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 scattering of the strips composing a _yard-land_ or _hub_, over
the open fields should also be once more mentioned in comparing
the two. It was not [p393] confined to the 'yard-land' or 'hub.'
It arose, as we have seen, in Wales, from the practice of joint
ploughing, and was the result of the method of dividing the joint
produce, probably elsewhere also, under the tribal system. It is the
method of securing a fair division of common land in Scotland and
Ireland and Palestine to this day, no less than under the English
and German three-field system. And the remarkable passage from
Siculus Flaccus has been quoted, which so clearly describes a similar
scattered ownership, resulting probably from joint agriculture
carried on by '_vicini_,' as often to be met with in his time on
Roman ground. This passage proves that the Roman holding (like the
Saxon _yard-land_ and the German _hub_) might be composed of a bundle
of scattered pieces; but this scattering was too widely spread from
India to Ireland for it to be, in any sense, distinctively Roman. It
perhaps resulted, as we have seen, from the heaviness of the soil
or the clumsiness of the plough, and the necessity of co-operation
between free or semi-servile tenants, in order to produce a
plough team of the requisite strength according to the custom of
the country; and this necessity probably arose most often in the
provinces north of the Alps.
«The single succession to the 'hub' and 'yard-land.'»
Another point distinctive of the 'yard-land' and the 'hub' was
the absence of division among heirs, the single succession, the
indivisibility of the bundle of scattered strips in the holding.
And this finds its nearest likeness perhaps, as we have seen, in
the probably single succession of the semi-servile holder, or
mere 'usufructuarius' under Roman law, and especially under the
semi-military rule of the border provinces. [p394]
«The Saxon 'Gebur' and the High German 'Gipur.'»
Lastly, before leaving the comparison between the _yard-land_ and
_hub_ it may be asked why the serf who held it in England was called
a _Gebur_.
The word _villanus_ of the Domesday Survey is associated with other
words, such as _villicus_, _villata_, _villenage_, all connected with
serfdom, and all traceable through Romance dialects to the Roman
'_villa_.'
But the Anglo-Saxon word was '_Gebur_.' It was the _Geburs_ who were
holders of yard-lands.
We trace this word _Gebur_ in High German dialects. We find it in
use in the High German translation of the laws of the Alamanni,
called the '_Speculi Suevici_,' where free men are divided into three
classes:--
(1) The '_semperfrien_' = lords with vassals under them.
(2) The '_mittlerfrien_' = the men or vassals of the lords.
(3) The '_geburen_' = _liberi incolæ_, or 'fri-lant-sæzzen' [_i.e._
not slaves].[611]
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