lecture iii-第4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！


share　in　the　autumn　and　spring　fields；　owned　in　common　by　the
customary　tenants　of　the　manor。　The　existence　of　these　two　fields
may　be　traced；　at　least　in　the　central　Governments　of　Russia；　as
far　back　as　the　beginning　of　the　sixteenth　century；　as　they　are
mentioned　in　a　charter　issued　in　the　year　1511。　The　peasants　had；
before　the　end　of　that　century；　the　right　of　free　removal；　the
land　quitted　by　a　peasant　household　returning　to　the　community　of
the　villagers。*　Besides　the　feudal　lord；　the　state　also　had　a
claim　on　the　community　in　the　shape　of　a　land　tax；　which　the
village　assembly　was　itself　authorised　to　collect。　The　area　held
by　the　village　was　accordingly　divided　into　ploughs　（sochi）；　and
smaller　divisions　called　viti；　which　corresponded　to　a　distinct
part　of　the　work　of　a　plough。　To　make　these　financial
arrangements　clearer　to　an　English　public；　I　will　say　that　the
customary　land　of　the　village　was　divided　into　hides　and
virgates。　The　quantity　of　land　contained　in　each　virgate　varied
from　one　village　to　another；　but　the　virgates　of　the　same　village
were　equal；　in　that　respect　the　manor　of　mediaeval　England
presents　the　greatest　similitude　to　that　of　mediaeval　Russia。
Both　have　this　also　in　common；　that　each　household　was　taxed
according　to　the　amount　of　arable　land　it　owned。　One　household
paid　for　one　〃vit；〃　or　virgate；　another　for　two；　a　third　for　half
a　virgate；　and　so　on。　The　vit　or　virgate；　just　as　in　England；　was
not　a　number　of　fields　surrounded　by　distinct　boundaries；　but　a
union　of　ideal　shares　in　the　different　fields　of　the　village。　In
the　lands　of　the　monastery　of　Constantine；　for　instance；　the　vit
was；　at　least　during　the　first　part　of　the　sixteenth　century；
equal　to　the　right　of　occupying　five　desiatines　in　each　of　the
three　fields　of　the　manor；　a　desiatine　being　equal　to　two　acres。
First　introduced　in　order　to　secure　an　equal　distribution　of
state　taxation；　the　system　of　hides　and　virgates　became　later　on
the　basis　of　the　levy　and　distribution　of　feudal　dues。　Instances
frequently　occur　in　sixteenth　century　charters　of　the　labour
performed　by　each　of　the　households　being　in　direct　ratio　to　the
number　of　virgates；　or　viti；　in　its　possession。　Under　such
conditions；　no　equality　could　exist　as　to　the　amount　of　ground
possessed　by　each　villager。　This　equality　was　not　demanded　by
anybody　on　account　of　the　abundance　of　land　and　the　facility　of
removal。　The　peasant　who　thought　himself　aggrieved　could　seek
better　terms　on　some　neighbouring　manor；　removals　were　frequent；
and　the　commune　was　always　busy　seeking　for　persons　who　might
wish　to　become　occupiers　of　the　vacant　ground　of　an　abandoned
virgate。
　　　　I　shall　proceed　no　further　in　the　study　of　the　social
arrangements　of　the　Russian　manor　because　they　appear　to　be；　so
far　as　the　ownership　of　land　is　concerned；　very　like　those　of　a
free　village。　This　is　not　surprising　to　one　who　knows　the　small
difference　which　exists　between　the　arrangements　of　a　German
manor；　or　Hof；　and　those　of　a　free　commune；　or　Dorf…gemeinde。　The
proprietor　was　too　well　pleased　to　see　his　yearly　revenue
guaranteed　by　the　unpaid　service　of　the　villeins；　to　meddle　with
their　internal　arrangements。　The　villeins　were　accordingly
allowed　to　choose　their　own　executive　officers；　to　have　their
elders；　their　〃good　men；〃　or　judicial　assistants；　and　to
