Chapter V: Preface: v (4)

As a last question we may ask: What was the English for _villanus_? It is a foreign word, one of those words which came in with the Conqueror. Surely, we may argue, there must have been some English equivalent for it. Yet we have the greatest difficulty in finding the proper term. True that in the Quadripartitus and the Leges _villanus_ generally represents _ceorl_; _ceorl_ when it is not rendered by _villanus_ is left untranslated in some such form as _cyrliscus homo_. But then _ceorl_ must be a wider word than the _villanus_ of Domesday Book, for it has to cover all the non-noble free men; it must comprehend the numerous _sochemanni_ and _liberi homines_ of northern and eastern England. This in itself is not a little remarkable; it makes us suspect that some of the lines drawn by Domesday Book are by no means very old; they can not be drawn by any of those terms that have been current in the Anglo-Saxon dooms or which still are current in the text-books that lawyers are compiling. To suppose that _villanus_ is equivalent to _gebúr_ is impossible; we have the best warrant for saying that the Latin for _gebúr_ is not _villanus_ but _colibertus_[204]. Nor can we hold that the _villanus_ is a _geneat_. In the last days of the old English kingdom the _geneat_, the 'companion,' the 'fellow,' appears as a horseman who rides on his lord's errands; we must seek him among the _radmanni_ and _rachenistres_ and _drengi_ of Domesday Book[205]. We shall venture the guess that when the Norman clerks wrote down _villanus_, the English jurors had said _túnesman_. As a matter of etymology the two words answer to each other well enough; the _villa_ is the _tún_, and the men of the _villa_ are the men of the _tún_. In the enlarged Latin version of the laws of Cnut, known as Instituta Cnuti, there is an important remark:--tithes are to be paid both from the lands of the thegn and from the lands of the villeins--'tam de dominio liberalis hominis, id est þegenes, quam de terra villanorum, id est tuumannes (_corr._ tunmannes)[206].' Then in a collection of dooms known as the Northumbrian Priests' Law there is a clause which orders the payment of Peter's pence. If a king's thegn or landlord (_landrica_) withholds his penny, he must pay ten half-marks, half to Christ, half to the king; but if a _túnesman_ withholds it, then let the landlord pay it and take an ox from the man[207]. A very valuable passage this is. It shows us how the lord is becoming responsible for the man's taxes: if the tenant will not pay them, the lord must. It is then in connexion with this responsibility of the lord that the term _townsman_ meets us, and, if we mistake not, it is the lord's responsibility for geld that is the chief agent in the definition of the class of _villani_. The pressure of taxation, civil and ecclesiastical, has been forming new social strata, and a new word, in itself a vague word, is making its way into the vocabulary of the law[208].

[Summary.]

The class of villeins may well be heterogeneous. It may well contain (so we think) men who, or whose ancestors, have owned the land under a political supremacy, not easily to be distinguished from landlordship, that belongs to the king; and, on the other hand, it may well contain those who have never in themselves or their predecessors been other than the tenants of another man's soil. In some counties on the Welsh march there are groups of _hospites_ who in fact or theory are colonists whom the lord has invited onto his land[209]; but this word, very common in France, is not common in England. Our record is not concerned to describe the nature or the origin of the villein's tenure; it is in quest of geld and of the persons who ought to be charged with geld, and so it matters not whether the lord has let land to the villein or has acquired rights over land of which the villein was once the owner. Therefore we lay down no broad principle about the rights of the villein, but we have suggested that taken in the mass the _villani_ of the Confessor's reign were far more 'law-worthy' than were the _villani_ of the thirteenth century. We can not treat either the legal or the economic history of our peasantry as a continuous whole; it is divided into two parts by the red thread of the Norman Conquest. That is a catastrophe. William might do his best to make it as little of a catastrophe as was possible, to insist that each French lord should have precisely the same rights that had been enjoyed by his English _antecessor_; it may even be that he endeavoured to assure to those who were becoming _villani_ the rights that they had enjoyed under King Edward[210]. Such a task, if attempted, was impossible. We hear indeed that the English 'redeemed their lands,' but probably this refers only to those English lords, those thegns or the like, who were fortunate enough to find that a ransom would be accepted[211]. We have no warrant for thinking that the peasants, the common 'townsmen,' obtained from the king any covenanted mercies. They were handed over to new lords, who were very free in fact, if not in theory, to get out of them all that could be got without gross cruelty.

[Depression of the villeins.]

We are not left to speculate about this matter. In after days those who were likely to hold a true tradition, the great financier of the twelfth, the great lawyer of the thirteenth century, believed that there had been a catastrophe. As a result of the Conquest, the peasants, at all events some of the peasants, had fallen from their free estate; free men, holding freely, they had been compelled to do unfree services[212]. But if we need not rely upon speculation, neither need we rely upon tradition. Domesday Book is full of evidence that the tillers of the soil are being depressed.

[The Normans and the peasants.]

Here we may read of a free man with half a hide who has now been made one of the villeins[213], there of the holder of a small manor who now cultivates it as the farmer of a French lord _graviter et miserabiliter_[214], and there of a sokeman who has lost his land for not paying geld, though none was due[215]; while the great Richard of Tonbridge has condescended to abstract a virgate from a villein or a villein from a virgate[216]. But, again, it is not on a few cases in which our record states that some man has suffered an injustice that we would rely. Rather we notice what it treats as a quite common event. Free men are being 'added to' manors to which they did not belong. Thus in Suffolk a number of free men have been added to the manor of Montfort; they pay no 'custom' to it before the Conquest, but now they pay £15; Ælfric who was reeve under Roger Bigot set them this custom[217]. Hard by them were men who used to pay 20 shillings, but this same Ælfric raised their rent to 100 shillings[218]. 'A free man held this land and could sell it, but Waleran father of John has added him to this manor[219]':--Entries of this kind are common. The utmost rents are being exacted from the farmers:--this manor was let for three years at a rent of £12 and a yearly gift of an ounce of gold, but all the farmers who took it were ruined[220]--that manor was let for £3. 15_s_. but the men were thereby ruined and now it is valued at only 45_s._[221] About these matters French and English can not agree:--this manor renders £70 by weight, but the English value it at only £60 by tale[222]--the English fix the value at £80, but the French at £100[223]--Frenchmen and Englishmen agree that it is worth £50, but Richard let it to an Englishman for £60, who thereby lost £10 a year, at the very least[224]. 'It can not pay,' 'it can hardly pay,' 'it could not stand' the rent, such are the phrases that we hear. If the lord gets the most out of the farmer to whom he has leased the manor, we may be sure that the farmer is making the most out of the villeins.

