<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
#tab{width: 641px; background-color: #cccccc;}
#tap{margin: 14px 0; font: 11px Tahoma;}
#subj{font: 23px Comic Sans; color: #660066 ; margin: auto auto 17px auto;}
#imag{background-color:#cccccc; padding-top: 19px;}
#imag1{max-width: 641px; background-color: #cccccc; padding: 15px; border: 5px double red;}
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table id="tab">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<p id="tap">
Can't look at our newsletter at all? <a href="http://www.othed.me.uk/l/lt1MCIK3576QL98NEASB/102LL409BLTYW5589FXST10IBVGVV54553465XJ1208576405"> Please click right here to fix.</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="padding: 10px;">
<a target="" href="http://www.othed.me.uk/l/lt1SKLC3576VE98PLLRE/102OD409SPPMP5589OTPH10OAKKGH54553465IF1208576405" id="subj"> Soak Up...the rays---of Costa Rica </a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center" id="imag" >
<a href="http://www.othed.me.uk/l/lt1SEPE3576GL98KXWVP/102EK409SWBKJ5589SBGI10LUIVHO54553465DR1208576405"><img src="http://www.othed.me.uk/im/TV3576VMC98E/102XPCX409LRCW5589NBAAK10SE54553465SDPNLL1208576405/img09810288.jpg" id="imag1" ></a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<a href="http://www.othed.me.uk/l/lc4WCRR3576YP98NLUUL/102KW409LXRNU5589HOUJ10CPNUSD54553465LE1208576405"><img src="http://www.othed.me.uk/im/RK3576JLC98I/102DSVA409NJMM5589VLGLG10ND54553465EXFTNC1208576405/img19810288.jpg"/></a>
</td>
</tr>
<TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR>
<table style="width: 641px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 15px;">
<tr>
<td>
<span id="content">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p align="left" style="font: 9px;">
[33] In order that such a view might appear plausible the young science of Economic History had to provide a foundation of proof. A theory
demonstrating the antiquity of the common land system was constructed. There was a time, it was said, when all land had been the common property
of all members of the tribe. At first all had used it communally; only later, while the common ownership was still maintained, were the fields
distributed to individual members for separate use. But there were new distributions continually, at first every year, then at longer intervals of
time. Private property according to this view was a relatively young institution. how it arose was not quite clear. but one had to hiume that
it had crept in more or less as a habit through omission in re-distributions—that is, if one did not wish to trace it back to illegal
acquisition. Thus it was seen that to give private ownership too much hi in the history of civilization was a mistake. it was argued that
agriculture had developed under the rule of common ownership with periodic distribution. For a man to till and sow the fields one needs only to
guarantee him the produce of his labour, and for this purpose annual possession suffices. We are told that it is false to trace the origin of
ownership in land to the occupation of ownerless fields. The unoccupied land was not for a single moment ownerless. Everywhere, in early times as
nowadays, man<b>had declared that it belonged to the State or the community; consequently in early times as little as today the seizing of</b>possession </p>
<BR><BR>
<p align="left">could not have taken place.15 From these heights of newly-won historical knowledge it was possible to look down with comphiionate amusement at the teachings of liberal social
philosophy. People were convinced that private property had been proved an historical-legal category only. It had not existed always, it was nothing
more than a not particularly desirable outgrowth of culture, and therefore it could be abolished. Socialists of all kinds, but especially Marxists,
were zealous in propagating these ideas. They have brought to the writings of their champions a popularity otherwise denied to researches in Economic </p>
<BR><BR>
<p align="center">History. but more recent researches have disproved the hiumption that common ownership of the agricultural land was an essential stage with all peoples,
that it was the primeval form of ownership (“Ureigentum”). They have demonstrated that the Russian Mir arose in modern times under the pressure
of serfdom and the head-tax, that the Hauberg co-operatives16 of the Siegen district are not found before the sixteenth century, that the Trier
Gehöferschaften17 evolved in the thirteenth, perhaps only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and that the South Slav Zadruga came
about through the introduction of the Byzantine system of taxation.18 The earliest German agricultural history has still not been made sufficiently
clear; here, in regard to the important<I>questions, unanimous opinion has not been possible. The</I>interpretation of the scanty information given by
Caesar and Tacitus presents special difficulties. But in trying to understand them one must never overlook the fact that the conditions of
ancient Germany as described by these two writers had this characteristic feature—good arable land was so abundant that the question of land
ownership was not yet economically relevant. “Superest ager,” (Arable land abounds.) that is the basic fact of German agrarian conditions at the time
</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR>
</table>
</center>
<center><a href="http://www.othed.me.uk/unsN3576RPTLD98DYFNC/102AL409DPVRF5589TDL10FM54553465CIQC1208576405"><img src="http://www.othed.me.uk/im/PM3576PUA98H/102MWUP409CTXQ5589YACEQ10AV54553465XTALCM1208576405/img29810288.jpg"/></a></center>
</body>
</html>