blum - the european village as community

8/2/2019 Blum - The European Village as Community

1/23

The European Village as Community: Origins and Functions

Author(s): Jerome BlumSource: Agricultural History, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 157-178Published by: Agricultural History SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741976 .

Accessed: 12/09/2011 12:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Agricultural History.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ahshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3741976?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3741976?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ahs


2/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY:ORIGINS AND FUNCTIONS

From medieval times down to the nineteenth century the village com-munity was the primaryterritorialunit of government in most of Europe.During those centuries, when the overwhelmingmajority of Europeansdrew their livelihoods from rural pursuits,the communities regulatedthecollective life of their residents accordingto rulesunderstood andacceptedby all the villagers.The extent of the collective disciplineexercised byeachcommunityvaried widely.The differerzces mong them, however, were ofdegree and not of kind. Each imposed some form of limitation upon theactivities of all its residents in the presumed interest of the group as awhole, and each engaged to a greater or lesser extent in some form ofcollective economic activity that usually involved the management anduse of land held communally.The number of village communities-France alone had nearly 44,000of them in 17891-and the diversitiesamong them allow at best only thebroadest generalizationsabout their nature and activities. The historianfinds himself restricted to samplingwithout any assurancethat his sampleis representative. He is further encumbered by the different times atwhich communal practicesappeared and decayed in the different partsof Europe, so that he finds himself swinging back and forth across thecenturies.And even a cursory study disabuses him of the often-expressedview that rural life changed little as the years went by.The difficulties-and dangers-of generalizing aboutruralcommunitiesbecame apparent soon after the inception in the middle third of the lastcentury of scholarly interest in the subject.2German and Danishscholarsarrived at the conclusionthat the ancientGermanshad practicedagrariancommunism,that is, the collectiveownership and use of land. CaesarandTacitusprovided them withthe only primarysources aboutearlyGermanicJEROMELUMShe Henry CharlesLea Professorof History of PrincetonUniversity.1. A. Babeau,Levillage ous 'ancien egime Paris,1878), 46n.2. The standardaccount of nineteenth-and earlytwentieth-century istoriography n primi-tive forms of landholding s provided in G. von Below,"Daskurze Lebeneiner vielgenanntenTheorie uber die Lehre von Ureigentum,"Probleme erWirtschaftsgeschichteTubingen,1920),1-26. A long footnote in MaxWeber,Wirtschaftsgesc)licAte3rd ed., Berlin, 1958), 19-20, pro-vides a concisesummary(the English translationof Weber'sbook does not include thisfoot-note). See also H. J. E. Peake,"VillageCommunity,"Encyclopediaf theSocialSciencesNewYork, 1937), 15: 253-58.

157

JEROMEBLUM


3/23

158 AGRICULTURALHISTORYlandholding, so they sought to support their conclusion with analogiesdrawn from existing or recently abandoned communal practices. GeorgHanssen, for example, argued that a form of communal landownershipin districtsalong the Moselle River, given up only shortly before he wrote,was a vestige of a once universalGerman practiceand so "leadsus directlyback to the earliest history of our forbears, right through Tacitus back toCaesar's report: Privati ac separati gri apud eos nihil est."3The search foranalogies, joined in by scholars of other lands, revealed the existence ofagrarian communism in Europe, in Asia, in India, and in Central andSouth America. It was an easy step to extend the theory about the originalform of landholding in Germany to a universal law that social evolutioneverywhere began with the communal ownership and use of land.The new "law"was destined to enjoy only a short life and to provide aclassic example of the perils in the use of analogy in historicalscholarship.Continued researches showed that the communes of the Moselle region,the Russian mir, the South Slav family commune, and other examples ofagrarian communism had their origins not in the ancient past but in farmore recent times.4 Archaeologicalexcavationsof Iron Age settlementsofthe first centuryA.D. in Jutland, the Netherlands, and in England disclosedthat primitive agriculture there began with small, individual fields of one-tenth to one-half of a hectare, enclosed by balks of earth and stone, withnothing to indicatecommunalownershipor use. These finds led one scholarto conclude that "farmers n the first centuryA.D. were more individualisticthan eighteenth century farmers."Agrariancommunism may indeed haveprevailed in still earlier centuries when cultivationwas less permanent, butevidence for this is lacking.5The scanty data indicate that in the first stage of settled tillage propertybelonged not to the individual but to a patriarchal amily group of severalgenerations living as a single household. Sometimes the family group livedon an isolated holding and sometimes it clustered together with otherpatriarchal amily groups to form a hamlet or village. The amount of landthat belonged to the family depended upon the labor force the familycouldprovide.6 Presumably in the next stage of development the patriarchalfamily disintegrated, with its land divided among its constituent conjugalfamilies. Each of these families operated its own holding with its own labor3. G. Hanssen, 'Die Gehoferschaften n RegierungsbezirkTrier," Agrarhistorischebhand-lungen reprint, Osnabruck,1965, orig. ed., 1880), 1: 122.4. W. Abel, Agrarpolitik2nd ed., Gottingen, 1958), 140-44; E. Bull, VergleichendetudienuberdieKulturverhaltnissedesBauerntumsOslo, 1930), 7; K. Lamprecht,DeutschesWirtschafts-leben n MittelalterLeipzig, 1886), 1: 442-58.5. G. Hatt, 4'TheOwnershipof CultivatedLand,"DetKgl.DanskeVidenskaberneselskab,Hist.-Filol. Meddelelser 26 (1939): 8-12, 15-16; R. Latouche,Les origines e l'economieccidentale(Paris, 1956), 39-40.6. W. Abel, Die dreiEpochen er deatschen grargeschichte2nd ed., Hannover, 1964), 10; M.Bloch, "The Rise of Dependent Cultivationand SeigniorialInstitutions,"CambridgeconomicIIistory f Europe 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1966), 1: 201; G. Duby, L'economieurale t la vie descampagnesxzns'occident edievalParis, 1966), 1: 59-60, 89-95; G. Vernadsky,KievanRussia(New Haven, 1948), 132-33.


4/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY 159resources.The conjugal families grouped themselvesinto new communi-ties, based not upon kinshipbut upon residencein the sameterritory,andthe ensuing sharedsocialand economicinterests.Sometimesthe newcom-munitiesowed their existenceto the voluntaryaction of the peasantsthem-selves, and sometimeslandlordsand rulers ordered their creation.These communities appeared at different times in different parts ofEurope and bore many diSerent names. The variationsin nomenclatureand in time of appearancedo not conceal the basic similarityof these or-ganizations.They were all territorialcommunes:groupingsof people wholived in a common neighborhood.They differedwidely in size of member-ship and in the amount of land they covered.Some included a numberofvillages and others had less than twenty isolated farmsteadswithin theirborders. Each member could have his own holding and operate it as aseparateand independent unit. All members hadthe rightto use resourcessuch as forests,pastures,meadows,and streamsthat laywithin the bound-ariesof the commune.These resourcesdid not belong to individuals; heybelonged to the territorialcommune.7The commune acting as a corporate body managed these communalresources, setting the regulationsfor their use and appointing or electingofficersto supervise the applicationof the regulationsand to conduct theday-to-dayaSairs of the commune. The commune provided newcomerswith land or excluded them if it wished. It could serve as a fiscal unit withits members joining together to meet obligations imposed by superiorpowers. It acted as the guardian of law and order within its boundaries,and sometimesits membersaccepted oint responsibility or compensationto be paid for certaincrimescommittedwithin its boundaries.8New pressures, new demands, and a new need for closer cooperationamong husbandmenshifted the emphasis n communal ife from territorialcommune to village commune, from the loose organizationthat held to-gether people living over a relativelywide areato the much tighterorgan-izationand closercooperationof people who clustered together in a singlevillage.The territorialcommune declined and then disintegrated,leavingbehind only vestigial reminders of its existence. In western and centralEurope, the urgent need for increasedfood productionand the landshort-7. Latouche, 32; F. Lutge, Geschichteerdeutschengrarverfassungom rahenMittelalteriszum19. Jahrhundert2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1967), 'S5-26; B. H. Slicher van Bath, "Manor, Mark andVillage," Speculum 1 (1946): 122-23; Duby, 1: 125-26, 208-10; S. A. Tarakanova-Belkina,BoiarskoemonastyrskoeemlerladenieNorgorodskiAhiatinakh domoskovskoeremiiaMoscow,1939), 31-32; J. Blum, Lord ndPeasantn RllssiaJromheNinth otheNineteenthenturyPrince-ton. 1961), 94-97; H. Wiessner, Beitrage llr C;eschichtees Dorfesund der DorJgemeindenOesterreichKlagenfurt, 1946), 28; L. Beauchet, Histoire ela propriete'onciere n Suede Paris,1904), 61, 81; E. J. Walter, SoziologieeraltenEidgenossenschaJtBern, 1966), 46.8. A. Meitzen, "Ansiedlung," HandworterbucXlerStaatswissenschaJtenJena, 1909), 1: 50'S; B.H . Slicher van Bath, TheAgrarianHistory JWesternuropeA D.500-1850(Lond n, 1963), 159;G. C. Homans, EnglishVillagers J the Thirteenth enturyCambridge, Mass., 1942), 104; F.Pollock and F. W. Maitland, TheHistory J theEnglisXl awbeJoreheTimeof Edward (Cam-bridge, 1898), 1: 564-66; Vernadsky, 134; V. B. El'iashevich, Istoriiapravapozemel'noiob-strennosti Rossii Paris, 1948-51), 1: 49-51.