[Depression of the sokemen.]

But the most convincing proof of the depression of the peasantry comes to us from Cambridgeshire. The rural population of that county as it existed in 1086 has been classified thus[225]:--

sochemanni 213
villani 1902
bordarii 1428
cotarii 736
servi 548

But we also learn that the Cambridgeshire of the Confessor's day had contained at the very least 900 instead of 200 sokemen[226]. This is an enormous and a significant change. Let us look at a single village. In Meldreth there is a manor; it is now a manor of the most ordinary kind; it is rated at 3 hides and 1 virgate, but contains 5 team-lands; in demesne are half a hide and one team, and 15 _bordarii_ and 3 _cotarii_ have 4 teams, and there is one _servus_. But before the Conquest this land was held by 15 sokemen; 10 of them were under the soke of the Abbey of Ely and held 2 hides and half a virgate; the other 5 held 1 hide and half a virgate and were the men of Earl Ælfgar[227]. What has become of these fifteen sokemen? They are now represented by fifteen bordiers and five cottiers; and the demesne land of the manor is a new thing. The sokemen have fallen, and their fall has brought with it the consolidation of manorial husbandry and seignorial power. At Orwell Earl Roger has now a small estate; a third of it is in demesne, while the residue is held by 2 villeins and 3 bordiers, and there is a serf there. This land had belonged to six sokemen, and those six had been under no less than five different lords; two belonged to Edith the Fair, one to Archbishop Stigand, one to Robert Wimarc's son, one to the king, and one to Earl Ælfgar[228]. Displacements such as this we may see in village after village. No one can read the survey of Cambridgeshire without seeing that the freer sorts of the peasantry have been thrust out, or rather thrust down.

[Further illustrations of depression.]

Evidence so cogent as this we shall hardly find in any part of the record save that which relates to Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. But great movements of the kind that we are examining will hardly confine themselves within the boundaries of a county. A little variation in the formula which tells us who held the land in 1066 may hide from us the true state of the case. We can not expect that men will be very accurate in stating the legal relationships that existed twenty years ago. Since the day when King Edward was alive and dead many things have happened, many new words and new forms of thought have become familiar. But taking the verdicts as we find them, there is still no lack of evidence. In Essex we may see the _liberi homines_ disappearing[229]. But we need not look only to the eastern counties. At Bromley, in Surrey, Bishop Odo has a manor of 32 hides, 4 of which had belonged to 'free men' who could go where they pleased, but now there are only villeins, cottiers, and serfs[230]. We turn the page and find Odo holding 10 hides which had belonged to 'the alodiaries of the vill[231].' In Kent Hugh de Port is holding land that was held by 6 free men who could go whither they would; there are now 6 villeins and 14 bordiers there, with one team between them[232]. Students of Domesday were too apt to treat the _antecessores_ of the Norman lords as being in all cases lords of manors. Lords of manors, or rather holders of manors, they often were, but as we shall see more fully hereafter, when we are examining the term _manerium_, such phrases are likely to deceive us. Often enough they were very small people with very little land. For example these six free men whom Hugh de Port represents had only two and a half team-lands. We pass by a few pages and find Hugh de Montfort with a holding which comprises but one team-land and a half; he has 4 villeins and 2 bordiers there. His _antecessores_ were three free men, who could go whither they would[233]. They had need for but 12 oxen; they had no more land than they could easily till, at all events with the help of two or three cottagers or slaves. To all appearance they were no better than peasants. They or their sons may still be tilling the land as Hugh's villeins. When we look for such instances we very easily find them. The case is not altered by the fact that the term 'manor' is given to the holdings of these _antecessores_. In Sussex an under-tenant of Earl Roger has an estate with four villeins upon it. His _antecessores_ were two free men who held the land as two manors. And how much land was there to be divided between the two? There was one team-land. Such holders of _maneria_ were tillers of the soil, peasants, at best yeomen[234]. If they were of thegnly rank, this again does not alter the case. When in the survey of Dorset we read how four thegns held two team-lands, how six thegns held two team-lands, eight thegns two team-lands, nine thegns four team-lands, eleven thegns four team-lands[235], we can not of course be certain that each of these groups of co-tenants had but one holding; but thegnly rank is inherited, and if a thegn will have nine or ten sons there will soon be tillers of the soil with the wergild of twelve hundred shillings. Now if these things are being done in the middling strata of society, if the sokemen are being suppressed or depressed in Cambridgeshire, the alodiaries in Sussex, what is likely to be the fate of the poor? They will have to till their lord's demesne _graviter et miserabiliter_. He can afford to dispense with serfs, for he has villeins.

[The peasants on the royal demesne.]

A last argument must be added. What we see in the thirteenth century of the ancient demesne of the crown[236] might lead us to expect that in Domesday Book 'the manors of St. Edward' would stand out in bold relief. Instead of a population mainly consisting of villeins shall we not find upon them large numbers of sokemen, the ancestors of the men who in after days will be protected by the little writ of right and the _Monstraverunt_? Nothing of the kind. The royal manor differs in no such mode as this from any other manor. If it lies in a county in which other manors have sokemen, then it may or may not have sokemen. If it lies in a county in which other manors have no sokemen, it will have none. Cambridgeshire is a county in which there are some, and have been many, sokemen; there is hardly a sokeman upon the ancient demesne. In after days the men of Chesterton, for example, will have all the peculiar rights attributed by lawyers to the sokemen of St. Edward. But St. Edward, if we trust Domesday Book, had never a sokeman there; he had two villeins and a number of bordiers and cottiers[237]. It seems fairly clear that from an early time, if not from the first days of the Conquest onwards, the king was the best of landlords. The tenants of those manors that were conceived as annexed to the crown, those tenants one and all, save the class of slaves which was disappearing, got a better, a more regular justice than that which the villeins of other lords could hope for. It was the king's justice, and therefore--for the king's public and private capacities were hardly to be distinguished --it was public justice, and so became formal justice, defined by writs, administered in the last resort by the highest court, the ablest lawyers. And so sokemen disappear from private manors. Some of them as tenants in free socage may maintain their position; many fall down into the class of tenants in villeinage. On the ancient demesne the sokemen multiply; they appear where Domesday knew them not; for those who are protected by royal justice can hardly (now that villeinage implies a precarious tenure) be called villeins, they must be 'villein sokemen' at the least. Whether or no we trust the tradition which ascribes to the Conqueror a law in favour of the tillers of the soil, we can hardly doubt that the _villani_ and _bordarii_ whom Domesday Book shows us on the royal manors are treated as having legal rights in their holdings. And if this be true of them, it should be true of their peers upon other manors. Yes, it should be true; the manorial courts that are arising should do impartial justice even between lord and villeins; but who is to make it true?

