Chapter XIII: XIV XV XVI (1)

£ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._

3·9 [1 13 1] 1 14 11 Kent
3·3 [1 1 0] 0 18 3 Sussex
3·8 1·02 1 6 0 1 0 8 Surrey
3·9 1·08 1 2 6 Hampshire
3·5 1·16 1 2 4 1 2 10 Berkshire
3·3 1·15 1 4 4 Wiltshire
4·4 1·30 1 3 0 1 6 8 Dorset
3·6 1·27 0 15 9 Somerset
3·1 1·43 0 8 0 0 5 3 Devon
4·5 2·00 0 5 6 0 3 8 Cornwall
4·2 1·21 1 2 8 1 1 1 Middlesex
3·5 1·22 0 17 11 0 13 11 Hertford
2·7 1·14 0 16 1 0 13 6 Buckingham
2·7 1·06 1 4 6 1 0 8 Oxford
2·2 [0 15 0] [0 16 1] Gloucester
2·4 [0 10 5] [0 10 7] Worcester
2·1 [0 9 11] Hereford
3·6 1·16 1 2 9 Cambridge
3·0 1·15 0 15 5 0 12 2 Huntingdon
2·8 1·13 0 14 1 0 15 4 Bedford
3·4 1·21 0 9 9 Northampton
3·7 0 9 8 Leicester
3·2 1·13 0 11 11 0 10 10 Warwick
3·3 1·47 0 7 4 0 8 8 Stafford
2·8 [0 7 2] Shropshire
Chester
3·5 0·88 0 12 1 0 11 7 Derby
2·8 0·63 0 3 6 Nottingham
Rutland
York
5·3 1·07 0 17 6 Lincoln
4?0 [1 4 4] Essex
5?5 [0 17 1] Norfolk
Suffolk

[Northern formulas.]

We may begin our investigation with a formula common in Derbyshire.

In M [place name] habuit K [man's name] _a_ car[ucatas] terrae ad
geldum. Terra _b_ car[ucarum _or_ carucis]. Ibi nunc in dominio _d_
car[ucae] et ... villani et ... bordarii habent _e_ car[ucas].

The Lincolnshire formula is perhaps yet plainer. Instead of saying 'Terra _b_ car[ucarum],' it says, 'Terra ad _b_ car[ucas].' Still more instructive is a formula used in Yorkshire.

In M habuit K _a_ car[ucatas] terrae ad geldum ubi possunt esse _b_
car[ucae]. Nunc habet ibi K _d_ car[ucas] et ... villanos et ...
bordarios cum _e_ car[ucis].

As a variant on the phrase 'ubi possunt esse _b_ car[ucae],' we have, 'quas potest arare 1 car[uca],' or 'has possunt arare _b_ car[ucae][1340].'

The teams on the demesne (_d_) and the teams of the tenants (_e_) are enumerated separately. The total number of the teams (_d_ + _e_) we will call _c_.

Now occasionally we may find an entry concerning which the following equation will hold good: _a_ = _b_ = _c_: in other words, the same number will stand for the carucates at which the manor is taxed, the 'teamlands' that there are in it (or to put it another way the number of teams that 'can be there,' or the number of teams that 'can plough it'[1341]) and also for the teams that are actually to be found there. Thus:--

Terra Roberti de Todeni.... In Ulestanestorp habuit Leuricus 4
car[ucatas] terrae ad geldum. Terra totidem car[ucis]. Ibi habet
Robertus in dominio 1 car[ucam] et 6 villanos et 3 bordarios et 8
sochemannos habentes 3 car[ucas][1342].

Here _a_ = _b_ = _c_. But entries so neat as this are not very common. In the first place, the number (_c_) of teams often exceeds or falls short of the number (_b_) of 'teamlands,' or, which is the same thing, the number of teams that there 'can be.' An excess of 'teamlands' over teams is common. In some parts of Yorkshire and elsewhere instead of reading that there are so many teams, we read 'modo vasta est':--there are no oxen there at all. But the reverse of this case is not very uncommon. Thus we may be told that there are 3 carucates for geld, that 'there can be there 2 teams' and that there are 4 teams[1343]; we may find a manor that contains land for but 3 teams equipped with as many as 7[1344]. As to the relation between _a_ and _b_, this is not fixed. On one and the same page we may find that _a_ is equal to, greater and less than _b_. Thus in Lincolnshire[1345]:

In Colebi habuit Siuuard 7 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad totidem
car.

In Cherchebi habuit Comes Morcar 5 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad
4 car.

In Bodebi habuit Comes Morcar 8 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad 9
car.

[Southern formulas.]

Leaving now for a while the carucated part of England and postponing our visit to Kent, we find similar formulas. They tell us (_A_) that the manor contains a certain number of units of assessment, (_B_) that there is land for a certain number of teams, (_C_) that there are so many teams upon it. But we have a new set of units of assessment; instead of carucates and bovates, we have hides and virgates. The Huntingdonshire formula is particularly clear. It runs thus:

In M habet K _a_ hidas ad geldum. Terra _b_ car[ucarum _or_
carucis]. Ibi nunc in dominio _d_ car[ucae] et ... villani et ...
bordarii habentes _e_ car[ucas].

