71。Ibid。94：’Reginaldusfil。Benedictiinjustededicitesseunusde12juratoribusallegandolibertatem。DicunteciamquodWillelmusdeBernewellinjusteallegatlibertatempropterquamcontradicitesseunusdejuratis。’CfCor。RegeincertianniJohann。5：Predecessoressuietipsetenueruntliberumtcnementumetquodquidamexjuratissuntconsuetudinariimonialium。’Cor。
RegePascha，9Edw。I，34，b：’(Amerciamentumsochemanni)perparesvelperliberosdecuriaetvicinosadcuriamvenientes。’
HerefordRolls(Bodleian)，12：’Compertumperliberetenentesquodcustumariifalsopresentant。ideocustumariiinmisericordia。’Rot。Hundr。ii。469：’Quatuorhominesetpreposituspresentabantdefaltaspredictisliberishominibusetipsiliberipresentabantballivis。’
AverygoodcaseinpointispresentedbyHitchin，becausetheboundariesandthejurisdictionofthemanorcompriseagreatnumberofvillagesandhamletswhichmanagedtheiropenfieldsquiteindependentlyofthecentraltownshipofHitchin，andcouldnotbutdoso，astheylayquiteapartandagoodwayfromit，asmaybeseenontheOrdnanceMap。Andstillthemanorcomprises，thetownshipofHitchinandthehamletofWalsworth，thelessermanorsoftheRectoryofHitchin，ofMoremead，otherwiseCharlton，andofthePrioryoftheBiggin，beingcomprehendedwithintheboundariesofthesaidmanorofHitchin，whichalsoextendsintothehamletsofLangleyandPrestoninthesaidparishofHitchin，andintotheparishesofIckleford，Ipolitts，Kimpton，Kingswalden，andOffley。’(Seebohm，VillageCommunity，443，444：)AsMrSeebohmtellsme，thecon。trastbetweenthecentralportion，thatofthetownship，managedinoneopenfieldsystem，andtheoutlyingparts，isprobablyreflectedinthecuriousdenominationsofthemanorasPortmanandForeign。Itiswellknownhowfrequentlyoursurveysmentionhamlets；inmanycasestheseannexesoftownshipsarcsowidelyscattered，thatitwouldbeimpossibletosupposeoneopenfieldsystemforthem。
TheManorandtheVillageCommunityConclusionsIfwelookatthevillagelifeofmediaevalEngland，notforthepurposeofdissectingitintoitsconstitutiveelements，butinorderthatwemaydetecttheprinciplesthatholdittogetherandorganiseitasawhole，weshallbestruckbyseveralfeatureswhichmakeitquiteunlikethepresentarrangementofruralsociety。Evenacasualobserverwillnotfailtoperceivethecontrastwhichitpresentstothatfreeplayofindividualinterestsandthatundisputedsupremacyofthestateinpoliticalmatters，whicharesocharacteristicofthepresenttime。Andontheotherhandthereisjustassharpacontrastbetweenthemanorialsystemandasystemoftribalrelationshipsbasedonbloodrelationshipanditsartificialoutgrowths；andyetagainitmaybecontrastedwithavillagecommunitybuiltuponthebasisofequalpartnershipamongfreemembers。Itisevident，atthesametime，thatsuchdifferences，deepthoughtheyare，cannotbetreatedasprimordialandabsolutedivisions。Allthesesystemsarebutstagesofdevelopment，afterall，andthemostimportantproblemconcerningthemistheproblemoftheiroriginsandmutualrelations。Themainroadtowardsitssolutionliesundoubtedlythroughthedemesneofstrictlyhistoricalinvestigation。Shouldwesucceedintracingwithclearnesstheconsecutivestagesoftheprocessandtheintermediatelinksbetweenthem，themostimportantpartoftheworkwillhavebeendone。Thisissimpleenough，andseemshardlyworthmentioning。
Butthingsarenotsoplainastheylook。
