vill2-第1章
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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Villainage in England： Essays in English Mediaeval History
by Paul Vinogradoff
1892
First Essay
The Peasantry of the Feudal Age。
Chapter One
The Legal Aspect of Villainage。 General Conceptions
It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to ancient slavery； one implying dependence on the lord of the soil and attachment to the glebe； the other being based on complete subjection to an owner。 There is no doubt that great landmarks in the course of social development are set by the three modes hitherto employed of organising human labour： using the working man （1） as a chattel at will； （2） as a subordinate whose duties are fixed by custom； （3） as a free agent bound by contract。 These landmarks probably indicate molecular changes in the structure of society scarcely less important than those political and intellectual revolutions which are usually taken as the turning…points of ancient； medieval； and modern history。 And still we must not forget； in drawing such definitions； that we reach them only by looking at things from such a height that all lesser inequalities and accidental features of the soil are no longer sensible to the eyesight。 In finding one's way over the land one must needs go over these very inequalities and take into account these very features。 If； from a general survey of medieval servitude； we turn to the actual condition of the English peasantry； say in the thirteenth century； the first fact we have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general proposition。 The majority of the peasants are villains； and the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the connexion of the villain with the soil； but in his personal dependence on the lord。 If this is a fact； it is a most important one。 It would be reckless to treat it as a product of mere legal pedantry。* The great work achieved by the English lawyers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was prompted by a spirit which had nothing to do with pedantry。 They were fashioning state and society； proudly conscious of high aims and power； enlightened by the scholastic training of their day； but sufficiently strong to use it for their own purposes； sound enough not to indulge in mere abstractions； and firm enough not to surrender to mere technicalities。* In the treatment of questions of status and tenure by the lawyers of Henry II； Henry III； and Edward I； we must recognise a mighty influence which was brought to bear on the actual condition of things； and our records show us on every page that this treatment was by no means a matter of mere theory。 Indeed one of the best means that we have for estimating the social process of those times is afforded by the formation and the break up of legal notions in their cross influences with surrounding political and economic facts。 As to the general aspect of villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can be no doubt。 The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few words： the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of the bodies of their ascripticii； they may transfer them wherever they please； 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if they like。'* Glanville and Bracton； Fleta and Britton* follow in substance the same doctrine； although they use different terms。 They appropriate the Roman view that there is no difference of quality between serfs and serfs： all are in the same abject state。 Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the distinction between status and tenure； between a villain and a free man holding in villainage； but it does not admit of any distinction of status among serfs： servus； villanus； and nativus are equivalent terms as to personal condition； although this last is primarily meant to indicate something else besides condition； namely； the fact that a person has come to it by birth。* The close connexion between the terms is well illustrated by the early use of nativa； nieve； 'as a feminine to villanus。' These notions are by no means abstractions bereft of practical import。 Quite in keeping with them； manorial lords could remove peasants from their holdings at their will and pleasure。 An appeal to the courts was of no avail： the lord in reply had only to oppose his right over the plaintiff's person； and to refuse to go into the subject…matter of the case。* Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and the nature of his services；* the King's Courts will not examine any complaint in this respect； and may sometimes go so far as to explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between the lord and his man。* In fact any attempt on the part of the dependant to assert civil rights as to his master will be met and defeated by the 'exceptio villenagii。'* The state refuses to regulate the position of this class on the land； and therefore there can be no question about any legal 'ascription' to the soil。 Even as to his person； the villain was liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord； if the punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury to his body The extant Plea Rolls and other judicial records are full of allusions to all these rights of the lord and disabilities of the villain； and it must be taken into account that only an infinitely small part of the actual cases can have left any trace in such records； as it was almost hopeless to bring them to the notice of the Royal Courts。* It is not strange that in view of such disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume equality of condition between the English villain and the Roman slave； and to use the terms servus； villanus； and nativus indiscriminately。 The characteristics of slavery are copied by him from Azo's commentary on the institutes； as material for a description of the English bondmen； and he distinguishes them carefully even from the Roman adscripticii or coloni of base condition。 The villains are protected in some measure against their lord in criminal law； they cannot be slain or maimed at pleasure； but such protection is also afforded to slaves in the later law of the Empire； and in fact it is based in Bracton on the text of the Institutes given by Azo； which in its turn is simply a summary of enactments made by Hadrian and Antonine。 The minor law books of the thirteenth century follow Bracton in this identification of villainage with slavery。 Although this identification could not but exercise a decisive influence on the theory of the subject； it must be borne in mind that it did not originate in a wanton attempt to bring together in the books dissimilar facts from dissimilar ages。 On the contrary； it came into the books because practice had paved the way for it。 Bracton was enabled to state it because he did not see much difference between the definitions of Azo and the principles of Common Law； as they had been established by his masters Martin of Pateshull and William Raleigh。 He was wrong； as will be shown by…and…by； but certainly he had facts to lean upon； and his theory cannot be dismissed on the ground of his having simply copied it from a foreigner's treatise。 Most modern writers on the subject have laid stress upon a difference between villains regardant and villains in gross； said to be found in the law books。* It has been taken to denote two degrees of servitude the predial dependence of a colonus and the personal dependence of a true slave。 The villain regardant was （it is said） a villain who laboured under disabilities in relation to his lord only； the villain in gross possessed none of the qualities of a freeman。 One sub…division would illustrate the debasement of freemen who had lost their own land； while the other would present the survival of ancient slavery。 In opposition to these notions I cannot help thinking that Hallam was quite right in saying： 'In the condition of these （villains regardant and villains in gross）； whatever has been said by some writers； I can find no manner of difference； the distinction was merely technical； and affected only the mode of pleading。 The term in gross is appropriated in our legal language to property held absolutely and without reference to any other。 Thus it is applied to rights of advowson or of common； when possessed simply； and not
