Since the preceding chapter was written, fresh light has been cast
on the history of the Russian village group by the work of M.
Kovalevsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_ (London,
1891). According to M. Kovalevsky, the view that the peasants retained
their personal liberty until the decrees of Boris Godounoff at the
end of the sixteenth century deprived them of freedom of migration,
is now generally abandoned by Russian scholars (pp. 210-211); and
it is recognised that long before that date serfdom of a character
similar to that of western Europe was in existence, over, at any
rate, a considerable area of the Empire. Still more significant is
another fact on which M. Kovalevsky lays great stress. It is commonly
asserted, or implied, that the custom of periodical re-division of
the lands of the _mir_ is a survival from ancient usage, and forms a
transitional stage between common and individual ownership (_e.g._,
Maine, _Ancient Law_, pp. 267-270). But M. Kovalevsky assures us that
the practice is quite modern; that it dates no further back than last
century; and that it was due chiefly to Peter the Great’s imposition
of a capitation tax (pp. 93-97).
M. Kovalevsky is none the less a strenuous supporter of the village
community theory; and he is indignant with M. Fustel for “endorsing an
opinion,” that of M. Tchitcherin, “which has already been refuted” by
M. Beliaiev. Unfortunately he does not cite any of the facts on which
M. Beliaiev relied. He himself allows that but scanty evidence can be
found in old Russian documents in support of the theory (pp. 74, 82);
and bases his own argument rather on what has taken place in recent
centuries, from the sixteenth down to our own day, when outlying
territories have been colonized by immigrants. But this is a dangerous
method of proof when used by itself; it would lead, for instance, to
the conclusion that because the early communities in New England were
not subject to manorial lords, there had never been manorial lords in
England. And even in the cases he describes, “the unlimited right of
private homesteads to appropriate as much soil as each required was
scrupulously maintained” (p. 80)--which is very different from the
Mark of Maurer.
[1] Earle, _Land Charters_, p. xlv.
[2] Cf. Southbydyk in _Boldon Book_, Domesday, iv. 568; and Nasse’s
remarks (_Agricultural Community_, p. 46) as to cases of purchase in
Mecklenburg.
[3] See Maitland, _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_, Introduction; and
also in _Engl. Hist. Rev._, 1888, p. 568; Blakesley, in _Law Quarterly
Rev._, 1889, p. 113.
[4] Abundant instances in Earle, _Land Charters_; cf. Fustel de
Coulanges, _L’Alleu_, p. 377.
[5] See Fustel de Coulanges, _L’Alleu_, ch. vi.
[6] _Hist. Eccl._, iii., 17, 21, 22, 28. The use of the word _township_
and its relation to _villa_ require fresh examination in the light of
our increased knowledge of Continental usage. _Tunscip_ apparently
first appears in Alfred’s translation of Bede, at the end of the ninth
century; and its first and only appearance in A.S. law is in Edgar iv.
8, in the second half of the tenth. Schmid, _Gesetze der Angelsachen_,
_Gloss._ _s. v._
[7] _Le Moyen Age_ for June, 1889, p. 131.
[8] Sir George Campbell in _Tenure of Land in India_, one of the essays
in _Systems of Land Tenure_ (Cobden Club).
[9] Maine, _Village Communities_, p. 76; _Ancient Law_, p. 260.
[10] See Note A.
[11] _Principles of Economics_, p. 682, n.
[12] An account of it will be found in Faucher’s essay on _Russia_ in
_Systems of Land Tenure_; compare the English statute of 1388 in _St.
of the Realm_, ii. 56. See Note B.
[13] Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, p. 242.
[14] See the summary of recent philological discussion in Isaac Taylor,
_Origin of the Aryans_.
[15] Prof. Rhŷs in _New Princeton Review_ for Jan., 1888.
[16] _Village Community_ (1890), p. 71.
[17] Wilson, _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 492.
[18] _De Bello Gallico_, v. 14.
[19] Seebohm, _V.C._ 187, 223.
