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
It is obvious, then, that these surrenders or donations, which
were exactly like those of _Hantscuhesheim_, were made by 'free
coloni' of the manor, who in the time of Pepin, while the lordship
remained in the king, as well as afterwards when the manor had been
transferred to the abbey, surrendered their holdings to the abbey,
thus converting them either into tenancies on the demesne land, or
into servile holdings under the lordship of the abbey. They were not
members of a German free village community, for they were tenants
of a manor when they made their surrenders. Nor were they slaves
(_mancipii_). The only other class mentioned in the charter was that
of the _accolæ_, the word used for 'free coloni' in the Bavarian
laws. These _accolæ_, it seems, then, were 'coloni' or free tenants
upon a royal manor, part of the old _ager publicus_, now '_terra
regis_.' And as such under the Frankish law it seems that they had
power to transfer themselves from the lordship of the king to that
of the Church. The Alamannic laws were enacted or at least confirmed
after the Frankish conquest, and probably were in force over this
particular district at the date of these surrenders. These laws, as
we have seen, expressly forbade the _comes_ under whom they lived
[p333] to prevent free tenants from making such surrenders for the
good of their souls.
Indeed, among the St. Gall charters there is one exactly in point.
«Example.»
It is dated A.D. 766,[506] and by it the sons of a person who had
surrendered his land to the Abbey under these laws by this charter
renewed the arrangement, 'in this wise, that so as we used to do
service to the king and the comes, so we shall do service for that
land to the monastery, receiving it as a benefice of the same monks
_per cartulam precariam_.'
This view of the case may be still further confirmed. In the Lorsch
records are contained in some cases descriptions of the services of
the two kinds of tenants on the manors surrendered to the Abbey.
There are free tenants and servile tenants, and it is a strong
confirmation of the continuity of the services from Roman to mediæval
times to find some of them so closely identical with the '_sordida
munera_' of the Theodosian Code and the services described in the
Bavarian laws.
To take an example: In _Nersten_ the services of each _mansus
ingenualis_ may be thus classified:[507]--
(1) _As census_, 5 modii of barley, 1 pound of flax, at Easter
4d., 1 fowl, 10 eggs, 2 loads of wood.
(2) _As work_, 4 weeks a year whenever required.
(3) _As_ '_gafolyrth_,' to plough 1 acre in each of the [three]
fields (_sationes_), and to gather and store it.
(4) _As_ '_precariæ_,' or _sordida munera_--
3 days' work at reaping
2 days' work at mowing. [p334]
2 days' work at binding and 2 loads of carrying.
The tenant gives a _parafredum_.
Attends in the host.
Carts 5 loads of lime to the kiln.
Carts 5 loads of wood.
Goes messages 'infra regnum' whenever required.
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