FOOTNOTES:

[101] D. B. i. 38, Coseham: '8 burs i. coliberti.' Ib. 38 b Dene:
'et coliberti [vel bures _interlined_].'

[102] D. B. i. 65, Wintreburne.

[103] D. B. i. 75, Bridetone et Bere.

[104] D. B. i. 239 b, Etone.

[105] Guérard, Cartulaire de L'Abbaye de S. Père de Chartres, vol.
i. p. xlii.

[106] The position of the _coliberti_ is discussed by Guérard, _loc.
cit._., and by Lamprecht, Geschichte des Französischen
Wirthschaftslebens (in Schmoller's Forschungen, Bd i.), p. 81.
Guérard says, 'Les coliberts peuvent se placer à peu près
indifferemment ou au dernier des hommes libres, ou à la tête
des hommes engagés dans les liens de la servitude.'

[107] Schmid, App. III. C. 4.

[108] Rectitudines, c. 3.

[109] Occasionally the _coliberti_ of D. B. are put before us as
paying rents in money or in kind. Thus D. B. i. 38, Hants: 'In
Coseham sunt 4 hidae quae pertinent huic manerio ubi T. R. E.
erant 8 burs i. coliberti cum 4 carucis reddentes 50 sol. 8
den. minus.' D. B. i. 179 b, Heref.: 'Villani dant de
consuetudine 13 sol. et 4 den. et [sex] coliberti reddunt 3
sextarios frumenti et ordei et 2 oves et dimidiam cum agnis et
2 den. et unum obolum.' D. B. i. 165: 'et in Glouucestre 1
burgensis reddens 5 den. et 2 coliberti reddentes 34 den.' In
a charter coming from Bishop Denewulf (K. 1079) we read of
three wite-theówmen who were boor-born and three who were
theów-born.

[110] Ellis, Introduction, ii. 511-14.

[111] For examples see D. B. iv. 211 and the following pages.

[112] Leg. Hen. 81, § 3: 'Quidam villani qui sunt eiusmodi
leierwitam et blodwitam et huiusmodi minora forisfacta emerunt
a dominis suis, vel quomodo meruerunt de suis et in suos,
quorum fletgefoth vel overseunessa est 30 den.; cothseti 15
den.; servi 6 den.'

[113] D. B. i. 71, Haseberie: '5 villani et 13 coscez et 2 cotarii.'
Ibid. 80 b: Chinestanestone: '18 villani et 14 coscez et 4
cotarii.'

[114] Worcester Register, 59 b (Sedgebarrow): four _cotmanni_, each
of whom pays 20_d._ or works one day a week and two in autumn;
two _cottarii_, each of whom pays 12_d._ or works one day a
week. Ibid. 69 b (Shipston): two _cotmanni_, each of whom pays
3_s._ or works like a virgater; two _cottarii_, each of whom
pays 13_d._ Ibid. 76 a (Cropthorn): two _cotmanni_, each of
whom pays 2_s._ or works like a _cottarius_; two _cottarii_,
each of whom pays 18_d._ or works one day a week.

[115] Vinogradoff, Villainage, 149, gives a few instances of its
occurrence; but it seems to be very rare.

[116] D. B. i. 127 b, Fuleham: 'Ibi 5 villani quisque 1 hidam.'
There are a good many other instances.

[117] D. B. i. 130, Hamntone; 'et 4 bordarii quisque de dimidia
virga.'

[118] D. B. i. 127, Herges: 'et 2 cotarii de 13 acris.'

[119] D. B. i. 127 b, Fuleham: 'et 22 cotarii de dimidia hida et 8
cotarii de suis hortis.'

[120] D. B. ii. 75 b: 'et 5 bordarii super aquam qui non tenent
terram.'

[121] D. B. i. 163 b, Turneberie: 'et 42 villani et 18 radchenistre
cum 21 carucis et 23 bordarii et 15 servi et 4 coliberti.'
Ibid. 164, Hechanestede: 'et 5 villani et 8 bordarii cum 6
carucis; ibi 6 servi.'

[122] D. B. iv. 215-223; on p. 223 there are two _villani_ with one
ox.

[123] D. B. i. 164, Tedeneham: 'Ibi erant 38 villani habentes 38
carucas.' Ibid. 164 b, Nortune, '15 villani cum 15 carucis;
Stanwelle, 5 villani cum 5 carucis.'

[124] Malden, Domesday Survey of Surrey (Domesday Studies, ii.) 469,
says that in Surrey '_bordarii_ and _cotarii_ only occur once
together upon the same manor, and very seldom in the same
hundred.... There are three hundreds, Godalming, Wallington
and Elmbridge, where the _cotarii_ are nearly universal to the
exclusion of _bordarii_. In the others the _bordarii_ are
nearly or quite universal, to the exclusion of the _cotarii_.'

[125] Thorpe, Diplomatarium, 623. King Eadwig declares that a
certain church-ward of Exeter is 'free and fare-worthy.'

[126] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 341 ff.

[127] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 354-8.

[128] Liebermann, Instituta Cnuti, Transact. Roy. Hist. Soc. vii.
93.

