[1427] D. B. i. 248 b (Rolvestune); 21⁄2 hides; land for 8 teams; 18 teams existing; arable land 2 leagues long and 1 [league] wide. Eyton (Staffordshire, 48) has a long note on this entry which makes against his doctrine that the teamland is 120 acres. He suggests that the statement by linear measure is a correction of the previous statement that there is land for 8 teams. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this entry does not stand alone. Morgan, op. cit. 34, speaks of some of these entries. Those which he mentions and which we have not noticed do not seem quite to the point. Thus (D. B. i. 263 b) of Edesberie we read ‘land for 6 ploughs ... this land is a league long and equally wide.’ We are not here expressly told that all the ‘land’ thus measured by lineal measure is arable. The cases of Dictune, Winetun, Grif and Bernodebi, which he then cites, are beside the mark, for what is here measured by lineal measure seems to be the whole area of the manor.
[1428] To make safer, I take the Dorset and Somerset teamlands from Eyton, the Gloucester teams from Mr Taylor. In the modern statistics the ‘arable’ covers ‘bare fallow’ and ‘grasses under rotation’; the ‘permanent pasture’ includes ‘grass for hay,’ but excludes ‘mountain and heath land used for grazing’; the total acreage includes everything but ‘tidal water.’ To bring up the particulars to the total, we should have to add (1) a little for orchards and market gardens, and having thus obtained the sum of all the land that is within the purview of the Board of Agriculture, we should still have to add (2) the sites of towns, houses, factories, etc., (3) tenements of less than an acre whereof no statistics are obtained, (4) roads, railways, etc., (5) waste not used for pasture, rocks, sea-shore, etc., (6) non-tidal water. The area not accounted for by our figures will be smallest in an inland county which has no large towns; it will be raised by sea-shore or by manufacturing industry.
[1429] Agricultural Returns, 1895, p. xiii: ‘The actual loss of arable area in the interval covered by the last two decades ... is 2,137,000 acres.’
[1430] Mr Seebohm, Village Community, p. 103, seems to think that D. B. testifies to no more than 5 million acres of arable. But, even if we stop at the Humber, we shall have 9 million if a team tills 120.
[1431] D. B. ii. 116: T. R. E. there were 1320 burgenses.
[1432] D. B. ii 372.
[1433] It seems probable that in many cases the parish priest is reckoned among the townsmen, the villani.
[1435] While historical economists can still dispute as to whether the population in 1346 was 5 millions, or only 21⁄2 (Cunningham, Eng. Industry, i. 301) guesses about 1085 are premature. M. Fabre has lately estimated the population of England under Henry II. at 2,880,000. But as to this calculation, see Liebermann, Eng. Hist. Rev. xi. 746.
[1437] Walter of Henley, pp. 67, 71.
[1438] Walter of Henley, p. 19.
[1439] Rogers, Hist. Agric. i. 50–1.
[1440] Tour in the Southern Counties, ed. 3 (1767), p. 158. See also p. 242.
[1441] Agricultural Returns, 1895, p. 239. The figures given under the year 1894 which express the average yield of a statute acre in imperial bushels are for Australasia, 8·18; India, 9·00; Russia in Europe, 10·76; United States, 12·79. Apparently in South Australia 1,577,000 acres can produce as little as 7,781,000 bushels. As I understand, Sir J. B. Lawes and Sir J. H. Gilbert reckon that for an unmanured acre in England 16 bushels would be an average return, but that if the same acre is continuously sown with wheat, the yield will decline at the rate of nearly a quarter of a bushel every year. See Journ. Agricult. Soc., 3rd Ser. vol. iv. p. 87.
[1442] This calculus was officially adopted in 1891; see a paper by Sir J. B. Lawes and Sir J. H. Gilbert in Journ. Agric. Soc., 3rd Ser., vol iv. p. 102. I desire to express my thanks to the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture for directing my attention to this paper.
[1443] I understand that the average number of loaves that can be made from 280 lbs. of flour may be put at about 90.