5/23

160 AGRICULTURALHISTORYage, each the product of the increase in population of the high middleages, provide the single most importantexplanationfor the emergenceofthe villagecommune. The pressuresfor food and land, met firstby clear-ing new land, therlby conversionof pasture, meadow, and wasteto per-manentarable,finallycompelledthe adoptionof moreintensivesystemsofcultivationwhich had been long knownbut until now not widely utilized.The holdings of individualpeasantswere consolidatedand then dividedinto two or three fields and rotatedbienniallyor trienniallybetweencropsand fallow. The fields were parcelled into strips distributedamong thevillagers n proportionto the amountof landeachhadbefore the introduc-tion of the new system.The processdid not have to begin with all of theresidentsof a village;a groupof individualscouldembarkon it voluntarily.Whateverthe mannerof its inception,it developed into a community-widepractice with all of the land of the village amalgamatedinto open (un-fenced) fields parcelledamong the villagers.This irlnovationdemandedin-creased and continuous cooperation among the holders of the strips toregulate such mattersas accessto the individualstrips,pasturingof cattleon the fallowsandon the stubbleof harvestedfields,protectionof the sownfieldsfromtrespassbycattleandbyunauthorizedpersons,andwaterrights.In short, it requiredthe communalregulationof husbandry.9In much of western Europe the transitionto the open-field systemoc-curred in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, though in some regions thechangeovertook placeonly in latercenturies.10Germancolonistsbore pri-mary responsibilityfor introducingthe technique into Polandin the thir-teenth century,whereit spreadslowlyfrom the Germansettlementsto theautochthonousvillages.The earliest known reference to three-field rota-tion in the Grand Duchy of Lithuaniadates to 149G, hough the methodcame into general use there only in the second half of the sixteenth cen-tury.1lIn Russiafifteenth-centurysourcesoSer the firstclear evidence ofthe wide adoptionof the technique.12Wherever t wasintroducedthe newsystemdid not appear in fully developed form at the momentof its adop-tion.Instead,it grew graduallythrough the centuries,withincreasedregu-

9. Slichervan Bath,AgrarianHistory56-60; E. Juillard,La vieruraledans aplainedeBasse-AlSaceParis,1953),42; Abel,DiedreiEpochen,9-30; J. Thirsk,"TheCommonFields,"PastandPresent,no. 29 (1964):8-9; W. O. Ault, Open-Field usbandFandtheVillageCommunity,Transactionsf theAmerican hilosophicalociety, .s., 55 (1965): pt. 7, p. 5; H. See, Lesclassesruralestleregime omanialnFrance u moyertge(Paris,1901),605-6; M.Bloch,Lescaracteresoriginauxel'histoireuraleranfaise Paris,1952-56), 1: 181;E.Winkler, d., DasS'chweizerDorf(Zurich;1941),45-46; K. Haff,DiedXnische7?emeinderechtLeipzig, 1909),2: 69-70, 73; A.Nielsen,DaenischeWirtschaftsgeschichteJena,1933),9-1 1.10.C. T. Smith,An Hastoricaleographyf'Westernuropebefore800 (New York,1967),210;G. Schroder-Lembke,"Wesenund Verbreitungder Zweifeldwirtschaftm Rheingebiet,"Zeitschrt1tur AgrargeschichtendAgrarsoziologie,(1959):29-30; Ault, 5, 6-7; Thirsk,24-25;Juillard,2-44; Nielsen, 14.1 . W.Conze,AgrarverfassungndBevolkerungnLatauenndWeissrusslandLeipzig,1940),1:25,62-64; W. Rusinski,"Wustungen.Ein Agrarproblemdes feudal Europas,"ActaPoloniaeHistorica(1962):55.12.Iu. M. Iurginis,"Ozemledel'cheskoi isteme,predshestvovavskeirekhpol'iu";Ezhegod-nik oagrarnoistorii ostochnoivropy 962g.,96.


6/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY 161larityand control ntroducednto its operationsas timewentby.13Thesystemneverrooted tself n thosepartsof Europewhere errain, oil,andclimatewereunsuited or thismethodof cultivationwith tsemphasis ngrainproduction r whereeconomicnecessitydidnotdemand ncreasedoutput.In theopen-field illages ommunal egulation ndcooperationeachedtheir apogee in the introduction f compulsory ommunal illage.Thatmeantthateveryonehadto growthe samecropsand perform hesamefieldoperations t the sametime. It hasbeensuggested hatthevillagersaccepted hiscompulsion ecause f a criticalhortage f pasture.The ris-ing pressure or morecroplandbroughton theconversion f muchgrass-larld ntoarable,andat the sametime set up a demand or moreanimalsfor draughtandmanure,andthusfor morepasturage.Thevillagersmetthisproblembypasturingheiranimals ntheopenarableieldswhen heylayfallowor aftertheyhadbeen harvested.Thatrequired hecoordina-tionof thefarmingoperations f allthevillagers, o thatwhentheanimalsentereda field it hadbeenclearedof grain.Similarly,hetimeof plowinghad tobecoordinatedothatallwouldknowwhen hestockmustbedrivenfromthefallow ield.Thecommune s acorporate odyhadtheresponsi-bilityof scheduling ndregulatingheseoperations.l4

It wasonce thoughtthatcompulsoryommunalillagewas of ancientorigin.Nowit seemsclearthatit firstappeared n westernEurope n theeleventhandtwelfth enturies.Moreover,tapparently asnotanessentialingredient f theopen-field ystem.Someopen-field illagesmanagedorcenturiesbeforethey adoptedcompulsory ommunal illageand othersneveradopted t. Presumablyhesepeoplehadgrasslandnoughandsodid not have to pasture heiranimalson fallowand stubble,or possiblytheytethered heirstockon theirownstrips o thattheanimals ouldnotwanderonto the stripsof othervillagers.15n general,however, ompul-sorycommunalillagebecame n time the standard racticen thosepartsof Europewheretheopen-field ystemestablishedtself.16In regionswhere hepeasants sedotherheldsystemsheyhadnoneed,13. For example,late seventeenth-and eighteenth-centurymapsof open-fieldvillagesshowa more orderly pattern of strips than do the maps of earliercenturies.Thirsk, 5-7; cf. J.Nicod, "Un text sur la strllsturedu village Lorrain(1732),"L'lnformationeographique4(1950): 159; E. Heckscher,AnEconomic istory f SwedenCambridge,Mass.,1954),25.14. Slicher van Bath,AgrarianHistory, 1-62.15. Ibid.; Wiessner,Beitrage,62; Ault, 6-7; Thirsk, 5-7, 22-23; Juillard, 68; Schroder-Lembke,29.16. E.g., in Bohemia, W. Stark,"Der Ackerbauder bohmischenC;utswirtschaftenm 17.und 18.Jahrhundert,"ZeitschriftiUrAgrNrgeschichtendAgrarsoziologie,(1957);21-23; En-gland, Ault, 6-7; France,G. Lizerand,Leregimeuraldel'anciennerance Paris,1942), 106;Sweden,J. Frodin,"Planscadastrauxet repartitiondu sol en Suede,"Annalesd'histoireco-nomiquetsociale (1934):53; Austria,Wiessner,Beitrage,2; H. Feigl,DieniederosterreichischeGrundherrschaftomausgehendenMittelalter iszu dem heresianisch1osephinischeneformenVi-enna, 1964),125;Russia,Blum,LordandPeasant, 28; Germany,F. K.Riemann,AckerbaundViehhaltungm vorindustrieEleneutschlandKitzingen-Main,1953), 102-4; Abel,Agrarpolitik,79; Northern Spain, R. Herr, TheEighteenth enturyRevolutionn Spain(Princeton,1958),103-4.