The number of hides that is put before us is the number of hides 'for geld.' So in Cheshire and Shropshire the number of hides that is put before us is the number of 'hidae geld[antes].' From this we easily pass to the formula that prevails in Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon:

K tenet M. T[empore] R[egis] E[dwardi] geldabat pro _a_ hidis.
Terra est _b_ car[ucarum]. In dominio sunt _d_ car[ucae] et ...
villani et ... bordarii cum _e_ car[ucis].

A formula common in Sussex, Surrey and several other counties instead of telling us that this manor has _a_ hides for geld, or has _a_ gelding hides, or gelds for _a_ hides, tells us--what seems exactly the same thing--that it 'defends itself' for _a_ hides. Then we pass to counties such as Middlesex, Hertford, Buckingham and Oxford where the entry does not commonly use any words which explicitly refer to geld:--we are told that K holds M for so many hides (pro _a_ hidis). Lastly, we may pass to counties, such as Warwickshire and Staffordshire where, at first sight, the entries may seem to us ambiguous. They run thus--'K holds M. There are there _a_ hides. There is land for _b_ teams.' Here for a moment it may seem to us that we have two different statements about the actual extent or capacity of the manor:--there are _a_ hides there, but land for _b_ teams. But comparing the formulas in use here with those in use in other counties, we can hardly doubt that they all come to one and the same thing:--a statement about _b_, the capacity of the manor, is preceded by a statement about its taxation, which statement may take the short form, 'There are _a_ hides there,' instead of one of the longer forms, 'It gelds, or defends itself, for _a_ hides,' or 'He holds _a_ gelding hides, or _a_ hides for geld.'

[Kentish formulas.]

In Kent again, we have the three statements, though here the units of assessment are sulungs and yokes:--the land 'defends itself' for _a_ sulungs; there is land there for _b_ teams; there are _d_ teams in demesne and the men have _e_ teams.

[Relation between the three statements.]

In the hidated south, as in the carucated north, the relation between the three amounts is not invariable. We may find that _a_ = _b_ = _c_. It is common to find that _c_ is less than _b_, but occasionally it is greater; on one and the same page we may find that _c_ is equal to, is greater, is less than _b_. Then _a_ is often equal to _b_, often it is less than _b_, but sometimes it is greater. We have therefore three statements about the manor, between which there is no necessary connexion of any very simple kind.

It may look pedantic, but will be convenient if, by means of the letters _A_, _B_ and _C_, we try to keep distinctly before our minds 'the _A_ statement' about the units of assessment, 'the _B_ statement' about the 'teamlands,' or teams for which 'there is land,' and 'the _C_ statement' about the existing teams. We shall find hereafter that there are certain counties in which we do not get all three statements, at least in any of their accustomed forms. In Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire we rarely get the _B_ statement. As to Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, we seem at first sight to obtain _A_ and not _B_, or _B_ and not _A_, while Leicestershire will require separate treatment.

[Introduction of statistics.]

Now if we are ever to understand these matters, it is necessary that we should look at the whole of England. Far be it from us to say that microscopic labour spent upon one county or one hundred is wasted; often it is of the highest value; but such work is apt to engender theories which break down the moment they are carried outside the district in which they had their origin. Well would it be if the broad features of Domesday Book could be set out before us in a series of statistical tables. The task would be gigantic and could hardly be performed except by a body of men who had plenteous leisure and who would work together harmoniously. However, rather to suggest what might and some day must be done, than to parade what has been done rapidly and badly, some figures have been set forth above in two tables[1346]. That they are extremely inaccurate can not be doubtful, for he who compiled them had other things to do and lacks many of the qualities which should be required of a good counter of hides. For unmethodical habits and faulty arithmetic no excuse is possible; but it will be remembered that, as matters now stand, two men not unskilled in Domesday might add up the number of hides in a county and arrive at very different results, because they would hold different opinions as to the meaning of certain formulas which are not uncommon. What is here set before the reader is intended to be no more than a distant approach towards the truth. It will serve its end if it states the sort of figures that would be obtained by careful and leisurely computers, and therefore the sort of problems that have to be solved[1347].

[Explanation of statistics.]

[Acreage.]

We must now explain our statistics. In Column I. we give the acreage of the modern counties[1348]. A warning bracket will remind the reader that in the cases of Yorkshire, Cheshire and Rutland the modern does not coincide even approximately with the ancient boundary. To Middlesex we give a figure larger than that given by our statisticians, for they know a county of London which has been formed at the expense of its neighbours[1349]. Many minor variations should be remembered by those who would use Domesday Book for delicate purposes; for example, they must call to mind the merger in circumambient shires of what were once detached pieces of other counties. But of such niceties we can here take no account[1350].

[Population.]

In Column II. we state the 'recorded population' as computed by Ellis. In the cases of Dorset and Somerset we also state, and we sign with the letter _E_, the result of Eyton's labours. We must not forget that these figures give us rather the number of tenants or occupiers than the number of human beings. Our readers must multiply them by four, five or six, according to knowledge or taste, before the population of England will be attained.

[Danegeld.]

