Chapter VIII: The Unfree. the Serf (2)

But yet there was a gleam of hope: one solitary ray that made even the surrounding darkness tolerable, and may have cheered the broken-hearted serf through years of unrequited toil and suffering. The law that reduced him to slavery made it also possible that he should be restored to freedom. It did not shut from him this blessing, however distant it might seem. Tacitus knew of _liberti_ among the Germans, men who had been slaves, had been manumitted, and were free[390]. Thus in yet pagan times, general kindliness of disposition, habits of domestic intercourse, perhaps the suggestions of self-interest, may have tended to raise the condition of the serf even to the restoration of freedom: but it was the especial honour and glory of Christianity, that while it broke the spiritual bonds of sin, it ever actively laboured to relieve the heavy burthen of social servitude. We are distinctly told that Bishop Wilfrið, on receiving the grant of Selsey from Caedwealha of Wessex, immediately manumitted two hundred and fifty unfortunates, whom he found there attached to the soil,—that those, whom by baptism he had rescued from servitude to devils, might by the grant of liberty be rescued from servitude to man[391]. In this spirit of charity, the clergy obtained respite from labour for the þeów on the Sabbath, on certain high festivals and on the days which preceded or followed them[392]; the lord who compelled his þeów to labour between the sunset on Saturday and the sunset on Sunday, forfeited him altogether[393]; probably at first to the king or the geréfa; but in the time of Cnut the serf thus forfeited was to become _folkfree_[394]. To their merciful intervention it must also be ascribed that the will of a Saxon proprietor, laic as well as clerical, so constantly directs the manumission of a number of serfs, for the soul’s health of the testator[395]; Ælfred even goes so far as to give free power to the serf of bequeathing to whomsoever he pleases, whatever may have been given him for God’s sake, or he may have earned in his own moments of leisure[396]; and this provision, which probably implies a prohibition to the lord of removing his labourer arbitrarily from a plot of ground well cultivated by his own efforts, tends to secure to the unfortunate serf some interest in the produce of his industry: the Hungarian will recognize in it the spirit of Maria Theresia’s _Urbarium_. It is moreover obvious from many surviving documents, that, in the later periods, the serf could purchase his own release[397], at least with the lord’s consent[398], or be bought by another for the purpose of manumission[399], or even be borrowed on pledge for a term of years[400], during which his labour might be actively employed in laying up the means of future freedom. It cannot indeed be denied that the slave might be sold like any other chattel, and that even as late as Æðelred and Cnut, the law ventured to prohibit no more than the selling him into heathendom, or without some fault on his part[401]: nor can we believe that acts of the grossest oppression and tyranny were unfrequent. But from what has been already cited, it must be evident that there was a constantly growing tendency in favour of freedom, that the clergy suggested every motive, and the law made every possible effort, at least to diminish the more grievous circumstances of servitude. It is moreover to be borne in mind that a very large proportion of the þeówas at any given time, were in reality criminal serfs, convicts expiating their offences by their sufferings. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am disposed to think that the mere material condition of the unfree population was not necessarily or generally one of great hardship. It seems doubtful whether the labour of the serf was practically more severe, or the remuneration much less than that of an agricultural labourer in this country at this day: his lord was bound to feed him for his own sake, and if, when old and worn out, he wished to rid himself of a useless burthen, he could by an act of emancipation hand over his broken-down labourer to the care of a Church which, with all its faults, never totally lost sight of the divine precepts of charity[402]. We are not altogether without the means of judging as to the condition of the serf, and the provision made for him; although the instances which we may cite are not all either of one period, or one country, or indeed derived from compilations having the authority of law, they show sufficiently what opinion was entertained on this subject by some among the ruling class. In the prose version of Salomon and Saturn[403], it is said that every serf ought to receive yearly seven hundred and thirty loaves, that is, two loaves a day, beside morning meals and noon meals; this cannot be said to be a very niggardly portion. Again, the valuable document entituled, “Rectitudines singularum personarum[404],” gives details respecting the allowances made to the serfs in various prædial or domestic capacities, which would induce a belief not only that they were tolerably provided for, but even enabled by the exertion of skill and industry to lay up funds of their own towards the purchase of their freedom, the redemption of their children, or the alleviation of their own poverty. From the same authority and others, we may conclude that on an estate in general, serfs discharged the functions of ploughman, shepherd, goatherd, swineherd, oxherd and cowherd, barn-man, sower, hayward, woodward, dairymaid, and beadle or messenger; while the geneát, cotsetla, gebúr, beócere and gafolswán were probably poor freemen from whom a certain portion of labour could be demanded in consideration of their holdings[405], or a certain rent (gafol) reserved out of the produce of the hives, flocks or herds committed to their care: and these formed the class of the _Læt_ and _Esne_, poor mercenaries, serving for hire or for their land, but not yet reduced so low in the scale as the þeów or wealh. It is not only probable that there would be distinctions in the condition of various serfs upon the same estate, but even demonstrable: it can hardly be doubted that men placed in situations of some trust, as the ploughman, oxherd or beadle, were in a somewhat higher class, and of better condition, than the mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now in a charter of the year 902, we find an interesting statement, which I must take leave to cite[406]: Denewulf bishop of Winchester and his Chapter had leased land at Eblesburne to Beornwulf, a relative of the bishop: the Chapter sent word to Beornwulf that the men, that is the serfs, were to remain attached to the land—“ðæt ða men móston on ðam lande wunian”—whether he, or any other, held it: “ðonne wǽron ðǽr þreo wíteþeówe men búrbǽrde, ⁊ þreo þeówbǽrde, ða me salde bisceop ⁊ ða hiwan tó rihtre ǽhte ⁊ hira teám:” “Now there were three convicts búrbǽrde and three þeówbǽrde, whom the bishop and the brethren gave me, together with their offspring.” The expressions used in this passage seem to show that some of the wíteþeówe men upon this estate enjoyed a higher condition than others[407], being _cultivators_ or _boors_, while the others were more strictly slaves. The very curious and instructive dialogue of Ælfríc numbers among the serfs the yrðling or ploughman, whose occupation the author nevertheless places at the head of all the crafts, with perhaps a partial exception in favour of the smith’s[408].