[129] Leg. Will. Conq. I. 8: 'La were del thein 20 lib. in
Merchenelahe, 25 lib. in Westsexenelahe. La were del vilain
100 sol. en Merchenelahe e ensement en Westsexene.' Leg. Henr.
70, § 1: 'In Westsexa quae caput regni est et legum, twyhindi,
i.e. villani, wera est 4 lib.; twelfhindi, i.e. thaini, 25
lib.' Ibid. 76, § 2: 'Omnis autem wera liberorum est aut
servorum ... liberi alii twyhindi, alii syxhindi, alii
twelfhindi'; § 6, twihindus = cyrliscus = villanus. As to the
100 shillings in the first of these passages, see Schmid, p.
676. There is some other evidence that the equation, 1 Norman
shilling = 2 English shillings, was occasionally treated as
correct enough. As to the six-hynde man, see Schmid, p. 653;
we may doubt whether he existed in the eleventh century, but
according to the Instituta Cnuti the _radchenistres_ of the
west may have been six-hynde. We must not draw from Alfred's
treaty with the Danes (Schmid, p. 107) the inference that the
normal ceorl was seated on _gafol-land_. This international
instrument is settling an exceptionally high tariff for the
maintenance of the peace. Every man, whatever his rank, is to
enjoy the handsome wergild of 8 half-marks of pure gold,
except the Danish lysing and the English ceorl who is seated
on gafol-land; these are to have but the common wer of 200
shillings. The parallel passage in Æthelred's treaty (Schmid,
p. 207) sets £30 on every free man if he is killed by a man of
the other race. See Schmid, p. 676.

[130] Ine, 55: a sheep with a lamb until a fortnight after Easter is
worth 1 shilling. Æthelstan, VI. 6: a horse 120 pence, an ox
30 pence, a cow 20, a sheep 1 shilling (5 pence). Ibid. 8, §
5: an ox 30 pence. Schmid, App. I. c. 7: a horse 30 shillings,
a mare 20 shillings, an ox 30 pence, a cow 24 pence, a swine 8
pence, a sheep 1 shilling, a goat 2 pence, a man (i.e. a
slave) 1 pound. Schmid, App. iii. c. 9: a sheep or 3 pence. D.
B. i. 117 b: an ox or 30 pence. D. B. i. 26: Tolls at Lewes;
for a man 4 pence, an ox a halfpenny. This preserves the
equation that we have already seen, namely, 1 slave = 8 oxen.
Thus the full team is worth one pound. On the twelfth century
Pipe Rolls the ox often costs 3 shillings (= 36 pence) or even
more.

[131] In Leg. Will. Conq. I. 16, we hear of the _forisfacturae_
(probably the 'insult fines') due to archbishops, bishops,
counts, barons and sokemen; the baron has 10 shillings, the
sokeman 40 pence. In the same document, c. 20, § 2, we read of
the reliefs of counts, barons, vavassors and villeins. Leg.
Edw. Conf. 12, § 4, speaks of the _manbót_ due in the Danelaw;
on the death of a _villanus_ or a _socheman_ 12 ores are paid,
on the death of a _liber homo_ 3 marks.

[132] D. B. i. 167 b, Heile: 'ibi erant 12 servi quos Willelmus
liberos fecit.'

[133] D. B. i. 263: 'Si quis liber homo facit opera in die feriato
inde episcopus habet 8 solidos. De servo autem vel ancilla
feriatum diem infringente, habet episcopus 4 solidos.' Compare
Cnut, II. 45.

[134] D. B. i. 86: 'Huic manerio reddebatur T. R. E. de Cruche per
annum consuetudo, hoc est 6 oves cum agnis totidem, et quisque
liber homo i. blomam ferri.' South Perrott had belonged to the
Confessor, Crewkerne to Edith, probably 'the rich and fair.'
For the description of Cruche see D. B. i. 86 b. As to the
'bloom' of iron see Ellis, Introduction, i. 136.

[135] D. B. i. 92. See also p. 87 b, the account of Seveberge.

[136] D. B. ii. 145.

[137] D. B. ii. 1: 'In hoc manerio erat tunc temporis quidam liber
homo de dimidia hida qui modo effectus est unus de villanis.'

[138] Thus D. B. i. 127, Mid.: 'inter francos et villanos 45
carucae'; Ibid. 70, Wilts: '4 villani et 3 bordarii et unus
francus cum 2 carucis'; Ibid. 241, Warw.: 'Ibi sunt 3
francones homines cum 4 villanis et 3 bordariis.' Sometimes
_francus_ may be an equivalent for _francigena_; e.g. i. 254
b, where in one entry we have _unus francigena_ and in the
next _unus francus homo_. But an Englishman may be _francus_;
ii. 54 b 'accepit 15 acras de uno franco teigno et misit cum
terra sua.' However, it is not an insignificant fact that the
very name of Frenchman (_francigena_) must have suggested free
birth.

[139] For examples see the surveys of Warwick, Stafford and
Shropshire.

[140] D. B. ii. 260: 'et 7 homines qui possent vendere terram suam
si eam prius obtulissent domino suo.'

[141] D. B. ii. 278 b: 'si vellent recedere daret quisque 2
solidos.' Ibid. 207: 'et possent recedere si darent 2
solidos.'

[142] D. B. ii. 435: 'Et super Vlnoht habuit commendationem
antecessor R. Malet, teste hundredo, et non potuit vendere nec
dare _de eo_ terram suam.' Ibid. 397: 'viderunt eum iurare
quod non poterat dare [vel] vendere terram suam _ab_
antecessore Ricardi.'

[143] D. B. i. 145: 'Hoc manerium tenuit Aluuinus homo Estan, non
potuit dare nec vendere extra Brichelle manerium Estani.'

[144] D. B. i. 133: 'Hanc terram tenuit Aluric Blac 2 hidas de
Abbate Westmonasterii T. R. E.: non poterat separare ab
aecclesia.'

[145] D. B. ii. 216 b: 'Ita est in monasterio quod nec vendere nec
forisfacere potest extra ecclesia.'

[146] For example, D. B. i. 201: 'terram suam vendere potuerunt,
soca vero remansit Abbati.' D. B. ii. 78: 'et poterant vendere
terram set soca et saca remanebat antecessori Alberici.' Ibid.
ii. 92 b: 'unus sochemannus fuit in hac terra de 15 acris quas
poterat vendere, set soca iacebat in Warleia terra S. Pauli.'

