Butthenewimpetusgiventoresearchhascauseditsoriginatorstooverleapthemselves，asitwere。Theyhaveoccupiedsoexclusivelythepointofviewwhencethemanorofthelatermiddleagesisvisiblethattheyhavedisregardedtheevidencewhichcomesfromotherquartersinsteadoffindinganexplanationwhichwillsatisfyallthefacts。Theinvestigation’fromtheknowntotheunknown’hasitsdefinitedanger，againstwhichonehastobeconstantlyonone’sguard：itsobviousdangeristodestroyperspectiveandignoredevelopmentbycarryingintothe’unknown’ofearlytimesthatwhichisknownoflaterconditions。Altogethertheattempttooverthrowsomeoftheestablishedresultsofinvestigationastoraceandclassesdoesnotseemtobeahappyone。Andso，althoughgreatworkhasbeendoneinourfieldofstudy，itcannotbesaidthatithasbeenbroughttoaclose——’bisandieSterneweit。’Manythingsremaintobedone，andsomeproblemsareespeciallypressing。Thelegalandtheeconomicalsideoftheinquirymustbeworkeduptothesamelevel；manorialdocumentsmustbeexaminedsystematically，ifnotexhaustively，andtheirmaterialmadetofitwiththeevidenceestablishedfromothersourcesofinformation；thewholefieldhastobegoneoverwithaneyeforproofandnotfordoctrine。Areviewoftheworkalreadydone，andofthenamesofscholarsengagedinit，iscertainlyanincitementtomodestyforeverynewreaperinthefield，butitisalsoasourceofhope。Itshowsthatschoolsandleadingscholarsdisplaceoneanothermoreundertheinfluenceofgeneralcurrentsofthoughtthanofindividualtalent。Thefermenttowardstheformationofgroupscomesfromtheoutside，fromthemodernlifewhichsurroundsresearch，formsthescholar，suggestssolutions。Moreover，theoreticaldevelopmenthasacontinuityofitsown；allthestrengthofthismanifoldlifecannotbreakorturnbackitscourse，butisreducedtodriveitforwardinevernewbendsandcurves。Thepresenttimeisespeciallypropitioustoourstudy：onefeels，asitwere，thatitisripeningtofar-reachingconclusions。SomuchhasbeendonealreadyforthisfieldofenquiryinthedifferentcountriesofEurope，thatthehopetoseeinourageageneraltreatmentofthesocialoriginsofWesternEuropewillnotseemanextravagantone。Andsuchatreatmentmustformasitwerethecorner-stoneofanyattempttotracethelawofdevelopmentofhumansociety。Itisinthisconsciousnessofbeingbornebyamightygeneralcurrent，thatthesinglescholarmaygatherhopethatmaybuoyhimagainsttheinsignificanceofhisforcesandthedrudgeryofhiswork。
VillainageinEngland：EssaysinEnglishMediaevalHistorybyPaulVinogradoff1892
FirstEssayThePeasantryoftheFeudalAge。
ChapterOneTheLegalAspectofVillainage。GeneralConceptionsIthasbecomeacommonplacetoopposemedievalserfdomtoancientslavery，oneimplyingdependenceonthelordofthesoilandattachmenttotheglebe，theotherbeingbasedoncompletesubjectiontoanowner。Thereisnodoubtthatgreatlandmarksinthecourseofsocialdevelopmentaresetbythethreemodeshithertoemployedoforganisinghumanlabour：usingtheworkingman1asachattelatwill，2asasubordinatewhosedutiesarefixedbycustom，3asafreeagentboundbycontract。Theselandmarksprobablyindicatemolecularchangesinthestructureofsocietyscarcelylessimportantthanthosepoliticalandintellectualrevolutionswhichareusuallytakenastheturning-pointsofancient，medieval，andmodernhistory。
Andstillwemustnotforget，indrawingsuchdefinitions，thatwereachthemonlybylookingatthingsfromsuchaheightthatalllesserinequalitiesandaccidentalfeaturesofthesoilarenolongersensibletotheeyesight。Infindingone’swayoverthelandonemustneedsgoovertheseveryinequalitiesandtakeintoaccounttheseveryfeatures。If，fromageneralsurveyofmedievalservitude，weturntotheactualconditionoftheEnglishpeasantry，sayinthethirteenthcentury，thefirstfactwehavetomeetwillstandinverymarkedcontrasttoourgeneralproposition。
Themajorityofthepeasantsarevillains，andthelegalconceptionofvillainagehasitsrootsnotintheconnexionofthevillainwiththesoil，butinhispersonaldependenceonthelord。
Ifthisisafact，itisamostimportantone。Itwouldberecklesstotreatitasaproductofmerelegalpedantry。*ThegreatworkachievedbytheEnglishlawyersofthetwelfthandthirteenthcenturieswaspromptedbyaspiritwhichhadnothingtodowithpedantry。Theywerefashioningstateandsociety，proudlyconsciousofhighaimsandpower，enlightenedbythescholastictrainingoftheirday，butsufficientlystrongtouseitfortheirownpurposes；soundenoughnottoindulgeinmereabstractions，andfirmenoughnottosurrendertomeretechnicalities。*InthetreatmentofquestionsofstatusandtenurebythelawyersofHenryII，HenryIII，andEdwardI，wemustrecogniseamightyinfluencewhichwasbroughttobearontheactualconditionofthings，andourrecordsshowusoneverythatthistreatmentwasbynomeansamatterofmeretheory。