Tobeginwith，evenacompleteknowledgeofthesequenceofeventswouldnotbesufficientsinceitwouldmerelypresentaseriesofarrangementsfollowinguponeachotherintimeandnotachainofcausesandeffects。Wecannotexemptourselvesfromthedutyoffollowinguptheinvestigationbyspeculationsastotheagenciesandmotiveswhichproducedthechanges。Butevenapartfromthenecessityoftakingupultimatelywhatonemaycallthedynamicthreadoftheinquiry，thereisconsiderabledifficulty。Inobtainingatolerablysettledsequenceofgeneralfactstostartwith。Anyonewhohashadtodowithsuchstudiesknowshowscantytheinformationabouttheearlierphenomenaisapttobe，howdifficultitistodistinguishbetweenthemainformsandthevariationswhichmediateandleadfromonetoanother。Thetaskofsettlingadefinitetheoryofdevelopmentwouldnothavebeensoarduous，andtheconflictingviewsofscholarswouldnothavesuggestedsuchdirectlyoppositeresults，iftheearlydatahadnotbeensoscatteredandsoambiguous。Thestateoftheexistingmaterialrequiresamethodoftreatmentwhichmaytosomeextentsupplementthedefectsintheevidence。
Thelaterandwell-recordedperiodoughttobemadetosupplyadditionalinformationastotheearlierandimperfectlydescribedones。Itisfromthispointofviewthatwemustoncemoresurveythegroundthatwehavebeenexploringintheforegoingpages。
Thefirstgeneralfeaturethatmeetsoureyeisthecultivationofarableontheopen-fieldsystem：thelandtilledisnotparcelledupbyenclosures，butliesopenthroughthewholeorthegreaterpartoftheyear；theplotheldandtilledbyasinglecultivatorisnotacompactpiece，butiscomposedofstripsstrewnaboutinallpartsofthevillagefieldsandintermixedwithpatchesorstripspossessedbyfellowvillagers。
Now，bothfactsareremarkable。Theydonotsquareatallwiththerulesandtendenciesofprivateownershipandindividualistichusbandry。Theindividualproprietorwillnaturallytrytofenceinhisplotagainststrangers，tosetuphedgesandwallsthatwouldrendertrespassingoverhisgrounddifficult，ifnotimpossible。Andhecouldnotbutconsiderintermixtureasadownrightnuisance，andstrivebyallmeansinhispowertogetridofit。Whyshouldheputupwiththeinconvenienceofholdingabundleofstripslyingfarapartfromeachother，moreorlessdependentbecauseoftheirnarrownessonthedealingsofneighbours，whomaybeuntidyandunthrifty？Insteadofhavingoneblockofsoiltolooktoandacomparativelyshortboundarytomaintain，everyoccupierhasanumberofscatteredpiecestocarefor，andneighbours，whonotonlysurround，butactuallycutup，dismember，invadehistenement。Theopen-fieldsystemstandsinglaringcontradictionwiththepresentstateofprivaterightsinWesternEurope，andnowonderthatithasbeenabolishedeverywhere，exceptonsomefewtractsoflandkeptbackbygeographicalconditionsfromjoiningthemovementofmoderncivilisation。Andeveninmediaevalhistoryweperceivethatthearrangementdoesnotkeepitsholdonthoseoccasionswhentherightsofindividuals。arestronglyfelt：itgiveswayonthedemesnefarmandonnewlyreclaimedland。
Atthesametime，theabsenceofperpetualenclosuresandtheintermixtureofstripsareinageneralwayquiteprevalentatthepresenttimeintheEastofEurope。Whatconditionsdotheycorrespondto？Whyhavenationslivinginverydifferentclimatesandonverydifferentsoilsadoptedtheopen-fieldsystemagainandagaininspiteofallinconveniencesandwithouthavingborroweditfromeachother？
Thereisabsolutelynothinginthemanorialarrangementtooccasionthiscurioussystem。Itisnotthefactthatpeasantholdingsaremadesubservienttothewantsofthelord’sestate，thatcanexplainwhyearlyagricultureisinthemainacultureofopenfieldsandinvolvesamarvellousintermixtureofrights。
Theabsenceofanylogicalconnexionbetweenthesetwothingssettlesthequestionastohistoricalinfluence。Theopen-fieldarrangementis，Irepeatit，nolaxorindifferentsystem，butstringentandhighlypeculiar。Andsoitcannotbutproceedfromsomepressingnecessity。