[147] But the _consuetudo_, rent or the like, may 'remain': D. B.
ii. 181 b: 'et possent vendere terram suam set consuetudo
remanebat in manerio.' And so the _commendatio_ may 'remain';
ii. 357 b: 'Hi poterant dare et vendere terram, set saca et
soca et commendatio remanebant Sancto [Eadmundo].'

[148] For example, D. B. i. 201: 'Homines Abbatis de Ely fuerunt et
4 terram suam _vendere potuerunt_, soca vero remansit Abbati,
et quartus 1 virgam et dimidiam habuit et _recedere non
potuit_.' See the important evidence produced by Round, Feudal
England, 24, as to the equivalence of these phrases.

[149] One of the commonest terms is _recedere_--'potuit
recedere'--'non potuit recedere'; i. 41, 'non potuit cum terra
_recedere ad alium dominum_'; i. 56 b, '10 liberi homines T.
R. E. tenebant 12 hidas et dimidiam de terra eiusdem manerii
sed _inde recedere_ non poterant'; ii. 19 b, 'non poterant
_recedere a terra_ sine licentia Abbatis'; ii. 57 b, 'non
poterant recedere _ab illo manerio_'; ii. 66, 'non poterant
_removere_ ab illo manerio'; ii. 41, 'non poterant _recedere a
soca_ Wisgari'; ii. 41 b, 'nec poterant _abire_ sine iussu
domini'; i. 66 b, 'qui tenuit T. R. E. non poterat ab
aecclesia diverti [separari]'; ii. 116, 'unus [burgensis] erat
ita dominicus ut non posset _recedere nec homagium facere_
sine licentia [Stigandi]'; ii. 119, 'de istis hominibus erant
36 ita dominice Regis Edwardi ut non possent _esse homines
cuiuslibet_ sed semper tamen consuetudo regis remanebat preter
herigete.' A remarkable form is, ii. 57 b, 'non potuit istam
terram mittere in aliquo loco nisi in abbatia.' Then 'potuit
ire quo voluit,' 'non potuit ire quolibet' are common enough.

[150] Ine, c. 39: He who leaves his lord without permission pays
sixty shillings to his lord.

[151] For example, D. B. i. 41: 'Tres taini tenuerunt de episcopo et
non potuerunt ire quolibet.'

[152] D. B. i. 35 b, Tornecrosta.

[153] D. B. i. 212 b, Stanford.

[154] D. B. i. 249 b: 'Tres taini tenuerunt et liberi homines
fuerunt'; 256, 'Ipsi taini liberi erant'; 259 b, 'Quatuor
taini tenuerunt ante eum et liberi fuerunt.'

[155] Chron. Abingd. i. 490: 'Nam quidam dives, Turkillus nomine,
sub Haroldi comitis testimonio et consultu, de se cum sua
terra quae Kingestun dicitur, ecclesiae Abbendonensi et abbati
Ordrico homagium fecit; licitum quippe libero cuique, illo in
tempore, sic agere erat.'

[156] D. B. i. 180 b: 'et poterant ire cum terra quo volebant, et
habebant sub se 4 milites, ita liberos ut ipsi erant.'

[157] D. B. ii. 59.

[158] D. B. i. 172: 'si ita liber homo est ut habeat socam suam et
sacam et cum terra sua possit ire quo voluerit.'

[159] D. B. i. 84 b.

[160] D. B. ii. 213: 'Hanc terram calumpniatur esse liberam Vlchitel
homo Hermeri, quocunque modo iudicetur, vel bello vel iudicio,
et alius est praesto probare eo modo quod iacuit ad ecclesiam
[S. Adeldredae] die quo rex Edwardus obiit. Set totus
hundretus testatur eam fuisse T. R. E. ad S. Adeldredam.'

[161] See in particular the survey of Gloucestershire; D. B. i. 165
b: 'Hoc manerium quietum est a geldo et ab omni forensi
servitio praeter aecclesiae'; Ibid. 'Haec terra libera fuit et
quieta ab omni geldo et regali servitio'; 170, 'Una hida et
dimidia libera a geldo.' When after reading these passages we
come upon the following (167 b), 'Isdem W. tenet Tatinton:
Ulgar tenuit de rege Edwardo: haec terra libera est,' and when
we observe that the land is not hidated, we shall probably
infer that 'This land is free' means 'This land is exempt from
geld, and (perhaps) from all other royal service.'

[162] Dialogus, i. c. 11; ii. c. 14.

[163] Dialogus, i. c. 10.

[164] Will. Conq. I. 30, 31: 'Si les seignurages ne facent altri
gainurs venir a lour terre, la justise le facet.' The Latin
version is ridiculous: 'Si domini terrarum non procurent
_idoneos_ cultores ad terras suas colendas, iustitiarii hoc
faciant.' The translator seems to have been puzzled by the
word _altri_ or _autrui_.

[165] Ibid. 29.

[166] Schmid, App. v.; vii., 2, §§ 9-11; Pseudoleges Canuti, 60-1
(Schmid, p. 431).

[167] D. B. iv. 497.

[168] D. B. i. 44 b: 'Istam terram calumpniatur Willelmus de
Chernet, dicens pertinere ad manerium de Cerneford feudum
Hugonis de Port per hereditatem sui antecessoris et de hoc
suum testimonium adduxit de melioribus et antiquis hominibus
totius comitatus et hundredi; et Picot contraduxit suum
testimonium de villanis et vili plebe et de prepositis, qui
volunt defendere per sacramentum vel dei iudicium, quod ille
qui tenuit terram liber homo fuit et potuit ire cum terra sua
quo voluit. Sed testes Willelmi nolunt accipere legem nisi
regis Edwardi usque dum diffiniatur per regem.' It seems
possible that William's witnesses wished to insist on the
ancient rule that the oath of one thegn would countervail the
oaths of six ceorls. This was the old English law (_lex
Edwardi_) on which they relied.

[169] D. B. ii. 393: 'et 5 villani de eodem manerio testantur ei et
offerunt legem qualem quis iudicaverit; set dimidium hundret
de Gepeswiz testantur quod hoc iacebat ad ecclesiam T. R. E.
et Wisgarus tenebat et offert derationari.'

