While the first Roman kings seem to have owned royal domains, which were distributed among the people after the expulsion of the kings, the public property which came to the republic as a result of conquest was in most cases at once transferred to private hands, either for homesteads of colonists, or in recognition of services of soldiers and other public officers, or to mollify the conquered, or by sale, or for rent, not to mention the rights acquired by squatters. The rents were usually farmed out to collectors (publicani) or to corporations formed of these. Livy, however, mentions also State forests in which the cutting was regulated, probably by merely reserving the ship timber.

That occasionally single cities and other smaller municipal units owned forest properties in common seems also established.

Private forest properties connected with farm estates existed in Ethiopia, in Arabia, among the Greeks and among the Romans at home as well as in their colonies. Especially pasture woods (saltus) connected with small and large estates (latifundia) into which probably most forest areas near settlements were turned, are frequently mentioned as in private ownership; but also other private forests existed.

The institution of servitudes or rights of user (usus and usus-fructus) and a considerable amount of law regarding the conditions under which they were exercised and regarding their extinguishment were in existence among the Romans in the first centuries of the Christian era.

3. Forest Use

Restrictions in the use of woods were not entirely absent, but with the exception of reserving ship timber in the State forests, they refer only to special classes of forest.

In the frontier forests reserved for defensive purposes, timber cutting was forbidden. And in the holy groves set aside by private or public declaration no wood could be cut thereafter, being in the latter case considered nobody’s property but sanctified and dedicated to religious use (res sacra), and whoever removed any wood from them was considered a “patricide,” except the cutting be done for purposes of improvement (thinnings) and after a prescribed sacrifice.

With the extension of Christendom the holy trees and groves became the property of the emperors, who sometimes substituted Christian holiness for the pagan, and retained the restrictions which had preserved them. Thus the cutting and selling of cypress and other trees in the holy grove near Antioch, and of Persea trees in Egypt generally (which had been deemed holy under the Pharaos) was prohibited under penalty of five pounds gold, unless a special permit had been obtained.

In Attica as well as in Rome the theory that the State cannot satisfactorily carry on any business was well established. Hence, the State forests were rented out under a system of time rent or a perpetual license, the renters after exploiting the timber usually subletting the culled woods merely for the pasture, except where coppice could be profitably utilized. The officials, with titles referring to their connection with the woods, as the Roman saltuarii or the Greek hyloroi (forestguards) and villici silvarum, the overseers, both grades taken from the slaves, had hardly even police functions.

Forest management proper, i. e., regulated use for continuity, except in coppice, seems nowhere to have been practiced by the ancients, although arboriculture in artificial plantations was well established and occasionally even attempts at replacement in forest fashion seem to have been made deliberately. Not only were many arboricultural practices of to-day well known to them, but also a number of the still unsettled controversies in this field were then already subjects of discussion.

The culling system of taking only the most desirable kinds, trees and cuts, which until recently has characterized our American lumbering methods was naturally the one under which the mixed forest was utilized. Fire used in the pasture woods for the same purposes as with us effectively prevented reproduction in these, and destroyed gradually the remnants of old trees.

Only where for park and hunting purposes some care was bestowed upon the woodland, was reproduction purposely attempted, as, for instance, when in a hunting park an underwood was to be established for game cover.

The treatment of the coppice and methods of sowing and planting were well understood in spite of the lack of natural sciences. Whatever forestry practice existed was based merely on empirical observations and was taught in the books on agriculture as a part of farm practice.

Silviculture was mainly developed in connection with the coppice, which was systematically practiced for the purpose of growing vineyard stakes, especially with chestnut (castanetum), oak (quercetum), and willow (salicetum), while the arbustum denoted the plantings of trees for the support of grapes, and incidentally for the foliage used as cattle feed, still in vogue in modern Italy.

This planting of vine supports was done with saplings of elm, poplar and some other species; by pollarding and by a well devised system of pruning, these were gradually prepared and maintained in proper form for their purpose.

The coppice seems to have been systematically managed in Attica as well as in Italy in regular fellings; the mild climate producing sprouts and root suckers readily without requiring much care, even conifers (cypress and fir) reproducing in this manner.

The oak coppice was managed in 7 year rotation, the chestnut in 5 year, and the willow in 3 year rotation.

Yield and profitableness are discussed, and the practice of thinnings is known, but only for the purpose of removing and using the dead material.

