1. - The political régime of medieval monarchy was that of feudality.  Each level of the social scale drew up reports/ratios of duties, with respect to the higher level (vassalage), and of the reports/ratios of rights with respect to the lower level (suzerainty): no the suzerain without vassal, and not of vassal without suzerain.

                           king ____
                                       |___ A ___
                                                      |____ B ____
                                                                         |____ C ____
                                                                                            | etc....
   "B" was the vassal one of "A" with which it owed "faith and homage", he was also the suzerain of "C" on which he exerted his rights. The king himself did not escape from vassalage: he was the "vassal one" of God!  since it held its capacity of divine right.

      One should not confuse - as it is too often done - serfdom and slavery.  Serfdom  is a statute which proceeds of feudality. The vassal one holds its capacity of its suzerain, if it has suddenly failed, the suzerain can continue it and this continuation can go until the dismantling of the castle and the confiscation of the grounds. Serfdom draws up the same report/ratio of dependence. The peasant is a "churl" (of Latin manere=demeurer, to remain) who remains on the territory of a lord to which it owes the service, exchanges the lord of it allocates to him a ground, "tenure", and he owes assistance and protection in the event of conflicts.

   2. - The second remark results from the first. The ground does not belong to the peasants. "Null ground without lord" that it is laic or ecclesiastic, known as the proverb. With low of the social scale, the peasant is pushed by his statute to group to multiply by ten his forces and to protect themselves from the arbitrary one.

The "taisibles Communities" will be born from the anarchy in which the kingdom will be plunged and of the progressive dismantling of feudality.

         Indeed, starting from XIIIème century, the French company will know a deep change. Decimated by the wars (Crécy, 1500 killed, - Poitiers, 6000, - Azincourt, 10000), the nobility, (mainly the minor nobility of the campaigns) is ruined. In parallel, the Church undergoes a serious crisis of vocations. The monasteries are emptied. Too much very few, the monks gives up the exploitation of their "barns" and is folded up in their conventual buildings when those are not destroyed! The campaigns themselves are devastated, of many "vacques" grounds are in waste land. The famines, the epidemics multiply. In impossibility of practising "to put forward it direct" and not touching more any income of their grounds, the lords, as well laic as ecclesiastical, go acenser their tenures. This "acensement" a major stage in the evolution of the agricultural world constitutes: the lords give up the quasi perpetual pleasure of the grounds to the peasants - or, in another form - the peasants acquire an inheritance against the payment of a "taxable quota".

          The taxable quota is the name given to the rent which each peasant will have from now on to annually pay to the lord owner in exchange of his "tenure". The taxable quota can be discharged out of money (tenant farming), or in kind (share-cropping), or to combine the two procedures.
           Apparently, the lords owners are gaining insofar as the income of their grounds is not random any more, but fixes, in the measurement also where they remain owners of their grounds which they can take again in the event of non-payment of the taxable quota.
           But they are the peasants who will extract the maximum of benefit from these acensements. Initially because, in order to incite the peasants to reconquer the uncultivated lands, the taxable quota, fixed at the beginning, is weak; then because this taxable quota is perpetual; vis-a-vis to inflation, to the degradation of the currency, the taxable quota will become ridiculous and its raising, required by the lords owners, will generally run up against a legal obstacle; if ridiculous even - and we let us have of it the example with Poulaines at the XVIIIème century - that it will not be paid any more a whole, and that the owner-tenant ratio will be gummed. The Revolution will make jump the last bolts.
   Another consequence, quite as decisive: once the discharged taxable quota, tenures belongs into clean to the tenants, they can be bought, sold, be transmitted in heritage without the lord being able to oppose another thing that the payment of this rent, so that the concept even of serfdom, which remains sometimes in the texts, is completely meaningless. If not "of swears", the stamping from the peasants is from now on total "de facto".
    Lastly, the peasant can develop "his" tenure with his way, it will benefit directly from the product of his work, it knows that this work will not be useless since it will be able to bequeath the fruits of them to his children.
     The "taisibles communities" were born from these political, economic and social changes.
 