In Column III., for a reason that will become evident hereafter, we place the amount of danegeld charged against the counties--charged against them, not actually paid by them[1351]--in the middle of the twelfth century. The sources of these figures are the Pipe Rolls of 31 Henry I. and 2 and 8 Henry II. In these accounts the amount charged against a county is approximately constant. Some of the variations are probably due to a contemptuous treatment of small sums[1352]; but there are cases in which a sheriff seems to have been allowed to deduct £10 or so, without any recorded explanation[1353]. We choose the highest figures when there is any discord between our three rolls. The danegeld was being levied at the rate of two shillings on the hide, and therefore, if we would find the number of geldant hides, we have to multiply by ten the number of pounds that are set against the county.

[Sidenote: Hides, carucates, sulungs.]

Column IV. contains our estimate of _A_: in other words, of the number of hides, carucates or sulungs. As we are arguing for a large hide, we have thought right in doubtful cases to lean in favour of inclusion rather than of exclusion. We count all hides, except those ascribed to the shire's boroughs[1354], even though we are told that they have 'never' gelded. Also, when a hide is mentioned, we count it, even though we have a strong suspicion that the same hide is mentioned again on some other page. Especially in Sussex, where the rapes have recently been rearranged, this may make our figures too high[1355]. Then, again, we have frankly begged important questions by assuming that in Domesday Book the following equations are correct.

1 Hide = 4 Virgates = 120 Acres
1 Carucate = 8 Bovates = 120 Acres
1 Sulung = 4 Yokes = 120 Acres.

In the counties with which we have dealt, except Norfolk and Essex (Suffolk we have left alone), acres are so rarely mentioned that the error, if any, introduced by our hypothesis as to their relation to hides and carucates will be almost infinitesimal, and, even if we are wrong in supposing that the virgate is the quarter of a hide and that the bovate is the eighth of a carucate, the vitiation of our results that will be due to this blunder will but rarely be considerable[1356].

[Reduced hidage.]

Almost everywhere we may find some hides (carucates, sulungs) that do not geld and many cases in which a tract now gelds for a smaller number of hides (carucates, sulungs) than that for which it formerly paid. In four counties, however, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire, we see that since William's advent there has, rightfully or wrongfully, been a large and generally distributed reduction in the tale of the gelding hides. In our Column V. we give a rough statement of the reduced number[1357]. In Cornwall we read of an assessment that prevailed in the Confessor's day and of a heavier assessment. The figures which speak of this heavier assessment we place in our Column V[1358].

[The teamlands.]

We now pass from _A_ to _B_. In Column VI. we set the number of teamlands, thus answering the question _Quot carucarum [carucis] ibi est terra_. We have assumed, but this rarely has an appreciable effect on our calculations, that the land of one ox is the eighth, the land of two oxen the fourth part of the land of one team. There are certain counties where we receive no statement about the teamlands, while in certain others the statement, though it seems to be expected, is often omitted[1359]. For this reason some blanks will be found in this column. In most of the other counties instances occur with more or less frequency in which nothing is said of the teamlands. In these cases we have thought it fair to assume that there were teamlands equal in number to the teams (_B_ = _C_). The effect of this assumption will be to bring the number of teamlands (_B_) somewhat closer to the number of teams (_C_) than it would otherwise have been, but no very great harm will have thus been done to our rude statistics[1360].

[The teams.]

Column VII. gives the number of teams. Here we assume (we shall endeavour to prove hereafter) that the _caruca_ of Domesday Book always means the same, namely, eight oxen[1361].

[The values.]

Lastly in Column VIII. we place the results attained by Pearson[1362] and Eyton in their endeavours to add together the various sums which the various estates in a shire are said to be worth (_valet_) or to render (_reddit_) in the Conqueror's day, and to thus obtain a total _valet_ for the shire. We need hardly say that these values are 'annual values.'

[The table of ratios.]

The relations between our divers sets of figures are more important than the figures themselves, therefore we have worked the division sums the results of which are printed in the second Table, the first seven columns whereof are filled by quotients[1363]. The last column calls for more remark. The _valets_ obtained for the various counties by Pearson and Eyton are somewhat precarious. They involve theories as to the relation between the values of gold and silver, as to the relation between the value of a pound reckoned by tale and a pound reckoned by weight, as to 'blanched' money and the cost of 'a night's farm.' Also a good deal is included that can hardly be called the value of land, since it comprehends, not only the value of mills and the like, but also in some cases the revenue derived from courts. In order therefore that we might compare the values given to land in the various counties, we have taken at hazard a number of small estates in order that we might by addition and division obtain the value of a typical teamland with typical appurtenances. In general we have chosen ten estates each of which has one teamland, ten estates each of which has two teamlands and ten estates each of which has five teamlands, and then we have divided the sum of their values by eighty, the number of teamlands that they comprise. On the whole, the figures that we thus obtain and place in Column XVI. are not widely removed from those in Column XV., which represent the quotients arising from a division of Pearson's 'county values' by the number of teamlands that are contained in the counties[1364].

[An apology.]