[1444] Agricultural Returns, 1895, pp. 166, 90, 198. The old rough estimate of a quarter of wheat per head is much too high; the average is about 5·65 bushels. See the paper cited in note 1442. Now-a-days we can further allot to each inhabitant of the United Kingdom an amount of cereal matter other than wheat, to wit, barley, oats, beans, peas, maize, etc. which would take for its production perhaps as much as 1·5 times the area of the land that is required for the growth of the wheat that we have allotted to him. But much of this only feeds him by feeding animals that he eats; much only feeds him very indirectly by feeding horses engaged in the production or transport of food; and some of it can not be said to feed him at all. Then, on the other hand, large quantities of potatoes, sugar and rice are being eaten.
[1445] Wheat, oats, barley and peas are mentioned in D. B.; also rye (i. 257 b).
[1446] Hale, Worcester Register, p. civ.
[1447] Boldon Book, D. B. iv. 580–5. So in D. B. i. 69 the sheriff of Wiltshire receives equal quantities of wheat and malt and a larger quantity of oats. See also D. B. i. 179 b.
[1448] Domesday of St. Paul’s, 164*. See also Cart. Rams. iii. 231.
[1449] Ibid, cxxxiv. 173.
[1450] Ibid. 173.
[1451] Calculations are difficult and may be misleading, not only because of the variability of medieval measures, but also because of the varying strength of beer. Mr Steele, the Chief Inspector of Excise, has been good enough to inform me that a bushel of unmalted barley weighing 42 lbs. would yield about 19·5 gallons of beer at 58°. The figures from St. Paul’s seem to point to a strong brew, since they apparently derive but 8 gallons from the bushel of mixed grain. The ordinances of cent. xiii. (Statutes, i. 200, 202) seem to suppose that, outside the cities, the brewer, after deducting expenses and profit, could sell 8 to 12 gallons of beer for the price of a bushel of barley. If we suppose that the bushel of barley gives 18 gallons, the man who drinks his gallon a day consumes 20 bushels a year, and when the acre yields but 6 bushels of wheat, it will hardly yield more than 7 of barley. There is valuable learning in J. Bickerdyke, The Curiosities of Ale, pp. 54, 106, 154.
[1452] As to both meat and drink see Ine 70, § 1; T. 460, 468, 471, 473, 474; E. 118; Æthelstan, II. 1. § 1; D. B. i. 169, rents of the shrievalty of Wiltshire. Attempts to measure the flood of beer break down before the uncertain content of the amber, modius, sextarius, etc. In particular I can not believe that the amber of ale contained (Schmid, p. 530; Robertson, Hist. Essays, 68) 4 of our bushels; but, do all we can to reduce it, the allowance of beer seems large.
[1453] D. B. ii. 162 b: Cheltenham and King’s Barton.
[1454] D. B. i. 205. The abbot of Peterborough is bound to find pasture for 120 pigs for the abbot of Thorney. If he can not do this, he must feed and fatten 60 pigs with corn (de annona pascit et impinguat 60 porcos).
[1455] Walter of Henley, 13. Every week each ox is to have 31⁄2 garbs of oats, and 10 garbs would yield a bushel.
[1456] Now-a-days the average acre in England will produce about 29 bushels of wheat or 40 of oats. Agricultural Returns, 1895, pp. 66, 70.
[1458] Rogers, op. cit. i. 51.
[1459] Clearly so in some cases. See e. g. the first entry in Inq. Com. Cant. The teams of lord and villeins having been mentioned, we then read that the ‘pecunia in dominio’ consists of so many pigs, sheep, etc. Moreover, if all the cattle not of the plough were enumerated under the title animalia, there would not be nearly enough to renew the number of beasts of the plough. Again, when the capacity of the wood is stated in terms of the pigs that it will maintain, the number thus given will in general vastly exceed the number of pigs whose existence is recorded. Lastly, we see that at Crediton (iv. 107) where the lord has but 57 pigs, he receives every year 150 pigs from certain porcarii, whose herds are not counted. Throughout Sussex the lord takes one pig from every villein who has seven (i. 16 b). See also Morgan, op. cit. 56.
