The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)Seebohm, Frederic
History
The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)
Seebohm, Frederic
Village communities -- Great Britain
Upon what other system can it have been grown than the _open-field
system_? The universal prevalence of this system makes it almost
certain that the fields found by Cæsar waving with ripening corn were
_open_ fields. The open-field system was hardly first introduced
by the Saxons, because we find it also in Wales and Scotland. It
was hardly introduced by the Romans, because its division lines
and measurements [p250] are evidently not those of the Roman
_agrimensores_. The methods of these latter are well known from their
own writings. Their rules were clear and definite, and wherever they
went they either _adopted the previous divisions of the land_, or
set to work on _their own system of straight lines and rectangular
divisions_. We may thus guess what an open field would have been if
laid out, _de novo_, by the Roman _agrimensores_; and conclude that
the irregular network or spider's web of furlongs and strips in the
actual open fields of England with which we have become familiar is
as great a contrast as could well be imagined to what the open field
would have been if laid out directly under Roman rules.
We happen to know also, from passages which we shall have occasion
to quote hereafter, that the Roman _agrimensores_ did find in other
provinces--we have no direct evidence for Britain--an open-field
system, with its irregular boundaries, its joint occupation, its
holdings of scattered pieces, and its common rights of way and of
pasture, existing in many districts--_in multis regionibus_--where
the red tape rules of their craft had not been consulted, and the
land was not occupied by regularly settled Roman colonies.[338]
The open-field system in some form or other we may understand, then,
to have preceded in Britain even the Roman occupation. And perhaps
we may go one step further. If the practice of ploughing marl into
the ground mentioned by Pliny was an early and local peculiarity of
Britain and of Gaul, as it seems to have been from his description,
then clearly [p251] it indicates a more advanced stage of the system
than the early Welsh co-aration of portions of the waste. The marling
of land implies a settled arable farming of the same land year
after year, and not a ploughing up of new ground each year. It does
not follow that there was yet a regular rotation of crops in three
courses, and so the fully organised three-field system; but evidently
there were permanent arable fields devoted to the growth of corn, and
separate from the grass land and waste, before Roman improvements
were made upon British agriculture.
«Was the system manorial?»
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account