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
Even the taeog was, however, under these laws, hardly a serf. With
the exception of his duty to assist the lord in the erection of
buildings, and to submit to _kylch_, _i.e._ to the lord's followers,
being quartered upon him when making a 'progress,' and to _dovraith_,
or maintenance of the chief's dogs and servants, there seems to have
been no exaction of menial personal services.[246]
«Food-rents.»
The taeogs' dues, like those of free Welshmen, consisted of fixed
summer and winter contributions of food for the chief's table.
In _Gwent_ they had to provide in winter a sow, a salted flitch,
threescore loaves of wheat bread, a tub of ale, twenty sheaves of
oats, and pence for the servants. In summer, a tub of butter and
twelve cheeses and bread.[247]
These tributes of food were called 'dawnbwyds,' gifts of food, or
'board-gifts,' and from these the taeog or register land is in one
place in the Welsh laws called _tir bwrdd_, or 'board-land' (_terra
mensalia_, [p199] or 'mensal land'[248]), a term which we shall find
again when we come to examine the Irish tribal system.
* * * * *
«The caeth or slave.»
Lastly, it must not be forgotten that beneath the taeogs, as beneath
the Saxon _geneat_ and _gebur_, were the 'caeths,' or bondmen, the
property of their owners,[249] without tyddyn and without land,
unless such were assigned to them by their lord. These caeths were,
therefore, not settled in separate trevs, but scattered about as
household slaves in the tyddyns of their masters.
IV. LAND DIVISIONS UNDER THE WELSH CODES.
There were, then, these two kinds of holdings--those of the free
tribesmen, of 'family land,' and those of the taeogs, of 'register
land.' There remains to be considered the system on which the
holdings were clustered together.
«The holdings grouped for payment of the food-rent or tunc
pound.»
The principle of this it is not very easy at first to understand,
and the difficulty is increased by a confusion of terms between the
codes. But there is one fact, by keeping hold of which the system
becomes intelligible, viz., that the grouping seems to have been
based upon the collective amount of the _food-rent_. The homesteads,
or tyddyns, each containing its four free erws, were scattered over
the country side. But they were artificially grouped together for the
purpose of the payment of the food-rent, or _tunc pound_ in lieu of
it. And by following the group which pays the [p200] 'tunc pound' as
the unit of comparison, the at first conflicting evidence falls into
its proper place.
In the Venedotian Code the _maenol_ is this unit. In the Dimetian and
Gwentian Codes this unit is the _trev_.
«In North Wales the _maenol_ the unit for food-rent.»
According to the Venedotian Code of North Wales,[250]
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