There is, indeed, apparently an instance, under date 787,[484] of the settlement of a new serf--the grant of a fresh holding in villenage from the Abbot of St. Gall to the new tenant. The holding, if we may use the Saxon terms, is 'set' both 'to _gafol_ and to _week-work_;' for the tenant binds himself (1) to pay to the abbey as _census_ (_i.e._ as _gafol_) yearly vii. maldra of grain and a sound spring frisking, to be delivered at the granary of the monastery; and (2) to plough _every week_ (_i.e._ as week-work)[485] at their nearest manor (_curtem_) a '_jurnal_' (or acre strip) in every _zelga_[486] (_i.e._ in each of the three fields); and also six days in a year when work out of doors is needed, whether in harvest or hay-mowing, to send two '_mancipii_' for the work: also, when work is wanted in building or repairing bridges, to send one man with food to the work, who is to stop at it as long as required. And to these payments and services the new tenant bound 'himself, his heirs, and all their descendants lawfully begotten.' [p322] This surely is a distinct case of the settlement of a new serf upon the land, rendering in Saxon phrase both _gafol_ and _week-work_; and the serfdom created is as nearly as possible identical with that of an English manor of the same date. «Surrender of whole villas or of holdings on villas.» But to return to the surrenders. It is clear from the instances quoted that some of these owners who surrendered their holdings were holders of whole _villas or heims_, some of them of _portions of villas or heims_. And yet they placed themselves by the surrender, as Salvian described it, in a servile position, _lower_, as he says, _than that of the coloni of the rich_, for they merely retained the usufruct during their life. The inheritance was lost. And they still had a tribute to pay to their lord, though free from tribute to the public purse. The Frankish kings now stood in the place of the Roman Emperor. The old Roman _tributum_ apparently remained, but was payable to the Frankish king. When under the Alamannic laws these surrenders were made to the Church, the tribute also was transferred from the king to the Church. We have seen that when such a surrender had been made under Roman rule to a rich Roman landowner, the latter became responsible to the public exchequer for the tributum, but he exacted tribute in his turn from his tenant, who thus, as Salvian said, though parting with his inheritance, still paid tribute to his lord. But this tribute can hardly have been the full _tributum_ at which the holding was assessed to the _jugatio_. It seems to have been rather a fixed and typical _gafol_ or census, marking a servile condition. For in the Alamannic laws there are clauses making the following remarkable provisions:-- [p323] «Tribute, services, and three days' 'week-work' under the Alamannic law.» _Leges Alamannorum Illotharii_[487] (A.D. 622). XXII.