Sussex 932,733 10,410 217 0 6 3,474
Surrey 461,230 4,383 179 16 0 1,830
Hampshire 1,037,764 10,373 184 15 4 2,588
Berkshire 461,742 6,324 205 11 4 2,473
Wiltshire 880,248 10,150 389 13 0 4,050
Dorset 632,272 7,807 248 5 0 2,277
[7,512 E] [2,321 E]
Somerset 1,042,488 13,764 277 10 4 2,936
[13,307 E] [2,951 E]
Devon 1,667,097 17,434 103 19 8 1,119
Cornwall 868,208 5,438 22 15 0 155
Middlesex 180,480(?) 2,302 85 12 0 868
Hertford 406,932 4,927 110 1 4 1,050
Buckingham 475,094 5,420 204 14 7 2,074
Oxford 485,322 6,775 249 16 5 2,412
Gloucester 796,731 8,366 194 1 6 2,388
Worcester 480,342 4,625 101 6 0 1,189
Hereford 537,363 5,368 93 15 6 1,324
Cambridge 549,565 5,204 114 15 0 1,233
Huntingdon 233,928 2,914 71 5 0 747
Bedford 298,494 3,875 110 12 0 1,193
Northampton 639,541 8,441 119 10 9 1,356
Leicester 528,986 6,772 100 0 0 2,500(?)
Warwick 578,595 6,574 128 12 6 1,338
Stafford 749,713 3,178 45 1 0 505
[499 E]
Shropshire 859,516 5,080 117 18 6 1,245
Chester [655,036] 2,349 0 0 0 512
Derby 657,550 3,041 } 112 1 11 { 679
Nottingham 539,752 5,686 } { 567
Rutland [97,273] 862 11 12 0 37
York [3,888,351] 8,055 165 9 5 10,095
Lincoln 1,694,907 25,305 266 0 0 4,188
Essex 985,545 16,060 236 8 0 2,650
Norfolk 1,315,092 27,087 330 2 2 [2,422]
Suffolk 947,742 20,491 235 0 8
Hides
Gelding Valet
T. R. W. Teamlands Teams (Pearson)
V VI VII VIII
£ _s._ _d._
3,102 5,140 9 10 Kent
2,241 3,091 3,255 7 4 Sussex
706 1,172 1,142 1,524 4 9 Surrey
1,572 2,847 2,614 Hampshire
1,338 2,087 1,796 2,383 16 1 Berkshire
3,457 2,997 Wiltshire
2,303 1,762 2,656 9 8 Dorset
[2,332 E] [3,359 12 9E]
4,858 3,804 Somerset
[4,812 E] [4,161 4 7E]
7,972 5,542 3,220 14 3 Devon
399 2,377 1,187 662 1 4 Cornwall
664 545 754 7 8 Middlesex
1,716 1,406 1,541 13 11 Hertford
2,244 1,952 1,813 7 9 Buckingham
2,639 2,467 3,242 2 11 Oxford
3,768 2,827 6 8 Gloucester
1,889 991 0 6 Worcester
2,479 Hereford
1,676 1,443 Cambridge
1,120 967 864 15 4 Huntingdon
1,557 1,367 1,096 12 2 Bedford
2,931 2,422 1,843 0 7 Northampton
1,817 736 3 0 Leicester
2,276 2,003 1,359 13 8 Warwick
1,398 951 [516 16 3E] Stafford
1,755 Shropshire
Chester
762 862 461 4 0 Derby
1,255 1,991 Nottingham
Rutland
York
5,043 4,712 Lincoln
3,920 4,784 10 8 Essex
4,853 4,154 11 7 Norfolk
Suffolk
TABLE II. AVERAGES.