7/23

162 AGRICULTURALHISTORYor at most,limitedneed, for communal illage.In the systemknownasield-grasshusbandry he villagersrotatedpartsof their land betweenrableandpasture.Theykepta section ncrops ora periodof yearsandsectionn grass,andthenallowedhearableorevertback opasture ndutanother ectionof landunder heplow.l7Theonlycommunalompulionrequired he individualpeasant o havehis arablen thepartof theillageandsdesignated ythecommuneorcropsSndtohelpin fencinghearable o keepout the cattle.18n anotherwidelypracticedystemofillage,alled heinfield-outfieldrrunrig ystem,hevillagers eptpartofheirand,knownastheinfield,aspermanent rable,dividedt intostripsnd illedit communally. heyusedthe methodof field-grass usbandryo ill the restof their and theoutfield,anddidnotemploycompulsoryommunalillage n thispartof theiroperation.19Other pressures, oo, separate rom albeitrelatedto the heighterledemandor the productsof agriculturespurred he establishmentndtrengtheningf village ommunes.The regularizationf therelationshipetweenordsandtheirpeasantswhich ookplace nmanypartsof westernndentralEurope n thetwelfthandthirteenth enturiesn response ohe ew economicand socialconditions f thatera, turnedout to be ofpecialmportance.To ensurea steady ncome or themselvesromtheirroperties,o simplifyestatemanagement o keepthelr peasants romeaving,ndto protectheirown nterestsncommonandsandforestsandastes,any eigneursncontinentalwestern ndcentralEuropegrantedhartersnd franchises r madewrittendeclaratlonso theirvillagers,nhichheydefinedthe rightsandthe obligations f the peasants.Thesedocuments-Marclochcalledthem;'littleocalconstitutions"-givenoheillageasa unit strengthenedxisting ommunaliesorstimulatedheCompulsoryommunaltillagepersistedin some backwardpartsof EuropewelIinto thewentiethentury. D. Warriner,Economicsf Peawant arming Oxford, 1939), 7; I. Chiva,Socialrganization,TraditionalEconomyand CustomaryLaw rlCorsica,"nJ. Pitt-Rivers,d.,editerrclneanountrymenParisand La Haye, 1963),98; R. Leonhard,Agrarpolitikndgrarreformn SpanienunterCarl II (Munichand Berlin, 1909),90.7.his systemwas stillused extensivelyin the eighteenthand firsthalf of the nineteenthenturiesn,amongotherplaces, argepartsof Hungary,Moldavia,Bukowina, asternGalicia,ussianodolia,in the Alpine zonesof the Austrianmonarchy,and in infertie and moun-ainousreas of France.R. Rosdolsky, 4DieostgalizischeDorfgemeinschaftund ihre Auf-osung,"ierteljahrschriftur Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte1 (1954): 105-6; J. Blum, No-leandownersnd Agriculturen Austria,1815-1848 (Baltimore, 1948), 157; Bloch, Carac-eresriginawc,: 26-28.18.f.Rosdolsky,106-8.19.monghe areasin whichthis methodwascommoninto the eighteenthand nineteenthenturiesere Brittany,Maine,Poitou,partsof the MassifCentral,westernEngland,Wales,artsf East Anglia and Nottinghamshire,Scotiand, Ireland, the Netherlands,westerermany,orthernand centralSweden,Norway,Brandenburg.Smith,Hastoricaleography,13-14;. G. East,An HistoricalGeographyfEurope 4th ed., New York, 1950), 102-5; P.latres,Paysages urauxde pays atlantiques,"AnnalesE.S.C 12 (1957):609; H. H. Muller,DieBodennutzungssystemeund die Separation n Brandenburgvor den Agrarreformenon807,"Jahrbuchiir Wirtschaftsgeschichte,965, pt. 3, pp. 87-89; M. Gray,TheHighlandconomy750-1850 (Edinburgh,1957), 6-7; J. Saltmarshand H. C. Darby,"The Infield-utfieldystemon a Norfolk Manor,"Ecorlomic istory (1937):30-31.


8/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGE AS COMMUNITY 163establishmentof communalorganizations n villageswhere theydid not yetexist. Electedcommune officialsappearedcharged with such duties as en-suring that the village met its obligationsto the lord, preservinginternalorder in the village, representing the commune in its dealings with thelord and his officials,and often acting as the representativeof the lord tothe villagers.20In Russiathe villagecommune succeeded to the territorialcommune inthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.Grants by the sovereignsof hithertofree peasant land to favored seigneurs, made now in increasingnumbers,often disregarded the boundaries of the territorialcommunes, therebydestroying their organic unity.The lords, for their part, undermined theautonomy and administrativefunctions of the territorialcommunes ontheir properties, and simultaneouslyreduced the peasants to a conditionof subjectionand dependence. Meanwhile,the isolated homesteads andthe hamlets which had been the typical form of peasant settlementweresupplantedby villages.Presumably his came about in partbecause of thepopulation increase, and in part because the lords wanted to group theirpeasants together to make supervisioneasier.21 In the Grand Duchy ofLithuania,where, as in Russia,the peasantswere enserfed in the courseofthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, both sovereigns and seigneursgrouped their peasants nto communes to facilitatecontrol and the imposi-tion of obligations.22

The introduction of communalresponsibility or some or all of the obli-gations owed to the seigneur and the sovereignreirtforced ommunalunityand cooperation. This principleof joint obligationbecamecommon in cen-traland eastern Europewith the establishment hereof serfdombeginningin the fifteenth century, but it establisheditself in other partsof Europe,too. Instead of levying the obligation upon the individual peasant, all orsome of the chargeswere made against the community as a unit. The vil-lagers had to divide the charge among themselves,and makeup for thoseof their neighbors who for whateverreason did not pay their assessment.The sharingof a common burden and the responsibility hat each house-hold had for every other household of the villagecompelled the peasantsto cooperatecloselywith one another and to functionas a communalunit.23Still other commoninterestsimpelledcommunalcooperation.The need20. M. Bloch, La societe'eodale Paris, 1949), 1: 423-26; Duby, 1: 264-65; Juillard, 68-69;Feigl, 291-92; C. S. and C. S. Orwin, TheOpenFields2nd ed., Oxford, 1954), 125; See, 611-12; E. Patzelt, "Grundherrschaft und bauerlicher Weistumsrecht," Archivur Kulturgeschichte'20 (1929): 1-2, 4-5, 9, 10-11.21. Blum, Lordand Peasant,96-97; A. Miller, Essais ur l'histoirees institutionsgraires e laRussiecentrale uXVle au XVIIIe ieclesParis, 1926), 202-3.'S2. Conze, 1: 27-28, 95, 117-18, 131.23. H. Wiessner, Sachinhaltndwirtschaftlicheedeutung erWeistumermdeutschen ulturgebiet(Baden, 1934), 248-49; L. Revesz, Derosteuropaischeauer Bern, 1964), 20; V. I. Semevskii,Krest'ianesarstrovaniemperatritsykaterinyI (St. Petersburg, 1881-1901), 1: 301; P. de Saint-Jacob, Lespaysans e laBourgogne u Nordauderniersieclee 'anciene'gimeParis, 1960), 58-6'2;W. Wittich, DieCrundherrschaftn NordwestdeutschlandLeipzig, 1896), 139; See, 608-9.


9/23

AGRICULTURALHISTORY164to protect ollectiveightsncommonpasture ndforest, osuperviseheserights o thateachvillagerhadhis proportionalhare nthecommonand,to keepstrangersromusingthecommons, ndtocontest hediminutionof the commonpropertybyenclosure s privateproperty, ersuadedhevillagersoorganize ndactas acorporate ody.24hedivision f anestateincludingts village hrough nheritance r saleandtheconsequent on-fusionsandconflicts reatedby multipleownershipsomevillageshadasmanyas sixseigneurs) ouldalsoforceuponthevillagershe necessityoestablish communalrganization.hecommune ould hentakeover headministrationf the villageand handlethe relationswithall its propri-etors.25Onthe islandof Sardiniahedepredationsf thecattle aiserswhograzed heirherdsthrough he island nduced he peasantsheretobandtogetherntocommunes.Asindividualarmersheyhadlacked hepowerto keeptheherds romtheir ands;unitedntocommurlesheycouldresistthecattlemen ndevendrivethemback.26Finally,he factof the propinquityf villageifemusthaveengendereda strongcommunal onsciousnessnd unity.The smallsizeof the usualvillagecommunity ave t a familial haracter,ntensified yintermarriageamongthe villagers.Everyonekneweveryone lse,andknewandsharedeachother's oys and sorrows.They rejoiced ogether n villagecelebra-tions,theyworshippedogether, heyworked ogether n the fields, heyhada commonnterestn theuseof thepastures,meadows, ndforestsoftheirvillage,and theyhada commonadversaryn the seigneurandhisofficials.The creationof communaladministrations ithofficers lectedby thevillagersromamong hemselves,ndwithperiodic illagemeetingsto make herulesbywhich hevillageived, erved ointensifyhecohesionof the community.Thoughthe villagerecordsrevealendlessbickeringsandfeudsandbitterness mong hevillagershesewereoutweighed ythecommunityf interests,hepressure f economic ecessity ndof commonobligationso lord,state,andchurch,and the tradition f cooperation.27The villagers ven hada namefor theirsharedexistence.Theycalled t"neighborhood"r "neighborliness."28Astimewenton thevillagers rew ncreasinglyonscious f thestrengththeirunitygavethemin confrontations iththeoutsideworld.Aboveall,24. Duby, 1:262-63; Bloch,Cara4teresriginaux, : 185-94; R. Fossier,Laterret eshommesnPicardizParis,1968),2: 714; See, 607-8.25. Patzelt,9; J. D. Wake,"Communitas illae,"EnglishHistoricalReview37 (1922): 407-8.26. M. Le Lannou,Patres tpaysans ela SardaigneTours, 1941), 124-37.27. Wiessner,Beitrage, 9; Slichervan Bath,"Manor,Markand Village,"126;Homans,106,290; J. Gaudemet, Les communautisamiliales(Paris, 1963), 161-62; M. Matossian,"ThePeasantWayof Life,"W. S. Vucinich,ed., ThePeasantnNineteenth entury ussia Stanford,1968), 16-40.28. Neighborhood in English, Homans, 106; voisinin parts of France,Bloch, Caracteresorigina24x,: 172; naoberschupn the Netherlands,Slichervan Bath, "Manor,Markand Vil-lage," 125; Nachbarschaftn CentralGermany,in Austria,and in the Tyrol, K. H. Quirin,Herrschaftnd Gemeirmleachmitteldeutschenuellendes 12. bis 18. JahrhundertsGottingen,1952),72-76; Wiessner,Beitrage,0; Wiessner,Sachinhalt,48; nabac, neighborliness) n theislandof Heisgierin the Hebrides,G. Gomme,TheFillageCommunityLondon, 1896).