In order that not too much credence and yet just credence enough may be given to the figures that we have hastily put together, we will set beside those that we have stated for Gloucestershire the results of a minute analysis accomplished by Mr Charles Taylor[1365]. We have set down: _Population_, 8366 (from Ellis); _Hides_, 2388; _Teams_, 3768; _Total Valet_, £2827 6_s._ 8_d._ (from Pearson). Mr Taylor gives: _Population_, 8239[1366]; _Hides_, 2611 (or 2596); _Teams_, 3909; _Total Valet_, £3130 7_s._ 10_d._ Now these variations are wide and may in some sort be discreditable to those who differ from Mr Taylor[1367]. But they are not very substantial if we come to averages and ratios and a comparison of counties. For the purposes for which we shall use our figures, it is no great matter whether in this county there are 2·1 or 2·2 'recorded men' to the plough-team[1368]. The broad features of Gloucestershire are that its hides fall far short of its teams, that its recorded population is sparse, that the average value of the land tilled by a team falls well below twenty shillings, that this shire differs markedly and in certain assignable respects from Wiltshire, where the hides exceed the teams, from Lincoln, where, despite the fen, the population is thick, from Kent, where the average value of land tilled by a team rises above thirty shillings[1369].

[Constancy of ratios.]

Our figures tell of wide variations; but we may be allowed to call attention to the stability of certain ratios, a stability which is gratifying to the diffident arithmetician. In twenty-one counties we can divide 'the recorded population' by the number of teamlands. The quotient never falls as low as 2 and only twice exceeds 4[1370]. For the same twenty-one counties we can divide the number of teamlands by the number of teams. Only twice will the quotient fall below 1 and only once will it touch 2. We must not, however, be led away into a general discussion of these figures. That task would require a wary and learned economist. We must keep our minds bent on what may be called the _A B C_ of our subject[1371].

[The team.]

Now we may start with what seems to be the most objective of our three statements, that which gives us _C_, the number of teams. We know that in _A_ there is an element of estimation, of assessment; we may fear that this is true of _B_ also; but an ox or a team ought to be a fact and not a theory. At the outset, however, a troublesome question arises. We have assumed that whenever our record speaks of a _caruca_ it means eight oxen. On the other hand, there are who maintain that whereas the _carucae_ of the demesne consisted of eight, those ascribed to the villeins comprised but four oxen[1372], and others have thought that the strength of Domesday's _caruca_ varied from place to place with the varying practice of divers agriculturists.

[Variability of the _caruca_.]

But, in the first place, it is abundantly clear that the clerk who compiled the account of Cambridgeshire from the original verdicts held himself at liberty to substitute 'half a team' for 'four oxen' and 'four oxen' for 'half a team[1373].' In the second place, the theory of a variable _caruca_ would in our eyes reduce to an absurdity the practice of stating the capacity of land in terms of the teams and the oxen that can plough it. We are carefully told about each estate that 'there is land for _b_ teams, or for _b´_ oxen, or for _b_ teams and _b´_ oxen.' Now if a 'team' has always the same meaning, we have here a valuable truth. If, on the other hand, a 'team' may mean eight or may mean four oxen, we are being told next to nothing. The apparently precise 'there is land for 4 teams' becomes the useless 'there is land for 32 or 16 or for some number between 32 and 16 oxen.' What could the statesmen, who were hoping to correct the assessment of the danegeld, make of so vague a statement? They propose to work sums in teams and teamlands. They spend immense pains in ascertaining that here there is 'land for half a team' or 'land for half an ox.' We are accusing them of laborious folly unless we suppose that they can at a moment's notice convert teams into oxen.

[The _caruca_ a constant.]

If it be allowed that in the statement (_B_) about the number of teamlands the term caruca has always the same meaning, we cannot stop there, but must believe that in the statement (_C_) about the number of teams this same meaning is retained. Often enough when there is equality between teamlands and teams (_C = B_), the entry takes the following form:--There is land for _b_ teams and 'they' are there[1374]. What are there? The teams for which 'there is land': those teams which are serving as a measure for the capacity of land. Let us try the two modes of interpretation on the first lines that strike our eye. Here we have two successive entries, each of which tells us that 'there is land for 6 teams[1375].' If the _caruca_ is a constant, we have learnt that in one particular there is equality between these estates. If the _caruca_ is a variable, we have learnt nothing of the kind. Let us see what we can gain by reading further. In the one case there were 3 teams on the demesne and the villeins had 6-1/2; in the other there were 2 teams on the demesne, the villeins had 2 and the sokemen 2. We want to know whether the second of these estates is under-teamed or over-teamed. There is land for 6 teams and there are 6 teams on it; but 2 of these teams belong to villeins and 2 to sokemen. If we give the villeins but 4 oxen to the team, how many shall we give the sokemen? Shall we say 6? If so, there are 36 oxen here. Is that too many or too few or just enough for the arable land that there is? That is an unanswerable question, for the king's commissioners have been content with the statement that the number of oxen appropriate to this estate lies somewhere between 23 and 49.

[The villeins' teams.]

Surely when we are told that 8 sokemen have '2 teams and 6 oxen' or that 9 sokemen and 5 bordiers have '3 teams and 7 oxen[1376],' we are being told that the teams in question have no less than eight oxen apiece. Surely when we are told that there are 23 villeins and 5 bordiers with 2 teams and 5 oxen[1377], we are being told that the teams of these villeins are not teams of four. And what are we to say of cases in which a certain number of teams is ascribed to a number of persons who belong to various classes, as for example when 6 villeins and 7 bordiers and 2 sokemen are said to have 3 teams and 5 oxen[1378], or where 3 villeins, 2 bordiers, a priest and a huntsman are said to have one team and 6 oxen[1379], or where 19 radknights 'with their men' are said to have 48 teams[1380]? Even if we suppose that the officers of the exchequer have tables which tell them how many oxen a _caruca_ implies when it is attributed to a Northamptonshire sokeman or a Gloucestershire radknight, we are still setting before them insoluble problems. The radknights of Berkeley 'with their men' have 48 teams:--this may cover less than 200 or more than 300 oxen. And yet the record that is guilty of this laxity will tell us how in Bedfordshire _Terra est dimidio bovi, et ibi est semibos_[1381].