Acreage Acreage Acreage Population
div. by div. by div. by div. by
population teamlands teams teamlands
IX X XI XII
Kent 79 314
Sussex 89 301
Surrey 105 393 403 3·7
Hampshire 100 364 397 3·6
Berkshire 73 221 257 3·0
Wiltshire 86 254 293 2·9
Dorset 80 274 358 3·3
Somerset 75 214 274 2·8
Devon 95 209 300 2·1
Cornwall 159 365 731 2·2
Middlesex 78 271 331 3·4
Hertford 82 237 289 2·8
Buckingham 87 211 243 2·4
Oxford 71 183 196 2·5
Gloucester 95 211
Worcester 103 254
Hereford 100 216
Cambridge 105 327 380 3·1
Huntingdon 80 208 241 2·6
Bedford 77 191 218 2·4
Northampton 75 218 264 2·8
Leicester 78 291
Warwick 88 254 288 2·8
Stafford 235 536 788 2·2
Shropshire 169 489
Chester [278]
Derby 216 862 762 3·9
Nottingham 94 430 271 4·4
Rutland [112]
York [482]
Lincoln 66 336 359 5·0
Essex 61 251
Norfolk 48 270
Suffolk 46
Experimental valet
Total valet of teamland
Population Teamlands div. by [or of land
div. by div. by teamlands tilled by
teams teams [or by teams] team]
XIII XIV XV XVI
£ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._
3·9 [1 13 1] 1 14 11 Kent
3·3 [1 1 0] 0 18 3 Sussex
3·8 1·02 1 6 0 1 0 8 Surrey
3·9 1·08 1 2 6 Hampshire
3·5 1·16 1 2 4 1 2 10 Berkshire
3·3 1·15 1 4 4 Wiltshire
4·4 1·30 1 3 0 1 6 8 Dorset
3·6 1·27 0 15 9 Somerset
3·1 1·43 0 8 0 0 5 3 Devon
4·5 2·00 0 5 6 0 3 8 Cornwall
4·2 1·21 1 2 8 1 1 1 Middlesex
3·5 1·22 0 17 11 0 13 11 Hertford
2·7 1·14 0 16 1 0 13 6 Buckingham
2·7 1·06 1 4 6 1 0 8 Oxford
2·2 [0 15 0] [0 16 1] Gloucester
2·4 [0 10 5] [0 10 7] Worcester
2·1 [0 9 11] Hereford
3·6 1·16 1 2 9 Cambridge
3·0 1·15 0 15 5 0 12 2 Huntingdon
2·8 1·13 0 14 1 0 15 4 Bedford
3·4 1·21 0 9 9 Northampton
3·7 0 9 8 Leicester
3·2 1·13 0 11 11 0 10 10 Warwick
3·3 1·47 0 7 4 0 8 8 Stafford
2·8 [0 7 2] Shropshire
Chester
3·5 0·88 0 12 1 0 11 7 Derby
2·8 0·63 0 3 6 Nottingham
Rutland
York
5·3 1·07 0 17 6 Lincoln
4?0 [1 4 4] Essex
5?5 [0 17 1] Norfolk
Suffolk
[Northern formulas.]
We may begin our investigation with a formula common in Derbyshire.
In M [place name] habuit K [man's name] _a_ car[ucatas] terrae ad
geldum. Terra _b_ car[ucarum _or_ carucis]. Ibi nunc in dominio _d_
car[ucae] et ... villani et ... bordarii habent _e_ car[ucas].
The Lincolnshire formula is perhaps yet plainer. Instead of saying
'Terra _b_ car[ucarum],' it says, 'Terra ad _b_ car[ucas].' Still more
instructive is a formula used in Yorkshire.
In M habuit K _a_ car[ucatas] terrae ad geldum ubi possunt esse _b_
car[ucae]. Nunc habet ibi K _d_ car[ucas] et ... villanos et ...
bordarios cum _e_ car[ucis].
As a variant on the phrase 'ubi possunt esse _b_ car[ucae],' we have,
'quas potest arare 1 car[uca],' or 'has possunt arare _b_
car[ucae][1340].'
The teams on the demesne (_d_) and the teams of the tenants (_e_) are
enumerated separately. The total number of the teams (_d_ + _e_) we will
call _c_.
Now occasionally we may find an entry concerning which the following
equation will hold good: _a_ = _b_ = _c_: in other words, the same
number will stand for the carucates at which the manor is taxed, the
'teamlands' that there are in it (or to put it another way the number of
teams that 'can be there,' or the number of teams that 'can plough
it'[1341]) and also for the teams that are actually to be found there.
Thus:--
Terra Roberti de Todeni.... In Ulestanestorp habuit Leuricus 4
car[ucatas] terrae ad geldum. Terra totidem car[ucis]. Ibi habet
Robertus in dominio 1 car[ucam] et 6 villanos et 3 bordarios et 8
sochemannos habentes 3 car[ucas][1342].
Here _a_ = _b_ = _c_. But entries so neat as this are not very common.
In the first place, the number (_c_) of teams often exceeds or falls
short of the number (_b_) of 'teamlands,' or, which is the same thing,
the number of teams that there 'can be.' An excess of 'teamlands' over
teams is common. In some parts of Yorkshire and elsewhere instead of
reading that there are so many teams, we read 'modo vasta est':--there
are no oxen there at all. But the reverse of this case is not very
uncommon. Thus we may be told that there are 3 carucates for geld, that
'there can be there 2 teams' and that there are 4 teams[1343]; we may
find a manor that contains land for but 3 teams equipped with as many as
7[1344]. As to the relation between _a_ and _b_, this is not fixed. On
one and the same page we may find that _a_ is equal to, greater and less
than _b_. Thus in Lincolnshire[1345]:
In Colebi habuit Siuuard 7 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad totidem
car.
In Cherchebi habuit Comes Morcar 5 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad
4 car.
In Bodebi habuit Comes Morcar 8 car. terrae ad geldum. Terra ad 9
car.
[Southern formulas.]
Leaving now for a while the carucated part of England and postponing our
visit to Kent, we find similar formulas. They tell us (_A_) that the
manor contains a certain number of units of assessment, (_B_) that there
is land for a certain number of teams, (_C_) that there are so many
teams upon it. But we have a new set of units of assessment; instead of
carucates and bovates, we have hides and virgates. The Huntingdonshire
formula is particularly clear. It runs thus:
In M habet K _a_ hidas ad geldum. Terra _b_ car[ucarum _or_
carucis]. Ibi nunc in dominio _d_ car[ucae] et ... villani et ...
bordarii habentes _e_ car[ucas].
