what is property- 第79部分

〃The　Barbarians；〃　again　says　M。　Laboulaye；　〃were　the　first　to　recognize　the　slave's　rights　of　family　and　property；two　rights　which　are　incompatible　with　slavery。〃


But　was　this　recognition　the　necessary　result　of　the　mode　of　servitude　in　vogue　among　the　Germanic　nations　previous　to　their　conversion　to　Christianity；　or　was　it　the　immediate　effect　of　that　spirit　of　justice　infused　with　religion；　by　which　the　seignior　was　forced　to　respect　in　the　serf　a　soul　equal　to　his　own；　a　brother　in　Jesus　Christ；　purified　by　the　same　baptism；　and　redeemed　by　the　same　sacrifice　of　the　Son　of　God　in　the　form　of　man？　　For　we　must　not　close　our　eyes　to　the　fact　that；　though　the　Barbarian　morals　and　the　ignorance　and　carelessness　of　the　seigniors；　who　busied　themselves　mainly　with　wars　and　battles；　paying　little　or　no　attention　to　agriculture；　may　have　been　great　aids　in　the　emancipation　of　the　serfs；　still　the　vital　principle　of　this　emancipation　was　essentially　Christian。　　Suppose　that　the　Barbarians　had　remained　Pagans　in　the　midst　of　a　Pagan　world。　　As　they　did　not　change　the　Gospel；　so　they　would　not　have　changed　the　polytheistic　customs；　slavery　would　have　remained　what　it　was；　they　would　have　continued　to　kill　the　slaves　who　were　desirous　of　liberty；　family；　and　property；　whole　nations　would　have　been　reduced　to　the　condition　of　Helots；　nothing　would　have　changed　upon　the　terrestrial　stage；　except　the　actors。　　The　Barbarians　were　less　selfish；　less　imperious；　less　dissolute；　and　less　cruel　than　the　Romans。　　Such　was　the　nature　upon　which；　after　the　fall　of　the　empire　and　the　renovation　of　society；　Christianity　was　to　act。　　But　this　nature；　grounded　as　in　former　times　upon　slavery　and　war；　would；　by　its　own　energy；　have　produced　nothing　but　war　and　slavery。


〃GRADUALLY　the　serfs　obtained　the　privilege　of　being　judged　by　the　same　standard　as　their　masters。　。　。　。〃


When；　how；　and　by　what　title　did　they　obtain　this　privilege？


GRADUALLY　their　duties　were　regulated。〃


Whence　came　the　regulations？　　Who　had　the　authority　to　introduce　them？


〃The　master　took　a　part　of　the　labor　of　the　serf；three　days；　for　instance；and　left　the　rest　to　him。　　As　for　Sunday；　that　belonged　to　God。〃


And　what　established　Sunday；　if　not　religion？　　Whence　I　infer；　that　the　same　power　which　took　it　upon　itself　to　suspend　hostilities　and　to　lighten　the　duties　of　the　serf　was　also　that　which　regulated　the　judiciary　and　created　a　sort　of　law　for　the　slave。

But　this　law　itself；　on　what　did　it　bear？what　was　its　principle？what　was　the　philosophy　of　the　councils　and　popes　with　reference　to　this　matter？　　The　reply　to　all　these　questions；　coming　from　me　alone；　would　be　distrusted。　　The　authority　of　M。　Laboulaye　shall　give　credence　to　my　words。　　This　holy　philosophy；　to　which　the　slaves　were　indebted　for　every　thing；　this　invocation　of　the　Gospel；　was　an　anathema　against　property。

The　proprietors　of　small　freeholds；　that　is；　the　freemen　of　the　middle　class；　had　fallen；　in　consequence　of　the　tyranny　of　the　nobles；　into　a　worse　condition　than　that　of　the　tenants　and　serfs。　　〃The　expenses　of　war　weighed　less　heavily　upon　the　serf　than　upon　the　freeman；　and；　as　for　legal　protection；　the　seigniorial　court；　where　the　serf　was　judged　by　his　peers；　was　far　preferable　to　the　cantonal　assembly。　　It　was　better　to　have　a　noble　for　a　seignior　than　for　a　judge。〃

So　it　is　better　to…day　to　have　a　man　of　large　capital　for　an　associate　than　for　a　rival。　　The　honest　tenantthe　laborer　who　earns　weekly　a　moderate　but　constant　salaryis　more　to　be　envied　than　the　independent　but　small　farmer；　or　the　poor　licensed　mechanic。

At　that　time；　all　were　either　seigniors　or　serfs；　oppressors　or　oppressed。　　〃Then；　under　the　protection　of　convents；　or　of　the　seigniorial　turret；　new　societies　were　formed；　which　silently　spread　over　the　soil　made　fertile　by　their　hands；　and　which　derived　their　power　from　the　annihilation　of　the　free　classes　whom　they　enlisted　in　their　behalf。　　As　tenants；　these　men　acquired；　from　generation　to　generation；　sacred　rights　over　the　soil　which　they　cultivated　in　the　interest　of　lazy　and　pillaging　masters。　　As　fast　as　the　social　tempest　abated；　it　became　necessary　to　respect　the　union　and　heritage　of　these　villeins；　who　by　their　labor　had　truly　prescribed　the　soil　for　their　own　profit。〃