[The villeins' oxen.]

The main argument that has been urged in favour of a variable _caruca_ is that which, basing itself on later documents, protests that a villein ought not to have more than two oxen[1382]. Now true it seems to be that if by the number of the teams belonging to the _villani_ and _bordarii_ of Domesday Book we divide the number of _villani_ plus half the number of _bordarii_ (and this would be a fair procedure), we shall obtain as our quotient a figure that will be much nearer to 2 than to 4. But it must be common ground to all who read our record that some villeins are much better supplied with oxen than are their neighbours, and that some villeins have whole teams, whatever a 'team' may mean. There is so much difference in this respect between manor and manor that we are not justified in talking of any particular number of oxen as the normal outfit of the _villanus_, and outside of Domesday Book we have far too little evidence to sanction the dogma that the average number must stand close to 2[1383]. Even the villein virgater on the monastic manors of the thirteenth century is often expected to have four oxen, and his having eight is a possibility that must be contemplated[1384].

[Light and heavy ploughs.]

That light as well as heavy ploughs were in use we have not denied. At a little later time we see teams of six beasts and teams of ten engaged in ploughing. But the compilers of Domesday Book are not concerned with the methods of husbandry; they are registering the number of oxen. If a man has one ox which is employed as a beast of the plough, they say of him: _Arat cum uno bove_[1385]. If he and another man have such an ox between them, they say: _Ibi est semibos_. If he has four oxen, they set this down as _dimidia caruca_. Instead of telling us that there are thirty-eight oxen, they speak of five teams less two oxen[1386]. Twelve pence make a shilling; and, at all events at the Exchequer, eight oxen make a team.

[The team of Domesday and other documents.]

Very lately an argument has been advanced in favour of a _caruca_, the strength of which varies from place to place. In many instances the Black Book of Peterborough in its description of the abbatial estates will give to the demesne of a particular manor exactly the same number of teams that are ascribed to it by Domesday Book, and, while in some cases the later of these documents will tell us that there are eight oxen to the team, in others it will speak of teams of six[1387]. That there is force in this argument we must admit; but many changes will take place in forty years, and we can not think that the correspondence between the two documents is sufficiently close to warrant the inference that the _caruca_ of Domesday can have fewer beasts than eight. An exactly parallel argument would serve to prove that the hide of Domesday contains a variable number of fiscal 'acres.' Were it possible (but we shall see that it is not) for us to regard the teamland of Domesday as a fixed area, then we might afford to allow the strength of the team to vary; but if the teamland is no fixed area and the team has no fixed strength, then King William's inquest ends in a collection of unknown quantities.

[The teamland.]

We turn from the team (_C_) to the teamland (_B_), and must face some perplexing questions. Reluctantly we have come to the opinion that this term 'the land of (or for) one team' does not in the first instance denote a fixed areal quantity of arable land. We have adopted this opinion reluctantly because we are differing from some of the best expositors of our record, and because it compels us to say that many of the statistical data with which that record provides us are not so useful as we hoped that they would be.

[Fractional parts of the teamland.]

In the first place, we must notice that if this term stands for a fixed quantity, a very rude use is being made of it. We see indeed that fractional parts of a teamland can be conceived. We often meet the land of (or for) half a team; we may come upon the land of or for two oxen, one ox, half an ox. But, except in a few counties, any mention of fractions smaller than the half of a team is rare, and even halves seldom occur. Now certainly the teamland was a large unit for such treatment as this. If, for instance, we suppose that it contained 120 acres, then we must infer that in some shires the jurors who had to describe a mass of 420 acres would have called it land for 3 or else land for 4 teams, and that in most shires an odd 80 acres would have been neglected or would have done duty as half a teamland. The hides or the carucates (_A_) have often been split into small fractions where the jurors distribute integral teamlands. One example of this common phenomenon shall be given. In Grantchester lie six estates[1388]:

the first rated at 3 v. has land for 1 team,
the second rated at 2 h. 3 v. has land for 6 teams,
the third rated at 2 h. 3 v. has land for 4 teams,
the fourth rated at 1-1/2 v. has land for 1 team,
the fifth rated at 1 v. has land for 4 oxen,
the sixth rated at 1/2 v. has land for 3 oxen.

The teamland does not break up easily. As a general rule, we only hear of fractional parts of it when the jurors are compelled to deal with a tenement so small that it can not be said to possess even one teamland[1389].

[Land for oxen and wood for swine.]

In passing we observe that this phrase, 'There is land for _x_ teams' finds exact parallels in two other phrases that are not very uncommon, namely, 'There is pasture for _y_ sheep' and 'There is wood for _z_ pigs': also that the values given to _y_ and _z_ are often large and round. It may be that the jurors have in their minds equations which connect the area of a wood or pasture with its power of feeding swine or sheep, but an extremely lax use must be made of these equations when the number of sheep is fixed at a neat hundred or the number of pigs at a neat thousand, nor dare we say that the quality of the grass and trees has no influence upon the computation.