-----

Footnote 390:

Tac. Germ. xxv.

Footnote 391:

Bed. H. E. iv. 13.

Footnote 392:

Leg. Wihtr. § 9, 10. Ini, § 3. Edw. Guð. § 7. Æðelr. viii. § 2.

Footnote 393:

Leg. Ini, § 3.

Footnote 394:

Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 45.

Footnote 395:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 716, 721, 722, 782, 788, 919, 925, 931, 946, 947, 957,
959, 981.

Footnote 396:

Leg. Ælf. § 43. Æðelred (viii. § 2) permits the serf to labour on his
own account, three days before Michaelmas. Theodore (Poen. xix. § 30)
and Ecgberht (Poen. Addit. § 35) forbid the lord to rob his serf of
what he may have acquired by his own industry. It was nevertheless
held by some that the serf could not purchase his own freedom.

Footnote 397:

This is true only of the Saxon, not of the Norman period. Glanville
expressly denies that the serf could redeem himself. “Illud tamen
notandum est, quod non potest aliquis, in villenagio positus,
libertatem suam propriis denariis suis quaerere. Posset enim tunc a
domino suo secundum ius et consuetudinem regni ad villenagium
revocari; _quia omnia catalla cuiuslibet nativi intelliguntur esse in
potestate domini sui_, [per] quod propriis denariis suis versus
dominium suum a villenagio se redimere non poterit.” Glanv. lib. v.
cap. 5.

Footnote 398:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 933, 934, 935, 936, 981 (the 31st paragraph).

Footnote 399:

Ibid. No. 981 (the 28th paragraph).

Footnote 400:

Ibid. No. 975.

Footnote 401:

Leg. Æðelr. v. § 2; vi. § 9. Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 3.

Footnote 402:

The Romans used to slay their infirm and useless serfs, or expose them
in an island of the Tiber. Claudius made several regulations in their
favour. “Cum quidam aegra et affecta mancipia in insulam Aesculapii
taedio medendi exponerent, omnes, qui exponerentur, liberos esse
sanxit, nec redire in ditionem domini, si convaluissent; quod si quis
necare mallet quem quam exponere, caedis crimine teneri.” Suet. in
Claud. 25.

Footnote 403:

See _supra_, p. 38, note 1.

Footnote 404:

Thorpe, A. S. Laws, i. 432, and a later edition by Dr. H. Leo of
Halle, 1842.

Footnote 405:

This is the _Robot_ of Slavonic countries, the _Operatio_ of our
Norman law; a mere labour-rent, necessary in countries where there is
no accumulated capital, and wealth (for want of markets) consists only
in land, and limbs wherewith to till it.

Footnote 406:

Cod. Dip. No. 1079.

