lecture iii-第4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！


〃the　men　of　wealth；〃　（jitii　liudi）　side　by　side　with　the　〃smaller
men〃　（molodschii）。　Some　few　seem　to　have　had　even　no　part　at　all
in　the　possessions　of　the　soil；　being　known　under　the　name　of
podsousedi　or　podsousedki；　which　means　living　under　the　authority
of　a　neighbour　or　villager　（sosed）。　These　persons　were　regularly
employed　as　agricultural　labourers。　Some　few；　the　so…called
〃bobili；〃　were　possessed　of　small　parcels　of　land；　resembling　in
that　the　cottarii　of　Domesday　Book。　The　agricultural　area　owned
by　each　homestead　was　known　by　the　name　of　〃jrebii；〃　which　means
a　lot；　and　the　sense　which　men　of　the　thirteenth　and　fourteenth
centuries　attached　to　this　term　is　revealed　to　us　by　an　old
Russian　translation　of　some　parts　of　the　Byzantine　codes；　the
Prochiron　and　the　Eclogue。　This　translation　in　certain　points
appears　to　be　a　kind　of　adaptation　of　Greek　legislation　to　the
conditions　of　the　Russian　people。　One　of　the　paragraphs　of　these
so…called　〃Books　of　the　Law〃　（Zakonnii　Knigi；　chap。　xii）　contains
the　following　sentence：　〃If　a　division　of　land　shall　take　place
by　which　some　person　shall　injure　the　interest　of　others　in　their
plots　（jrebii）　the　division　must　not　be　maintained。〃*
　　　　The　jrebii　being　a　plot　of　land　enjoyed　by　a　single　household
out　of　the　agricultural　area　of　the　mark；　a　plot　which　need　not
necessarily　be　equal　to　those　of　the　neighbours；　we　are　right　in
saying　that　the　village　community　of　the　free　peasants　of　Muscovy
was　like　that　of　the　Cossacks　of　the　Dnieper。　This　likeness　is　to
a　certain　extent　obscured　by　the　financial　arrangements　which　the
Muscovite　volost　entered　into　in　order　to　secure　the　yearly
payment　of　the　land　tax；　these　arrangements；　as　well　as　the　tax
itself；　being　quite　unknown　to　Little　Russian　communes。
　　　　The　Muscovite　administration　formerly　empowered　the　volosts
to　distribute　the　taxes　imposed　on　the　villages；　according　to　the
quantity　of　cultivated　land　together　with　the　commons　thereto
annexed；　possessed　by　them。　The　sum　to　be　paid　by　the　inhabitants
of　each　subdivision　of　the　mark　was　then　divided　among　the
various　households　according　to　the　extent　of　their　possessions。
The　unit　of　taxation　was　the　land　of　a　plough。　I　mean　the　amount
of　land　which　one　plough。　working　the　whole　day；　could　turn　up。
This　unit　was　known　by　the　name　of　〃socha。〃　Some　homesteads　owned
two；　three；　or　more　of　these；　but　there　were　others　who　held　only
a　portion　of　this　unit；　just　as　in　mediaeval　England　there　were
households　owning　entire　virgates；　or　the　half　or　third　part　of　a
virgate；　and　in　Germany　there　were　holders　of　〃mansi　pleni　et
mansi　dimidii；〃　〃ganze　und　halbe　Hufen。〃　As　serfdom　was　unknown
and　no　mutual　responsibility　in　matters　of　taxation　bound　the
peasant　to　the　soil　he　occupied；　undivided　households　very　often
quitted　their　dwellings　in　order　to　settle　in　some　neighbouring
country；　on　lands　still　free　of　occupation；　or　on　those　liberally
accorded　to　new…comers　by　their　private　owners；　on　condition　of　a
small　payment。
　　　　The　abandoned　ground　returned　each　time　to　the　volost；　which
always　took　measures　to　find　some　new　occupier　who　might　relieve
the　mark　from　the　increase　of　taxation　produced　by　the　departure
of　the　previous　occupier。　Instances　of　such　new　occupation　are
regularly　reported　in　the　following　terms：　〃All　the　peasants　of
the　volost　have　allowed　such　and　such　persons　to　settle　on　the
lots　（jrebii）　left　free　by　the　departure　of　such　and　such
persons。　The　mir　（this　word　means　the　whole　community　of
shareholders）　has　conceded　this　lot　to　〃　（here　follows　the
name）。　The　shares　of　each　particular　household　having　no　distinct
limits；　we　are　induced　to　think　that　the　possession　of　a　lot；　or
jrebii；　conceded　no　other　right　than　that　of　having　a　distinct
share　in　the　open　fields　of　the　village。　Each　household　possessed
larger　or　smaller　strips　of　ground　in　the　different　fields
contained　in　the　village　area；　and　also　had　the　right　to　mow　a
distinct　portion　of　the　village　meadow；　while　the　enjoyment　of
the　waste　and　of　the　forest　land　was　free　to　all　the　inhabitants
of　the　volost；　and　no　rules　determined　precisely　the　use　which
each　householder　was　allowed　to　make　of　it。
　　　　You　may　see　from　what　I　have　said　that　the　runrig　system　and
equality　of　shares　were　as　little　known　to　the　village
communities　of　Old　Russia；　and　specially　of　Muscovy；　as　to　those
of　medieval　Germany　or　England。　No　better　known　was　the
correspondence　which；　according　to　Mr　Seebohm；　existed　in
medieval　England　between　the　quantity　of　ground　owned　by　each
household　and　the　part　it　took　in　the　ordinary　labour　of
agriculture。　Tillage　performed　by　families　possessing　in　common　a
〃carruca；〃　or　sort　of　plough　worked　with　three　or　four　pairs　of
oxen；　was　quite　unknown　to　my　forefathers；　who　were　in　the　habit
of　cultivating　the　ground　with　small　ploughs；　drawn　very　often　by
a　single　horse；　a　fact　noticed　in　the　epic　poems；　and
particularly　in　the　ballad；　the　chief　hero　of　which　is　a　simple
peasant；　Micoula　Selianinovich。　The　same　mode　of　tillage；　I　may
add；　is　still　in　use　among　the　peasants　of　Great　Russia；　where
the　ground　is　not　nearly　so　heavy　as　is　the　black　soil　of　our
Southern　provinces。　The　only　thing　that　depended　upon　tenure　of
land　was　taxation；　the　householder　paying　a　larger　or　smaller
proportion　of　the　land　tax；　according　to　the　number　of　plough
lands　sown　by　his　seed。
　　　　This　is　almost　all　we　know　of　the　free　Muscovite　village
community。　Our　information　is　fuller　as　to　the　economic
arrangements　of　those　dependent　communes；　which　were　established
on　the　possessions　of　the　higher　clergy　and　the　monasteries。
According　to　Professor　Gorchacov；　to　whom　we　are　indebted　for　a
very　circumstantial　description　of　the　inner　life　of　these
bodies；　each　manor　regularly　contained；　next　to　the　demesne　land；
a　large　area　occupied　by　the　dependent　households。　Each　of　these
households　was　obliged　to　perform　agricultural　labour　on　the　area
belonging　to　the　landlord；　and　in　return　possessed　the　right　to　a
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　t