Forest protection was poorly developed: of insects little, of fungi no knowledge existed. Hand-picking was applied against caterpillars, also ditches into which the beetles were driven and then covered; the use of hogs in fighting insects was also known. That goats were undesirable in the woods had been observed. Some remarkable precocious physiological knowledge or rather philosophy existed: it was recognized that frost produces drought and that a remedy is to loosen the soil, aerating the roots, to drain or water as the case might require, and to prune; but also sap letting was prescribed. Against hail, dead owls were to be hung up; against ants, which were deemed injurious, ashes with vinegar were to be applied, or else an ass’s heart.

Curiosities in wood technology were rife and many contradictions among the wood sharps existed, as in our times. Only four elements, earth, water, fire, air, composed all bodies; the more fire in the composition of a wood, the more readily would it decay. Spruce, being composed of less earth and water but more fire and air, is therefore lighter than oak which, mostly composed of earth, is therefore so durable; but the latter warps and develops season splits because on account of its density it cannot take up readily and resists the penetration of moisture.

Wood impregnation, supposed to be a modern invention, was already practiced; cedrium (cedar oil) being used as well as a tar coating or immersion in seawater for one year, to secure greater durability.

4. Literature

As regards literature, we find in Greece, besides what can be learned incidentally from the historians Herodotus and Xenophon and from the natural history of Aristotle, the first work on plant history and wood technology, if not forestry, in 18 volumes by Theophrastus (390-286 B.C.), a pupil of Aristotle and Plato.

Among the Romans, besides a number of historians, at least three writers before Christ discussed in detail agriculture and, in connection with it, tree culture; namely, Cato (234-149 B.C.) who wrote an excellent work De re rustica, in 162 chapters; Varro (116-26 B.C.), also De re rustica, in three books; and Vergilius Maro (70-19 B.C.), who in his Georgica records in six books the state of knowledge at that time. Of the many writers on these subjects who came in the Christian era there are also three to be mentioned, namely, Cajus Plinius Major (23-79 A.D.), who in his Historia naturalis, in 37 books, discusses also the technique of silviculture; Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (about 50 A.D.), with 12 books, De re rustica, and one book De arboribus, the former being the best work of the ancients on the subject; and Palladius, writing about 350 A.D., 13 books, De re rustica, which in the original and in translations was read until past the middle ages.

Only a few references which exhibit the state of knowledge on arboricultural subjects among the Romans as shown in this literature may be cited, some of which knowledge was also developed in Greece and found application, more or less, throughout the Roman empire from India to Spain.

Nursery practice was already well known to Cato, while Varro knew, besides sowing and planting, the art of grafting and layering, and Columella discusses in addition pruning and pollarding (which latter was practiced for securing fuelwood), and the propriety of leaving the pruned trees two years to recuperate before applying the knife again.

The method of wintering acorns and chestnuts in sand, working them over every 30 days and separating the poor seed by floating in water, was known to Columella and, indeed, he discusses nursery management with minute detail, even the advantages of transplants and of doubly transplanted material. The question whether to plant or to sow, the preference of fall or spring planting with distinction for different species and localities are matters under his consideration; and preference of sowing oak and chestnut instead of transplanting is pointed out and supported by good reasons.

Pliny, the Humboldt of the ancients, recognizes tolerance of different species, the need of different treatment for different species, the desirability of transplanting to soil and climatic conditions similar to those to which the tree was accustomed, and of placing the trees as they stood with reference to the sun. But, to be sure, he also has many curious notions, as for instance his counsel to set shallow rooted trees deeper than they stood before, his advice not to plant during rain, or windy weather and his laying much stress on the phases of the moon as influencing results.

While then the ancients were not entirely without silvicultural knowledge, indeed possessed much more than is usually credited to them, the need of a forest policy and of a systematic forest management in the modern sense had not arisen in their time; the mild climate reducing the necessity of fuelwood and the accessibility by water to sources of supply for naval and other construction delaying the need for forest production at home.

There is little doubt, that some of the agricultural and silvicultural knowledge and practice of the Romans found entrance among the German tribes who, especially the Allemanni, came into contact with the Romans in their civilized surroundings during the fourth century.

GERMANY

Besides a dozen or more earlier histories of forestry in Germany, some of which date back to the beginning of the 19th century, there are two excellent modern compilations, namely:

Geschichte des Waldeigenthums, der Waldwirtschaft und Forstwissenschaft in Deutschland, by August Bernhardt, 1872-75, 3 Vols., 1062 pp., a classic, which treats especially extensively of political and economic questions having a bearing on the development of forestry; and

Handbuch der Forst- und Jagdgeschichte Deutschlands, by Adam Schwappach, 1886, 2 Vols., 892 pp., which appeared as a second edition of Bernhardt’s history, abridging the political history and expanding the forestry part. This volume has been mainly followed in the following presentation of the subject. In condensed form this history is also to be found in Lorey’s Handbuch der Forstwissenschaft, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 143-210.

