The Understanding of Natural Environment in Early Modern British Agriculture

托马斯·戴维斯对威尔茨郡农业的总体看法。(伦敦，1794年)受到的关注很少，但我认为它值得注意。他准确地从农业上描述了地区性的差异。在这一点上，他对自然环境的理解比阿瑟·杨更敏锐。我从托马斯的报告中衍生出了其他方面，这些方面与传统上对当代农业的理解大相径庭。我研究了洛克的财产理论和美国清教徒的土地财产理论之间的关系。我得出的结论如下。(1)约翰·洛克被认为是第一个阐述劳动财产理论的政治理论家。然而，我认为他的劳动理论受到了美国清教徒，特别是约翰·温斯罗普所阐述的土地财产权理论的影响。例如，在他的一般观察中，温斯罗普说：“在多坦和所有其他地方，人们不考虑他们自己的东西，而是他们自己的产业侵占的东西……”(2)在第二章第五章的地盘通道中，詹姆斯·塔利和尼尔·伍德之间存在着关于仆人性质的争论。但我认为，这场争议与骆家辉的意图无关。在《土地》一文中，他论证了财产的劳动理论，这意味着人对财产的权利取决于将他的劳动与自然的原材料混合在一起，而在这个阶段，他还没有在他的论证中引入金钱，因此，我的结论是，洛克的仆人只作为主人的家庭的一员出现在《土地》的文章中。

Thomas Davis's General View of the Agriculture of the County of Wilts. (London, 1794) has been scarecely given attention, but I think it is worth noticing. He accurately descibed the differences of regional divisons agriculturally. In this point, his understanding of natural environment is more keen than that of Arthur Young. I have derived other aspects from Thomas's reports, which are quite different from the traditional unduerstanding of the contemporay agriculture.I investigated the relationships between Locke's theory of property and American puritan's theory of landed property. I have arrived at the conculusions as follow. (1) John Locke has been evaluated to be the first political theorist who expounded the labor theory of property. However, I think that his labor theory is subject to the influence of the theory of landed property rights expounded by American puritans, in particular John Winthrop. For example, in his General Observations, Winthrop said, "at Dotham and all other places men accounted nothing their owne, but that which they had appropriated by their own industry...." (2) There is the controversy between James Tully and Neal Wood on the nature of a servant in the turfs passage of chapter 5 of the Second Treatise. But I think that the controversy is irrelevant to the intention of Locke. In the turfs passage he was demonstrating the labor theory of property, which means that man's entitlement to property depends on mixing his labor with the raw stuff of nature, and on this stage he had not introduced the money in his argument yet, Therefore, my conclusion is that Locke's servant appeared in the turfs passage only as a member of master's family.