[1461] Before we have gone through a tenth of the account of Essex, we have read of ‘wood for’ near 10,000 pigs. If the woods were full and this rate were maintained throughout the country, the swine of England would be as numerous T. R. W. as they now are. No doubt Essex was exceptionally wooded and many woods were understocked; still this mode of reckoning the capacity of wood-land would only occur to men who were accustomed to see large herds.
[1462] In the thirteenth century it is common to find that the acre of meadow is deemed to be twice or three times as valuable as the best arable acre of the same village, and a much higher ratio is sometimes found.
[1463] This appears from the parallel account of Westley given in D. B. and Inq. Com. Cant. (p. 19) where ‘pratum 2 bobus’ = ‘2 ac. prati.’ Entries such as the following are not uncommon (I. C. C. p. 13): ‘Terra est 4 car.; in dominio est una et villani habent 3 car. Pratum 1 car.’ See Morgan, op. cit. 53–5.
[1464] Eyton, Dorset, 146.
[1465] In the above table all vaccae, animalia and animalia ociosa are reckoned in the third column. I believe that the two last of these terms cover all beasts of the bovine race that are not beasts of the plough. The horses are mostly runcini and are kept for agricultural purposes. It may be doubted whether destriers and palfreys are enumerated.
[1466] Rot. Hund. ii. 570, 575. The calculation which gave these results was laborious; but I believe that they are pretty correct.
[1467] On the whole, the valet of D. B., so far as it is precise, seems to me an answer to the question, What rent would a firmarius pay for this estate stocked as it is? But there are many difficulties.
[1468] See the important but difficult account of the mill at Arundel: D. B. i. 23.
[1469] Hall, Court Life, 221–3. The Glastonbury Inquests (Roxburgh Club) show that 36d. is the settled price for the ox.
[1470] Rogers, Hist. Agric. i. 226, 342.
[1472] Inq. Com. Cant. 38.
[1473] Or a little less.
[1474] Perhaps too small. One estate was valued in Essex.
[1476] Domesday of St. Paul’s, 59, 64, 69. See above, p. 399 note 1339.
[1477] Hanssen, Abhandlungen, i. 163.
[1478] After making an allowance of 22,000 for Suffolk (which I have not counted) and adding 500 for the land between Ribble and Mersey (which owing to some difficult problems, I have omitted), the sum would fall a little short of 68,000. The hides of London and other boroughs would raise the total. Pearson, History, i. 658, guessed 90,000 to 100,000.
[1479] Above, p. 3.
[1480] As to the magnum pondus Normannorum, see Crawford Charters, 78.
[1481] D. B. i. 351.
[1482] D. B. i. 77.
[1483] D. B. i. 165, Alvestone.
[1484] D. B. i. 165 b, Malgeresberiae.
[1485] D. B. i. 252 b, Wenloch.
[1486] D. B. i. 40 b.
[1487] D. B. i. 32: ‘postquam habuit pro 16 hidis ad libitum Heraldi.’
[1488] Round, in Domesday Studies, i. 98–110.
[1489] K. 642 (iii. 203).
[1490] D. B. i. 41.
[1492] I have chosen ‘subpartitioned,’ because ‘repartitioned’ might have introduced the idea of periodical or occasional rearrangement, and this it is desirable to exclude in the present state of our knowledge.
[1493] See a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported in The Times for 10 July, 1896.
[1494] Round, Feudal England, 50.
[1495] See also Pollock, E. H. R. xi. 222.
[1496] D. B. i. 172.
[1498] The estate at Matma which is in the Dodingtree hundred will be accounted for below.
[1499] Possibly this and the four next entries should be omitted.
[1500] We here omit the estates at Hamton and Bengeworth, about which the churches of Worcester and Evesham were disputing, for we believe that they have already been included in the Worcester estate of Cropthorn. See Round in Domesday Studies, ii. 545.