[20] _Agricola_, Chap. xix., and see the note in the edition of Church
and Brodribb.
[21] How thickly the villas were scattered over the country is shown by
Wright, _Celt, Roman and Saxon_ (3rd ed.), pp. 227 _seq._
[22] These are the phrases of Green, _Making of England_, pp. 6,7.
[23] Seebohm, 294 n. 3.
[24] _De Bello Gallico_, vi. 13.
[25] For Ireland, see Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, iii. pp. 139-140, 146;
for Wales, A. N. Palmer, _Hist. of Ancient Tenures in the Marches of
North Wales_ [1885], pp. 77, 80.
[26] Pp. 43 _seq._
[27] References in Seebohm, pp. 283, 287.
[28] Fustel de Coulanges, _L’Alleu et le Domaine Rural_ (1889), pp. 34,
207, 227 _seq._
[29] _Ibid._, pp. 80 _seq._
[30] This was pointed out, in correction of Rogers, by Nasse, _Agric.
Community of M. A._, pp. 52 _seq._
[31] The bearing of these facts was first pointed out by Mr. Seebohm,
_V.C._ pp. 372-4.
[32] Most recently in _Four Oxford Lectures_ (1887), pp. 61 _seq._
[33] Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, vol. v. ch. xxiv. p. 334.
[34] _Decline and Fall_, ch. xxxviii.
[35] See Hatch, _Growth of Church Institutions_, pp. 15, 39.
[36] _Ibid._, p. 10.
[37] _Archæologia_ xlii. espec. pp. 464-465.
[38] _Ibid._ p. 459.
[39] _Ibid._ 464. Cf. for traces of Iberians in other districts,
Greenwell and Rolleston, _British Barrows_, p. 679.
[40] _Germania_, cc. 24, 25; and see the commentary of Fustel de
Coulanges in _Recherches_, pp. 206-211.
[41] The passages relating to the subject are brought together in a
volume of old-fashioned learning--_A Dissertation upon Distinctions in
Society and Ranks of the People under the Anglo-Saxon Governments_, by
Samuel Heywood [1818], pp. 317 seq., 413 seq. Cf. Fustel de Coulanges,
_L’Alleu_, chaps, x., xi.
[42] _Penitential_ of Theodore [xix. 20, in Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and
Institutes_, p. 286; xiii. 3, in Hadden and Stubbs, _Councils_ iii. p.
202]. _Penitential_ of Egbert [Addit. 35, in Thorpe, p. 391.]
[43] Fustel de Coulanges, _L’Alleu_, pp. 359, 413. Such a use of the
term “free” may, perhaps, help to explain the phrase with regard to the
_cotsetla_ in the _Rectitudines_: “Det super heorthpenig ... _sicut
omnis liber facere debet_” (“_eal swâ œlcan frigean men gebyreth_”).
Thorpe, p. 185.
[44] Thorpe, _Ancient Laws_, p. 45 (Ine, 3).
[45] _Ibid._ 316 (Theodore).
[46] _Ibid._ 55 (Ine, 39).
[47] _Ibid._ 63 (Ine, 67).
[48] As stated, for instance, in Britton, ed. Nicholls, ii., p. 13.
Privileged villeins were, it is true, only to be found on the royal
demesnes. But in the later Roman empire, the _Coloni_ upon the imperial
estates were an especially numerous and important class. (Fustel de
Coulanges, _Recherches_, pp. 28-32). That there were such imperial
estates in Britain is probable; and it is made more likely by the
mention in the _Notitia_ of a _Rationalis rei privatae per Britannias_.
At the conquest by the English, these estates would probably fall to
the kings, as in Gaul. (Waitz, _Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_, ii.,
308.)
[49] _L’Alleu_, pp. 20-21.
[50] _Leges Alamannorum_ qu. Seebohm, p. 323. It is, however, possible
that the “_binae aratoriae_,” etc., on the _Saltus Buritanus_ meant
more than two _days_, although that is the interpretation of M. Fustel
de Coulanges. See _Recherches_, p. 33.