[Teamland no areal unit.]

Secondly, we observe that the teamland when it does break into fractional parts does not break into virgates, bovates, acres, roods, or any other units which we can regard as units in a scheme of areal measurement[1390]. The eighth of a teamland is the land of (or for) an ox. If we wish to speak of the sixteenth of a teamland, we must introduce the half-ox. Now had the jurors been told to state the quantity of the arable land comprised in a tenement, they had at their command plenty of words which would have served this purpose. No sooner will they have told us that there is land for two teams, than they will add that there are five acres of meadow and a wood which is three furlongs in length by two in breadth. We infer that they have not been asked to state the area of the arable. They have been asked to say something about it, but not to state its area.

[The commissioners and the teamlands.]

What had they been asked to say? Here we naturally turn to that well-known introduction to the Inquisitio Eliensis which professes to describe the procedure of the commissioners and which at many points corresponds with the contents of Domesday Book[1391]. We read that the barons made inquiry about the number of the hides (_A_) and the number of the teams (_C_); we do not read any word about the teamlands (_B_). _Quot hidae_ they must ask; _Quot carucae[1392] in dominio et quot hominum_ they must ask; _Quot carucis ibi est terra_--there is no such question. On the other hand, the jurors are told to give all the particulars thrice over (_hoc totum tripliciter_), once with reference to King Edward's day, once with reference to the date when the Conqueror bestowed the manor, and once with reference to the present time.

[The teamlands of Great Domesday.]

Now, if these be the interrogatories that the justiciars administered to the jurors, then the answering verdicts as they are recorded in Great Domesday err both by defect and by excess. On the one hand, save when they are dealing with the geld or the value of a tenement, they rarely give any figures from King Edward's day, and still seldomer do they speak about the date of the Conqueror's feoffments. Our record does not systematically report that whereas there are now four teams on this manor, there were five in the Confessor's reign and three when its new lord received it. On the other hand, we obtain the apparently unasked for information that 'there is land for five teams.'

[The teams of Little Domesday.]

We turn to Little Domesday and all is altered. Here the words of the writ seem to be punctually obeyed. The particulars are stated three times over, the words _tunc_, _post_ and _modo_ pointing to the three periods. Thus we learn how many teams there were when Edward was living and when the Conqueror gave the land away. On the other hand, we are not told how many teams 'could till' that land, though if the existing teams are fewer than those that were ploughing in time past, it will sometimes be remarked that the old state of things could be 'restored[1393]'.

[The Leicestershire formulas.]

Next we visit Leicestershire. We may open our book at a page which will make us think that the account of this shire will be very similar to those reports that are typical of Great Domesday. We read that Ralph holds four carucates; that there is land for four teams; that there are two teams on the demesne while the villeins have two[1394]. But then, alternating with entries which run in this accustomed form, we find others which, instead of telling us that there is land for so many teams, will tell us that there were so many upon it in the time of King Edward[1395]. Perhaps, were this part of the survey explored by one having the requisite knowledge, he would teach us that the jurors of some wapentakes use the one formula while the other is peculiar to other wapentakes; but, as the record stands, the variation seems due to the compiling clerk. Be that as it may, we can hardly read through these Leicestershire entries without being driven to believe that substantially the same piece of information is being conveyed to us now in one and now in the other of two shapes that in our eyes are dissimilar. To say, 'There were four teams here in King Edward's day' is much the same as to say, 'There is land here for four teams.' Conversely, to say, 'There is land here for four teams' is much the same as to say,'There were four teams here in King Edward's day.' For an exact equivalence we must not contend; but if the commissioners get the one piece of information they do not want the other. On no single occasion, unless we are mistaken, are both put on record[1396].

[Origin of the inquiry about the teamlands.]

When we have thought over these things, we shall perhaps fashion for ourselves some such guess as that which follows. The original scheme of the Inquest was unnecessarily cumbrous. The design of collecting the statistics of the past broke down. Let us imagine a similar attempt made in our own day. Local juries are summoned to swear communal verdicts about the number of horses and oxen that the farmers were keeping twenty years ago. Roughly, very roughly true would such verdicts be, although no foreign invasion, no influx of alien men and words and manners divides us from the fortieth year of Queen Victoria. In Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk some sort of answer about these matters was extracted from the jurors; but frequently they report that the arrangements which exist now have always existed, and by this they mean that they cannot remember any change. Now, when we fail to find in Great Domesday any similar figures, we may ascribe this to one of two causes. Either the commissioners did not collect statistics, or the compilers did not think them worthy of preservation. In some cases the one supposition may be true, in other cases the other. We may be fairly certain that in many or all counties the horses and the pigs and the 'otiose animals' that were extant in 1086 were enumerated in the verdicts[1397]. Also we know that Domesday Book is no mere transcript, but is an abstract or digest, and we have cause for believing that those who made it held themselves free to vary the phrases used by the jurors, provided that no material change was thus introduced[1398]. Howbeit, to come to the question that is immediately before us, our evidence seems to tell us that the commissioners and their master discovered that the original programme of the inquest was unnecessarily cumbrous. Once and again in more recent days has a similar discovery been made by royal commissioners. So some interrogatories were dropped.