[1501] Perhaps add 5 hides at Suchelei; but apparently these have been already included in the account of the King’s Land.
[1502] A large hundred called Halfshire Hundred was formed. In Latin records it is Hundredum Dimidii Comitatus. For some light on the constitution of Dodingtree, see Round, Feudal England, 61.
[1503] ‘In Huntedunescyre sunt dccc hide et dimid.’ This means eight and a half hundreds.
[1504] Leges Anglorum, p. 7.
[1505] On a re-count I made 1185.
[1506] Mr Charles Taylor gives 2595. See above, p. 412. Therefore I have once more gone through the county with his book before me. The difference between us is not altogether due to my faulty arithmetic; but arises from the different constructions that we put upon a few composite entries. In particular I can not allow the bishop of Worcester anything like the 231 hides that Mr Taylor gives him. When I find an entry in this form: ‘Sancta Maria tenet H. Ibi sunt x hidae ... De hac terra huius manerii Turstinus tenet y hidas in O,’ I believe that x includes y, and this no matter how far the place called O may be from the place called H. My 2388 is I think a trifle too low; but I believe the number lies very close to 2400 on one side or the other.
[1507] Ellis, Introduction, i. 184.
[1508] Feudal England, 148.
[1509] After a re-count I think that my 1356 is a little too large, and should not be surprised if the 26631⁄2 had been exactly halved.
[1510] See above, p. 451. This is but one instance. Several other hundreds had been similarly relieved. See Round, Feudal England, 51.
[1511] My 500 (or a trifle more) for Cheshire does not include the land between the Ribble and the Mersey. The figures given for that district are, as is well known, very difficult. If we take the final statement (D. B. i. 270) about the 79 ‘hides’ as a grand total and hold that each of these contains 6 carucates (Feudal England, 86) and that each of these carucates pays geld equivalent to that of one ordinary hide, then we have here 474 units to be added to the Cestrian 500, and yet more northerly lands may have been gelding along with Chester in Cnut’s day.
[1512] The various copies disagree as to whether Herefordshire shall have 1200 or 1500 hides. My figure stands about halfway between these two; but many hides were not gelding in 1086. I can not bring the Warwickshire hides down to 1200.
[1513] I take the numbers of the hundreds from Dr Stubbs, Const. Hist. 106. I take them thence in order that I may not be tempted to make them rounder than they are.
[1515] Mr C. S. Taylor, op. cit. 31, finds 41.
[1516] Round, Feudal England, 44 ff.
[1517] Both statements might be illustrated from the Dorsetshire accounts. Between 2 and 8 Hen. II. the geld seems to rise from £228. 5s. to £248. 5s. but there is a blunder in the addition of the pardons in the latter roll. I believe that Mr Round has already mentioned this case somewhere. The correspondence between the Pipe Rolls and Domesday is sufficiently close to warrant our saying that the story told by Orderic of a new and severer valuation made by Rufus can have but little, if any, truth behind it. See Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 327.
[1518] The common formula is: ‘T. R. E. geldabat pro a hidis; ibi tamen sunt a´ hidae’ and a´ is largely greater than a. I infer that a´ represents a new and increased assessment, for the Geld Inquest seems to show Cornwall paying for 401 hides and a fraction while I make a´=399.
[1519] For these three counties we can not give any B, but must draw inferences from C. Clearly in Hereford C was often thought to be much less than B.
[1520] As already said (above, p. 420) what we take to be Leicester’s equivalent for B is sometimes given by an unusual formula.
[1521] Rogers, Hist. Agricult. i. 110.
[1522] Yorkshire Lay Subsidy (Yorksh. Archæol. Soc.) p. xxxii.
[1523] Total acreage under all kinds of crops, bare fallow and grass, excluding (1) nursery gardens, (2) woods and plantations, (3) mountain and heath land.
[1524] Powell, East Anglia Rising, 121–3.
