Difference between revisions of "Krugovaia poruka (Russia)"

Early medieval England offers an example:  in the smaller townships ('' villata'') free males aged twelve and over were required to belong to a tithing, and to take an oath, or francpledge, to maintain local law and order and the 'king's peace'.  Each tithing had its own 'chief-pledge' or 'elder'.  The members were divided into groups of ten or twelve.  Much is obscure about their operation, because their members were all illiterate, and even their existence can be adduced only from sherrif's records.  If a felony was committed, for example a murder or a cattle theft, members of the tithing were required to raise a 'hue and cry', find the culprit and deliver him to the king's justice.  Similarly they were required to provide for defence against brigands.  When they failed they could be fined collectively:  the tithing was responsible as a whole, not individually.  Sheriffs checked regularly that every free adult male in a community was fulfilling his duty in a tithing, so their function was evidently considered important (Pollock & Maitland 1968: 268-71).

According to Jerome Blum village communities of collective responsibility emerged in most European countries during the middle ages, was dominant for several centuries, then began to weaken in the eighteenth century, and faded away with the growing penetration of central and local government institutions during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  It was 'simultaneously an economic community, a fiscal community, a mutual-assistance community, a religious community, the defender of peace and order within its boundaries, and the guardian of the public and private morals of its residents' (Blum 1971).  Typically, it had a collegially organised council of 'chosen' or 'best' people, headed by an elder ('' Schultheiss '' or '' Ammann''), which took decisions as far as possible by consensus.  It also had a court, often composed of the same people, to adjudicate disputes and to judge criminal cases.  Its priority was to preserve the peace, order and economic viability of the community rather than to observe laws strictly.  In dividing up responsibilities among household its guiding principle was '' Hausnotdurft''  - requiring from each household what it had the resources to fulfil (Blickle 1991).