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
Turning now to the other class, the _aillts_ or _taeogs_--who in the
Latin translations of the laws are called _villani_--the key to their
position was their non-possession of tribal blood, and therefore of
the rights of kindred. They were not free-born Welshmen; though,
on the other hand, by no means to be confounded with _caeths_, or
slaves. They must be sworn men of some chieftain or lord, on whose
land they were placed, and at whose will and pleasure they were
deemed to remain.[237] Each of these taeogs had his _tyddyn_--his
homestead, with corn and cattle yard. In his tyddyn he had cattle
of his own. In South Wales several of these taeogs' homesteads were
grouped together into what was called a _taeog-trev_. Further, the
arable fields of the 'taeog-trev' were ploughed on the open-field
system by the taeogs' [p197] common plough team, to which each
contributed oxen.
«Equality in the taeog-trev.»
But the distinctive feature of the taeog-trev was that an _absolute
equality_ ruled, not between brothers or cousins of one household, as
in the case of the family land of the free tribesmen, but _throughout
the whole trev_. Family relationships were ignored. All adults in the
trev--fathers and sons, and strangers in blood--took equal shares,
with the single exception of _youngest sons_, who lived with their
fathers, and had no tyddyn of their own till the parent's death. This
principle of equality ruled everything.[238] The common ploughing
must not begin till every taeog in the trev had his place appointed
in the co-tillage.[239] Nor could there be any escheat of land in the
taeog-trev to the lord on failure of heirs; for there was nothing
hereditary about the holdings. Succession always fell (except in the
case of the youngest son, who took his father's tyddyn) to the whole
trev.[240] When there was a death there was a re-division of the
whole land, care, however, being taken to disturb the occupation of
the actual tyddyns only when absolutely needful.[241]
«_Per capita_ no account of blood relationship.»
The principle upon which the taeog's rights rested was simply this:
where there was no true Welsh blood no family rights were recognised.
In the absence of these, equality ruled between individuals; they
shared 'per capita,' and not 'per stirpes.'
«Their register land.»
The land of a taeog-trev was, as already said called 'register
land'[242]--_tir cyfrif_. [p198]
There were other incidents marking off the taeog from the free
Welshman. He might not bear arms;[243] he might not, without his
lord's consent, become a scholar, a smith, or a bard, nor sell his
swine, honey, or horse.[244] Even if he were to marry a free Welsh
woman, his descendants till the fourth, and in some cases the ninth
degree, remained taeogs. But the fourth or ninth descendant of the
free Welsh woman, as the case might be, might at last claim his five
free strips, and become the head of a new kindred.[245]
«Incidents to their tenures.»
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