Footnote 407:

The compounds of _bǽrde_ cannot denote anything but a permanent
condition or quality: they are nearly equivalent to the compounds of
_cund_, excepting that they are necessarily _personal_.

Footnote 408:

Thorpe, Analecta.

-----

Servitude ceased by voluntary or compulsory manumission on the part of the lord; the latter case being that where the services of the slave were forfeited through the misconduct of the master. And as loss of liberty must be considered in the main as a consequence of the public law, understood in the general, and expressed in the particular case, so must it I think be asserted, that _at first_ emancipation depended in some degree upon the popular will as well as the mercy or caprice of private individuals. It is no doubt true, that at a period when what we now call crimes were rather considered in the light of civil injuries, for which satisfaction was due to the parties injured, it might seem reasonable to leave the latter in possession of the power to assess the minimum, at least, of his own satisfaction: to allow him to decide how long a period of servitude he would content himself with, if he chose to renounce the right he possessed of claiming an endless one; or lastly, to reward good and faithful service by cancelling the consequences of an earlier wrong. But emancipation has two very different effects: it not only relieves the serf from personal burthens and disabilities, but it restores or introduces a citizen to political and public rights. In a state of society where landed possession and the exercise of such rights are inseparable, a grave difficulty arises, viz. how can provision be made for the newly emancipated, and now free man? If the community will consent, and possess the means, to create a new free Hide for his occupation, of course the matter can be managed; but this consent renders the emancipation in reality the act of the state, not of the manumittor. Or the lord on restoring freedom to his serf may endow him with a portion of his own land, sufficient for easy or even wealthy subsistence; but this will not make him fully a free man, give him his full position in the πολιτευμα or polity, and place him on a level with the free inhabitants of the Mark.

Till periods very late in comparison with that which is assumed in the course of this argument, a similar principle prevails in our legislation upon this subject. Glanville says, “It is also to be observed that a man may enfranchise his serf in respect of the persons of himself or his heirs, but not in respect of others. For if any one, having once been a serf, and afterwards having attained to freedom in this manner, should be produced in court against a third party to support a cause, or for the purpose of making any law of the land, he may justly be removed therefrom, if his birth in villenage should be objected to and proved against him in the court, even though the serf so enfranchised should have come to be promoted unto a knight’s degree[409].”

-----

Footnote 409:

Lib. v. cap. 5.

-----

Later still, liberty seems considered as a privilege the value of which might be diminished by its extension; and Fleta gives as a reason why the lord is bound to pursue his fugitive serf, “lest by _negligence_ of the lords, serfs should prevail to assert their own freedom[410].”

-----

Footnote 410:

Lib. i. cap. 7, § 7, 8.

-----

On consideration therefore of all the facts, we must conclude that where full and complete manumission was intended, the transaction could only be completed in the presence and with the co-operation of the community, whereby all claims besides those of the manumitting lord would be formally estopped for the future. And this would be nearly equivalent to the admission (rare indeed) of a metic or other stranger to the full rights of citizenship at Athens, which could hardly have effect without a ψήφισμα or deliberate vote of the whole people[411]. Accordingly even in the laws of William the Conqueror and Henry the First we find evidence that the completest publicity was given to formal manumissions[412]; and it is not unreasonable to believe that this refers back to a time when such publicity may have consisted in the presentation of the serf before the assembled folcmót, and their expressed or implied assent to the solemn act.

-----

Footnote 411:

The slaves who fought on the Athenian side at Arginusae were
manumitted and enrolled among the Plataeans, being thus admitted into
the πολίτευμα. We learn this from a fragment of Hellanicus, preserved
in the Scholiast on Arist. Ran. 694: the words are, τοὺς
συνναυμαχήσαντας δούλους Ἑλλάνικός φησιν ἐλευθερωθῆναι, καὶ
ἐγγραφέντας ὡς Πλαταιεῖς συμπολιτεύσασθαι αὐτοῖς. See also Niebuhr
(Hare and Thirlwall), p. 204. The Langobards upon a somewhat similar
occasion manumitted their serfs. “Igitur Langobardi, ut bellatorum
possint ampliare numerum, plures a servili iugo ereptos, ad libertatis
statum perducunt. Utque rata eorum haberi posset libertas, sanciunt,
more solito, per sagittam, inmurmurantes nihilominus, ob rei
firmitatem, quaedam patria verba.” Paul. Diac. de Gest. i. 13.

