THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY IN LAND BY FUSTEL DE COULANGES TRANSLATED BY MARGARET ASHLEY _WITH AN INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ON_ THE ENGLISH MANOR BY W. J. ASHLEY, M.A. PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, LATE FELLOW OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD [Illustration: Decorative image] LONDON SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO. PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1891 PREFACE. The Essay by the late M. Fustel de Coulanges, here translated, appeared in the _Revue des Questions Historiques_ for April, 1889. It seemed especially suitable for translation; since it presented in a comparatively brief compass all the main arguments of that great historian against the various attempts which have been made to support the theory of primitive agrarian communism by an appeal to historical records. The translation has been made with the consent of Madame Fustel de Coulanges; and it has benefited by the suggestions of M. Guiraud, an old pupil of the author, and now “Chargé de Cours” at the Sorbonne. The presentation of the Essay in an English dress has been deemed a suitable occasion to estimate the bearing of its arguments on early English social history, and to review in the light of it the evidence now accessible as to the origin of the English manor. W. J. A. M. A. TORONTO, _January 21, 1891_. CONTENTS. Page THE ENGLISH MANOR vii THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY IN LAND 1 THE THEORY OF MAURER AS TO COMMUNITY OF LAND AMONGST THE GERMANIC NATIONS 3 THE THEORY OF M. VIOLLET AS TO COMMUNITY OF LAND AMONGST THE GREEKS 73 THE THEORY OF M. MOMMSEN AS TO COMMUNITY OF LAND AMONGST THE ROMANS 100 OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD 106 THE THEORY OF M. DE JUBAINVILLE AS TO COMMUNITY OF LAND AMONG THE GAULS 132 CONCLUSION 149 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. THE ENGLISH MANOR. In spite of all the labour that has been spent on the early history of England, scholars are at variance upon the most fundamental of questions: the question whether that history began with a population of independent freemen or with a population of dependent serfs. Nothing less than this is at issue in the current discussions as to the existence of the “mark” and the origin of the manor; as well as in the discussions, at first sight of less significance, as to the character of our mediæval constitution. Neither for the government of the parish nor for the government of the nation is it possible to construct an historical theory which does not rest, consciously or unconsciously, on some view as to the position of the body of the people.