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
This permanence of the geographical divisions and homesteads, and
shifting of the tribal households whenever occasion required it, was
only possible with a pastoral and scanty population. Long before the
fourteenth century the households were settled in their homesteads,
geometrical regularity had ceased, and the land was divided and
subdivided into irregular fractions. This is the state of things
disclosed in the _Record of Carnarvon_. But in the tenth century,
according to the Welsh laws, the old tribal rules were apparently
still in force.
«The clustering of households the distinctive mark of the
tribal system.»
Without pretending to have mastered all the details of these obscure
tribal arrangements, the point to be noted is that the scattering of
the tyddyns all over the country side, and the clustering of them
by fours and sixteens, or twelves, into the group which was the
unit paying the gwestva or tunc pound, and again into clusters of
twelve or thirteen[260] under a [p206] maer, as the unit of civil
jurisdiction, were obviously distinctive features arising from the
tribal holding of land, and that the system was adopted apparently to
facilitate the division of the land among the families in the tribe
somewhat in the same way as in the open field system the division
of the arable land by turf balks into actual erws facilitated the
division of the ploughed land among the contributors to the plough
team.
* * * * *
Bearing this in mind we may now turn back to the Domesday Survey,
and compare its description of the land system of _Gwent_ and
_Archenfield_ with the results obtained from the Welsh laws.
In order, however, to make this comparison the Welsh terms must be
translated into Latin, otherwise it will be difficult to recognise
the trev, and maer, and maenol, and gwestva in the Domesday
description.
«Latin equivalent of tribal words in the Domesday Survey.»
The before-mentioned Latin version of the Dimetian Code, the MS.
of which dates from the early thirteenth century, will do this for
us.[261]
It translates _trev_, the unit of the tunc pound, by _villa_. It
takes the Welsh word 'maenol' as equivalent to _manor_, and indeed
it did resemble the Saxon and Norman manor in this, that it was
the unit of the jurisdiction of each single steward or _villicus_
of the chief. This officer was called in Welsh the _maer_, which
was translated into the Latin _præpositus_. He did to some extent
resemble the English præpositus, but he differed in this--that
instead of being set over the 'trev' or 'villata' of a single manor,
[p207] the Welsh maer was, as we have seen, set over a number
of 'villas' or trevs--thirteen free trevs or seven taeog-trevs,
in Gwent--each free trev of which rendered its 'tunc pound' or
'gwestva,' and each taeog or villein-trev its 'dawn-bwyd' of food.
Now, this is precisely what is described in the Domesday Survey of
Gwent.
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