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
There is a general characteristic of the numerous Saxon charters of
all periods, which, when carefully considered, can hardly have any
other explanation than the fact that the holdings were composed not
of contiguous blocks of land, but of scattered strips.
«The boundaries were of whole manors,»
It is this--that whatever be the subject of the grant made by the
charter, _i.e._ whether it be a whole manor or township that is
granted, or only some of the holdings in it, the boundaries appended
are the boundaries of the _whole_ manor or township. No doubt the
royal gifts to the monastic houses generally [p112] did consist of
whole manors, and thus the boundaries in most cases naturally were
the boundaries of the whole, and could not be otherwise. But it was
not always so. Thus, among the Abingdon charters there are two of
Edward the Martyr, one of vii. hides (cassatos), in 'Cingestune,' and
another of xiii. 'mansas' in 'Cyngestun,' one to the Church of St.
Mary at Abingdon, the other to a person named _Ælfstan_;[135] and to
both charters are appended _the same boundaries_ in substantially the
same words. And these are the boundaries of the _whole township_.[136]
There can hardly be any other explanation of this peculiarity than
the fact that the holdings were not blocks of land, the boundaries
of which could be easily given, but, in fact, like the hides and
virgates after the Conquest, bundles of strips scattered over the
open fields, and intermixed with strips belonging to other holdings.
Indeed, there is in a charter of King Ethelred (A.D. 982) among
the Abingdon series relating to five hides at '_Cheorletun_,' a
direct confession of the reason why in this case all boundaries are
omitted. Instead of the usual boundaries of the whole township there
is the statement that the estate is 'the less distinctly defined by
boundaries, _quia jugera altrinsecus copulata adjacent_'--because the
acres are intermixed.[137]
«of which they were shares.»
On the hypothesis already suggested that the hides, half-hides,
virgates, and bovates were the shares in the results of the ploughing
of the village plough [p113] teams--in other words, the number of
strips allotted to each holder in respect of the oxen contributed by
him to the plough team of eight oxen--it is perfectly natural that in
a grant of _some_ only of the holdings the boundaries given should be
those of the whole township, viz. of the whole area, an intermixed
share in which constituted the holding.
«Other evidence.»
There is another fact, which has, perhaps, never yet been explained,
but which is nevertheless perfectly intelligible on the same
hypothesis.
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