10/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY 165thecommune ervedasthevehiclebywhich he peasants ouldpresentaunitedfrontagainst heclaimsof the seigneur.The existenceof thecom-munehelpedpolarize he lord-peasantelationship.t therebypromoteda moreprecisedefinition f themutual ightsanddutiesof thetwoparties,evidencedby the increase n recordedregulationsand ordinanceshatbeganin the fifteenthand sixteenthcenturies.29he forceof communalunitydid not direct tselfsolelyagainst he seigneur.The outsiderwhowanted o settlein the village,or rentor buylandin the territory f thecommune,or grazehis stockon the village's tubble ieldsandcommonpastureshadto havethe approval f the commune.Thiswasnotalwaysforthcoming. hevillagers id notwant o dilute heirrightsandholdings,andso theydidnottake ightly headmission f newmembersntotheircommunitiesr the grazingof otherpeople's attleon theirland.If needbe, theyresorted o intimidation nd violence o driveawayunwelcomenewcomers.30Migrating easants arried he ideaof thecommunewith hem ntothenewlands heysettled. n SaxonyandThuringia rganized ommunes p-peared n the twelfthcenturyat the heightof the German olonizationfthoseregions.3l n the thirteenth enturyGerman olonistsn Poland etup communesn theirnewsettlements, ndsoonPolishvillages ollowedthe newcomers'xample.32In FranceandEngland,andespeciallyn theiropen-field ountry,heboundaries f thelandsof thevillage requentlyoincidedwith hoseof thechurch parish.Parishorganizationong antedated he communeanddoubtless ervedas a preparatorytage,accustominghe villagerso cor-porateactivity.Communalifeinthesevillages entered roundhechurch.Oftenparishandvillageorganizations ereindistinguishable, eetingasone andconcurrently iscussingparishandvillagematters, ndwiththesamemen servingas officersof both organizations.33n thosepartsofFranceand Britainwherethe peasants ivedscatteredover the land inisolatedfarmsteads nd in hamletsthe parishmighthaveseveralcom-munes nit,and heparish hurch toodaloneout n themidst f thefields.34Elsewheren Europe heboundaries f parishandvillagedidnotcoincide,29. K. Blaschke, 'Grundzuge und Probleme einer sachsischen Agrarverfassungsgeschichte,"Zeitschriftder Savigny-Stiftung ur Rechtsgeschichte, ermanischeAbteilung82 ( 1965): 275; Quirin,50; Revesz, 204; Juillard, 69; See, 614.30. Wiessner, Beitrage, 64-65; Revesz, 23; J. Kulischer, RussischeWirtschaftsgeschichteJena,1925), 1: 259; G. Lefebvre, Lespaysansdu Nord pendant la Revolution raMaise (reprint, Bari,1959), 110-14; Bloch, Caracteresoriginaux, 1: 183-85; E. de Laveleye, De la propridteet desesformesprsmitives 4th ed. , Paris, 189 1 , 119.31.Quirin,0.32. Conze, 1: 62-64.33. Babeau, 116-18, 131-32; Pollock and Maitland, 1: 560-61; A. Soboul, "Lacommunauterurale (XVlIle-XlXe siecles)," Revue de SynthEse, rd ser., 78 (1957): 287; See, 603-5; Bloch,Caracte'resriginaux, 1: 175-76; Homans, 382; Orwin, 156.34. R. Lebeau, La vie ruraledans les montagnesduJura meridional(Memoires et documents del'Institut des etudes rhodaniennes de l'Universite de Lyon, No. 9, (1955), 164; P. Goubert,L'ancienregime(Paris, 1969), 78; P. Flatres, Geographie aralede quatrecontrees eltiques: rlande,Galles,Cornwallet Man (Rennes, 1957), 259.


11/23

166 AGRICULTURALHISTC)RYthough n someplaces n centralEurope heboundariesf theremainingterritorialommuneswerethesameas thoseof the parish.35The establishmentf new communalorganizationswenton continu-ouslyaspopulationncreased ndasnew andsweresettled.Sometimeshesuccessivetages n thecreation f a communerom,,ay, hesinglehome-steadof arenterof monasteryand nsixteenth-centuryurgundy,36rthehut of a squattern the Siberianwildernessn the nineteenth entury,37canbetraced. nwesternEuropeherateatwhich ommuneswere oundeddeclinedasempty andfilled,thoughnewcommunes tillemerged n theeighteenthcentury.38n easternEuropethe rateaccelerated s settlerspushedeverdeeper ntothegreater teppeland.In Englandhecommunal rganizationf thevillagewasovershadowedby,andoftenintegratedwith,themanor ourt,so that t isnotalways er-tainwhether he formerhada separate xistence.39he manorcourt,orthe ord'scourt,seemedscarcelydistinguishableroma villageassembly.The ordof the manoror hissteward ummonedhecourtandpresidedovert, butajury of villagersmadepresentments,greedon regulationsneededo operate hevillage,andconcernedtselfgenerallywithallmat-tersaffectinghe well-being f thecommunity.Allthevillagershadto at-tend he courtandfineswereleviedfor unexcusedabsences.The courtconcernedtselfprimarily ithmaking ndenforcing ecisionsoncerningthe griculturalperationsf thevillage,tappointed fficialsf thevillageSitadmittednewmemberso thecommunity,ndit servedasjudgein dis-putes mongthe villagers.The manorcourtactedbothasa courtbaron,chargedwith maintaininghe mutualrightsof lord and villagerswithrespecto one another,andasa court eet,responsibleor administeringthe ing'sustice.40Despite heactivities f thelord's ourtasthemanager f villageafEairs,the illagershemselves adtheirownmeetingsodecidematters Sectingcommunityife and husbandry,o electofficials, nd to agreeon regula-tionscalledbylawsor byrlawstheregulations f the manorcourtwerecalled ylaws, oo). Sometimes he villageassembly eemsto have metsimultaneouslyiththe lord'scourt,andsometimeseparately. videncesofhesevillage essions emain cantuntilthesixteenth enturywhenthedocumentationecomesmoreabundant.41The meetings ookon special mportancenthemanyvillageshatwere35.Wittich,122;Wiessner,Beitrage,28; Winkler,49; Beauchet,222; Haff, 2: 68-69.6. . de Saint-Jacob,"Levillageet les conditions uridiquesde l'habitat,"Annales de Bour-ogne3 (1941): 171-79.37. . Tschuprow,Die FeldgemeinschaftStrassburg, 902), 115 ff.38. f. Soboul,285.39. f. Pollockand Maitland,1: 567, 610-1 1.40.. and B. Webb,English Local Government;romthe Revolutionto theMunicipal Corporationct:he Manor and the Borough (London, 1908), 1: 9-20; cf. A. G. Rustonand D. Witney,ootonagnelt the Agncultural Evolution of a YorkshireVillage (New York, 1934), 169-72;rwin,28-42.41.omans, 102;Ault, 50-54.


