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
It is obvious that formal centuriation in straight lines and
rectangular divisions, by the _Agrimensores_, produced something
entirely different from the open field system as we have found it in
England. But Siculus Flaccus records that in some cases, when vacant
districts were occupied by settlers without this formal centuriation,
as '_agri occupatorii_'--the settlers taking such tracts of land as
they had the means or expectation of cultivating--the boundaries were
irregular, and followed no rules but those of common sense and the
custom of the country.[395] And he gives as an instance of such a
common-sense rule the custom about '_supercilia_,' or _linches_, the
sloping surface of which, where they formed boundaries between the
land of two owners, should be kept the same number of feet in width,
the slope always belonging to the upper owner, because otherwise
it would be in the power of the lower owner, by ploughing into the
slope, to jeopardise the upper owner's land.[396] This, he says,
is the reason of the rule that the land of the owner of the upper
terrace generally descends to the bottom of the slope.[397]
«The holdings sometimes composed of scattered pieces.»
Here, in this mention of _linches_ and irregular boundaries, traces
seem to turn up of an open-field husbandry; and a few pages further
on the same writer makes another observation which shows clearly that
frequently the holding, like the yard-land, was [p278] composed of
_scattered pieces_ in open fields, and that this scattered ownership,
as in England, was the result of an original joint occupation, and
probably of a system of co-operative ploughing.
He says[398] that in many districts were to be found _possessores_
whose lands were not contiguous, but made up of little pieces
scattered in different places, and intermixed with those of the
others, the several owners having common rights of way over one
another's land to their scattered pieces, and also to the common
woods, in which the _vicini_ only have common rights of cutting
timber and feeding stock.
This reference to the common woods and rights of way belonging only
to the 'vicini' seems to show that the scattering of the pieces in
the holdings had arisen as in the later open-field system, from an
original co-operation of ploughing or other cultivation.
«The result of joint occupation.»
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