The Origin of Property in Land: With an introductory chapter on the English manor by W. J. AshleyFustel de Coulanges
History
The Origin of Property in Land: With an introductory chapter on the English manor by W. J. Ashley
Fustel de Coulanges
Land tenure -- Law and legislation -- History; Manors -- Great Britain; Real property -- History
examples of the result of the subjective method. Your theory requires
that a village community should be mentioned in some early document,
and you introduce the community into a document where there is nothing
about it. And still the mistake might easily have been avoided; for we
possess upon this very section xlv. a commentary which was written in
819, and written not by some chance person, but by the counsellors of
Louis the Pious.[190] Now these men, who were most of them judges, who
consequently were in the habit of administering this law and ought to
have known its meaning, saw in it simply this: that if a stranger came
and settled himself without a title on land which did not belong to
him,[191] it needed only that a single inhabitant should inform the
count, and he would put an end to the usurpation. But as there was a
final clause to the effect that this work of giving information ought
to be performed within twelve months, and that, at the expiration
of that term, the intruder could remain on the land and enjoy it in
security,[192] the men of 819 demanded that this last clause should
be abrogated.[193] Nothing could be plainer than the whole affair in
the eyes of every one not under the influence of a preconceived idea.
But Professor Lamprecht chooses to suppose that “the men of 819 did
not understand this document” (p. 47). This is an easy way out of the
difficulty; to understand a document otherwise than Professor Lamprecht
understands it, is to misunderstand it. It is not possible, however,
to overlook the fact that these counsellors of Louis the Pious were
learned men, who spent half their lives in deciding cases of law. It
must also be remembered that article xlv. occurs in the law as amended
by Charles the Great; and that whatever was its original source, it was
still a part of the existing law and actually in force. Copied, as it
had been, by the counsellors of Charles, how can it be supposed that
it was not intelligible to his son’s counsellors? I confess that, for
my own part, I would rather understand it as it was understood by the
men of 819 than as it is understood by Professor Lamprecht. I would
rather translate it literally in all its simplicity than put a village
community into it, which is not otherwise to be found there.
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