Now let it be fully understood what is involved in this indivisible character of the holding, in its devolution from one holder to another without division among heirs. We have seen that the theory was that as the land and homestead, and also the _setene_, or outfit, were provided by the lord, they returned to the lord on the death of the holder. The lord granted the holding afresh, most often, no doubt, to the eldest son or nearest relation of the landholder on his payment of an ox or other relief in recognition of the servile nature of the tenure, and thus a custom of primogeniture, no doubt, grew up, which, in the course of generations--how early we do not know--being sanctioned by custom, could not be departed from by the lord. The very possibility of this permanent succession, generation after generation, of a single holder to the indivisible bundle of strips [p177] called a yard-land or virgate, thus seems to have implied the servile nature of the holding. The lord put in his servant as tenant of the yard-land, and put in a successor when the previous one died. This seems to be the theory of it. It was probably precisely the same course of things which ultimately produced primogeniture in the holding of whole manors. The king put in a _thane_ or _servant_ of his (sometimes called the '_king's geneat_'), or a monastery put in a steward or _villicus_ to manage a manor. When he died his son may have naturally succeeded to the _office_ or _service_, until by long custom the office became hereditary, and a succession or inheritance by primogeniture under feudal law was the result. The benefice, or _læn_, or office was probably not at first generally hereditary; though of course there were many cases of the creation of estates of inheritance, or _boc-land_, by direct grant of the king. As we have seen from the passage quoted from Bede, the _læn_ of an estate for life was the recognised way in which the king's thanes were rewarded for their services.