12/23

THE EUROPEAN VILLAGE AS COMMUNITY 167dividedamongseveralproprietorso thatno single ord's ourthadoverallauthority.Here the peopleof the villagehad to makeand administerheirown rules for management f the villageeconomyand providefor thesecurityand well-beingof the community.Even on estatesowned by asingle proprietor he day-to-day dministration f an open-fieldvillagepresentedmanydifficulties nd requiredon-going upervision. andlordsavoidedthe problemsby turningthem over for solution o the villagersthemselves.42When manorialadministration ntered into decline andmanorcourtsno longermet,the villageassembly ainednew prominence.Often, however, he parishvestryand the open meetingsof the vestryat-tended by the people of the parish ook over the supervision f the agri-cultural ife of the village rom the defunctmanorcourt.43

As mightbe expected,communal ies were weakestwherethe peasantslived in isolated armsteads nd in hamlets,where they employed illagesystems ther than the two-or three-field otation, nd whereanimalhus-bandryprovided he mainstay f the economy. n the mountains f easternGalicia he peasantsivedon theirownholdings ather han n villages, ndcommunal rganizationcarcely xisted.44n Norway nd Denmarkwherehamlets nd isolated armsteads ere he predominantormof rural ettle-ment, rleighborsormedonly loose organizationso providemutualhelpand supportwhen needed, and to join together or socialoccasions uchas weddings.45 hose partsof Englandwhere pastoral armingpredom-inated had less rigorouscommunal ontrols han did the villagesof theopen-field ountry.Mrs.Thirsksuggests hatpastoral reaswereenclosedearly preciselybecause he weakness r even absenceof theseconstraintsmade t easier o reachagreements xtinguishing ommonrights.46The strengthor weakness f communal ies evidenced hemselvesmostconcretelyn the extent to whichvillagers ccepted or werecompelledbylord and stateto accept) ollective estraints n theirrightof private and-holding.The spectrum an from ndividual ossession f a specificpieceofland through ncreasing egreesof regulation o agrarian ommunismnwhich he communeheld the landand decidedhowmucheachof its mem-bers shouldhave and underwhatconditions.Even the least rigorous of communalorganizationsmposedcertainlimitations n the individual's ontrolof his own holding,and especiallyover his rights n the collective roperty f the communitywhich n some42. W. G. Hoskins, The MidlandPeasant: he Economic nd Social Historyoffa LeicestershireVillage London, 1957), 97-98; Orwin, 126; Wake, 407-8.43. Hoskins, 97-98; Webb, 1: 128-32; W. E. Tate, The EnglishFillageCommunitynd theEnclosureMovementLondon, 1967), 31.44. Rosdolsky,97-103.45. R. Frimannslund, "The Old Norwegian Peasant Community: Farm Community andNeighborhood Community,"Scandinavian conomic isto?yReriew4 (1956): 70-72; Bull, 19;Flatres,"Paysages uraux,"605-6.46. Thirsk, 23-24.


13/23

168 AGRICULTURALHISTORYplacescomprisedhalfor moreof thevillage'serritory). o ensure hatallsharedfairly n the useandbenefitsof theseresourceshecommunem-posedregulationswhichimitedhenumber f animalsachmember ouldpastureon the commongrassland,he amountof timberhe couldtakefromthe forest,andtheamountof meadowhe couldmow.47In places n Switzerland,outhGermany,Austria, ndin Scandinaviaseparatecommunemadeup of the residentsof severalvillagesor of agroupof isolated armsteadsr hamletshaditsowncommonand.Thesecommuneswereperhapsvestigesof theold territorialommunes ndthecommon anda collectivepatrimonyromdayslong gone.The commonlandoftenwentbythenameof Altmend, propertyf all," houghsome n-dividualvillagesusedthiswordfor theircommons.The Allmendwasnotlimited oforest,meadow, asture, ndotheruntilledand.Itcould ncludeplowland, ineyards, rchards, ndvegetable ardens,distributedmongcommunemembersor fixedperiods,or rentedoutwith heincomeusedto meetcommunal ostssuchasthecareof thepoor.48Communalwner-shipof Allmenden aspersistedn someplaces,asinSwitzerland,own ntothe present.Membershipn the Swisscommuness hereditary, ontrans-ferable,andcannotbe exercisedn absentia. t carriesherighttousethecommonpastures ndforestsandto takeup a plotof communalandforindividualultivation.49The GreatRussianvillagecommune s the best-knownxampleof theextremeformof collective estraint n theindividual.The communebe-camethe de factopossessor f thevillage and(thelawnevermadeclearthe legal positionof the commune n thisregard).The memberof thecommunehadpermanent ossession nlyof hisdwelling ndthescrapoflandaroundt.Eachpeasant ouseholdhadaright oanallotment f plow-landandtherighttousecommonpasture,meadow, ndforest.The com-mune, either throughthe actionof the communalassemblyor of itsauthorized fficers,decidedon thesizeof theholdingsof itshouseholds.Thecommune,as a corporate ody,couldsubdivide oldings, rdertheirperiodic edistribution,easeadditionaland,or rentout someof itsownland.The proprietor f the villagecouldoverruleanyactionof thecom-mune,butusuallyheallowedt a greatdealof autonomy.50irst mergingin the fifteenthand earlysixteenthcentury,communalandholdingbe-camenearlyuniversaln GreatRussiaby the nineteenth entury;n theearly1890swelloverninetypercentof all peasantandwasheld in this

47. Semevskii,1: 121;Blum,LordandPeasant, 21;Juillard,71, 72-73; Wiessner,Beitrage,8;Saint-Jacob,5-36.48. K. Bucher, "Allmenden,"HandworterbucherStaatswissenschaftenJena, 1909), 1: 402,403;A. Meitzen,"Feldgemeinschaft,"bid., 4: 67; Wiessner,Beitrage, 8; W. Engels,Ablo:sungen nd Cemeinheitsteilungenn derRheinprovinzBonn, 1957), 24-26; H. D. Irvine, TheMaking)RuralEuropeLondon, 1923),48; Juillard,71; Laveleye,130-32.49.G. L. M. Clauson,Communal andTenure,FAO AgriculturalStudies, No. 170 (Rome,1953),2.50.Tschuprow,102, 80-81; W. Preyer,Dierussischegrarreformena, 1914), 16-17; Blum,LordndPeasant,524-25.


14/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGE AS COMMUNITY 169manner. t wasfarlesscommon nWhiteRussia ndtheUkraine, nd didnot exist at all in the Lithuanian nd Balticprovincesof the Empire.51Peasants n other partsof easternEuropealsoadoptedagrarian om-munism.Communitiesn manyareasof Hungary, n partsof Poland, neasternGalicia,n the plain andof Bukowina, nd in Moldavia sed thismethodof organizationntheeighteenth ndearlynineteenthenturies.52Nor wasit unknown n westernEurope.Villagers n districtsalong theMoselleRiverpracticedollective wnership nduse for several enturiesup into the nineteenthcentury.53Widespread grarian ommunism tillexisted n early wentieth-centurypain, n Leon, heAragonese lopesofthe Pyrenees,and in Estramadura.s4n Sardinia illagecommunesheldtheir land collectivelyuntil the mid-nineteenthenturywhenenclosurebegan.Until hattime ndividual ossession f landexistedonly nperiph-eralregionsof the islandthatwere firstpopulated n the seventeenth onineteenthcenturies.55n Corsica,oo, landwas heldcommunally.ndi-vidual andholdinghereestablishedtselfgradually,he processgoingonmost ntensivelyn theeighteenth nd firsthalfof thenineteenthenturies,and stillnotcompleten the 1960s.56In a formof tenuremidway etweenndividual ossession ndcollectivelandholding he landremainedundividednactuality,ut wasdividedab-stractlyntoshares.Eachmember f thecommune eceived ne ormoreoftheseabstracthareswhichgavehim theright to use a certainamountofvillage andequivalento hisabstracthare,butnot theright o usea spe-cific plot. Presumablyhe shareholders ll descendedfrom a commonancestorwho had establisheda patriarchalommune.Whenmemberswithdrewromthisoriginal ommune oset uptheirownhomesteadsheyreceivedanabstracthareof thecommunalandrather hanan actualpor-tion of thatland. The shareof eachclaimant,hen,correspondedo hismathematicalhareof thefamilypatrimony. hatmeant hatwide nequal-itiesexisted ntheidealsharesof eachcommunemember.Theshareholdercouldsell his abstracthares o his fellowvillagers, r to outsidersf thepurchaserreceivedthe approvalof the commune.Yet the individualpeasant ouldnot layclaim o a specificplot of land as his wn.57Landwasheld in thismanner nto theeighteenthandnineteenth en-turies in LittleRussia(Ukraine),northernRussia,amongGermanandBulgarian olonists n southernRussia,amongthe peasant-noblesodnod-51. Watters,146-47.52. Rosdolsky, 103; Revesz,20-22; K. Grunberg,"DiebauerlichenUnfreiheitsverhaltnisseund ihre Beseitigung in der Bukowina,"Studien urosterreichischengrargeschichteLeipzig,1901), 51-54; K. Taganyi,"GeschichtederFeldgemeinschaft n Ungarn,"Ungarische evue15 (1895): 107-21.53. Hanssen, 100.54. Leonhard,90.55. Le Lannou, 118-19, 162.56. Chiva, 103.57. I. V. Lutchitsky,"ZurGeschichteder Grundeigentumsformenn Kleinrussland,"Jahr-buchfurGesetzgebung,ensaltung, nd Volkswirtschaft0 (1896): 183-85, 187-88, 195; Blum,LordandPeasant,515.


