lecture iii-第5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!
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 which such r