[Modification of the inquiry.]

Then we suspect that the inquiry about the number of oxen that were ploughing in Edward's day became a more practicable, if looser, inquiry about the number of oxen capable of tilling the land. The transition would not be difficult. What King William really wants to know is the agricultural capacity of the tenement. He learns that there are now upon it so many beasts of the plough. But this number may be accidentally large or accidentally small. With an eye to future taxation, he wishes for figures expressive of the normal condition of things. But, according to the dominant idea of his reign, the normal condition of things is their Edwardian condition, that in which they stood before the usurper deforced the rightful heir. And so these two formulas which we see alternating in the account of Leicestershire really do mean much the same thing: 'There is land for _x_ teams': 'There were _x_ teams in the time of King Edward.'

[Inquiry as to potential teams.]

But if we suppose the justices abandoning the question 'How many teams twenty years ago?' in favour of 'How many teams can there be?' we see that, though they are easing their task and enabling themselves to obtain answers in the place of silence, they are also substituting for a matter of pure fact what may easily become a matter of opinion. They have left the actual behind and are inquiring about potentialities. They will now get answers more speedily; but who eight centuries afterwards will be able to analyze the mental processes of which these answers are the upshot? It is possible that a jury sets to work with an equation which connects oxen with area, for example, one which tells that a team can plough 120 acres. It is but too possible that this equation varies from place to place and that the commissioners do not try to prevent variations. They are not asking about area; they are asking about the number of teams requisite for the tillage of the tenement. With this and its value as data, William's ministers hope to correct the antiquated assessments. Some of the commissioners may allow the jurors to take the custom of the district as a guide, while others would like to force one equation on the whole country. Our admiration for Domesday Book will be increased, not diminished, if we remember that it is the work not of machines but of men. Some of the justices seem to have thought that the inquiry about potential teams (_B_) was not of the first importance, not nearly so important as the inquiries about actual teams (_C_) and gelding units (_A_). In various counties we see many entries in which _Terra est_ is followed by a blank space. In Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford we find no systematic mention of teamlands, but only occasional reports which show that at certain places there might be more teams than there are. At the end of the account of the Bishop of Worcester's triple hundred of Oswaldslaw (an account so favourable to St. Mary that it might have been dictated by her representative) we find the remark that in none of these manors could there be any more teams than now are there[1399]. The bishop, who fully understands the object of the inquest, does not mean to have his assessment raised, and the justices are compelled to take the word of jurors every one of whom is the vassal of St. Mary.

[Normal relation between teams and teamlands.]

We know so little as to the commissioners' intentions, in particular so little as to any design on their part to force upon the whole country some one equation connecting oxen with area, that the task which is set before us if we would explain the relation between the number of the teams (_C_) and the number of the teamlands (_B_) that we find in a given county is sometimes an intricate and perhaps insoluble problem. If England be taken as a whole, the two numbers will stand very close to each other. In some counties, for example in Lincolnshire, if at the foot of each page we add up the particulars, we shall long remain in doubt whether _B_ or _C_ will be the greater when our final sum is made. In county after county we shall find a large number of entries in which _B = C_, and, though there will always be some cases in which, the tenement being waste, _C_ descends to zero, and others in which _C_ is less than _B_, still the deficiency will be partially redressed by instances in which _B_ falls short of _C_. On the whole, the relation between the two is that which we might expect. Often there is equality; often the variation is small; but an excess on the part of _B_ is commoner than an excess on the part of _C_, and when the waste teamlands have been brought into the account, then in most counties _B_ will usually exceed _C_ by 10 per cent, or little more. There are, however, some marked and perplexing exceptions to this rule[1400].

[Deficiency of teams in the south-west.]

As we pass through the southern counties from east to west, the ratio borne by the teamlands to the teams steadily increases, until ascending by leaps it reaches 1.43:1 (or thereabouts) in Devon and 2:1 in Cornwall. Now to all seeming we are not in a country which has recently been devastated; it is not like Yorkshire; we find no large number of 'waste' or unpopulated or unvalued estates. Here and there we may see a tenement which has as many teams as it has teamlands; but in the great majority of cases the preponderance of teamlands is steadily maintained. What does this mean? One conceivable explanation we may decidedly reject. It does not mean a relatively scientific agriculture which makes the most of the ox. Nor does it mean a fertile soil[1401]. Our figures seem to show that men are sparse and poor; also they are servile. We suspect their tillage to be of that backward kind which ploughs enormous tracts for a poor return. _Arva per annos mutant et superest ager._ Of the whole of the land that is sometimes ploughed, they sow less than two-thirds or a half in any one year: perhaps they sow one-third only, so that of the space which the royal commissioners reckon as three teamlands two-thirds are always idle. We must remember that in modern times the husbandry that prevailed in Cornwall was radically different from that which governed the English open fields. It was what the agrarian historians of Germany call a _Feldgrasswirtschaft_[1402]. That perhaps is the best explanation which we can give of this general and normal excess of teamlands over teams. But to this we may add that systems of mensuration and assessment which fitted the greater part of England very well, may have fitted Devon, Cornwall and some other western counties very badly[1403]. Those systems are the outcome of villages and spacious common fields where, without measurement, you count the 'acres' and the plough-lands or house-lands, and they refuse to register with any accuracy the arrangements of the Celtic hamlets, or rather _trevs_ of the west.