In Schwappach’s history a full list of original sources is enumerated. These are, for the oldest period, Roman writings, which are unreliable; the laws of the various German tribes; the laws of kings (Capitularia); the laws of villages and other territorial districts; “Weisthümer” (judgments); inventories of properties (especially of churches and cloisters); documents of business transactions and chronicles. For the time after the Middle ages the most important source is found in the Forest Ordinances of princes and other forest owners; forest laws; police orders; business documents, and finally special literature.

It is generally conceded that both the science and art of forestry are most thoroughly developed and most intensively applied throughout Germany. It must, however, not be understood that perfection has been reached anywhere in the practical application of the art, or that the science, which like that of medicine has been largely a growth of empiricism, is in all parts safely based; nor are definitely settled forest policies so entrenched, that they have become immutable. On the contrary, there are still mismanaged and unmanaged woods to be found, mainly those in the hands of farmers and other private owners; there are still even in well managed forests practices pursued which are known not to conform to theoretical ideals, and others which lack a sure scientific foundation; and while the general policy of conservative management and of State interest in the same is thoroughly established, the methods of attaining the result are neither uniform throughout the various States which form the German Federation, nor positively settled anywhere. In other words, the history of forestry is still, even in this most advanced country, in the stage of lively development.

For the student of forestry the history of its development in Germany is of greatest interest not only because his art has reached here the highest and most intensive application, but because all the phases of development through which other countries have passed or else will eventually have to pass are here exemplified, and many if not most of the other countries of the world have more or less followed German example or have been at least influenced by German precedent. There is hardly a policy or practice that has not at some time in some part been employed in the fatherland of forestry.

One reason for this rich historical background is the fact, that Germany has never been a unit, that from its earliest history it was broken up into many independent and, until modern times, only loosely associated units, which developed differently in social, political and economic direction. This accounts also for the great variety of conditions existing even to-day in the 26 principalities which form the German empire.

Politically, it may be mentioned that out of the very many independent principalities into which the German territory had been divided, variable in number from time to time, the 26 which had preserved their autonomy formed in 1871 the federation of States, known as the German Empire. Each of these has its own representative government including the forest administration, very much like the state governments of the United States; only the army and navy, tariff, posts, telegraphs, criminal law and foreign policy, and a few other matters are under the direct jurisdiction of the empire, represented in the Reichstag, the Bundesrath, and the Emperor.

The 208,830 square miles of territory,2 which supports a population of about 60 million people, still contain a forest area of around 35 million acres (26 % of the land area) or .61 acre per capita, which although largely under conservative management has long ago ceased to supply by its annual increment (somewhat over 50 cubic feet per acre) the needs of the population; the imports during the last 50 years since 1862, when Germany began to show excess of imports over exports, having grown in volume at the average rate of 10 % to now round 380 million cubic feet (45 million dollars) or nearly 15 % of the consumption.

The larger part of Germany, two thirds of the territory and population is controlled by modern Prussia, with a total forest area of 20 million acres; Bavaria comes next with one seventh of the land area and 6 million acres of forest; the five larger states of Wurttemberg, Baden, Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hesse, occupying together another seventh of the territory with 5 million acres of forest. The balance of the area is divided among the other 19 states.

Fifty per cent. of Germany roughly speaking, is plains country, the larger part in the northern and eastern territory of Prussia; 25 % is hill country, mostly in West and Middle Germany; and 25 % is mountain country, the larger portion in the southern states.

There are at best only five species of timber of high economic general importance, the (Scotch) pine which covers large areas in the northern sandy plain and the lighter soils in the south; the (Norway) spruce and (Silver) fir which form forests in the southwestern and other mountain regions and represent, in mixture with broadleaf forest, a goodly proportion in the northeastern lowlands; the (English) oak, of which botanically two species are recognized; and the beech. The last two are the most important hardwoods found throughout the empire, but especially highly developed in the west and southwest. In addition, there are half a dozen species of minor or more local importance, but the five mentioned form the basis of the forestry systems.

The history of the development of forestry in Germany may be divided into periods variously. Bernhardt recognizes six periods; Schwappach makes four divisions, namely, the first, from the earliest times to the end of the Carlovingians (911), which is occupied mainly with the development of forest property conditions; the second, to the end of the Middle Ages (1500), during which the necessity of forest management begins to be sporadically recognized; the third, to the end of the 18th century, during which the foundation for the development of all branches of forestry is laid; the fourth, the modern period, accomplishing the complete establishment of forestry methods in all parts of Germany. For the later historian it would be proper to recognize a fifth period from about 1863, when, by the establishment of experiment stations, a breaking away from the merely empiric basis to a more scientific foundation of forestry practice was begun.

