vill2- 第24部分

r　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；　and　not　on　the　person。　And　finally；　manorial　exactions　could　grow　from　the　political　sway　conferred　by　feudal　lordship。　It　may　be　difficult　to　distinguish　in　the　concrete　between　these　several　relations；　and　the　constant　tendency　in　practice　must　have　been　undoubtedly　directed　towards　mixing　up　the　separate　threads　of　subjection。　Still；　a　general　survey　of　manorial　rights　has　undoubtedly　to　start　from　these　fundamental　distinctions。　　　　　There　has　been　some　debate　on　the　question　whether　the　lord　could　sell　his　villains。　It　has　been　urged　that　we　have　no　traces　of　such　transactions　during　the　feudal　period；　and　that　therefore　personal　serfdom　did　not　exist　even　in　law。（46*）　It　can　be　pointed　out；　on　the　other　side；　that　deeds　of　sale　conveying　villains　apart　from　their　tenements；　although　rare；　actually　exist。　The　usual　form　of　enfranchisement　was　a　deed　of　sale；　and　it　cannot　be　argued　that　this　treatment　of　manumission　is　a　mere　relic　of　former　times；　because　both　the　Frank　and　the　Saxon　manumissions　of　the　preceding　period　assume　a　different　shape；　they　are　not　effected　by　sale。　The　existing　evidence　entitles　one　to　maintain　that　a　villain　could　be　lawfully　sold；　with　all　his　family；　his　sequela；　but　that　in　practice　such　transactions　were　uncommon。（47*）　The　fact　is　a　most　important　one　in　itself。　The　whole　aspect　of　society　and　of　its　work　would　have　been　different　if　the　workman　had　been　a　saleable　commodity　passing　easily　from　hand　to　hand。　Nothing　of　the　kind　is　to　be　noticed　in　the　medieval　system。　There　is　no　slave　market；　and　no　slave　trade；　nothing　to　be　compared　with　what　took　place　in　the　slave　states　of　North　America；　or　even　to　the　restricted　traffic　in　Russia　before　the　emancipation。　The　reason　is　a　curious　one；　and　forcibly　suggested　by　a　comparison　between　the　cases　when　such　trade　comes　into　being；　and　those　when　it　does　not。　The　essential　condition　for　commercial　transfer　is　a　protected　market；　and　such　a　market　existed　more　or　less　in　every　case　when　men　could　be　bought　and　sold。　An　organised　state　of　some　kind；　however　slightly　built；　is　necessary　as　a　shelter　for　such　transfer。　The　feudal　system　proved　more　deficient　in　this　respect　than　very　raw　forms　of　early　society；　which　make　up　for　deficiencies　in　State　protection　by　the　facilities　of　acquiring　slaves　and　punishing　them。　The　landowner　had　enough　political　independence　to　prevent　the　State　from　exercising　an　efficient　control　over　the　dependent　population；　and　for　this　very　reason　he　had　to　rely　on　his　own　force　and　influence　to　keep　those　dependents　under　his　sway。　Personal　dependence　was　locally　limited；　and　not　politically　general；　if　one　may　use　the　expression。　It　was　easy　for　the　villain　to　step　out　of　the　precincts　of　bondage；　it　was　all　but　impossible　for　the　lord　to　treat　his　man　as　a　transferable　chattel。　The　whole　relation　got　to　be　regulated　more　by　internal　conditions　than　by　external　pressure；　by　a　customary　modus　vivendi；　and　not　by　commercial　and　state…protected　competition。　This　explains　why　in　some　cases　political　progress　meant　a　temporary　change　for　the　worse；　as　in　some　parts　of　Germany　and　in　Russia：　the　State　brought　its　extended　influence　to　bear　in　favour　of　dependence；　and　rendered　commercial　transactions　possible　by　its　protection。　In　most　cases；　however；　the　influence　of　moral；　economical；　and　political　conceptions　made　itself　felt　in　the　direction　of　freedom；　and　we　have　seen　already　that　in　England　legal　doctrine　created　a　powerful　check　on　the　development　of　servitude　by　protecting　the　actual　possession　of　liberty；　and　throwing　the　burden　of　proof　in　questions　of　status　on　the　side　contending　against　such　liberty。　　　　　But　not　all　the　consequences　of　personal　servitude　could　be　removed　in　the　same　way　by　the　conditions　of　actual　life。　Of　all　manorial　exactions　the　most　odious　was　incontestably　the　merchetum；　a　fine　paid　by　the　villain　for　marrying　his　daughter。（48*）　It　was　considered　as　a　note　of　servile　descent；　and　the　man　free　by　blood　was　supposed　to　be　always　exempted　from　it；　however　debased　his　position　in　every　other　respect。　Our　authorities　often　allude　to　this　payment　by　the　energetic　expression　'buying　one's　blood'　（servus　de　sanguine　suo　emendo）。　It　seems　at　first　sight　that　one　may　safely　take　hold　of　this　distinction　in　order　to　trace　the　difference　between　the　two　component　parts　of　the　villain　class。　In　the　status　of　the　socman；　developed　from　the　law　of　Saxon　free…men；　there　was　usually　nothing　of　the　kind。　The　maritagium　of　military　tenure　of　course　has　nothing　in　common　with　it；　being　paid　only　by　the　heiress　of　a　fee；　and　resulting　from　the　control　of　the　military　lord　over　the　land　of　his　retainer。　The　merchetum　must　be　paid　for　every　one　of　the　daughters；　and　even　the　granddaughters　of　a　villain；　it　bad　nothing　to　do　with　succession；　and　sprang　from　personal　subjection。　　　　　When　the　bride　married　out　of　the　power　of　the　lord　a　new　element　was　brought　to　bear　on　the　case：　the　lord　was　entitled　to　a　special　compensation　for　the　loss　of　a　subject　and　of　her　progeny。（49*）　When　the　case　is　mentioned　in　manorial　documents；　the　fine　gets　heightened　accordingly；　and　sometimes　it　is　even　expressly　stated　that　an　arbitrary　payment　will　be　exacted。　The　fine　for　incontinence　naturally　connects　itself　with　the　merchet；　and　a　Glastonbury　manorial　instruction　enjoins　the　Courts　to　present　such　cases　to　the　bailiffs；　the　lord　loses　his　merchet　from　women　who　go　wrong　and　do　not　get　married。（50*）　　　　　Such　is　the　merchet　of　our　extents　and　Court　rolls。　As　I　said；　it　has　great　importance　from　the　point　of　view　of　social　history。　Still　it　would　be　wrong　to　consider　it　as　an　unfailing　test　of　status。　Although　it　is　often　treated　expressly　as　a　note　of　serfdom　（51*）；　some　facts　point　to　the　conclusion　that　its　history　is　a　complex　one。　In　the　first　place　this　merchet　fine　occurs　in　the　extents　sporadically　as　it　were。　The　Hundred　Rolls；　for　instance；　mention　it　almost　always　in　Buckinghamshire；　and　in　some　hundreds　of　Cambridgeshire。　In　other　hundreds　of　this　last　county　it　is　not　mentioned。　However　much　we　lay　to　the　account