[Actual and potential teamlands.]

It is by no means impossible that when the commissioners came to a county which was very sparsely peopled (and in Cornwall each 'recorded man' might have had near 160 acres of some sort or another all to himself) their question about the number of teamlands or about the number of teams 'that could plough there' became a question about remote possibilities, rather than about existing or probable arrangements, and that the answer to it became mere guesswork. On one occasion in Cornwall they are content with the statement that there is land for 'fifteen or thirty teams[1404].' In the description of a wasted tract of Staffordshire we see six cases close together in which two different guesses as to the number of the potential teamlands are recorded[1405]:--'There is land for two teams', but 'or three' is interlined. Five times 'or two' is written above 'one,' Now this is of importance, for perhaps we may see in it the key to the treatment that wasted Yorkshire receives. How much arable land is there in this village? Well, if by 'arable land' you mean land that is ploughed, there is none. If you do not mean this, if you are speaking of a 'waste' vill where no land has been ploughed these fifteen years, then you must be content with a speculative answer[1406]. If the ruined cottages were rebuilt and inhabited, if oxen and men were imported, then employment might be found for four or five teams. Called to speculate about these matters, the Yorkshire jurors very naturally catch hold of any solid fact which may serve as a base for computations. This fact they seem to find in the geld assessment. This estate is rated to the geld at two carucates; the assessment seems tolerably fair; so they say that two teams would plough the land. Or again, this estate is rated to the geld at four carucates; but its assessment is certainly too high, so let it be set down for two teamlands[1407]. Even in other parts of the country the jurors may sometimes avail themselves of this device. In particular there are tracts in which they are fond of reporting that the number of teamlands is just equal to (_B=A_) or just twice as great (_B=2A_) as the number of gelding carucates. We very much fear, though the ground for this fear can not be explained at this stage of our inquiry, that the figure which the jurors state when questioned about potential teams is sometimes dictated by a traditional estimate which has been playing a part in the geld assessment, and that the number of teamlands is but remotely connected with the agrarian arrangements of 1086. All our other guesses therefore must be regarded as being subject to this horrible suspicion, of which we shall have more to say hereafter[1408].

[The land of excessive teams.]

This makes it difficult for us to construe the second great aberration from the general rule that the number of the teamlands in a county will slightly exceed the number of teams. In Derby and Nottingham apparent 'understocking' becomes the exception and 'overstocking' the rule. In Derby there is a good deal of 'waste' where we have to reckon teamlands but no teams, and yet on many pages the number of teams is the greater (_C>B_). In Nottingham there seem to be on the average near 200 teams where there are but 125 teamlands. In many columns of the Lincolnshire survey, and therefore perhaps in some districts of that large and variegated county, the teams have a majority, though, if we have not blundered, they are beaten by the teamlands when the whole shire has been surveyed. It is very possible that a similar phenomenon would have been recorded in Essex and East Anglia if the inquiry in those counties had taken the form that was usual elsewhere, for the teams seem to be thick on the land. Now to interpret the steady excess of teams that we see in Derby and Nottingham is not easy. We can hardly suppose that the jurors are confessing that they habitually employ a superfluity of oxen. Perhaps, however, we may infer that in this district a given area of land will be ploughed by an unusually large number of teams, whereas in Devon and Cornwall a given area will be ploughed, though intermittently, by an unusually small number. In every way the contrast between Devon and Cornwall on the one hand, Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby on the other, is strongly marked. Of the quality of soils something should, no doubt, be said which we are too ignorant to say. An acre would yield more corn in Nottingham and Derby, to say nothing of Lincoln, than in Devon and Cornwall, though the _valets_ that we find in the three Danish shires are by no means so high as those that are displayed by some of the southern counties. But if we ask how many households our average teamland is supporting, then among all the counties that we have examined Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby stand at the very top, while Devon and Cornwall stand with the depopulated Stafford at the very bottom of the list[1409]. Then, again, we see the contrasts between village and _trev_, between Dane and Celt, between sokeman and slave. Possibly Northampton, Derby and parts of Lincoln really are 'over-teamed': that is to say, were the land of these counties to come to the hands of lords who held large and compact estates, the number of plough-teams would be reduced. Where there is freedom there will be some waste. The tenements split into fractions, and the owner of a small piece must keep oxen enough to draw a plough or trust to the friendliness and reciprocal needs of his neighbours. Manorialism has this advantage: it can make the most of the ox. Another possible guess is that the real carucates and bovates of this district (by which we mean the units which locally bear these names and which are the units in the proprietary or tenurial scheme) have few acres, fewer than would be allowed by some equation which the royal commissioners for these counties carry in their minds. Being assured (for example) that the bovates in a certain village or hundred have few acres, they may be allowing the jurors to count as three team-lands ('of imperial measure') a space of arable that has been locally treated as four. So, after all, the rule that normally each teamland should have its team and that each team should till its teamland may be holding good in these counties, though the proprietary and agrarian units have differed from those that the commissioners treat as orthodox.

[Attempts to explain the excess of teams.]