Footnote 412:

“Si qui vero velit servum suum liberum facere, tradat eum vicecomiti,”
etc. Leg. Wil. iii. § 15. “Qui servum suum liberat, in aecclesia, vel
mercato, vel comitatu, vel hundreto,” etc. Leg. Hen. I. 1, § 78.

Practically however, it is probable that the dissolution of servitude did not absolutely confer all the privileges of freedom. The numerous acts of manumission directed by the wills of great landowners are totally inconsistent with the notion of any interference on the part of the assembled people, as necessary to their validity: the instances, it is true, are mostly of modern date, but still we hear of manumissions by wholesale at very early periods, where nothing but the lord’s own will can possibly be thought of[413]. It seems therefore probable that a certain amount of dependence was reserved; that the freedman became relieved from the harsher provisions of his former condition, but remained in general under the protection and on the land of his former lord, perhaps receiving wages for services still rendered. In the eighth century Wihtraed of Kent enacted that even in the case of solemn manumission at the altar, the inheritance, the wergyld and the mund of the family should remain to the lord, whether the new freedman continued to reside within the Mark or not[414]. The mode of provision for the emancipated serf must, in a majority of cases, have led to this result. The lord endowed him out of his own land, either with a full possession, secured by charter, or a mere temporary, conditional loan, _lǽn_: the man therefore remained upon the lord’s estate, and in his _borh_ or surety, though no longer liable to servile disabilities[415].

-----

Footnote 413:

For example Wilfrið's, at Selsey; see above, p. 211.

Footnote 414:

Leg. Wihtr. § 8.

Footnote 415:

Wulfwaru in her will directs her legatees to feed twenty freolsmen or
freedmen. Cod. Dipl. No. 694. Ketel commands that all the men whom he
has freed shall have all that is _under their hand_,—probably all they
had received as stock, or had been able to gain by their industry.
Cod. Dipl. No. 1340.

-----

The full ceremonies used in the solemn act of emancipation by the Anglosaxons are not known to us; but there is reason to suppose that they resembled those of other Teutonic nations. Generally these may be divided into civil and ecclesiastical; the former receiving their sanction from the authority of the people or the prince, the latter from the church and its peculiar influences. “He who would emancipate his serf shall deliver him to the sheriff, by the right hand, in full county, shall proclaim him free from all yoke of servitude by manumission, shall show him open roads and doors, and shall deliver unto him the arms of a free man, namely the lance and sword: thenceforth the man is free[416].” Such is the law of William the Conqueror, and it is repeated with little variation by Henry the First[417], except that there is no limitation to the sheriff and the county. But this was also one form of manumission among the Langobards. The person who was to be made _Fulfreal_ was delivered over successively into the hands of four different persons: the last of these brought him before witnesses to a spot where four roads met, and his choice was given him of these roads. He was then free, and _ámund_, that is removed from under the protection of his former master[418]. But it appears that the master, even though he gave the free roads, might reserve the mund of his freedman, by which he retained the right of inheriting from him, if he died childless[419]; and this recalls to us the provision already cited from the Kentish law[420]. The history of Ramsey informs us that Æðelstán, the son of Manni, adopted this form in a very extensive emancipation of his serfs[421], and we may therefore suppose it to have been a mode usual among the Saxons. Among the Franks, the fullest and completest act of emancipation was that which took place before the king, or in a popular court; the freedman, from the ceremonies adopted on the occasion, was called _Denarialis_, or _Denariatus_, “qui denarium ante regem iactavit.” He became capable of a wergyld, of contracting marriage with a free woman, and in general obtained all the rights of a free citizen. But he still remained in some degree under the mund of the king, who received his wergyld, and had certain rights over his inheritance[422]. I do not know whether this has any connexion with a law of Henry the First, which provides that in _any case_ of manumission, the serf shall give thirty pence to the lord, as a witness, namely the price of his skin, for a testimony that he is thenceforth himself its master[423]. There was a form of manumission among the Franks by charter[424], which however did not confer all the privileges of the _denarialis_. The holder of such a charter was thence called Chartularius: I will not assert that such a system prevailed here, although it is possible that some of the many charters of emancipation, printed in the Codex Diplomaticus, may be of this nature. Their general character however is that of a record of bargain and sale between different parties: it may be indeed presumed that emancipation would follow, but there is no positive statement that it did. The following class of cases perhaps approaches nearest to such a _charta ingenuitatis_: “By this book of the Gospels it appeareth that Ælfwig the Red hath bought himself out, from Abbat Ælfsige and all the convent, with one pound. Whereof is witness all the brotherhood at Bath. Christ blind him who turneth away this record[425]!” But this is only a memorandum in a copy of the Gospels, no charter of manumission; and I presume that the sheriff would have required some much more definite and legal act, before he looked upon Ælfwig the Red as a freeman. Probably he was duly made free at the altar of the abbey church or at the door[426]. Of this subsequent process we have a good example in the book of St. Petroc.

