The traces of this mode of distribution are numerous. Hengest forcibly occupying the Frisian territory, is said to do so, elne, unhyltme, violently and without casting of lots. Beów. l. 2187, 2251. The Law of the Burgundians calls hereditary land, “terra sortis titulo acquisita,” in contradistinction to chattels taken by purchase. Lex Burg. Tit. 1. cap. 1, 2. Eichhorn, i. 360, 400, note _a_. Godred, having subdued the Manxmen, divided their land among his followers by lot. “Godredus sequenti die obtionem exercitui suo dedit, ut si mallent Manniam inter se dividere, et in ea habitare; vel cunctam substantiam terrae accipere, et ad propria remeare.” Chron. Manniae. (Cott. MS. Jul. A. VII. fol. 32.) Upon the removal of St. Cuðberht’s relics to Durham, the first care was to eradicate the forest that covered the land; the next, to distribute the clearing by lot: “eradicata itaque silva, et unicuique mansionibus sorte distributis,” etc. Simeon. Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. § 37. Footnote 149: Words denoting measures of land have very frequently reference to the plough: thus geóc, furlang, sulung, aratrum, carucata, etc. Footnote 150: προστάτον γεγράφθαι, to be enrolled under some one’s patronage: to be in his _mund and borh_. ὥστ’ οὐ Κρέοντος προστάτον γεγράψομαι. Œd. Tyr. 411. ----- From the mode of distribution it is probable that each share was originally called Hlyt (_sors_, κλῆρος), it derived however another and more common name from its extent and nature. The ordinary Anglosaxon words are Higid[151] (in its contracted and almost universal form Híd) and Hiwisc. The Latin equivalents which we find in the chronicles and charters are, _familia_, _cassatus_, _mansus_, _mansa_, _mansio_, _martens_ and _terra tributarii_. The words Híd and Hiwisc are similar, if not identical, in meaning: they stand in close etymological relation to Higan, Hiwan, the family, the man and wife, and thus perfectly justify the Latin terms _familia_ and _cassatus_[152], by which they are translated. The Híd then, or Hide of land, is the estate of one household, the amount of land sufficient for the support of one family[153]. It is clear however that this could not be an invariable quantity, if the households were to be subsisted on an equal scale: it must depend upon the original quality and condition of the soil, as well as upon manifold contingencies of situation—climate, aspect, accessibility of water and roads, abundance of natural manures, proximity of marshes and forests, in short an endless catalogue of varying details. If therefore the Hide contained a fixed number of acres all over England, and all the freemen were to be placed in a position of equal prosperity, we must assume that in the less favoured districts one Hide would not suffice for the establishment of one man, but that his allotment must have comprised more than that quantity. The first of these hypotheses may be very easily disposed of: there is not the