apportion　taxes　and　arrange　the　land　ownership　at　their　regular
meetings；　or　folkmotes。　Such　being　the　case；　I　see　no　reason　why
the　agrarian　communism　practised　by　the　Russian　peasantry　should
be　much　affected　by　their　loose　dependence　upon　the　landlord；　at
least；　before　the　time　when　serfdom　was　completely　established
and　the　peasant　was　prevented　from　removing　from　the　manor。
　　　　The　general　characteristic　of　the　old　Russian　community　may
be　given　in　few　words：　it　was　a　kind　of　ownership；　based　on　the
idea　that　the　true　proprietor　of　the　land　was　none　other　than　the
commune。　The　rights　of　the　commune　to　the　soil　occupied　by　the
individual　households　appears　in　the　indivisibility　of　the　waste
and　forest　lands；　and　in　the　fact　that　vacant　shares　are
regularly　disposed　of　by　the　commune；　and　that　nobody　is　allowed
to　occupy　a　piece　of　ground　lying　within　the　limits　of　the
village　common；　unless　he　is　authorised　by　the　local　authorities。
Arable　land　and　meadows　are；　as　a　rule；　in　the　hands　of　private
households；　which　pay　taxes　and　perform　manorial　labour　in　direct
proportion　to　the　amount　of　land　they　own。　This　ownership　does
not　suppose　the　existence　of　certain　limits　which　nobody　is
allowed　to　infringe。　It　implies　only　the　right　to　have　a　definite
share　in　the　three　fields；　which　constitute　the　agricultural　area
of　the　village。　The　shares　are　not　equal；　but　differ　in　direct
proportion　to　the　payments　which　the　household　is　called　upon　to
make；　partly　to　the　State；　and　partly　to　the　lord　of　the　manor。
Periodical　redistributions　are　unknown；　and　no　mention　is　made　of
the　run…rig　system　of　some　modern　English　and　Irish　manors。
　　　　Thus　constituted；　the　old　Russian　village　community　appears
to　be　very　like　that　of　medieval　England　with　its　system　of　open
fields；　its　hides　and　virgates。　It　may　be　also　compared　to　the
German　mark；　so　far　as　the　mark　is　composed　of　a　set　of　villages
subdivided　into　units　partly　financial；　partly　territorial；
called　Hufen；　and　securing　to　their　private　holders；　like　the
English　virgates；　the　right　to　have　a　distinct　share　in　the
arable　fields　and　in　the　meadows　of　the　village。
　　　　Now　that　we　are　aware　of　the　peculiar　features　of　the
medieval　village　community；　let　us　ascertain　the　reasons　which
have　produced　a　complete　revolution　in　its　interior　organisation
by　the　introduction　of　the　principle　of　equal　division　of　the
soil　among　its　individual　members；　and　the　system　of　periodical
allotments　of　ground　in　order　to　secure　this　equality。
　　　　Two　facts　seem　to　have　contributed　to　this　result；　the　first
was　the　increase　of　population；　which；　as　we　have　already　shown
in　the　instance　of　Little　Russian　communes；　sooner　or　later
induces　the　majority　of　persons　holding　small　shares　to　force　the
rest　to　proceed　to　a　redistribution　of　the　soil。　The　other　fact
is　the　replacing　of　the　land…tax　by　a　sort　of　capitation　tax；　and
the　introduction　of　the　principle　of　mutual　responsibility；　in
matters　of　taxation。　The　first　of　these　causes；　increase　of
population；　remained　inoperative　as　long　as　the　peasant　retained
the　liberty　of　removing　freely　from　one　place　to　another。　Much
ground　was　lying　waste。　Landowners　had　no　other　thought　than　how
to　induce　new　colonists　to　settle　on　it；　with　this　end　in　view
they　regularly　freed　them　from　all　taxes　for　a　period　of　three
years。　Those　of　the　villagers；　who　thought　themselves　sacrificed
