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
They were at the date of the Survey even more numerous than the
cottier class below them. They embraced 38 per cent. of the whole
population, and, except where partially displaced by the sochmanni of
the Danish district, were pretty evenly dispersed all over England.
Except in Norfolk and Suffolk, they were seldom less than one-third
of the population. And if at the time of the Survey they were holders
of virgates and half-virgates, as their successors were afterwards,
then it follows that they held by far the largest proportion of the
land of England [p091] in their holdings. But before we assume this,
some proof may fairly be required that it was so. In the meantime
it is clear that the classes of tenants in villenage _bore the
same names_ at the time of the Survey as they did afterwards. The
presumption evidently is that they held similar holdings.
V. THE VILLANI WERE HOLDERS OF VIRGATES, ETC.
The compilers of the Survey were not in the habit of describing in
detail the character of the holdings of the villani. Whilst recording
how many villani there were in a manor, the Domesday Survey does not,
like the Hundred Rolls, usually go on to state how many of them held
a virgate and how many a half-virgate each.
«The holdings of the villani hides, virgates, and
half-virgates.»
Still, notwithstanding this general silence of the Survey on this
point, treating the matter manor by manor, and taking for example the
Peterborough manors, it might be inferred almost with certainty that
as the villani of the _Liber Niger_ in 1125 were holders of virgates
and half-virgates, so their fathers and grandfathers before them must
also have held virgates and half-virgates at the time of the Domesday
Survey and of Edward the Confessor. And such an inference would
be strengthened by the occasional use in the Survey of the terms
_integri villani_[116] and _villani dimidii_,[117] answering no doubt
to the same terms, and to the _pleni virgarii_ and _semi-virgarii_ of
the _Liber Niger_ and the Battle Abbey records. [p092]
That the land was really held at the date of the Survey in hides and
virgates may also be gathered from the well-known statement of the
Saxon Chronicle that '_næs an ælpig hide ne an gyrde landes_' was
omitted from the Survey--a statement which does not mean that not a
hide nor a yard of land was omitted, but not a hide or a yard-land,
_i.e._ a _virgate_.[118] So that it might fairly be inferred from
this passage that the virgate was the normal or typical holding of
the villanus, and this inference might well cover the whole area of
the Survey.
But there is more direct evidence than these general inferences.
It so happens that there are a few local exceptions to the general
silence of the Survey as regards the holdings of the villani.
«Examples in survey of Middlesex.»
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