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
The 'jugum' was probably originally taken from the area which
could be cultivated by the single or double yoke of oxen allotted
to the settler, and may [p290] have been a single or double one
accordingly. But a person holding a fraction of a _jugum_ or _caput_
was said to hold only a '_portio_,'[421] and paid, in consequence, a
proportion only of the burdens assessed upon the whole jugum.
Now, if the taxation had continued at actually so much per yoke of
oxen, the system would have been simple enough; and it would be
easy to understand how, whilst the _jugum_ represented the unit of
taxation for land, the _caput_ might be the unit corresponding in
value with the jugum, but applying to other kinds of property, such
as slaves and cattle, and including the capitation tax levied in
respect of wives and children. And this, probably, may be the meaning
of the double nomenclature--_jugum vel caput_. At any rate, we know
from the Theodosian Code, that the members of a veteran's family were
constituent parts of his 'caput.'[422]
The subject is obscure, but the reform of Diocletian seems to have
aimed at an equalisation of the taxation according to the value of
property.
«The _jugum_ became a unit of taxation,»
This seems to have involved an assessment of various kinds of land
in hypothetical _juga_, of the same value (said to be fixed at
2,000 solidi); and this involved a variation in the acreage of the
hypothetical _jugum_, according to the richness or otherwise of the
land, just as according to Flaccus was the case also as regards the
actual centuriæ and allotments.
«and varied in area.»
In one instance in which the figures have been [p291] preserved,
viz. for Syria, under the Eastern Empire, the assessment was as
follows under the system of Diocletian:[423]--
Of vine-land 5 jugera, or 10 plethra or half-acres.
Arable, first class 20 jugera, or 40 plethra or half-acres.
Arable, second class 40 jugera, or 80 plethra or half-acres.
Arable, third class 60 jugera, or 120 plethra or half-acres.
In the east, therefore, sixty jugera, or 120 Greek plethra or
half-acres, of ordinary arable land, were assessed as a _jugum_.
This instance makes it clear that while originally the actual
allotment to a single or double yoke of oxen may have been taken as
the basis of taxation, the 'jugum' had already become a hypothetical
_unit of assessment_, just as, by a similar process, was the case
with the English hide. Property had come to be assessed at so
many _juga_ under the _jugation_, without any attempt to make the
assessment accord with the actual number of yokes employed.
«The Indiction.»
The assessment was revised every fifteen years at what was called the
_Indiction_.[424]
We have seen that the nominal acreage of the typical holding assigned
to the single yoke of two oxen under Roman law on the Continent
resembled very closely that of the Saxon yard-land, which also had
two oxen allotted with it.[425] [p292]
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