[1525] As we are giving or trying to give the fullest number of hides whose existence is attested by D. B., and not the number gelding in 1086, we compare with it the values given by Pearson (Hist. Engl. i. 665) for the T. R. E. His values for the T. R. W. are given above, p. 401.
[1526] Suffolk and Norfolk are omitted because the relation between their carucates and the villar geld pence is as yet uncertain. Stafford does not provide valuits enough to give a stable average; but in general the valets and valuits for its hides are high. I have excluded (1) royal demesne, (2) cases in which there is any talk of ‘waste,’ (3) cases in which a particular manor is obviously privileged. In Lincolnshire it is difficult to obtain good figures, because of the way in which the sokes are valued.
[1527] See above, p. 386, note 1304.
[1528] Werhard’s testament, K. 230 (i. 297), tells us of a great estate of 100 hides at Otford, of 30 hides at Graveney and so forth. The figures are so little in harmony with D. B. and with the other Canterbury charters that we may suspect the 100 manses at Otford of covering many smaller estates, each of which appears elsewhere with a name of its own.
[1529] In D. B. i. 12 b St. Augustin holds 30 solins at Norborne. In 618 Eadbald of Kent, K. 6 (i. 9), gave 30 aratra at Nortburne; but the deed is spurious. In D. B. 5 b, Rochester has 3 solins at Totesclive, 6 at Hallinges, 21⁄2 at Coclestane, 3 at Mellingetes, 6 at Bronlei. In 788 Offa, K. 152 (i. 183), gave 6 aratra at Trottesclib. Egbert, K. 160 (i. 193), gave 10 at Hallingas. In 880 Æthelstan, K. 312 (ii. 109), B. ii. 168, gave 3 at Cucolanstan. Edmund, K. 409 (ii. 265), gave 3 at Meallingas. In 998 Æthelred, K. 700 (iii. 305), gave 6 at Brunleage. The Rochester deeds therefore may point to some reduction; but they do not tell of any startling change.
[1530] Meitzen, op. cit. ii. 101, holds that the Euti who invaded Kent fitted themselves into an agrarian framework prepared by Celts. They came not, like the great mass of Saxons and Angles, from a country in which villages of the Germanic type had grown up, but from an originally Celtic land, which they while still in the pastoral state had seized and subjugated. It is an interesting though hazardous speculation. Certainly some cause or another keeps Kent apart from the rest of England.
[1531] Thus, K. 371 (ii. 207): Æthelstan gives to the church of Exeter 6 perticae (yard-lands?). B. ii. 433: he gives one cassate to St Petroc. K. 787 (iv. 115): the Confessor gives a pertica and a half in Cornwall. Crawford Charters, pp. 1–43: Æthelheard gives 20 cassates at Crediton; that is, a dozen of our parishes. Ibid. p. 9: a single yard of land is gaged for 30 mancuses of gold. K. 1306 (vi. 163): in 739 Æthelred gives 3 perticae to Athelney. K. 1324 (vi. 188): Cnut gives to Athelney duas mansas siue (= et) unam perticam.
[1532] K. 1143 (v. 278); B. ii. 527. For the arepennis see Meitzen, op. cit. i. 278, where an explanation derived from the Irish laws is given of its name.
[1534] The lords of Cambridgeshire may have done good service during the campaign in the Isle of Ely.
[1535] Pearson’s valuit is £491; his valet £736.
[1536] The appearance of the curious hida may lead to the guess that if the geld be at two shillings, it is the Leicestershire hida, not the Leicestershire carucata which pays this sum. But (1) if the hida contains 18, or even 12, carucates we shall then have on our hands a case of extreme under-taxation; and (2) this will not account for the fact that an exceedingly small value is given to the land that a team ploughs.
[1537] D. B. i. 233.
[1538] At the end of the account of the land between Ribble and Mersey (i. 240) we are told that there were altogether 79 hidae which T. R. E. were worth £145. 2s. 2d. This would give a very small value for the carucate, if the hida of this district had six carucates; and in many cases 2s. 8d. is the value assigned to the carucate. If to a two-shilling geld the hida paid but two shillings, this is a bad, though not unprecedented, case of under-taxation. On the other hand, if the carucate paid two shillings, its value has been stated in some abnormal fashion. I do not think it out of the question that the hidae of Leicestershire and Lancashire are modern arrangements designed to give relief in some manner or another to districts which have been too heavily burdened with carucates.
