The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)Seebohm, Frederic
History
The English Village Community: Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)
Seebohm, Frederic
Village communities -- Great Britain
Returning to the services of the gebur, stress must be laid upon
their double character. Like the later _villanus_ he paid a double
debt to his lord in respect of his yard-land and outfit, or
'_setene_'--(1) _gafol_; (2) week-work.
«Laws of King Ine.»
This is a point of great importance at this stage of the inquiry;
for it gives us the key to the meaning of an otherwise almost
unintelligible passage in the laws of King Ine[170], which bears
directly upon the matter in hand.
«Geset-land.»
This passage immediately follows those already quoted, requiring
one-half or more of the land of the absentee landlord to be 'gesettes
land.'
It follows in natural order after this requirement, because it
evidently relates to the process of increasing the number of tenants
on the gesettes land, so introducing new geburs or villani, with new
yard-lands or virgates, into the village community. The clause is as
follows:
«Yard-land.»
«_Gafol_ and _weorc_.»
BE GYRDE LONDES.
Gif mon geþingað gyrðe lander oþþe mære to pæðe-gafole. ⁊
geereð. gif se hlaforð him pile ꝥ lanð aræran to weorce ⁊ to
gafole. ne þearf he him onfón gif he lum nan botl ne selð. . . .
OF A YARD OF LAND.
If a man agree for a yard-land or more at a fixed _gafol_ and
plough it, if the lord desire to raise the land to him _to work
and to gafol_, he need not take it upon him, if the lord do not
give him a dwelling. . . . [p143]
The meaning of it apparently is that if a man agree for a yard-land
or more to 'ræd-gafol' (_i.e._ at such gafol payments as have been
described), and plough it, still the lord cannot put the new holding
'_to weorce_ and _to gafole_,' that is, make the holder completely
into a _gebur_ or villanus, owing both gafol and week-work to his
lord, unless the lord also supply the homestead ('botl').
That the 'botl' or homestead was looked upon as the essential part of
a man's holding is shown by another law of King Ine:--
LXVIII. Gif mon gesiðcundne monnan adrife. fordrife þy botle.
næs þære setene. ►
68. If a gesithcund man be driven off, it must be from the
_botl_, not the _setene_.
«The manor and serfdom in seventh century.»
Now the importance of these passages can hardly be exaggerated;
for, if we may trust the genuineness of the laws of King Ine,[171]
they show more clearly than anything else could do, that in the
seventh century--400 years before the Domesday Survey--the manor was
already to all intents and purposes what it was afterwards. They
show that at that early date part of the land was in the lord's
demesne and part let out to tenants, who when supplied by the lord
with everything--their homestead and their yard-land--owed, not
only customary tribute or _gafol_, but also '_weorc_' or service
to the lord; and how otherwise could this 'weorce' be given then
or afterwards [p144] except in the shape of labour on the lord's
demesne, as is described in the '_Rectitudines_'?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account