|
谢谢楼主的辛勤奉献！ 今天开始看JJ，刚看到第4片，现找到了第一篇和这篇的相关文章（我都highlighted了JJ主人提到的关键词），都是PDF，好象这里没法粘贴上来，准备稍后发转贴上载。先贴一点到这里。请JJ主人们鉴定这篇文章的相似程度，谢谢！ RC-4 relevant texts: 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.7 At 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 believed that 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.8 Meanwhile, lords were more interested
in pursuing a feudal lifestyle of conspicuous consumption
than in enhancing the productivity and proWtability of their
estates.9 The upshot, it has been claimed, was a vicious circle of
underinvestment, static technology, and low and declining agricultural
productivity.10
That feudal lordship was both rapacious and exploitative
was one of the cornerstones of M. M. Postan’s inXuential
thesis of medieval economic development. In 1966 he famously
asserted: we must presume that the owners of land must have beneWted from
expanding settlement and from rising land values, and must have
appropriated a great and growing share of the national product . . .
nearly all customary holdings in the thirteenth century were burdened
with money rent, supplemented by other rent-like charges . . . the
money dues of a villein tenant would absorb a very large proportion of
his gross output. The proportions varied a great deal, but the average
was fairly frequently near or above the 50 per cent mark.11 Brenner concurred, claiming, in the 1976 article that precipitated
the ‘Brenner Debate’:
because of lack of funds — due to landlords’ extraction of rent and the
extreme maldistribution of both land and capital, especially livestock —
the peasantry were by and large unable to use the land they held in a
free and rational manner. They could not, so to speak, put back what
they took out of it. Thus the surplus-extraction relations of serfdom
tended to lead to the exhaustion of peasant production per se.12
Although Postan (writing with John Hatcher) contested much
in Brenner’s article, he conceded that ‘feudal rent’ bore ‘much
of the blame for the villeins’ impoverishment and for their inability
to invest in their holdings or even to keep their land in good
heart’.13 Nor, in his view, did seigniorial agriculture perform
much better, due, above all, to ‘the insufWciency of manorial
investment’.14 Such pessimistic views of lords and their relations with their
tenants have long exercised a compelling appeal.15 Nevertheless,
they have become increasingly difWcult 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.16 Free tenants
mostly paid Wxed and low rents and their property rights
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-15 1:19:08编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-3-15 01:11:00
楼主