-----

Footnote 416:

Leg. Will. Conq. iii. § 15.

Footnote 417:

“Qui servum suum liberat, in aecclesia, vel mercato, vel comitatu, vel
hundreto, coram testibus et palam faciat, et liberas ei vias et portas
conscribat apertas, et lanceam et gladium, vel quae liberorum arma
sunt, in manibus ei ponat.” Leg. Hen. I. lxxviii. § 1. Hence the
manumitted serf is called freo ⁊ færewyrð, _free and fareworthy_, that
is, having the right to go whither he chooses.

Footnote 418:

Leg. Rotharis, Langob, Reg. cap. 225.

Footnote 419:

Leg. Roth. Langob. Reg. cap. 226.

Footnote 420:

Leg. Wiht. § 8.

Footnote 421:

“Per omnes terras suas, de triginta hominibus numeratis, tredecim
manumisit, quemadmodum eum sors docuit, _ut in quadrivio positi
pergerent quocunque voluissent_.” Hist. Ram. 29.

Footnote 422:

See Eichhorn, i. 333. Such a person resembles the Langobardic freedman
_per impans_. Ibid. p. 331. I imagine the principle upon which the
wergyld went to the king, to be this: the freedman either never had a
free mǽgð, or they had forfeited the mǽgsceaft by suffering him to be
reduced to serfage. Compare Leg. Eádw. § 9.

Footnote 423:

Leg. Hen. I. lxxviii. § 3. That is, that he is no longer liable to
corporal punishment like a serf.

Footnote 424:

“Qui vero per chartam ingenuitatis dimissi sunt liberi,” etc. Capit.
Bajuvar. an. 788. cap. 7 (Georgisch. p. 548). Eichhorn, i. 332.

Footnote 425:

Cod. Dipl. 1350.

Footnote 426:

Every lawyer knows the value of the _ad ostium aecclesiae_, at any
rate in matters of dower. It implies perfect publicity.

-----

“This book beareth witness that Ælfsige bought a woman called Ongyneðel, and her son Gyðiccæl, of Ðurcil for half a pound, at the church-door in Bodmin: and he gave to Ælfsige the portreeve and Maccos the hundred-man, fourpence as toll. Then came Ælfsige who bought these persons, and took them, and freed them, ever sacless, on Petroc’s altar, in the witness of these _good men_; that is, Isaac the priest[427],” etc.

Of all forms of emancipation I imagine this to have been the most frequent, partly because of its convenience, partly because the motives for emancipation were generally of a religious cast, and the sanctions of religion were solemn and awful. Almost all the records which we possess on this subject are taken from the margins of Gospels or other books belonging to religious houses, and the few references in the laws imply emancipation at the altar. Among the Franks this form, in which the freedman was called Tabularius, conveyed only imperfect freedom: the utmost it could do was to confer the privileges of a Roman provincial, to which class the clergy were reckoned: but the _tabularius_ even so was not fully free; he still remained in the mund of the church. Wihtræd’s law, so often cited, shows clearly that this was not the case in England; nor could it be, seeing that the clergy among us were national, and the Frankish system of _personal_ rights did not prevail. I am therefore disposed to think that gradually emancipation at the altar was taken to convey all the privileges of manumission, and that it was the mode generally, though not exclusively, in use. On this point, the want of documents prevents our attaining certainty. The method was probably this: the man was formally offered up before the high altar, and there declared free in the presence of the officiating clergy and the congregation. A memorandum was then made in some religious book belonging to the church, and the names of the witnesses were recorded. Whether a separate certificate was prepared does not appear.

-----

Footnote 427:

Cod. Dipl. 981. § 28.

-----

The full extent of the rights obtained by the freedman, especially in respect of inheritance, is not to be gathered from any existing Anglosaxon document. It is probable that these were limited, as among the Langobards and Franks: his offspring however were free, and his marriage with a free woman, equal: his other rights, duties and privileges, in short his general condition, were in all probability determined by certain arrangements between himself and his lord previous to the act of manumission. In such a case neither party would find much difficulty in settling the terms of a bargain.

-----------------------

NOTE.

