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
In these laws there occurs a section which so clearly refers to open
common fields divided into acres, and to common meadows also divided
into strips or doles, that it would have been perfectly intelligible
and reasonable if it had been included word for word in the record of
the customs of the Hitchin manor as regards the three common fields
and the green commons and Lammas land:-- [p110]
_Be Ceorles Gærs-tune._[133]
(xlii.) Gif ceorlas gærs-tun hæbben gemænne. oþþe oðer
gedál-land to tynanne. ⁊ hæbben sume getyned hiora dæl. sume
næbban. ⁊ . . . etten hiora gemænan æceras oþþe gærs, gán
þa þonne þe ꝥ geat agan. ⁊ gebete[n] þam oðrum þe hiora dæl
getynedne. . . .
_Of a Ceorle's grass-tun (meadow)._
(42) If ceorls have common meadow or other _land divided into
strips_[134] to fence, and some have fenced their strip, some
have not, and . . . [stray cattle (?)] eat their common acres
or grass, let those go who own the gap, and compensate the
others who have fenced their strip. . . .
There is here in the smallest possible compass the most complete
evidence that in the seventh century the fields of Wessex were common
open fields, the arable being divided into _acres_ and the meadows
into _doles_[134]; and as the system is incidentally mentioned as
a thing existing as a matter of course, it is not likely to have
been suddenly or recently introduced. The evidence throws it back,
therefore, at least to the earliest period of Saxon rule.
II. THE HOLDINGS WERE COMPOSED OF SCATTERED STRIPS.
«The holdings were _hides_ and _yard-lands_.»
Let us next ask whether there are traces of the _scattered
ownership_--the scattering all over the open fields of the strips
included in the holdings--which was so essential a characteristic of
the system; and, further, whether in tracing it back into early Saxon
[p111] times any clue to its original meaning and intention can be
found.
First, it may be stated generally that, when the nature and incidents
of the holdings are examined hereafter, it will be found that
throughout the period of Saxon rule, from the time of Edward the
Confessor backward to the date of the laws of King Ine, 300 years
earlier, the holdings were mainly the same as those with which we
have become familiar, viz. _hides_, _half-hides_, and _yard-lands_,
and that, generally speaking, there were no other kinds of holdings
the names of which are mentioned.
«Holdings composed of scattered strips.»
That these Saxon hides and yard-lands were composed of scattered
strips in the open fields, as they were afterwards, might well be
inferred from the mere fact that they bore the same names as those
used after the Conquest. It would be strange indeed if the same names
at the two dates meant entirely different things--if the virgate or
yard-land before the Conquest was a thing wholly different from what
it was after it.
But there is other evidence than the mere names of the holdings.
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