[1539] It may, however, have been applied to the conquered West Wales from an early time. See above, p. 467.
[1541] D. B. i. 293 b.
[1542] And two sokemen with two teams.
[1543] The artificiality or traditionality of the teamland is even more obvious in D. B. than it is in our statement. At Okeham are 4 hides; land for 16 teams. The men have 37. The king has 2 in his demesne ‘et tamen aliae quatuor possunt esse.’ So what is land for 16 teams is not only stocked but insufficiently stocked with 39. The manor of one carucate held by Leuenot seems to be another infringement of the traditional scheme, unless that carucate has been already reckoned among the four at Okeham.
[1544] Many other instances suggesting the artificiality of B might be given from northern counties; e.g. in Northampton (i. 227) we have five consecutive entries in which A = 2, 2, 2, 0·5, 4; B = 5, 5, 5, 1·25, 10; C = 3, 2, 5, 1, 8. See also Round, Feudal England, 90.
[1545] D. B. i. 323 b.
[1546] D. B. i. 299 Walesgrif £56; 299 b Poclinton £56; 309 Ghellinghes £56; 305 Witebi £112. It will be remembered that, as our hundred-weight (112 lbs) shows, 112 can be called a hundred.
[1547] Pipe Rolls, 2. 3. 4. 5. Hen. II. In a few cases the earlier donum includes a composition ‘for murders and pleas.’ That from Yorkshire is partly paid by York, that from Gloucestershire by Gloucester.
[1548] Nearly.
[1549] Except the ‘hides,’ if hides they be, of Leicestershire and Lancashire.
[1550] D. B. i. 35 (Surrey).
[1551] D. B. i. 49 b (Hants).
[1552] D. B. i. 364 (Lincoln).
[1554] This part of the evidence is set out in Mr Round’s Feudal England, 37–44. I have gone through all the calculations. His results are hardly different from those which I have obtained and therefore I dwell no longer on this part of the case, for it has been well stated.
[1555] D. B. i. 192; iv. 107. The Inquisitio Eliensis puts the number of cottiers at 18, while Domesday gives 28. See Hamilton’s edition, p. 119.
[1556] Downham, Witchford, Sutton, ‘Helle,’ Wilburton, Stretham, Stuntney, Doddington.
[1557] Wichford, D. B. i. 192; iv. 507; Hamilton, 119.
[1558] Witcham, Whittlesey, Lindon, Wentworth, Chatteris, Wisbeach, Littleport.
[1559] Wisbeach, 31⁄2 H. + 1 V. + 150 A. + 21⁄21⁄2 H. = 10 H.
[1560] In giving the sum of the particulars I add hides to hides, virgates to virgates, acres to acres, but I make no assumption as to the number of acres or virgates in the hide.
[1561] D. B. iv. 4, 9, 16.
[1562] D. B. iv. 22.
[1563] D. B. iv. 1, 6, 13.
[1564] D. B. iv. 3, 8, 15 (Melchesham).
[1565] D. B. iv. 3–4, 9, 15 (Chinbrige).
[1566] D. B. iv. 61–2–3.
[1567] D. B. iv. 23 (Hunesberge); see also Langeberge on the same page.
[1568] Round in Domesday Studies, i. 212: ‘I have worked through the Inquisitio Geldi with this special object, but found to my disappointment that the odd acres which paid geld on this occasion did not pay at a uniform rate, some paying twice as much as others.’
