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
What struck Tacitus in the economy of the Germans (and by Germans
he obviously meant the _free tribesmen_, not their slaves) was that
they did _not_ live in cities like the Romans. 'They dwell' (he says)
'apart and scattered, as spring, or plain, or grove attracted their
fancy.'[514] Of whom is he speaking? Obviously of free tribesmen or
tribal households, _not of villagers or village communities_, for he
[p339] immediately afterwards, in the very next sentence, speaks of
the Germans as avoiding even in their villages (_vici_) what seemed
to him to be obviously the best mode of building, viz. in streets
with continuous roofs. 'Their villages' (he says) 'they build not in
our manner with connected and attached buildings. There is an open
space round every one's house.' And this he attributes not to their
fancy for one situation or another, as in the first case, but 'either
to fear of fire or ignorance of how to build.'[515]
It is obvious, therefore, that the Germans who chose to live
scattered about the country sides, as spring, plain or grove
attracted them, were not the villagers who had spaces round their
houses. We are left to conclude that the first class were the chiefs
and free tribesmen, who, now having become settled for a time,
were, in a very loose sense, the _landowners_, while the latter,
the villagers, must chiefly have been their servile dependants.
And this inference is confirmed when Tacitus comes to the second
point and tells us that the _servi_ of the Germans differed greatly
from those of the Romans. There were some slaves bought and sold in
the market, and free men sometimes sank into slavery as the result
of war or gambling ventures; but in a general way (he says) their
slaves were not included in the tribesmen's households or employed in
household service, but each family of slaves had a separate [p340]
homestead.[516] They had also separate crops and cattle; for 'the
lord (_dominus_) requires from the slave a certain quantity of corn,
cattle, or material for clothing, as in the case of _coloni_. To this
modified extent (Tacitus says) the German _servus_ is a slave. The
wife and children of the free tribesman do the household work of his
house, not slaves as in the Roman households.'
Clearly, then, the _vicus_--the _village_--on the land of the
tribesman who was their lord, was inhabited by these _servi_, who,
like Roman _coloni_, had their own homesteads and cattle and crops,
and rendered to their lord part of their produce by way of tribute or
food-rent.
The lords--the tribesmen--themselves (as Tacitus elsewhere remarks)
preferred fighting and hunting to agriculture, and left the
management of the latter to the women and weaker members of the
family.[517]
«A later tribal stage than Cæsar described.»
«Division among heirs.»
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