[170] Schmid, App. vi.; Leg. Hen. 61 § 2: 'thaini iusiurandum
contravalet iusiurandum sex villanorum.'

[171] Leg. Hen. 29, § 1.

[172] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 344.

[173] Dialogus, i. c. 11.

[174] D. B. i. 67 b: 'De terra villanorum dedit abbatissa uni militi
3 hidas et dimidiam.' Ibid. 89: 'tenet Johannes de episcopo 2
hidas de terra villanorum.' Ibid. i. 169: 'unus francigena
tenet terram unius villani.' Ibid. 164: 'In Sauerna 11
piscariae in dominio et 42 piscariae villanorum.' Ibid. 230:
'Silva dominica 1 leu. long. et dim. leu. lat. Silva
villanorum 4 quarent. long. et 3 quarent. lat.' Ibid. 7 b: '5
molini villanorum.' We have not seen _dominicum_ used as a
substantive; but in the Exon. D. B. iv. 75 we have
_dominicatus Regis_, for the king's demesne. There is already
a slight ambiguity about the term _dominium_. We may say that
a church has a manor _in dominio_, meaning thereby that the
manor as a whole is held by the church itself and is not held
of it by any tenant; and then we may go on to say that only
one half of the land comprised in this manor is held by the
church _in dominio_. Cf. Hist. Eng. Law, ii. 126.

[175] For example, D. B. i. 159: 'Nunc in dominio 3 carucae et 6
servi, et 26 villani cum 3 bordariis et 15 liberi homines
habent 30 carucas.' Ibid. 165: 'In dominio 2 carucae et 9
villani et 6 bordarii et presbyter et unus rachenistre cum 10
carucis.' Ibid. 258 b: 'et 3 villani et 2 bordarii et 2
francigenae cum 2 carucis.' But such entries are common
enough.

[176] Round, Domesday Studies, i. 97.

[177] D. B. i. 28: 'Ipse Willelmus de Braiose tenet Wasingetune....
De hac terra tenet Gislebertus dim. hidam, Radulfus 1 hidam,
Willelmus 3 virgas, Leuuinus dim. hidam qui potuit recedere
cum terra sua et dedit geldum domino suo et dominus suus
nichil dedit.'

[178] D. B. i. 163, 163 b.

[179] D. B. i. 121: 'Omnes superius descriptas terras tenebant T. R.
E. S. Petrocus; huius sancti terrae nunquam reddiderunt geldum
nisi ipsi aecclesiae.' D. B. iv. 187: 'Terrae S. Petrochi
nunquam reddiderunt gildum nisi sancto.'

[180] D. B. ii. 372: 'Et quando in hundreto solvitur ad geldum 1
libra tunc inde exeunt 60 denarii ad victum monachorum.'

[181] Cnut, II. 79: 'And se þe land gewerod hæbbe be scire
gewitnisse....' The A.-S. _werian_ is just the Latin
_defendere_.

[182] Heming, Cartulary, i. 278; Round, Domesday Studies, i. 89.
Compare the story in D. B. i. 216 b: Osbern or Osbert the
fisherman claims certain land as having belonged to his
'antecessor'; 'sed postquam rex Willelmus in Angliam venit,
ille gablum de hac terra dare noluit et Radulfus Taillgebosc
gablum dedit et pro forisfacto ipsam terram sumpsit et cuidam
suo militi tribuit.'

[183] D. B. iv. 245, Cruca.

[184] See above p. 54, note 175.

[185] D. B. i. 163: 'Ibi erant villani 21 et 9 rachenistres habentes
26 carucas et 5 coliberti et unus bordarius cum 5 carucis. Hi
rachenistres arabant et herciabant ad curiam domini.' Ibid.
'Ibi 19 liberi homines rachenistres habentes 48 carucas cum
suis hominibus.' Ibid. 166: 'De terra huius manerii tenebant
radchenistres, id est liberi homines, T. R. E., qui tamen
omnes ad opus domini arabant et herciabant et falcabant et
metebant.'

[186] D. B. i. 186, Ewias.

[187] D. B. i. 180.

[188] D. B. i. 179 b.

[189] D. B. i. 179 b.

[190] D. B. i. 174 b.

[191] D. B. i. 246 b. So the burgesses of Steyning (i. 17) 'ad
curiam operabantur sicut villani T. R. E.'

[192] D. B. i. 219.

[193] D. B. i. 174 b: 'Ipsi radmans secabant una die in anno et omne
servitium quod eis iubebatur faciebant.' The position of these
tenants will be discussed hereafter in connexion with St.
Oswald's charters.

[194] D. B. i. 16 b: 'De herbagio, unus porcus de unoquoque villano
qui habet septem porcos.' In the margin stands 'Similiter per
totum Sussex.'

[195] D. B. i. 12 b: 'Ibi tantum silvae unde exeunt de pasnagio 40
porci aut 54 denarii et unus obolus.' Ibid. 191 b: 'De
presentacione piscium 12 solidi et 9 denarii.' Ibid. 117 b:
'aut unum bovem aut 30 denarios.'

[196] See above p. 56.

[197] D. B. i. 12 b.

[198] D. B. i. 11 b, Hamestede.

[199] D. B. i. 117 b, Colun.

[200] D. B. i. 127, Stibenhede.

[201] D. B. i. 179 b, Lene.

[202] D. B. i. 12 b, Norborne.

[203] D. B. i. 127 b: 'Wellesdone tenent canonici S. Pauli.... Hoc
manerium tenent villani ad firmam canonicorum. In dominio nil
habetur.'

[204] See above p. 36.

[205] This matter will be discussed when we deal with St. Oswald's
charters.

[205] Schmid, p. 263 (note). This document is Dr Liebermann's
Instituta Cnuti (Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. vii. 77).

[207] Schmid, App. II. 57-9.

[208] For the rest, the word _túnesman_ appears in Edgar IV. 8, 13,
in connexion with provisions against the theft of cattle.

[209] D. B. i. 259, 259 b.

[210] Leg. Will. I. 29.