[1569] D. B. ii. 19: ‘Ratendunam tenuit S. Adelred T. R. E. ... pro 20 hidis. Modo pro 16 hidis et dimidia.... Et 30 acras tenet Siward de S. Adelred. Modo tenet Ranulfus Piperellus de rege, set hundret testatur de abbatia. Et 3 hidas et 30 acras quas tenuit ecclesia et Leuesunus de ea T. R. E. modo tenet Eudo de abbate.’ I think that this involves the statement:
16½ H. + 30 A. + 3 H. + 30 A. = 20 H.
[1570] D. B. ii. 3, 11, 33, 63 b, 78 b, and in many other places.
[1571] Ibid. 31.
[1572] Ibid. 6 b, 42 b.
[1573] Ibid. 46.
[1574] Ibid. 48.
[1575] Ibid. 6 b, 49, 60.
[1576] Ibid. 43.
[1577] Ibid. 74.
[1578] Ibid. 1 b.
[1579] Ibid. 11 b, 30 b, 31, 47 b.
[1580] Ibid. 72.
[1581] Ibid. 21 b.
[1582] Ibid. 16, 15.
[1583] D. B. ii. 79.
[1584] Some other fractions into which a hide would easily break by inheritance and partition can be expressed in various ways. Thus two-thirds of a hide can be expressed as 80 A. or as ‘half a hide and 20 acres.’ Three-quarters of a hide appears sometimes as ‘half a hide and 30 A.,’ sometimes as ‘a hide less 30 A.’ We might add to our other arguments derived from Essex that used by Morgan (op. cit., p. 31). It seems fairly clear that the holding of Roger ‘God Bless the Dames’, which is called 3 V. in one place is called 1⁄2 H. + 30 A. in another place (D. B. iv. 21 b, 96 b).
[1585] D. B. i. 141 b, Wallingtone.
[1586] D. B. i. 141, Stuterehele.
[1587] D. B. i. 165. There is here a transition from geldable area to real area. This land is rated at a hide, but when you come to plough it, you will find only 64 acres.
[1588] D. B. i. 93 b, Dudesham; iv. 396.
[1589] D. B. i. 79 b. Eyton, Dorset, 16, says that this is a clumsy way of describing 1 H. + 1 A. Round, Domesday Studies, i. 213, makes some just remarks on Eyton’s treatment of this passage.
[1590] D. B. i. 95 b, Ecewiche; iv. 333.
[1591] D. B. ii. 389 (Cratingas). In Northamptonshire also there is talk of virgates; e.g. D. B. 225 b, 226 b: 3V. - 1 B.; 2 V. + 1 B.
[1592] D. B. ii. 377 b.
[1593] D. B. i. 276 b, 278.
[1594] If I hold two and a half acres in one place and three roods in a neighbouring place and you ask me how much land I have, I may tell you that I have two and a half acres and three roods. If you ask me how much money I have in my purse, I may tell you that I have half-a-crown and three shillings. But returns to governmental inquiries would not be habitually made in this way.
[1595] D. B. i. 13: ‘pro uno solin se defendit; tria iuga sunt infra divisionem Hugonis et quartum iugum est extra.’
[1596] D. B. i. 2.
[1597] Elton, Tenures of Kent, 133–4.
[1598] D. B. i. 12 b.
[1599] D. B. i. 9 b.
[1600] D. B. i. 12.
[1601] Kemble, Saxons, ch. iv. and App. B.
[1602] Saxons, i. 490.
[1603] D. B. iv. 42. Cf. D. B. i. 81 b.
[1604] Robertson, Hist. Essays, 95, 96. He has entirely misunderstood the entry touching the hundred of Ailestebba. The equation involved in it is merely the following: 16 H. (i.e. 10 + 41⁄2 + 11⁄2) + 37 H. + 20 H. = 73 H.
[1605] Eyton, Dorset, 15; Bound in Domesday Studies, i. 213.
[1606] Dr Isaac Taylor, The Ploughland and the Plough, in Domesday Studies, i. 143. Of this paper there is an excellent review by W. H. Stevenson in Engl. Hist. Rev. v. 142.
[1607] Domesday Studies, 150; D. B. i. 324.
[1608] D. B. i. 311 b.
[1609] Round, Feudal England, 60.