I　ask　how　prescription　could　take　effect　where　a　contrary　title　and　possession　already　existed？　　M。　Laboulaye　is　a　lawyer。　　Where；　then；　did　he　ever　see　the　labor　of　the　slave　and　the　cultivation　by　the　tenant　prescribe　the　soil　for　their　own　profit；　to　the　detriment　of　a　recognized　master　daily　acting　as　a　proprietor？　　Let　us　not　disguise　matters。　　As　fast　as　the　tenants　and　the　serfs　grew　rich；　they　wished　to　be　independent　and　free；　they　commenced　to　associate；　unfurl　their　municipal　banners；　raise　belfries；　fortify　their　towns；　and　refuse　to　pay　their　seigniorial　dues。　　In　doing　these　things　they　were　perfectly　right；　for；　in　fact；　their　condition　was　intolerable。　　But　in　lawI　mean　in　Roman　and　Napoleonic　lawtheir　refusal　to　obey　and　pay　tribute　to　their　masters　was　illegitimate。

Now；　this　imperceptible　usurpation　of　property　by　the　commonalty　was　inspired　by　religion。

The　seignior　had　attached　the　serf　to　the　soil；　religion　granted　the　serf　rights　over　the　soil。　　The　seignior　imposed　duties　upon　the　serf；　religion　fixed　their　limits。　　The　seignior　could　kill　the　serf　with　impunity；　could　deprive　him　of　his　wife；　violate　his　daughter；　pillage　his　house；　and　rob　him　of　his　savings；　religion　checked　his　invasions：　it　excommunicated　the　seignior。　　Religion　was　the　real　cause　of　the　ruin　of　feudal　property。　　Why　should　it　not　be　bold　enough　to…day　to　resolutely　condemn　capitalistic　property？　　Since　the　middle　ages；　there　has　been　no　change　in　social　economy　except　in　its　forms；　its　relations　remain　unaltered。

The　only　result　of　the　emancipation　of　the　serfs　was　that　property　changed　hands；　or；　rather；　that　new　proprietors　were　created。　　Sooner　or　later　the　extension　of　privilege；　far　from　curing　the　evil；　was　to　operate　to　the　disadvantage　of　the　plebeians。　　Nevertheless；　the　new　social　organization　did　not　meet　with　the　same　end　in　all　places。　　In　Lombardy；　for　example；　where　the　people　rapidly　growing　rich　through　commerce　and　industry　soon　conquered　the　authorities；　even　to　the　exclusion　of　the　nobles；first；　the　nobility　became　poor　and　degraded；　and　were　forced；　in　order　to　live　and　maintain　their　credit；　to　gain　admission　to　the　guilds；　then；　the　ordinary　subalternization　of　property　leading　to　inequality　of　fortunes；　to　wealth　and　poverty；　to　jealousies　and　hatreds；　the　cities　passed　rapidly　from　the　rankest　democracy　under　the　yoke　of　a　few　ambitious　leaders。　　Such　was　the　fate　of　most　of　the　Lombardic　cities；　Genoa；　Florence；　Bologna；　Milan；　Pisa；　&c；。which　afterwards　changed　rulers　frequently；　but　which　have　never　since　risen　in　favor　of　liberty。　　The　people　can　easily　escape　from　the　tyranny　of　despots；　but　they　do　not　know　how　to　throw　off　the　effects　of　their　own　despotism；　just　as　we　avoid　the　assassin's　steel；　while　we　succumb　to　a　constitutional　malady。　　As　soon　as　a　nation　becomes　proprietor；　either　it　must　perish；　or　a　foreign　invasion　must　force　it　again　to　begin　its　evolutionary　round。＇1＇

＇1＇　　The　spirit　of　despotism　and　monopoly　which　animated　the　communes　has　not　escaped　the　attention　of　historians。　　〃The　formation　of　the　commoners'　associations；〃　says　Meyer；　〃did　not　spring　from　the　true　spirit　of　liberty；　but　from　the　desire　for　exemption　from　the　charges　of　the　seigniors；　from　individual　interests；　and　jealousy　of　the　welfare　of　others。　。　。　。　　Each　commune　or　corporation　opposed　the　creation　of　every　other；　and　this　spirit　increased　to　such　an　extent　that　the　King　of　England；　Henry　V。；　having　established　a　university　at　Caen；　in　1432；　the　city　and　university　of　Paris　opposed　the　registration　of　the　edict。

〃The　communes　once　organized；　the　kings　treated　them　as　superior　vassals。　　Now；　just　as　the　under　vassal　had　no　communication　with　the　king　except　through　the　direct　vassal；　so　also　the　commoners　could　enter　no　complaints　except　through　the　commune。

〃Like　causes　produce　like　effects。　　Each　commune　became　a　small　and　separate　State；　governed　by　a　few　citizens；　who　sought　to　extend　their　authority　over　the　others；　who；　in　their　turn；　revenged　themselves　upon　the　unfortunate　inhabitants　who　had　not　the　right　of　citizenship。　　Feudalism　in　unemancipated　countries；　and　oligarchy　in　the　communes；　made　nearly　the　same　ravages。　　There　were　sub…associations；　fraternities；　tradesmen's　associations　in　the　communes；　and　colleges　in　the　universities。　　The　oppression　was　so　great；　that　it　was　no　rare　thing　to　see　the　inhabitants　of　a　commune　demanding　its　suppression。　。　。　。〃　Meyer：　　Judicial　Institutions　of　Europe。




In　France；　the　Revolution　was　much　more　gradual。　　The　communes；　in　taking　refuge　under　the　protection　of　the　kings；　had　found　them　masters　rather　than　protectors。　　Their　liberty　had　long　since　been　lost；　or；　rather；　their　emancipation　had　been　suspended；　when　feudalism　received　its　death…blow　at　the　hand　of　Richelieu。　　Then　liberty　halted；　the　prince　of　the　feudatories　held　sole　and　undivided　sway。　　The　nobles；　the　clergy；　t