完美匹配14世纪英国（landlord和tenant）考古的元稳，我已经总结好了，大家配合中文考古看就行~

camelo777

Any analysis of why the early fourteenth-century agrarian economy was so predisposed to 'crisis' necessarily requires careful consideration of class and property relations on the land, for, as Robert Brenner and S. H. Rigby have both emphasized, these could be of decisive importance.⁷At that time landlords exercised feudal rights of lordship over their tenants, many of whom were of servile status and therefore legally subordinate to their lords. This power relationship shaped the tenurial relationship between those who owned the land and those who occupied and worked it. Thus it was tenure, as regulated by landlords, that determined the supply of holdings and the form and level of rents that were charged. Until recently it was widely believedthat feudal tenurial relationships sanctioned and facilitated the extra-economic exploitation of tenants by their lords. Together, the heaviness of rent charges and the arbitrariness of lordship discouraged and depressed tenant investment in agriculture.⁸Meanwhile, lords were more interested in pursuing a feudal lifestyle of conspicuous consumption than in enhancing the productivity and profitability of their estates.⁹The upshot, it has been claimed, was a vicious circle of underinvestment, static technology, and low and declining agricultural productivity.¹⁰

Such pessimistic views of lords and their relations with their tenants have long exercised a compelling appeal.¹⁵ Nevertheless, they have become increasingly difficult to reconcile with a growing body of historical evidence. The preoccupation with serfdom overlooks the numerous free tenants who were exempt from the most coercive aspects of lordship.¹⁶Free tenants mostly paid fixed and low rents and their property rights enjoyed the protection of the royal courts。The more substantial customary tenants were, in fact, relatively well off 。 Many of these tenants certainly paid a proportion of their rent in labour, but historians, probably because of a modern abhorrence of the institution of forced labour, have exaggerated its economic significance. In reality, only a minority of tenants actually performed labour services, and the aggregate value of rents in cash far exceeded that of rents in kind.²¹ Notwithstanding the much-vaunted powers of lordship, tenants had long been remarkably effective at opposing efforts by lords to raise rents and increase labour services in line with rising land values and commodity prices.²²They did so by countering seigniorial power with custom and denying that, as tenants, they were obliged to pay their lords anything more than a de facto ground rent for the land. Tenant right, in fact, often proved more powerful than landlord right.

As this article argues, the fact that so many tenants were in such conspicuous economic difficulties by the early fourteenth century had less to do with feudal lordship per se and the supposed oppressions and inequalities of serfdom, than with the contradictions and inefficiencies inherent in the coexistence of customary, contractual and commercial relationships. Herein lay the real source of the agrarian problem in the early fourteenth century. In so far as lords were the inadvertent agents of this adverse state of affairs, it was because their dealings with their tenants were typically more compliant than coercive. By yielding to tenant demands for access to land on terms that were so favourable to the tenants, lords created the preconditions for the subdivision and subletting that stoked population growth and thereby engendered the rural congestion that was the source of so much under- and unemployment, with all the negative consequences that this implies for labour productivity, living standards and purchasing power. This deteriorating situation in the countryside acted as a brake upon the continued growth of the economy and, from 1315, left increasing numbers ever more cruelly exposed to the heightened risk of environmental hazard

原来的文章非常长，这是我总结出来的，基本上完美匹配考古，我相信这就是原来那篇文章，顶多在细节的遣词造句上有些不同，大家可以对应楼下bale的中文考古对照着看，我认为基本上涵盖了所有中心思想和内容，大家要是还不放心可以在下面的网址自己去看~

攒RP啊，攒RP!!!六月的XDJM都要加油~！






http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/past_and_present/v188/188.1campbell.html

camelo777

By yielding to tenant demands for access to land on terms that were so favourable to the tenants, lords created the preconditions for the subdivision and subletting that stoked population growth and thereby engendered the rural congestion that was the source of so much under- and unemployment, with all the negative consequences that this implies for labour productivity, living standards and purchasing power. This deteriorating situation in the countryside acted as a brake upon the continued growth of the economy and, from 1315, left increasing numbers ever more cruelly exposed to the heightened risk of environmental hazard.

个人认为这篇文章非常好了，大家从我上面给的网站里自己去看一下，足够应付那篇关于英国地主和佣农的文章了~

ledada

辛苦LZ 啦。。。赞一个。。我明天再仔细看，先收着。。。现在要睡觉啦

camelo777

晚安：）明天好好看看，我觉得很接近原文~

米祈

谢谢!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ccmoom

帅气。  今晚大家都很给力啊。

Bale

LZ V5！
这是某bale整合的中文狗，大家可以对比下！

Para1：
B：傳統的觀點認為，lord給tenant，特別是serf tenant （隸屬於lord的，給其交租納貢的tenant），帶來了極大的經濟壓力，因為tenant要交很高的稅負，要孝敬lord，缺乏人身自由。
Para2：
P：但是，這一觀點是不正確的，雖然老觀點有著很大的吸引力（作者用了compelling），但是它越來越不能回答近期發現的一些新證據（主題句）。
S：因為其一，有很大一部分是non serf tenant，這些人只要交很低的錢，有很大的自由度，小日子還挺滋潤；其二，即便是serf tenant，他們的生活也沒有那麼糟糕，他們還是有一定自主權的，諸如lord要增加稅賦的時候，他們可以提出反對意見，並且有一定的力量。
Para3:
S：但是中世紀的經濟還是惡化了，這是為什麼呢？究其原因，是因為，為了應付tenant想多租地擴大自身利益的欲望，地主想出了一系列方法。。。,生詞很多，看不太懂。。。結果就是造成巨大的 unemployment in rural area. 地主的這種做法相當於對經濟的一個“brake”，阻礙了14世紀的英國經濟發展。lord在表面上向tenant做了讓步使tenant獲得短期經濟利益，但是從長期來看，lord通過這些舉措遏制了人口和經濟的發展，並最終帶來了社會環境的惡化。

朵朵0912

楼主辛苦了~！早点休息~

camelo777

客气：）

camelo777

6月的同学必须都要给力哇咔咔~