Indeedoneofthebestmeansthatwehaveforestimatingthesocialprocessofthosetimesisaffordedbytheformationandthebreakupoflegalnotionsintheircrossinfluenceswithsurroundingpoliticalandeconomicfacts。
AstothegeneralaspectofvillainageinthelegaltheoryofEnglishfeudalismtherecanbenodoubt。The’DialogusdeScaccario’givesitinafewwords：thelordsareownersnotonlyofthechattelsbutofthebodiesoftheirascripticii，theymaytransferthemwherevertheyplease，’andsellorotherwisealienatethemiftheylike。’*GlanvilleandBracton，FletaandBritton*followinsubstancethesamedoctrine，althoughtheyusedifferentterms。TheyappropriatetheRomanviewthatthereisnodifferenceofqualitybetweenserfsandserfs：allareinthesameabjectstate。Legaltheorykeepsaveryfirmgraspofthedistinctionbetweenstatusandtenure，betweenavillainandafreemanholdinginvillainage，butitdoesnotadmitofanydistinctionofstatusamongserfs：servus，villanus，andnativusareequivalenttermsastopersonalcondition，althoughthislastisprimarilymeanttoindicatesomethingelsebesidescondition，namely，thefactthatapersonhascometoitbybirth。*Thecloseconnexionbetweenthetermsiswellillustratedbytheearlyuseofnativa，nieve，’asafemininetovillanus。’
Thesenotionsarebynomeansabstractionsbereftofpracticalimport。Quiteinkeepingwiththem，manoriallordscouldremovepeasantsfromtheirholdingsattheirwillandpleasure。Anappealtothecourtswasofnoavail：thelordinreplyhadonlytoopposehisrightovertheplaintiff’sperson，andtorefusetogointothesubject-matterofthecase。*Norcouldthevillainhaveanyhelpastotheamountandthenatureofhisservices；*theKing’sCourtswillnotexamineanycomplaintinthisrespect，andmaysometimesgosofarastoexplainthatitisnobusinessoftheirstointerferebetweenthelordandhisman。*Infactanyattemptonthepartofthedependanttoassertcivilrightsastohismasterwillbemetanddefeatedbythe’exceptiovillenagii。’*Thestaterefusestoregulatethepositionofthisclassontheland，andthereforetherecanbenoquestionaboutanylegal’ascription’tothesoil。Evenastohisperson，thevillainwasliabletobepunishedandputintoprisonbythelord，ifthepunishmentinflicteddidnotamounttolossoflifeorinjurytohisbodyTheextantPleaRollsandotherjudicialrecordsarefullofallusionstoalltheserightsofthelordanddisabilitiesofthevillain，anditmustbetakenintoaccountthatonlyaninfinitelysmallpartoftheactualcasescanhaveleftanytraceinsuchrecords，asitwasalmosthopelesstobringthemtothenoticeoftheRoyalCourts。*
ItisnotstrangethatinviewofsuchdisabilitiesBractonthoughthimselfentitledtoassumeequalityofconditionbetweentheEnglishvillainandtheRomanslave，andtousethetermsservus，villanus，andnativusindiscriminately。ThecharacteristicsofslaveryarecopiedbyhimfromAzo’scommentaryontheinstitutes，asmaterialforadescriptionoftheEnglishbondmen，andhedistinguishesthemcarefullyevenfromtheRomanadscripticiiorcoloniofbasecondition。Thevillainsareprotectedinsomemeasureagainsttheirlordincriminallaw；theycannotbeslainormaimedatpleasure；butsuchprotectionisalsoaffordedtoslavesinthelaterlawoftheEmpire，andinfactitisbasedinBractononthetextoftheInstitutesgivenbyAzo，whichinitsturnissimplyasummaryofenactmentsmadebyHadrianandAntonine。TheminorlawbooksofthethirteenthcenturyfollowBractoninthisidentificationofvillainagewithslavery。Althoughthisidentificationcouldnotbutexerciseadecisiveinfluenceonthetheoryofthesubject，itmustbeborneinmindthatitdidnotoriginateinawantonattempttobringtogetherinthebooksdissimilarfactsfromdissimilarages。Onthecontrary，itcameintothebooksbecausepracticehadpavedthewayforit。BractonwasenabledtostateitbecausehedidnotseemuchdifferencebetweenthedefinitionsofAzoandtheprinciplesofCommonLaw，astheyhadbeenestablishedbyhismastersMartinofPateshullandWilliamRaleigh。Hewaswrong，aswillbeshownby-and-by，butcertainlyhehadfactstoleanupon，andhistheorycannotbedismissedonthegroundofhishavingsimplycopieditfromaforeigner’streatise。