[1611] See above, pp. 402, 435.
[1614] Dial. de Scac. i. 17.
[1615] The appearance in D. B. of a few ‘hides’ which apparently consist altogether of wood-land (e.g. ii. 55 b) is one of the many signs that the fiscal hide has diverged from its original pattern. A block of wood-land would not be ‘the land of one family.’
[1618] Dr Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 79, has endeavoured to find a via media. To me it seems that his suggestion is open to almost all the objections that can be urged against our Big Hide, for he seems prepared to give the normal household of the oldest day its 120 acres. Mr Seebohm’s adhesion to the party of the Big Hide is of importance, for I can not but think that a small hide (which afterwards was called a virgate) would have assorted better with his general theory. Conversely, it is curious that Kemble, the champion of the free ceorls, was also the champion, if not the inventor, of the Little Hide.
[1620] D. B. i. 32 b.
[1621] K. 812 (iv. 151).
[1622] K. 986–988 (v. 14–21); B. i. 55–9, 64.
[1623] Plummer, Bede, ii. 217.
[1624] K. 917 (iv. 165).
[1625] D. B. i. 66 b, 67.
[1626] K. 355 (ii. 179).
[1627] K. 263 (ii. 35). Accepted by Kemble.
[1628] K. 174 (i. 209).
[1629] K. 24 (i. 28).
[1630] It is fair to say that the instances here given are picked instances and that the Malmesbury title to some other lands is not so exceedingly neat.
[1632] This is so even in the case of the Kentish churches, see above, p. 466. The Chronicle of Abingdon affords good materials for comparison with D. B. As a general rule the charters will account for just about the right number of manses, if the manses are to be the hides. There are exceptions; but not more than might be fairly explained by changes such as those recorded in the following words (Chron. Abingd. i. 270):—‘Fuerunt autem Witham, Seouecurt, Henstesie, Eatun membra de Cumenora temporibus Eadgari regis Angliae, habentes cassatos xxv; nunc vero Hensteseie membrum est de Bertona; Witheham et Seouecurt militibus datae; Eatun omnìmodo ablata.’ See also an excellent paper by Mr C. S. Taylor, The Pre-Domesday Hide of Gloucestershire, Trans. Brist, and Glouc. Archæol. Soc. vol. xvíii.
[1633] Round, Feudal England, 44 ff.
[1634] Nasse, Agricultural Community, Engl. transl., 23–5. Seebohm, Village Community. 111.
[1635] K. 552 (iii. 35).
[1636] K. 617 (iii. 164).
[1637] Charter of Æthelwulf, K. 1057 (v. 113); T. p. 115; H. & S. 646. We should not be surprised if at least one part of the mysterious ‘decimation’ turned out to be an early act of ‘beneficial hidation.’
[1638] Charter of Edward, K. 342 (ii. 153).
[1639] Charter of Æthelstan, K. 1113 (v. 224).
[1640] Charters of Edgar, K. 512 (ii. 401); K. 583 (iii. 111).
[1641] Writ of Æthelred, K. 642 (iii. 203).
[1642] D. B. i. 40–41.
[1643] Kitchin, Winchester, 7: ‘Cenwalh built the church, the parent of Winchester cathedral ... The monks at once set themselves to ennoble toil, to wed tillage with culture; and it is interesting to note that the first endowment of the Church in Wessex fell to them in the form of a great grant of all the land for some leagues around the city, given for the building of the church.’ Did the monks till the land for some leagues around the city? I think not. Was it all occupied by their serfs? I think not. What was given was a superiority. One last question:—Did the monks really ennoble toil by appropriating its proceeds?
[1644] D. B. i. 65 b: ‘Episcopus Wintoniensis tenet Duntone. T. R. E. geldavit pro 100 hidis tribus minus. Duae ex his non sunt episcopi, quia ablatae fuerunt cum aliis tribus de aecclesia et de manu episcopi tempore Cnut Regis.’
[1645] K. 985 (v. 12).
[1646] K. 1036 (v. 80).