The following pedigrees illustrate the care with which the relations
of the gebúr, and other dependent cultivators on an estate were
recorded. It is probable, nay even certain, that such records were
preserved in all lordships: they were the original court-rolls, by
copy of which the unfree tenants, perhaps also the poor freemen, held,
who were thus the ancient copyholders. The amount of the holdings was
undoubtedly settled by the custom of the county or the manor; and it
is probable that one measure prevailed for all tenants of similar
grades. A record of descents was necessary to regulate the claims of a
lord to the families of his _coloni_, and some extensive system of
registration very probably prevailed: it would be impossible without
it to secure the due operation of the law of _teám_.

“Dudda was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and he had three daughters, one was
named Deórwyn, the second Deórswýð, the third Golde. And Wulfláf at
Hǽðfeld hath Deórwyn to wife, Ælfstán at Tæccingawyrð hath Deórswýð to
wife, and Ealhstán, Ælfstán’s brother, hath Golde to wife. There was a
man named Hwíta, the beemaster at Hǽðfeld, and he had a daughter Táte,
the mother of Wulfsige, the bowman; and Wulfsige’s sister Lulle hath
Héhstán to wife, at Wealden. Wifús and Dunne, and Seoloce are inborn
to Hǽðfeld. Duding, the son of Wifús, is settled at Wealden; and
Ceólmund the son of Dunne, also sits at Wealden, and Æðelheáh the son
of Seoloce, also sits at Wealden: and Táte, Cénwold’s sister, Mæg has
to wife at Welgun; and Eádhelm, the son of Hereðrýð, hath Táte’s
daughter to wife. Wærláf, Wærstán’s father, was a right serf at
Hǽðfeld, he held the grey swine[428].”

“᛭ A man named Bráda was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and Hwíte was the name of
Brâda’s wife; she was a gebúr’s daughter at Hǽðfeld. Hwíte was
Wærstán’s Wǽðrýð's and Wynburh’s third mother[429]. And Wærstán sits
at Wádtún, and hath Wine’s sister to wife, and Wine hath Wærðrýð to
wife. And Dunne sat at Wádtún, she was inborn to Hǽðfeld: and Deórwyn
her daughter hath Cynewald to wife at Munden: and Deórnáð her brother
is with Cynewald. And Dudde, Wifús’s daughter sits at Wilmundesleá.
Cynhelm, Cénwald’s father, was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and Manna,
Cénwald’s son, sits at Wádtún under Eádwald.”

“᛭ Buhe, Dryhtláfs mother-in-law, was removed from Hǽðfeld into
Eslingaden: and Æðelwyn, Eádugu and Æðelgyð were three sisters; and
Tilwine and Dudda, these were all Buge’s children; and Ealhstán
Tilwine’s son, and Wulfsige Eádugu’s son, and Ceólhelm Æðelgyð's son,
and Ceólstán and Manwine. This kin came from [Hǽð]feld; Deórwulf,
Cyneburh’s son, and his two sisters; and Cyneríc at Clæfring is their
uncle. These men are the _magas_ of Táta, the gebúr at Hǽðfeld.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 1353.

It is probable that all these places are in Hertfordshire, or in
Essex. In both counties we find Hatfield and Walden: there is no
Clavering in Hertfordshire, that I know of. On the other hand I am not
aware of any Munden or Watton in Essex.

In 880 Æðelred, duke of Mercia, gave various estates to the bishopric
of Worcester. He also gave six persons with their offspring, who had
previously been _adscripti glebæ_ at the royal vill of Bensington.
“These are the names of the persons who are written from Bensington to
Readanora, to the bishopric of Worcester, with their offspring, and
the progeny that may come of them to all eternity: Alhmund, Tídwulf,
Tídleáh, Lull and Eádwulf[430].”

In 902, Beornwulf _homed_ (gehámette), that is attached, to his manor
of Eblesburne, a number of persons, of both sexes. Lufe and her three
children, Luha and his six children are named[431].

In the time of Eádgár we have the record of several persons
establishing by their oaths that their parents had not been serfs or
_coloni_ of the king[432]. An Appendix to this chapter contains
numerous examples of manumissions, of various periods.

-----

Footnote 428:

He was the ǽhteswán or _porcarius dominicalis_. I cannot explain the
distinction intended by ða grǽgan swín, literally the _grey_ swine.

Footnote 429:

Perhaps great-grandmother.

Footnote 430:

Cod. Dipl. No. 311.

Footnote 431:

Ibid. No. 1079.

Footnote 432:

Ibid. No. 981.

-----