[211] D. B. ii. 360 b: 'Hanc terram habet Abbas in vadimonio pro
duabus marcis auri concessu Engelrici quando redimebant
Anglici terras suas.' Sometimes the Englishman gets back his
land as a bedesman: i. 218, 'Hanc terram tenuit pater huius
hominis et vendere poterit T. R. E. Hanc rex Willelmus in
elemosina eidem concessit'; i. 211, 'Hanc terram tenuit Avigi
et potuit dare cui voluit T. R. E. Hanc ei postea rex
Willelmus concessit et per breve R. Tallebosc commendavit ut
eum servaret'; i. 218 b, a similar case.

[212] Dialogus, i. c. 10; Bracton, f. 7. On both passages see
Vinogradoff, Villainage, p. 121.

[213] D. B. ii. 1: 'In hoc manerio erat tunc temporis quidam liber
homo ... qui modo effectus est unus de villanis.'

[214] D. B. i. 148 b: 'In Merse tenet Ailric de Willelmo 4 hidas pro
uno manerio.... Istemet tenuit T. R. E. sed modo tenet ad
firmam de Willelmo graviter et miserabiliter.'

[215] D. B. i. 141: 'Hanc terram sumpsit Petrus vicecomes de isto
sochemanno Regis Willelmi in manu eiusdem Regis pro
forisfactura de gildo Regis se non reddidisse ut homines sui
dicunt. Sed homines de scira non portant vicecomiti
testimonium, quia semper fuit quieta de gildo et de aliis erga
Regem quamdiu tenuit, testante hundret.'

[216] D. B. i. 30: 'Ricardus de Tonebrige tenet de hoc manerio unam
virgatam cum silva unde abstulit rusticum qui ibi manebat.'

[217] D. B. ii. 282 b: 'et istam consuetudinem constituit illis
Aluricus prepositus in tempore R. Bigot.'

[218] D. B. ii. 284 b.

[219] D. B. ii. 84 b.

[220] D. B. ii. 353 b: 'omnes fuerunt confusi.'

[221] D. B. ii. 440 b: 'sed homines inde fuerunt confusi.'

[222] D. B. i. 65, Aldeborne.

[223] D. B. ii. 18, Berdringas.

[224] D. B. ii. 88 b, Tachesteda.

[225] Ellis, Introduction, ii. 428. We give Ellis's figures, but
think that he has exaggerated the number of sokemen who were
to be found in 1086.

[226] We make considerably more than 900 by counting only those who
are expressly described as sokemen and excluding the many
persons who are simply described as _homines_ capable of
selling their land.

[227] Hamilton, Inquisitio, 65.

[228] Hamilton, Inquisitio, 77.

[229] Thus e.g. D. B. ii. 87 b: 'Hidingham tenet Garengerus de
Rogero pro 25 acris quas tenuerunt 15 liberi homines T. R. E.'

[230] D. B. i. 31.

[231] D. B. i. 31 b: 'Et 10 hidas tenebant alodiarii villae.'

[232] D. B. i. 10 b.

[233] D. B. i. 13, Essella.

[234] D. B. i. 24.

[235] D. B. 83, 83 b.

[236] Vinogradoff, Villainage, 89 ff.; Hist. Engl. Law, i. 366 ff.

[237] D. B. i. 189 b.

§ 4. _The Sokemen._

[The _sochemanni_ and _liberi homines_.]

Now of a large part of England we may say that all the occupiers of land who are not holding 'manors[238]' will belong to some of those classes of which we have already spoken. They will be villeins, bordiers, cottiers, 'boors' or serfs. Here and there we may find a few persons who are described as _liberi homines_. In some of the western counties, Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Shropshire, there are _rachenistres_ or _radmans_; between the Ribble and the Mersey we may find a party of _drengs_. Still it is generally true that two of those five classes that seem to have been mentioned in King William's writ[239], the _sochemanni_ and the _liberi homines_, are largely represented only in certain counties. They are to be seen in Essex, yet more thickly in Suffolk and Norfolk. In Lincolnshire nearly half of the rural population consists of sokemen, though there is no class of persons described as _liberi homines_. There are some sokemen in Yorkshire, but they are not very numerous and there are hardly any _liberi homines_. We have seen how in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire the sokemen have fared ill; but still some are left there. Traces of them may be found in Hertford and Buckingham; they are thick in Leicester, Nottingham and Northampton; there are some in Derbyshire. There have been sokemen in Middlesex[240] and in Surrey[241]; but they have been suppressed; a few remain in Kent[242]; so we should be rash were we to find anything characteristically Scandinavian in the sokemen. Even in Suffolk they are suffering ill at the hands of their new masters[243], while in Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire they have been suppressed or displaced.

[Lord and man.]

We have now to enter on a difficult task, a discussion of the relation which exists between these _sochemanni_ and _liberi homines_ on the one hand and their lord upon the other. The character of this relation varies from case to case. We may distinguish three different bonds by which a man may be bound to a lord, a personal bond, a tenurial bond, a jurisdictional or justiciary bond. But the language of Domesday Book is not very patient of this analysis. However in the second volume we very frequently come upon two ideas which are sharply contrasted with each other; the one is expressed by the term _commendatio_, the other by the term _soca_[244]. To these we must add the great vague term _consuetudo_, and we shall also have to consider the phrases which describe the various degrees of that freedom of 'withdrawing himself with his land' that a man may enjoy.

[Bonds between lord and man.]

In order that we may become familiar with the use made of these terms and phrases we will transcribe a few typical entries:

Two free men, of whom Ælfwin had not even the commendation[245].

Of these men Harold had not even the commendation[246].

Thus commendation seems put before us as the slightest bond that there can be between lord and man. Very often we are told that the lord had the commendation and nothing more[247]. Thus it is contrasted with the soke:--

His predecessor had only the commendation of this, and Harold had
the soke[248].

Of these six free men St Benet had the soke, and of one of them the
commendation[249].

And the commendation is contrasted with the 'custom,' the _consuetudo_, perhaps we might say the 'service':--

Of the said sokeman Ralph Peverel had a custom of 3 shillings a
year, but in the Confessor's time his ancestor had only the
commendation[250].

R. Malet claims 18 free men, 3 of them by commendation, and the
rest for all custom[251].

And the soke is contrasted with the _consuetudo_:--

To this manor belong 4 men for all custom, and other 4 for soke
only[252].