15/23

170 AGRICULTURALHISTORYvortsi) in centralRussia,and in easternGalicia nd Poland.58n westernEurope t wasemployed n the communities long he Mosellen the Rhine-land, and up to the secondquarter f the nineteenth entury n Norway.59In Ireland, oo, before he seventeenth entury he rightsof eachmemberof the commune o land had been expressed n fractional orm and haddependedupon his genealogical osition n the family ine.60The entranceof strangers nto these communes hroughpurchase fabstract haresdiluted heir familial haracter.n northernRussiaand inPolandthe individual illagerby the end of the eighteenthcenturyhadgainedrecognition s permanent olderof a specific lotof plowland. hecommune'sitleto the arablevanished, hough he commune ontinuedtsmanagement f the pastures,meadows, isheries, nd otherresources tillheld in common.61Recordsof the actualtransformationf patriarchalamilysettlementsinto communeswith ideal sharesprovideevidenceof the familial riginsof these communes.62 houghsimilardocumentaryourcesare lacking, tseems ikely hat the persistencen manypartsof Europeof certainpriorrightsof kinsmen o propertyalso bearswitness o the familial riginsofcommunal rganizations.n these andsrelatives adfirst laim o purchaseinherited andoSered for saleby a relative.Moreover,f the landhadbeenbought by a person not a memberof the familyof the seller, kinsmenwithina degree of kinshipand withina periodof time set by local aw orcustom ouldbuyback he landat the price or which t hadbeensold.Theruledid not apply o landwhich he sellerhadhimselfpurchased.His kins-men had their specialclaimonly to land he had inherited; hat is, landwhichwasconsideredpartof the family's atrimony.This customprevailed n muchof France,where t datedat leastto thetenth centuryand continued n use up to the Revolution.63n Germany,too, the priorrightof kinsmen o buy land reached ar back n time, andbecamea widespreadpracticeduring the later centuriesof the MiddleAges.64 he peasants f the cantonof Vaud, n southwest witzerland,adthe right o buy backwithina year andalienated y a relative.65n Norwayand Sweden he customdated backto early timesand persisted nto thetwentieth entury, houghstatutes educedboth the circleof kinsmenwithpreemptive nd redemptive ightsand the periodwithinwhichalienated58. Lutchitsky, 168-70; Blum, Lord and Peasant, 515; Ministerstvo GosudarstvennykhImuchestv,Statisticheskiiobzor gosudarstsennykh muchestv za 1858 god (St. Petersburg, 1861),740; Tschuprow, 2-3; Rosdolsky,139-41; Revesz, 205.59. FIanssen,1: 100-02; Tschuprow,83-84.60. Flatres,"Paysages uraux,"611.61. Revesz, 205; Blum,Lord and Peasant, 515-16.62. Lutchitsky,179-80, 189.63. P. Ourliac, "Le retrait ignager dans le Sud-Ouestde la France,"Revue historiquede droitfranJcais tetranger4e. ser., 30 (1952): 330-34, 344-45, 349; G. Lizerand,"Apropos du remem-brement,"Etudes d'histoire urale(Paris, 1951), 163-64.64. A. Heusler,Institutionendes deutschenPrivatrechts Leipzig, 1885), 2: 60-62, 64.65. G. A. Chevallaz,Aspectsde l'agriculturevaudoise a la fin de l'ancien regime(Lausanne,1949),57-65.


16/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY 171land couldbe boughtback.66On the islandof Corsica elativeshadtherightof priorpurchase nd repurchaserom heend of thefifteenthotheendof thenineteenth entury.67n Bohemia,hewidow,he children, ndlaterthe grandchildrenf thealienator adthe right obuyback helandhe had sold.In Polanda muchwidercircleof kinsmen adthatprivilege.68In Hungaryandin Russiahepractice pplied o inheritedandownedbynobles and n Russiaocityproperty) utdid notextend o peasantand.69In England he rightof kinsmeno buy in land,although ommonn En-glishandIrishboroughsup to the endof theMiddleAges,70 idnotestab-lishitselfas a generalcustomout in the country.Often,however,estraintswereimposed n medieval imeson the alienation f peasantholdings ononfamilymembers.71

Communitiesn many andsperiodicallyedistributedll orpartof theirplowlandand meadowland. hey did thisto reduce, f not end, inequali-tiesamong he households f the commune,o control hetendencyowardsplintering f individualholdings hough nheritance f alienationindi-vidualpeasantholdingsoften hadtwentyor moreseparateparcels,andsomeas manyasone hundred, catteredhrough he fieldsof the village),to provideholdings or newcomers nd for newlywed ouples,and to as-surethe abilityof eachhousehold o meetits obligationso lord,church,andstate.The collective ommunalenuresocommonneasternEuropeent tselfespeciallywellto periodic epartitions.n Russia hepracticetartedn theearlyyearsof the sixteenth enturyshoughthe meagerdata ndicatehatin that centuryand the nextone redistributionsor purposeof equaliza-tionwereexceptional.n theeighteenth entury hey becamemuchmorefrequentand bythe middleof the nineteenth entury epartition adbe-cometherule among hecommunes f GreatRussia ndSiberia.72espiteclosesimilaritiesn conditionsn LittleRussiao those nGreatRussia, nddespite imilarpressuresromstateandseigneur,andequalizationhroughcommunalrepartitiondid not take root there.73Communitiesn otherpartsof easternEuropedid engagein thispractice. n thosevillagesofeasternGaliciaBukowina,Moldavia,ndHungarywherecommunal ol-66. M. Olsen, Farms and Fanes oJ Ancient Norway (Oslo: 1928), 30; M. Tcherkinsky,"TheEvolutionof the Systemof Succession o LandedProperty n Europe," nternationalnstituteof Economics,MonthlyBulletin of Agrac?lltural Cconomicsnd Soctology32 (1941):175; Beauchets129-30, 143, 143n.67. Chiva, 104.68. Revesz 204, 205.69. Blum, Nobte Landowners,64-66 and 65n; H. Klibanski,Handbuch des gesamterRussischenZivilrecAtsBerlin, 1911-1918), 2: 201.70. M. de W. Hemmeon, Burgage Tenure i7zMediaeval England (Cambridge,Mass., 1914),114-26.71. Homarls,195-98.72. B um Lord and Peasant, 510- 2 2.73. Ibid, 522; A. Leroy-Beaulieu,L'empiredes tsars et les russes(Paris,1883), 1:486.


17/23

172 ACRICULTURALHISTORYlective enureprevailed,helandupintothenineteenth enturywasredis-ributedperiodicallyo achieve quality mong hehouseholders.74nwesternEurope, oo,peasantsometimesesortedoperiodic eparti-ionof arable andto equalize heirholdings.The villagesn the Moselleegionwhichheldtheir andcollectivelyngaged n redistributionntotheineteenth entury.Onlythendid it begintodieout.75ntheearlystagesf open-fieldhusbandryn Denmarkperiodicredistributionsf stripseems o havebeengeneral,andaslateastheeighteenth enturythadnotntirely isappeared.76n Swedenpeasants eriodicallyedistributedom-onlyheld land. Landthatlay outsidethe fieldssubject o repartitionouldbe held permanently.Repartitionontinuedat least to the mid-ighteenthentury;a royaldecreeof 1743grantingpermissionor per-anent ivision f commonly eld andreferredoitsannual epartition.77npartsof Norwaycommonlyheld landwasrepartitioned eriodicallyntil royaldecreeof 1821forbade t as a hindranceo the progress fgriculture.he new law orderedthe permanentdivisionof this landmongtspossessorswithineightyears.78In Scotland groupof families,n someinstancesncludingasmanyaswentyeparatehouseholds, ftenrentedlandand held itjointly.Some-imesach familykept the same holding,but more often the memberamilieseriodically,nd often annually, edistributedhe stripsamonghemselvesccordingoanagreed-uponrrangement.ytheearlydecadesfhe nineteenth entury,however, he old arrangementsf groupten-ncyad givenwaynearlyeverywhereo the newfashion"where veryenantssetdownonhisown ot.'Still,aslateasthemiddleof thatcentury,eriodicepartitions adnot yetentirelyvanished romremotepartsofcotland.79n Irelanda writer n the 1830sreported hatvillages n theulleteninsulaf CountyMayo edistributedheir andby otevery hreeears.80n thirteenth-centuryardiniahevillagers elda lotteryatinter-alsf fromtwoto fiveyears o redistributeheir ieldsamong hemselves.heustomendedin theseventeenth enturywhenthe holdingsbecameheermanentpossessionof theiroccupants. n villagesof neighboringorsicannualredistributionf holdings ontinuedntotheearlyyearsofheresentcentury.81n the Austrianprovinces f Carinthia,CarniolaSyrol,ndVorarlberg anypeasantstillpracticed eriodic epartitionsfheirrable ields n thenineteenth entury.82n regionsof northern nd74.osdolsky, 103-6; Taganyi, 107-21.75.anssen, 1: 100; Below, 8, 14-15.76.. Thorpe, "The Influence of Inclosure on the Form and Patterns of Rural Settlementnenmark,"Transactionsf theInstituteJBritishGeographers,o. 17 (1951): 120.7.eauchet, 24.78.Meitzen,"Feldgemeinschaft," 67.79..E. Handley, Scottish armingn theEighteenth enturyLondon, 1953), 46, 48; M. Gray,Thebolition of Runrig in the Highlands of Scotland," Economic istoryReview, nd ser., 51952):6-48; idem, HighlandEconomy,9, 66-68; Gomme, 134, 140, 143.0.uotedn Flatres, Ce'ographieurale, 56.81.eLannou, 119; Chiva, 104n.82. .chiff, Osterreichsgrarpolitikeit derGrundentlastungTubingen, 1898), 1: 171-72.