Mostmodernwritersonthesubjecthavelaidstressuponadifferencebetweenvillainsregardantandvillainsingross，saidtobefoundinthelawbooks。*Ithasbeentakentodenotetwodegreesofservitude——thepredialdependenceofacolonusandthepersonaldependenceofatrueslave。Thevillainregardantwasitissaidavillainwholabouredunderdisabilitiesinrelationtohislordonly，thevillainingrosspossessednoneofthequalitiesofafreeman。Onesub-divisionwouldillustratethedebasementoffreemenwhohadlosttheirownland，whiletheotherwouldpresentthesurvivalofancientslavery。
InoppositiontothesenotionsIcannothelpthinkingthatHallamwasquiterightinsaying：’Intheconditionofthesevillainsregardantandvillainsingross，whateverhasbeensaidbysomewriters，Icanfindnomannerofdifference；thedistinctionwasmerelytechnical，andaffectedonlythemodeofpleading。Thetermingrossisappropriatedinourlegallanguagetopropertyheldabsolutelyandwithoutreferencetoanyother。
Thusitisappliedtorightsofadvowsonorofcommon，whenpossessedsimply，andnotasincidenttoanyparticularlands。
Andtherecanbenodoubtthatitwasusedinthesamesenseforthepossessionofavillein。’MiddleAges，iii。173；cf。noteXIV。Hallam’sstatementdidnotcarryconvictionwithithowever，andasthequestionisofconsiderableimportanceinitselfanditsdiscussionwillincidentallyhelptobringoutoneofthechiefpointsaboutvillainage，Imaybeallowedtogointoitatsomelength。
Matterswouldbegreatlysimplifiedifthedistinctioncouldreallybetracedthroughtheauthorities。Inpointoffactitturnsouttobealateone。WemaystartfromCokeintracingbackitshistory。HiscommentaryuponLittletoncertainlyhasapassagewhichshowsthathecameacrossopinionsimplyingadifferenceofstatusbetweenvillainsregardantandvillainsingross。Hespeaksoftherightofthevillaintopursueeverykindofactionagainsteverypersonexcepthislord，andadds：’thereisnodiversityherein，whetherhebeavillainregardantoringross，althoughsomehavesaidtothecontrary，*Co。Lit。123
b。Littletonhimselftreatsofthetermsinseveralsections，anditisclearthathenevertakesthemtoindicatestatusordefinevariationofcondition。AshasbeenpointedoutbyHallam，heusesthemonlyinconnexionwithadiversityintitle，andaconsequentdiversityinthemodeofpleading。Ifthelordhasadeedorarecordedconfessiontoproveaman’sbondage，hemayimpleadhimashisvillainingross；ifthelordhastorelyuponprescription，hehastopointoutthemanortowhichthepartyandhisancestorshavebeenregardant，havebelonged，timeoutofmind。*Asitisaquestionoftitleandnotofcondition，Littletoncurrentlyusesthemere’villain’withoutanyqualification，whereassuchaqualificationcouldnotbedispensedwith，iftherehadbeenreallytwodifferentclassesofvillains。Lastbutnotleast，anythoughtofadiversityofconditionisprecludedbythefact，thatLittletonassumesthetransferfromonesub-divisiontotheothertodependentirelyonthefreewillofthelordsections175，181，182，185。Butstill，althoughevenLittletondoesnotcountenancetheclassificationIamnowanalysing，itseemstomethatsomeofhisremarksmayhavegivenorigintotheprevalentmisconceptiononthesubject。
LetustakeuptheYearBooks，which，evenintheirpresentstate，affordsuchaninestimablesourceofinformationforthehistoryoflegalconceptionsinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies。AnexaminationofthereportsintheageoftheEdwardswillshowatoncethatthetermsregardantandingrossareused，orrathercomeintouse，inthefourteenthcenturyasdefinitionsofthemodeofpleadinginparticularcases。Theyaresuggestedbydifferenceintitle，buttheydonotcoincidewithit，andanyattempttomakethemcoincidemustcertainlyleadtomisapprehension。Imeanthistheterm’villainregardant’appliedtoamandoesnotimplythatthepersoninquestionhasanystatussuperiortothatofthe’villainingross，’anditdoesnotimplythatthelordhasacquiredatitletohimbysomeparticularmodeofacquisition，e。g。byprescriptionascontrastedwithgrantorconfession；itsimplyimpliesthatforthepurposeofthemattertheninhand，forthepurposeofthecasethatisthenbeingargued，thelordisassertingandhopingtoproveatitletothevillainbyrelyingonatitletoamanorwithwhichthevillainisorhasbeenconnected-titleitmustberememberedisonething，proofoftitleisanother。Asthecontrastisbasedonpleadingandnotontitle，oneandthesamepersonmaybetakenanddescribedinonecaseasavillainregardanttoamanor，andinanotherasavillainingross。Andnowfortheproof。