Itisevidentlycommunalinitsveryessence。Everytraitthatmakesitstrangeandinconvenientfromthepointofviewofindividualisticinterests，rendersithighlyappropriatetoastateofthingsruledbycommunalconceptions。Itisdifficulttopreventtrespassesuponanopenplot，buttheplotmustbeopen，ifmanypeoplebesidesthetillerhaverightsoverit，pasturerights，forinstance。Itinvolvesgreatlossoftimeanddifficultyofsupervisiontoworkapropertythatliesinthirtyseparatepiecesallovertheterritoryofavillage，butsuchadispositionisremarkablywelladaptedforthepurposeofassigningtofellowvillagersequalsharesinthearable。Itisgrievoustodependonyourneighboursfortheproceedsandresultsofyourownwork，butthetangledwebofrightsandboundariesbecomessimpleifoneconsidersitasthemanagementoflandbyanagriculturalcommunitywhichhasallottedtheplaceswhereitsmembershavetowork。Rightsofcommonusage，communalapportionmentofsharesinthearable，communalarrangementofwaysandtimesofcultivation——thesearethechieffeaturesofopen-fieldhusbandry，andallpointtoonesource——thevillagecommunity。Itisnotamanorialarrangement，thoughitmaybeadaptedtothemanor。Ifmoreproofwereneededwehaveonlytonoticethefact，thatopen-fieldcultivationisinfullworkincountrieswherethemanorhasnotbeenestablished，andintimeswhenithasnotasyetbeenformed。WemaytakeIndiaortribalitalyasinstances。
ThesystemasexhibitedinEnglandislinkedtoadivisionintoholdingswhichgivesitadditionalsignificance。TheholdingoftheEnglishpeasantisdistinguishedbytwocharacteristicfeatures：itisaunitwhichasaruledoesnotadmitofdivision；itisequaltootherunitsinthesamevillage。Thereisnoneedtopointoutatlengthtowhatextentthesefeaturesarerepugnanttoanindividualisticorderofthings。Theybelongtoaruralcommunity。Buteveninacommunitythearrangementadoptedseemspeculiar。Wemustnotdisregardsomeimportantcontradictions。Theholdingsarenotallequal，butaregroupedonascaleofthree，four，fivedivisions——virgates，bovates，andcotlandsforinstance。Andthequestionmaybeput：whyshouldanartificialarrangementcontrivedforthesakeofequalitystartfromaflagrantinequalitywhichlooksthemoreunjust，becauseinsteadofthoseintermediatequantitieswhichshadeoffintoeachotherinourmodernsocietywemeetwithabrupttransitions？Aseconddifficultymaybefoundintheunchangeablenatureoftheholding。Theequalvirgatesareinfactanobstacletoaproportionaterepartitionofthelandamongthepopulation，becausethereisnothingtoinsurethatthedifferencesofgrowthandrequirementsarisingbetweendifferentfamilieswillkeepsquarewiththerelationsoftheholdings。Inonecasethefamilyplotmaybecometoolarge，inanothertooscantyanallowanceforthepeasanthouseholdworkingandfeedingonthatplot。Andultimately，aswehaveseen，theindivisiblenatureoftheholdinglookstosomeextentlikeanartificialone，andonethatismoreapparentthanreal。Nottospeakofthatprovincialvariation，theKentishsystemofgavelkind，wenoticethatevenintherestofEnglandlargeunitsarebreakingintofractions，andthatveryoftenthesupposedunityisonlyathincoveringformaterialdivision。Whyshoulditbekeptupthen？
Suchseriouscontradictionsandincongruitiesleadusforciblytotheconclusionthatwehaveastateoftransitionbeforeus，aninstitutionthatisinsomedegreedistortedandwarpedfromitsoriginalshape。Inthisrespectthemanorialelementcomesstronglytothefore。Theroughscaleofholdingswouldbegrosslyagainstjusticeforpurelycommunalpurposes，butitisnotonlytheoccupationofland，butalsotheincidenceofservicesthatisregulatedbyit。Peoplewouldnotsomuchcomplainofholdingfiveacresinsteadofthirty，iftheyhadtoworkandtopaysixtimeslessinthefirstcase。Again，adivisionoftenementsfixedonceandforallinspiteofchangesinthenumbersandwantsofthepopulation，looksanythingbutconvenient。Atthesametimethefixedschemeofthedivisionoffersareadybasisforcomputingrentsandassessinglabourservices。Andforthesakeofthelorditwasadvisabletopreserveoutwardunityevenwhenthesystemwasactuallybreakingup：fordealingswiththemanorialadministrationvirgatesremainedundivided，evenwhentheywerenolongeroccupiedasintegralunits。