In a given case all these bonds may be united:--

There are 7 sokemen who are the Saint's men with sake and soke and
all custom[253].

Over this man the Saint has sake and soke and commendation with all
custom[254].

Then if the man 'withdraws,' or gives or sells his land, we often read of the soke 'remaining'; we sometimes read of the commendation, the custom, the service 'remaining.'

These free men could sell or give their land, but the commendation
and the soke and sake would remain to St Edmund[255].

These men could sell their land, but the soke would remain to the
Saint and the service (_servitium_), whoever might be the
buyer[256].

They could give and sell their land, but the soke and the
commendation and the service would remain to the Saint[257].

But after all, these distinctions are not maintained with rigour, for the soke is sometimes spoken of as though it were a species of _consuetudo_. We have a tangled skein in our hands.

[Commendation.]

The thread that looks as if it would be the easiest to unravel, is that which is styled 'mere commendation.' The same idea is expressed by other phrases--'he committed himself to Bishop Herman for his defence[258]'--'they submitted themselves with their land to the abbey for defence[259]'--'he became the man of Goisfrid of his own free will[260]'--'she put herself with her land in the hand of the queen[261].' 'Homage' is not a common term in Domesday Book, but if, when speaking of the old time, it says, as it constantly does, that one person was the man of another, no doubt it is telling us of a relationship which had its origin in an oath and a symbolic ceremony[262]. 'She put herself into the hands of the queen'--we should take these words to mean just what they say. An Anglo-Saxon oath of fealty (_hyldáð_) has been preserved[263]. The swearer promises to be faithful and true to his lord, to love all that his lord loves and eschew all that his lord eschews. He makes no distinct reference to any land, but he refers to some compact which exists between him and his lord:--He will be faithful and true on condition that his lord treats him according to his deserts and according to the covenant that has been established between them.

[Commendation and protection.]

To all seeming there need not be any land in the case; and, if the man has land, the act of commendation will not give the lord as a matter of course any rights in that land. Certainly Domesday Book seems to assume that in general every owner or holder of land must have had a lord. This assumption is very worthy of notice. A law of Æthelstan[264] had said that lordless men 'of whom no right could be had' were to have lords, but this command seems aimed at the landless folk, not at those whose land is a sufficient surety for their good behaviour. The law had not directly commanded the landed men to commend themselves, but it had supplied them with motives for so doing[265]. What did a man gain by this act of submission? Of advantages that might be called 'extra-legal' we will say nothing, though in the wild days of Æthelred the Unready, and even during the Confessor's reign, there was lawlessness enough to make the small proprietor wish that he had a mightier friend than the law could be. But there were distinct legal advantages to be had by commendation. In the first place, the life of the great man's man was protected not only by a _wer-gild_, but by a _man-bót_:--a _man-bót_ due to one who had the power to exact it; and if, as one of our authorities assures us, the amount of the _man-bót_ varied with the rank of the lord[266], this would help to account for a remarkable fact disclosed by Domesday Book, namely, that the chosen lord was usually a person of the very highest rank, an earl, an archbishop, the king. Then, again, if the man got into a scrape, his lord might be of service to him. Suppose the man accused of theft: in certain cases he might escape with a single, instead of a triple ordeal, if he had a lord who would swear to his good character[267]. In yet other cases his lord would come forward as his compurgator; perhaps he was morally bound to do so; and, being a man of high rank, would swear a crushing oath. And within certain limits that we can not well define the lord might warrant the doings of his man, might take upon himself the task of defending an action to which his man was subjected[268]. What the man has sought by his submission is _defensio_, _tuitio_; the lord is his _defensor_, _tutor_, _protector_, _advocatus_, in a word, his warrantor[269].

[Commendation and warranty.]

Of warranty we are accustomed to think chiefly in connexion with the title to land:--the feoffor warrants the feoffee in his enjoyment of the tenement. But to all appearance in the eleventh century it is rather as lord than as giver, seller or lender, that the vouchee comes to the defence of his man. If the land is conceived as having once been the warrantor's land, this may be but a fiction:--the man has given up his land and then taken it again merely in order that he may be able to say with some truth that he has it by his lord's gift. But we can not be sure that as yet any such fiction is necessary. 'I will defend any action that is brought against you for this land':--as yet men see no reason why such a promise as this, if made with due ceremony, should not be enforced. A certain amount of 'maintenance' is desirable in their eyes and laudable.

[Commendation and tenure.]

Though we began with the statement that where there is commendation there may yet be no land in the case, we have none the less been already led to the supposition that often enough land does get involved in this nexus between man and lord. No doubt a landless man may commend himself and get no land in return for his homage; but with such an one Domesday Book is not concerned. The cases in which it takes an interest are those in which a landholder has commended himself. Now we dare not say that a landholder can never commend himself without commending his land also[270]. Howbeit, the usual practice certainly is that a man who submits or commits himself for 'defence' or 'protection' shall take his land with him; he 'goes with his land' to a lord. Very curious are some of the instances which show how large a liberty men have enjoyed of taking land wherever they please. 'Tostig bought this land from the church of Malmesbury for three lives':--in this there is nothing strange; leases for three lives granted by churches to thegns have been common. But of course we should assume that during the lease the land could have no other lord than the church of Malmesbury. Not so, however, for during his lease Tostig 'could go with that land to whatever lord he pleased[271].' In Essex there was before the Conquest a man who held land; that land in some sort belonged to the Abbey of Barking, and could not be separated from the abbey; but the holder of it was the man ('merely the man' say the jurors) of one Leofhild the predecessor of Geoffrey de Mandeville[272]. In this last case we may satisfy ourselves by saying that a purely personal relation is distinguished from a tenurial relation; the man of Leofhild is the tenant of the abbey. But what of Tostig's case? Land that he holds of the church of Malmesbury, and that too by no perpetual tenure, he can commend to another lord. From the man's point of view, protection, defence, warranty, is the essence of commendation, and the warranty that he chiefly needs is the warranty of his possession, of the title by which he holds his land. It can not but be therefore that the lord to whom he commends himself and his land, should be in some sort his landlord.

[The lord's interest in commendation.]