to　the　interests　of　their　neighbours　could；　therefore；　easily
find　the　land　they　wanted　and　that　under　very　favourable
conditions。　They　had　only　to　leave　the　village　they　inhabited　and
seek　for　new　homes；　either　on　the　still　unoccupied　steppes　or　on
the　manors　possessed　by　the　crown；　the　church；　or　the　landed
aristocracy。
　　　　　Such　was　no　longer　the　case　when　serfdom　became　a　general
rule；　and　the　right　of　free　migration　was　refused　to　the　peasant。
This　happened　during　the　period　which　extends　from　the　end　of　the
sixteenth　to　that　of　the　seventeenth　century。　Two　decades　later
followed　the　great　change　in　matters　of　taxation　when　Peter　the
Great　abolished　the　land…tax；　and　introduced　the　capitation…tax。
This　happened　in　the　year　1719。　Mutual　responsibility　of　persons
belonging　to　the　same　village　was　introduced；　and　both　landlords
and　peasants　were　allowed　to　take　preventive　measures　against
those　who　might　seek　to　escape　the　obligation　of　paying　the
personal　tax　by　withdrawing　from　their　habitations。
　　　　When　this　revolution　was　accomplished　and　each　household
began　to　be　taxed；　not　according　to　the　quantity　of　land　it
owned；　but　according　to　the　number　of　persons　attributed　to　it　in
the　taxation　returns；　the　grossest　injustice　would　necessarily
arise　if　the　soil　remained　in　the　hands　of　its　then　holders。
Complaints　were　therefore　made；　and　petitions　addressed；　in　which
the　old　division　of　the　village　area　was　declared　to　be
obnoxious；　and　an　equality　of　shares　was　demanded　as　a　necessary
condition　for　the　regular　fulfilment　by　each　village　of　its
financial　obligations　towards　the　State。　An　instance　of　such　a
request　is　that　presented　by　the　peasants　of　the　village　of
Petrovsk　in　the　year　1725；　in　which　they　ask　to　have　an　equal
share　of　land　allotted　to　each　member　of　the　commune；　all　other
kinds　of　allotment　being　contrary　to　justice。　Similar　demands
must　have　been　made　repeatedly　before　the　members　of　the
legislative　commission；　convened　by　Catherine　the　Second；
received　orders　to　protest　against　the　requirements　of　those　who
wanted　all　the　land　of　a　village　to　be　distributed　in　equal
shares　according　to　the　number　of　souls；　notwithstanding　that
these　lands　had　been　fertilised　by　the　work　and　private　industry
of　the　first　settlers。*
　　　　For　the　reasons　just　mentioned；　a　redistribution　of　the　land
was　made　at　least　every　time　the　Government　revised　its　taxation
returns；　such　revision　occurring　every　nineteenth　year。　It　was
felt　necessary　to　establish　a　direct　relation　between　the　number
of　persons　living　in　a　household；　and　the　amount　of　land
possessed　by　the　household；　and　the　fact；　that　the　actual　number
of　such　persons　did　not　correspond　to　those　enumerated　in　the
taxation　returns；　even　after　the　lapse　of　a　few　years；　led　some
communes　to　have　recourse　to　more　frequent　divisions。　It　is　in
this　way　that　we　may　explain　how　it　was　brought　about；　that
redistributions　came　to　be　made　every　sixth　or　even　every　third
year。　We　hear　of　no　yearly　distribution　because　the　three　field
system；　still　prevailing　in　Russia；　required　at　least　a　three
years'　rotation　of　the　crops。　It　was　not　always　the　country
people　who　took　the　initiative　in　an　equal　re…allotment　of　the
soil　according　to　the　number　of　persons　taxed。　Mr　Zabelin　has
brought　forward　instances；　in　which　such　allotments　were　made　on
the　initiative　of　the　lord　of　the　manor；　and　Mr　Schimanov　has
produced　a　curious　case；　in　whi