vill3- 第40部分

　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　everywhere　they　were　connected　with　a　scheme　of　which　the　plough…team　was　the　unit。　An　increasing　population　had　to　take　care　of　itself；　and　to　try　to　fit　itself　into　the　existing　divisions　by　family　arrangements；　marriage；　adoption；　reclaiming　of　new　land；　employment　for　hire；　by…professions；　and　emigration。　The　manorial　factor　comes　in　to　make　everYthing　artificially　regular　and　rigid。　　　　　If　we　examine　the　open…field　system　and　its　relation　to　the　holdings　of　individual　peasants；　we　see；　as　it　were；　the　framework　of　a　peasant　community　that　has　swerved　from　the　path　of　its　original　development。　The　gathering　of　scattered　and　intermixed　strips　into　holdings　points　to　practices　of　division　or　allotment：　these　practices　are　the　very　essence　of　the　whole；　and　they　alone　can　explain　the　glaring　inconveniencies　of　scattered　ownership　coupled　with　artificial　concentration。　But　redivision　of　the　arable　is　not　seen　in　the　documents　of　our　period。　There　is　no　shifting　of　strips；　no　changes　in　the　quantities　allotted　to　each　family。　Everything　goes　by　heredity　and　settled　rules　of　family　property；　as　if　the　husbandry　was　not　arranged　for　communal　ownership　and　re…allotment。　I　should　like　to　compare　the　whole　to　the　icebound　surface　of　a　northern　sea：　it　is　not　smooth；　although　hard　and　immoveable；　and　the　hills　and　hollows　of　the　uneven　plain　remind　one　of　the　billows　that　rolled　when　it　was　yet　unfrozen。　　　　　The　treatment　of　the　arable　gives　the　clue　to　all　other　sides　of　the　subject。　The　rights　of　common　usage　of　meadow　and　pasture　carry　us　back　to　practices　which　must　have　been　originally　applied　to　arable　also。　When　one　reads　of　a　meadow　being　cut　up　into　strips　and　partitioned　for　a　year　among　the　members　of　the　community　by　regular　rotation　or　by　lot；　one　does　not　see　why　only　the　grass　land　should　be　thus　treated　while　there　is　no　reallotment　of　the　arable　plots。　As　for　the　waste；　it　does　not　even　admit　of　set　boundaries；　and　the　only　possible　means　of　apportioning　its　use　is　to　prescribe　what　and　how　many　heads　of　cattle　each　holding　may　send　out　upon　it。　The　close　affinity　between　the　different　parts　of　the　village　soil　is　especially　illustrated　by　the　fact；　that　the　open…field　arable　is　treated　as　common　through　the　greater　part　of　the　year。　Such　facts　are　more　than　survivals；　more　than　stray　relics　of　a　bygone　time。　The　communal　element　of　English　mediaeval　husbandry　becomes　conspicuous　in　the　individualistic　elements　that　grow　out　of　it。　　　　　The　question　has　been　asked　whether　we　ought　not　to　regard　these　communal　arrangements　as　derived　from　the　exclusive　right　of　ownership；　and　the　power　of　coercion　vested　in　the　lord　of　the　soil。　I　think　that　many　features　in　the　constitution　of　the　thirteenth　century　manor　show　its　gradual　growth　and　comparatively　recent　origin。　The　so…called　manorial　system　consists；　in　truth；　in　the　peculiar　connexion　between　two　agrarian　bodies；　the　settlement　of　villagers　cultivating　their　own　fields；　and　the　home…estate　of　the　lord　tacked　on　to　this　settlement　and　dependent　on　the　work　supplied　by　it。　I　take　only　the　agrarian　side；　of　course；　and　do　not　mention　the　political　protection　which　stands　more　or　less　as　an　equivalent　for　the　profits　received　by　the　lord　from　the　peasantry。　And　as　for　the　agrarian　arrangement；　we　ought　to　keep　it　quite　distinct　from　forms　which　are　sometimes　confused　with　it　through　loose　terminology。　A　community　paying　taxes；　farmers　leasing　land　for　rent；　labourers　without　independent　husbandry　of　their　own；　may　be　all　subjected　to　some　lord；　but　their　subjection　is　not　manorial。　Two　elements　are　necessary　to　constitute　the　manorial　arrangement；　the　peasant　village　and　the　home　farm　worked　by　its　help。　　　　　If　we　turn　now　to　the　evidence　of　the　feudal　period；　we　shall　see　that　the　labour…service　relation；　although　very　marked　and　prevalent　in　most　cases；　is　by　no　means　the　only　one　that　should　be　taken　into　account。　In　a　large　number　of　cases　the　relation　between　lord　and　peasants　resolves　itself　into　money　payments；　and　this　is　only　another　way　of　saying　that　the