18/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGEAS COMMUNITY 173northeastern painin the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesonly thepeasant's omeand vegetablegardenremainedn hispermanentposses-sion.The fieldswereredistributedylot atintervals f twoyearsormore.83In at leasttworecordednstances ommunitieseturned o periodic e-distribution fterabandoningt. The Rhineland illageof Losheimgaveup thepracticen 1655.Sixty-nine ears ater, n 1724,underthepressureof the excessiveparcelling f holdings hatresulted romindividual er-manentoccupancy,he villagersdecidedto restorethe old custom.84nFrenchSwitzerland herecommunallywned andhadlongbeenheldinpermanent ndividualpossession, he communeof Pully-Petitn 1826resurrectedheold practice ndordered edistributionf these andseveryfifteenyears.85Periodic edistributionseem o havebeencommon mongpeasantswhoemployed unrig,or infield-outfieldusbandry,nwhich heypermanentlyandcarefullyilled heinfield,and tilledpartof theoutfield ora fewyearsandthenabandonedt for anotherpartof theoutfield.The villagersdis-tributed he outfield andthey decidedto farmamongthemselvesor aspecificperiod.In HighlandScotland edistribution asoftendoneaneweachyear.86n SuttonColdfield,n the northwestornerof Warwickshire,untilthe earlypartof theeighteenth enturyone-acreoutfieldplotsweredistributed y lot for a five-year eriod.Afterfiveyears he landrevertedto wasteand the villagers hoseanother ectionof theoutfield or tillageandmadea newdistributionylot.87n the secondhalfof thenineteenthcenturymanyof thecommunesn theEifeldistrict, etweenheRhineandthe BelgianArdennes, tilldivideda sectionof theirwastebylottery achyear.Theytilled hesection ora year henallowedt toreturn ocommonpastureanddivideda newsectionbylot.88Oftenthestripsof the perma-nently illed nfieldremainednthepossessionf individual ouseholds, utsometimeshevillagersperiodicallyedistributedhis and,too.Invillagesin NorwayandIreland hiswasdoneuntilveryrecent imes.89The frequency f the redistributionf landin villagesusingotherfieldsystemsluctuatedwidely.Sometimesandwasrepartitionedachyear,andsometimesmanyyearspassedbeforethe villagersmadea newdivision.Manycommunes eemto havefavoreda cycleof threeyearsor a multipleof three yearsbecausethis correspondedo the triennialcycleof theirmethodof tillage.Partial edistributionsenton allthetime n Russia ndEasternGalicia andundoubtedlyn other landsthatpracticedperiodicrepartitions)o takecareof newlymarried oupleswhowanted oestablisha homestead ndto makeadjustmentsmongkinsmen.Usually he peas-83. A. Meitzen, Siedelungund AgrarwesenderWestgermanen,tc. (1895, reprinted Aalen,1963),3: 580; Herr, 103.84. Hanssen, 2: 28.85. Laveleye, 140-41.86. Handley, 48.87. M. W. Beresford, "Lot Acres," EconomicHistoryReview 13 (1943): 75.88. Laveleye, 92.89. Smith, 212- 13.


19/23

174 AGRICULTURALHISTORYant's house and garden and the small plot often attached to each cottagewas considered his private property and was not exchanged at the periodicredistributions, but in some places gardens and even house lots wereredistributed.90The actual task of repartition offered many difficulties and complica-tions. The arablehad to be split into holdings that were as nearly as possibleequal to each other in area, productivity,and accessibility.Often the vil-lagers drew lots to decide the allocationof strips, though sometimesvillageofficials made the distribution. In some places the villagers redistributedthe parcels according to a set rotation so that each household over a periodof time held every parcel.91Despite the efforts to achieve equality somepeasants nevitably ound themselves with land of inferior quality.As com-pensation they received larger holdings or were given cash compensations.Sometimes, as in the Austrian province of Carniola, he number of peopleentitled to receive holdings exceeded the amount of availablearable land.In such cases the villagersexcluded some of their fellows periodically romthe possession of holdings.92 n the infertile soil of northern Russia,wherethe household's tax burden was proportionate to the size of its holdings,the peasants tried to get as little land as they could at the periodic redis-tributions.93

The periodic repartition of meadows was practiced far more generallythan was the redistributionof the plowland. In many parts of Europe, in-cluding regions where the peasants had permanent holdings, the villagerseach year split up their meadows as haying time drew near. The portionallotted to each household was determined by a lottery (in at least one En-glish village it was deemed unseemly for the rector to draw a lot so he wasalways assigned the strip nearest the brook), or by a predetermined rota-tion of meadow plots. Sometimes the number of stripscorresponded to thenumber of households entitled to shares, and sometimesthe meadowsweresplit into many small pieces to ensure equality,so that the individualhouse-hold might have to mow its hay from as many as twentydifferent parcels.94In England the annual redistributionof meadowland continued in manyplaces into the nineteenth century, as it did in the Low Countries and Bo-hemia, and in other lands.95 n Sweden (and probablyelsewhere) the cus-tom persisted into the twentieth century and was still being practiced inplaces in that land in the 1930s.96

90. Hanssen, 1: 112;Rosdolsky,103-6,116-20; Watters,143;Semevskii,1: 103-4; Revesz,21.91. Rosdolsky, 109-15; Revesz, 21; Blum,Lord and Peasant, 526-27; Tschuprow, 52; Gray,Highlanzl Economy,19-20; Grunberg,52.92. Schiff, 1: 172.93. D. M. Wallace,Russia (New York, 1912), 136-37.94. Gomme, 165-66, 266-71; Schiff, 1: 173; Wallace,Russza, 136; Semevskii, 1: 106; Lut-chitsky, 191; Tschuprow, 52.95. Tate, 32-34; Schiff, 1: 173; Laveleye,93.96. Frodin, 52n.


20/23

THE EUROPEANVILLAGE AS COMMUNITY 175Signs of the disintegrationof the village commune had evidenced them-selves long before the institution becamean historicalanachronism.Com-

munal usages and communal discipline often fell into desuetude, andinroads of proprietors-noble, clerical,and in some lands bourgeois-onthe land and resourcesof the villageweakened the communalstructure.97The commune managed to survivethese blows. It could not withstandthedemands for improvementsin agriculturaltechniques which became thecommon coin of agriculturalreformers in the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies. Open fields, fallows, interminglingof parcels,compulsorycom-munal tillage, common pasture, and all the other trappingsof communallife and communal agriculture proved incompatible with the need for amore efficient and a more productive agriculture to feed Europe's fast-growing population. Improvementscould be introduced into the open-field method of tillage, but the way was not always easy. For example, ittook five years of unending argumentamong the sixty to eighty familiesofthe village of GreatTew, in Oxfordshire,before they could agree amongthemselves to change from a three-course to a nine-course rotation.98Individual actionwas more rapid and more efficientthancommunal action.Nor could communes withstandthe advances of rural industry, as theexperience of Saxonyshowed. Fromthe sixteenth centuryspinners, weav-ers, miners, and other industrialworkersmade up a steadilygrowing pro-portion of the population there. In 1550 they totalled 18 percent of therural population of Saxony, 38 percent in 1750, and 52 percent by 1843.These industrialworkers had little or no reason to concernthemselveswiththe problems and operations of agricultureor with the preservationof theold commune, particularlysince only peasants with holdings above a cer-tain size could participate n makingand enforcing the regulations whichcontrolled village life.99 Similarly,the growth of cottage industry in theSwisscanton of Zurich produced severe tensions there which, beginning inthe eighteenth centuryand taking on greater proportions n the nineteenth,led to the abolitionof old communalregulations and the division of com-munal property.100The improvement of agriculturewas associated-indeed, often identi-fied-almost everywhere with the consolidation of scattered strips intounified holdings, and the permanentdivision of commonland and, usually,its conversion into arable. Governmentsfrom the second half of the eigh-teenth century pursued policies to encourage, and even to order, these97. Cf. Saint-Jacob,89-92; R. Dion, Essai sur la formationdu paysage ural ransais (Tours,1934), 103-5; M. Bloch, "La lutte pour l'individualisme graire dans la France du XVIIIesiecle," Annalesd'histoireconomiquet sociale(1930): 333-36; J. Ruwet, L'agricult2lret lesclasses urales u Paysde Herve ous 'ancien egimeParisand Liege, 1943), 189-94, 200-12; K.Blaschke, "Vom Dorf zur Landgemeinde,"H. Haushofer and W. Boelcke,eds., WegeundForschungenerAgrargeschurAteFrankfurta. M., 1967), 233-36.98. Webb, 1: 79-80, 87-88.99. Blaschke,"VomDorf," 233-36.100. R. Braun, Industrialisierungnd VolkslebenZurich and Stuttgart,1960), 55, 180, 205.


