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
The first two of these may be said to be practically quite distinct
from the third class, and intimately connected _inter se_. The
boon-work would seem to be a necessary corollary of the _limitation_
of the week-work. If the lord had had unlimited right to the whole
work [p079] of his villein tenant all days a week, and had an
unrestricted choice as to what kind of work it should be, week-work
at the lord's bidding might have covered it all. But custom not
only limited the number of days' work per week, but also limited
the number of days on which the work should consist of ploughing,
reaping, and other work of more than usual value, involving oxen or
piece-work, beyond the usual work of ordinary days.
The _week-work_, limited or otherwise, was evidently the most
_servile_ incident of villenage.
The payments in money or kind, or in work of the third class, to
which the word _gafol_, or tribute, was applied, were more like
modern rent, rates, and taxes than incidents of serfdom.
Comparing the services of the villani with those of the cottiers
or bordarii, the difference evidently turns upon the size of the
holdings, and the possession or non-possession of oxen.
«Cottiers' services.»
Naturally ploughing was a prominent item in the services of the
villanus holding a virgate, with his 'stuht,' or outfit of two oxen.
As naturally the services of the bordarius or cottager did not
include ploughing, but were limited to smaller services.
But apparently the services of each class were equally servile. Both
were in villenage, and _week-work_ was the chief mark of the serfdom
of both.
Besides the servile week-work and '_gafol_,' &c., there were also
other incidents of villenage felt to be restrictions upon freedom,
and so of a servile nature. Of these the most general were--
«Other servile incidents.»
The requirement of the lord's licence for the marriage of a
daughter, and fine on incontinence. [p080]
The prohibition of sale of oxen, &c., without the lord's
licence.
The obligation to use the lord's mill, and do service at his
court.
The obligation not to leave the land without the lord's licence.
It was the week-work of the villanus, and these restrictions on his
personal liberty, which were felt to be serfdom.[106]
«All limited by custom.»
But these servile incidents were limited by custom, and this
limitation by custom of the lord's demands, as well as the more and
more prevalent commutation of services into money payments in later
times, were, as has been said, notes and marks of a relaxation of the
serfdom. The absence of these limitations would be the note and mark
of a more complete serfdom.
Thus, in pursuing this economic inquiry further back into Saxon
times, the main question will be whether the older serfdom of the
holder of yard-lands was more or less unlimited, and therefore
complete, than in the times following upon the Norman conquest.
«The evidence has led up to the Domesday Survey.»
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