     The "taisible community" is a mode of collective farm. They are born towards the end from XIIIème century, they will be spread in XIVème, will know their apogee in XVè and XVIème centuries and will die out with the XVIIème S.
       Their distribution is limited to certain provinces. They will be particularly long-lived in Berry.
       They are known as "taisibles", i.e. tacit, because they are not controls by written acts; created by peasants not knowing neither to read nor to write, their statute is that of "the word given" (what explains the scarcity of the documents).
      They are also family and gather grandparents, brothers, sisters, children, etc; in 1479, the community of Chipault, in Rouvres, includes/understands at least 60 people, more modest, those of Ybert a 40aine and that of Darnault, a 30aine. These communities live "with the same pot and the same fire".
        This Community life requires a solid organization: no the hierarchy to be strictly accurate, but a Master who is appointed each year, the function is renewable, it is not inevitably oldest, but that whose qualities are recognized and the respected authority. It is the Master who makes the decisions and distributes the daily tasks, he represents the community outside, particularly with the Council of village. A Reopen, Jean Chipault, Master of the most important community, is a also mayor of the Council.
    In parallel, the women choose a "mistress", who is not obligatorily the wife of the "Master"; in fact qualities precede. The mistress has the hand on all the organization domesticates, (and in a community of 60 heads, the load is heavy);  she is also responsible for  the small animal breeding, finally, and it is not little, she is "a midwife" and practical the childbirth.
       The children have a significant part in the life of the Community. As of the 6 years age, they take part in work like "bricolins", later they become guards, of geese initially, then sheep, they are then cowherds; teenagers, they learn how "to draw" the horses (or oxen, according to the exploitation).
     The children can in certain cases profit from a serious advantage: the instruction. We do not have documents on the Communities of Reopen, but in Volvault, (that we studied and referred to), Longuet had made build a vault, where a mass was known as each month, with this building was coupled a low room where the "tutor placed" and a high room which one reached by a scale and which was used as classroom!

        The property was collective; the legal statute, that of the joint possession. From there the name given to the community: "parsonnery" and with its members: "parsonniers"; a parsonnier being that which has share in the community; it is by error that these terms became in certain acts: personnery and personniers. An example will illustrate this Community spirit better. Has a boy suddenly married? the daughter-in-law arrives at the field with her dowry: 3 geese for example, or 2 sheep. If it has suddenly been widowed and  remarie apart from the field, it gives up the acquisitions and  sets out again with its 3 geese or its 2 sheep but does not draw any advantage the 10 years or more last in the community; if we replace the daughter-in-law by a son-in-law, the process is the same one. Thaumassière, charged to write the general Habits of country and Duchy of Berri (Bourges, 1701), summarizes the parsonneries thus:
                                    

"the taisible Company is (...) frequent between the Rustic ones and People of village, which induces residence that they make in the same house, living with same Table, Pot and Fire, in communication of profits and losses and mixture of Goods."

       It is necessary to replace the "parsonneries" in their context, because the communities always existed. They are pressed on the basic cell of any company: the family; even if, today, this cell is the object of virulent attacks the purpose of which are to destroy it, in the name of apparently contradictory ideals: individualism and collectivism. They are made necessary by the nature even of the agricultural work: the ploughings, the sowing, the haymakings, the harvests, beatings, the grape harvest, etc all the cultivation methods require a great number of arms.
        The parsonneries mark the passage of an agricultural company serf at a free company, of a dependent company at a company controlling from now on its working tool. Their success was undeniable and, even after their disappearance, they were used as models with the family farms which perduré until our days. The modern G.A.E.C are not so far away from the parsonneries.
       And yet, they disappeared, victims... of progress! With feudal anarchy, humus which had supported their blossoming, succeeded the monarchical centralism, which - being based on technical progress (printing works) and the dissemination of knowledge - will tackle the common law and will replace it by the statute law. Right, yes, but the same one and for all. The communities disappeared because... "taisibles", they had become illicit!
      The Edict of Mills of 1566 stipulated that  pour"toutes things exceeding the sum or value of one hundred books (...) will have signed contracts by front notaries and witnesses, by which contracts only (...) will be received any proof." Admittedly the edict of Mills was far from being applied, it will be necessary to await the ordinances of 1667 and 1672 so that this practice is applied and generalized, it is about at that time that Rioland of  Riolanderie de Poulaines separated.
      One would not have either to overlook of the more structural causes. The increase in population required an increase proportional in agrarian surfaces, which was impossible. It was necessary for certain branches essaimer in close exploitations and, under these conditions, it was necessary to divide what was undivided by nature. The conflicts of interests are imagined. Not to neglect either the jealousies which they gave birth to. Some made a success of and gave rise to ploughmen of an easy condition, near to the middle-class of the cities; others did not know to thrive, vis-a-vis with the economic difficulties, the peasants who composed them were lowered to the row of "days laborer", "manouvriers", dependent on a new "seigniory" (!), that of the ploughmen!

      The sources, too rare, do not make it possible to enter the "parsonneries", however, without being able to bring the formal proof of it, one finds them in toponymy: the localities in [ - ière ], like Chipaudière, in Rouvres, testify to a first wave of family associations (XIVè - XVème beginning), those in [ - ery ], like Riolanderie, in Poulaines, of a later wave (end XVè - XVIème S.); two suffixes coming of the same Latin origin: [ - aria ].