21/23

176 AGRICULTURALHISTORYchanges.Thecollectiveonstraintspontheindividual ndcommunal is-ciplinewereseen as obstructionso the development f a moreefficientagriculture.n a few lands,andespeciallyn England, nclosurehadal-readymademuchprogressbythemiddleof theeighteenth entury.Fromthen on, consolidation f parcels,divisionof commons, he frequentre-movalof familiesromthevillage o farmsteadsaised nthemidstof theirnewlyconsolidated oldings,andtheconsequentweakening ndfinaldis-integration f thecommunebecamea generalEuropeanphenomenon.The processwentmuchmoreswiftlynsome ands han tdidinothers.In Englandandin Scotland,n Denmark ndin Sweden,nearlyallof thefarmlandhadbeenconsolidatedntocompactndividualarmsbythesec-ond halfof the nineteenth entury.Oldvillagesdisappearedr dwindledintoinsignificances their nhabitantsmoved otheirnewenclosed arms.Consolidationndthebreak-up f villagesproceededmostrapidlynDen-mark.Voluntary ffortsmadeduringthe eighteenth entury o end theexcessive arcellinghathinderedDanish griculturead ittleeffect.Thenin 1781theabsolutistegime ssueda well-draftedecreewhichmadecon-solidationasy,andwhich orbade heintroductionf openfieldson landnewly akenintocultivation nd its reintroductionn consolidatedand.By1830open-field arminghaddisappearedn Denmark.10l

Other ands aggedbehindBritain ndScandinaviantheprogressmadeinconsolidation.n themid-twentiethenturya surprisinglyargeamountoftheirfarmlandtill ayparcelled nddividedupamongpeasantpropri-etorsandrenters.102hesurvival f traditionalieldpatterns nd anduse,however,ndeveninsomeplaces hepersistencef thethree-fieldystem,didnot imply he preservationf thevillagecommune.During heeraoftheFrenchRevolutionhe brief-livedHelveticRepublicncorporatedil-lagecommunesn Switzerlandntonewandlargerpolitical istricts.103nGermanynd Austria he decreesof the firsthalfof thenineteenth en-turyreeing hepeasantryrom tsservile rsemi-serviletatus mphasizedindividualreedomand individualandholding.The lawsmadeno pro-visionor the continuationf thevillagecommuneandgave t no roleincarryinguttheoperations f theemancipation.104nAustriaherestoredabsolutistegime n itsreformof localgovernmentn 1849establishedewtownships hichcoincidedneither n areanor in residentswiththe oldvillageommunes.Thenew ocalunits ncludedeveral ommunities ithintheir oundaries, ndgaveequalrights o participaten localgovernmentto veryone,unlike heoldcommunesnwhichonlypeasantswithholdingsabove certainsize qualifiedas votingmembersof the communalas-101.Orwin, 124:Webb,1: 118-20; Gray "Abolition,"9-53; H. Gampert,DieFlurbereinig-ungim estlichenEuropaMunich,1955),46, 92, 94-95; Thorpe, 122;Froden,57.102.Cf. F. Dovring,LandandLaborn Europen theTwentieth enturyThe Hague, 1956),table , p. 40; Gamperl,32-36.103.Winkler,56.104.Blaschke,"Grundzuge,"284-87; G. Meyer,Die VerkoppelungmHerzogtumauenburgunterannoverschererrschaftHildesheim,1965),38, 107.


22/23

THE EUROPEAN VILLAGE AS COMMUNITY 177sembly.105he government f Saxonyhad introduced similar eform n1839 incorporatingillagecommunitiesnto new, arger ownships.106

In France he villagecommunewasattacked irstby the absolutist ov-ernmentand then by the revolutionaryegime.The statebeganto inter-vene in communalaSairs during the reign of Louis XIV as part of itsprogram o increase he powerof the central overnment.n 1787 he gov-ernment ssueda decreewhichended the democratic ontrolof the com-mune by its members.Hencefortha council,electedby limitedsuffrage,and drawn rom personswho paidat least hirty ivresa year n taxes,wasto runthe commune. n 1789 he revolutionaryovernment onfirmedhisreform.107 aterrevolutionaryegislation, uch as the outlawing f com-pulsionof an individualpeasantby the villagecommune o growcertaincrops,and the Revolution'smphasis pon ndividual ndexclusive wner-ship of property urtherweakened he commune, hough t managed osurviveon into the nineteenthcenturybefore it finallydisappeared.108In England he lord'scourt, in whichall the villagers ad participated,faded away lowly n properEnglish tyle.No statuteordered ts abolitionor lessened ts authority. nstead, he encroachmentsf the king's ourts,especially rom the seventeenth enturyon, reduced he judicial mpor-tanceof the lord's ourt,andenclosures rought bouta steadydiminutionin its business nd n its activities s administratorndmanager f the fieldsand pasturesof the village.Duringthe eighteenthcenturymanyof thefunctionsof the lord'scourtwere supersededby new statutory odies,orby justicesof the county,or by the parishvestry.Lord's ourtsstillsat inthe nineteenth entury,but theirnumberdeclineduntiltheybecame ocalcuriosities nd the delight of antiquaries.109he villageassemblies, oo,disentegrated ith he changes n the techniques f tillagewhich ndedtheopen fieldsand the need for close communal ooperation.1l0In contrast o this negativeattitude akenby westerngovernments,herulersof Russia trongly upported he village ommune.They recognizedits inefficiencies nd its retardative ffectsupon Russianagriculture, utthey believed hat the political tability f the empirerestedupon it. Theyviewed he land-equalizingommune s nsurance gainst ocialunrestandagainst he creationof a landlessproletariatwho might rise against heregime.The emancipationaw n 1861gavethe commune he centralposi-tion in the new peasantorder in those provinceswhereredistributionfland prevailed. t vestedownership f the land withthe commune ather105. J. Redlich, Das osterreichischetaats-und ReichsproblemLeipzig, 1920-1926), 1: 372-75;Feigl, 336.106. Blaschke,"Vom Dorf," 238.107. C. Parain, "Une vieille tradition democratique: es assemblees de communaute,"LaPensee.Revuedu rationalzsme oderne, o. 4 (1945): 47-48.108. Babeau, 29-30; Lizerand,Etudes, 5.109. Webb, 1: 118-20, 124; G. E. Fussell, VillageLife in theEighteenth enturyWorcester,1951), 20.110. Gomme, 232.


23/23

178 AGRICULTURALHISTORYthan the individual peasant, provided for the continuation of periodicrepartitions,and ordered the retention of communal rather than indi-vidualresponsibility or obligationsto the stateand redemptionpaymentsto the former proprietorof the land.1llThe governmentcontinued to rely upon the commune as the mainstayof ruralsocialand politicalstabilityuntil the earlytwentiethcentury.Thenpeasantunrestand attemptedrevolutionpersuadedthe regimeto abandonits commitmentto the preservationof communalorganization,and insteadfollow the policy of encouragement of individual farming that westernnations had long before adopted. The "Stolypinreforms' of 1906-1911allowed the peasant to claim his share of the communal land, withdrawfrom the commune, and set himself up as an independent farmeron hisown holding, with the government bearing many of the costs of the en-closure operation. By 1 January 1919, on the eve of the Revolution,9.5percent of all peasant land in European Russiahad been enclosed. Therate of withdrawal rom the commune ran much higher than the nationalaverage in those provinces which were the empire'schief producers formarket.1l2In 1906 Stolypinhad said, "In twenty years wewillnolongerspeakof the commune." 13 Though historydid not allowthe time neededto put his prophecy to the full test, the commune,while stilla vigorousin-stitution on the eve of the Revolution,had retreatedbefore the wave ofenclosuresand withdrawals.In western lands, despite the establishmentof individual ownership,communal practicesdid not vanish completely.In many places pastures,meadows,and forests still remaincommon property,with their use regu-latedby communalagreement.In partthese vestigesof communalismper-sistedbecauseof the difficulties nvolvedin prohibiting respasson privatelyownedpasture,the sometimesprohibitivecostsof enclosing,andthe illwillthat raising fences caused among neighbors.1l4And in a few places oldopen-field villages and compulsory tillage somehow managed to survivealmostunchanged into the twentiethcentury.1l5

111. A. Gerschenkron,"AgrarianPoliciesand Industrialization:Russia 1861-1917," Cam-bridgeEconomic History (Cambridge,1966), 6, pt. 2: 748-50; Blum, Lord and Peasant, 514,593-94,618-19.112. G. Pavlovsky,AgriculturalRussia on the Eve of theRevolution(reprint,New York, 1968),123,135-39.113.Quoted in Gaudemet,157.114.Clauson,11 and n.; F.Seebohm,"FrenchPeasantProprietorship nder the Open FieldSystem f Husbandry,"Economic ournal 1 (1891):61 62.115.G. Slater, The English Peasantryand the Enclosureof the CommonFields (London, 1907),19-20;S. Dahl,"StripFieldsand Enclosure n Sweden,"ScandinavianEconomicHistoryReview9(1961): 56; Orwin, 70-71; Leonhard,90; Chiva,"SocialOrganization,"106; G. P. Strod,"Perekhod t parovoi zemledeliiak plodosmena v Latviiv pervoi polovine XIX veka,"Ezhegodniko agrarnoiistoriivostochnoiEvropy,1958g., 45.

blum - the european village as community

Documents