, none of those
difficulties in obtaining land which led to the decay of the village in
western Europe affected the Russians in their earlier history.
With the Teutons the village had a somewhat different history. It is
difficult to determine exactly to what extent it existed among them; but
traces of its organization are still discoverable among the laws and
customs of Germany and England. The warlike habits of the German tribes,
however, soon produced a marked effect on this organization. The chief
of the village, whether hereditary or elective, was under normal
conditions possessed of but little power. Among a warlike people,
however, the necessity for a captain or dictator must have been much
greater than with peaceful tribes; for war requires, more than any other
pursuit, that it should be directed by an individual mind. Among the
peaceful inhabitants of India or Russia the village head-man was
generally some aged and venerable father exercising a sort of paternal
influence over the others through the reverence paid to his age and
wisdom. The habits of the Teutons gave an excessive importance to the
strength and vigour of manhood, and they learnt to regard those who
exhibited the greatest skill in battle as their natural chieftains.