For our purposes we shall be satisfied with a division into three periods, namely: first, to the end of the middle ages, when, with the discoveries of America and other new countries, an enlargement of the world’s horizon gave rise to a change of economic conditions; second, to the end of the eighteenth century, when change of political and economic thought altered the relation of peoples and countries; third, the modern period, which exhibits the practical fruition of these changes.

I. From Earliest Times to End of Middle Ages

Many of the present conditions, especially those of ownership, as well as the progress in the development both of forest policy and of forest management, can be understood only with some knowledge of the early history of the settlement of the country.3

As is well known, Aryan tribes from central Asia had more than a thousand years before Christ begun to overrun the country. These belonged to the Keltic (Celtic) or Gaelic race which had gradually come to occupy partly or wholly, France, Spain, northern Italy, the western part of Germany and the British Islands. They were followed by the Germani (supposedly a Celtic word meaning neighbor or brother), also Aryan tribes, who appeared at the Black Sea about 1000 B.C., in Switzerland and Belgium about 100 B.C. These were followed by the Slovenes, Slovaks, or Wends, crowding on behind, disputing and taking possession of the lands left free by, or conquered from the Germani. Through these migrations, by about 400 A.D., the whole of Western Europe seems to have been fully peopled with these tribes of hunters and herders. The mixture of the different elements of victors and vanquished led to differentiation into three classes of people, economically and politically speaking, namely the free, the unfree (serfs or slaves), and the freedmen – an important distinction in the development of property rights.

1. Development of Property Conditions

The German tribes who remained conquerors were composed of the different groups of Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bajuvarians, Burgundians, etc., each composed of families aggregated into communal hordes with an elected Duke (dux, Herzog, Graf, Fürst), organized for war, each in itself a socialistic and economic organization known as Mark, owning a territory in common, the members or Markgenossen forming a republic. Outside of house, yard and garden, there was no private property; the land surrounding the settlement, known as Allmende, (commons) was owned in common, but assigned in parcels to each family for field use, the assignment first changing from year to year, then becoming fixed. The outlying woods, known as the Marca or Grenzwald, forming debatable ground with the neighboring tribes, were used in common for hunting, pasturing, fattening of hogs by the oak mast, and for other such purposes, rather than for the wood of which little was needed. In return for the assignment of the fields, the free men, who alone were fully recognized citizens of the community, had to fulfil the duties of citizens and especially of war service.

Only gradually, by partition, immigration and uneven numerical development, was the original Mark or differentiation into family associations destroyed and a more heterogeneous association of neighbors substituted. At the same time, inequality of ownership arose especially from the fact that those who owned a larger number of slaves (the conquered race) had the advantage in being able to clear and cultivate more readily new and rough forest ground. Those without slaves would seek assistance from those more favored, exchanging for rent or service their rights to the use of land; out of this relationship a certain vassalage and inequality of political rights developed.

Under the influence of Roman doctrine, a new aspect regarding newly conquered territory gained recognition, by which the Dukes as representatives of the community laid claim to all unseated or unappropriated land; they then distributed to their followers or donated to the newly established church portions of this land, so that by the year 900 A.D., a complete change in property relations had been effected. By that time the large baronial estates of private owners had come into existence which were of such great significance in the economic history of the Middle Ages, changing considerably the status of the free men, and changing the free mark societies into communities under the dominion of the barons.

The first real king, who did not, however, assume the title, was Clovis, a Duke of the Franks, who had occupied the lower Rhine country. About 500 A.D., picking a quarrel with his neighbors, the Allemanni, he subdued them and aggrandized himself by taking their Mark. In this way he laid the foundation for a kingdom which he extended by conquest mainly to the westward, but also by strategy to the eastward, the warlike tribes of Saxons and other Germans conceding in a manner the leadership of the Franks.

A real kingdom, however, did not arise until Charlemagne, in 772, became the ruler, extending his government far to the East.

At times, the kingdom was divided into the western Neustria, and the eastern Austria, and then again united, but it was only when the dynasty of Charlemagne became extinct with the death of Louis the Child (911), that the final separation from France was effected, and Germany became a separate kingdom, the eastern tribes between the Rhine and Elbe choosing their own king, Conrad, Duke of Franconia. There were then five tribes or nations, each under its own Duke and its own laws, comprising this new kingdom, namely the Franks, Suabians, Bavarians, Saxons on the right, and the Lorainers on the left bank of the Rhine, while the country East of the Elbe river was mostly occupied by Slovenians.

<1 2 3 4...8 >

На страницу:

Перейти

2 из 8