The number of hides that is put before us is the number of hides 'for
geld.' So in Cheshire and Shropshire the number of hides that is put
before us is the number of 'hidae geld[antes].' From this we easily pass
to the formula that prevails in Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon:
K tenet M. T[empore] R[egis] E[dwardi] geldabat pro _a_ hidis.
Terra est _b_ car[ucarum]. In dominio sunt _d_ car[ucae] et ...
villani et ... bordarii cum _e_ car[ucis].
A formula common in Sussex, Surrey and several other counties instead of
telling us that this manor has _a_ hides for geld, or has _a_ gelding
hides, or gelds for _a_ hides, tells us--what seems exactly the same
thing--that it 'defends itself' for _a_ hides. Then we pass to counties
such as Middlesex, Hertford, Buckingham and Oxford where the entry does
not commonly use any words which explicitly refer to geld:--we are told
that K holds M for so many hides (pro _a_ hidis). Lastly, we may pass to
counties, such as Warwickshire and Staffordshire where, at first sight,
the entries may seem to us ambiguous. They run thus--'K holds M. There
are there _a_ hides. There is land for _b_ teams.' Here for a moment it
may seem to us that we have two different statements about the actual
extent or capacity of the manor:--there are _a_ hides there, but land
for _b_ teams. But comparing the formulas in use here with those in use
in other counties, we can hardly doubt that they all come to one and the
same thing:--a statement about _b_, the capacity of the manor, is
preceded by a statement about its taxation, which statement may take the
short form, 'There are _a_ hides there,' instead of one of the longer
forms, 'It gelds, or defends itself, for _a_ hides,' or 'He holds _a_
gelding hides, or _a_ hides for geld.'
[Kentish formulas.]
In Kent again, we have the three statements, though here the units of
assessment are sulungs and yokes:--the land 'defends itself' for _a_
sulungs; there is land there for _b_ teams; there are _d_ teams in
demesne and the men have _e_ teams.
[Relation between the three statements.]
In the hidated south, as in the carucated north, the relation between
the three amounts is not invariable. We may find that _a_ = _b_ = _c_.
It is common to find that _c_ is less than _b_, but occasionally it is
greater; on one and the same page we may find that _c_ is equal to, is
greater, is less than _b_. Then _a_ is often equal to _b_, often it is
less than _b_, but sometimes it is greater. We have therefore three
statements about the manor, between which there is no necessary
connexion of any very simple kind.
It may look pedantic, but will be convenient if, by means of the letters
_A_, _B_ and _C_, we try to keep distinctly before our minds 'the _A_
statement' about the units of assessment, 'the _B_ statement' about the
'teamlands,' or teams for which 'there is land,' and 'the _C_ statement'
about the existing teams. We shall find hereafter that there are certain
counties in which we do not get all three statements, at least in any of
their accustomed forms. In Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and
Herefordshire we rarely get the _B_ statement. As to Essex, Norfolk and
Suffolk, we seem at first sight to obtain _A_ and not _B_, or _B_ and
not _A_, while Leicestershire will require separate treatment.
[Introduction of statistics.]
Now if we are ever to understand these matters, it is necessary that we
should look at the whole of England. Far be it from us to say that
microscopic labour spent upon one county or one hundred is wasted; often
it is of the highest value; but such work is apt to engender theories
which break down the moment they are carried outside the district in
which they had their origin. Well would it be if the broad features of
Domesday Book could be set out before us in a series of statistical
tables. The task would be gigantic and could hardly be performed except
by a body of men who had plenteous leisure and who would work together
harmoniously. However, rather to suggest what might and some day must be
done, than to parade what has been done rapidly and badly, some figures
have been set forth above in two tables[1346]. That they are extremely
inaccurate can not be doubtful, for he who compiled them had other
things to do and lacks many of the qualities which should be required of
a good counter of hides. For unmethodical habits and faulty arithmetic
no excuse is possible; but it will be remembered that, as matters now
stand, two men not unskilled in Domesday might add up the number of
hides in a county and arrive at very different results, because they
would hold different opinions as to the meaning of certain formulas
which are not uncommon. What is here set before the reader is intended
to be no more than a distant approach towards the truth. It will serve
its end if it states the sort of figures that would be obtained by
careful and leisurely computers, and therefore the sort of problems that
have to be solved[1347].
[Explanation of statistics.]
[Acreage.]
We must now explain our statistics. In Column I. we give the acreage of
the modern counties[1348]. A warning bracket will remind the reader that
in the cases of Yorkshire, Cheshire and Rutland the modern does not
coincide even approximately with the ancient boundary. To Middlesex we
give a figure larger than that given by our statisticians, for they know
a county of London which has been formed at the expense of its
neighbours[1349]. Many minor variations should be remembered by those
who would use Domesday Book for delicate purposes; for example, they
must call to mind the merger in circumambient shires of what were once
detached pieces of other counties. But of such niceties we can here take
no account[1350].
[Population.]
In Column II. we state the 'recorded population' as computed by Ellis.
In the cases of Dorset and Somerset we also state, and we sign with the
letter _E_, the result of Eyton's labours. We must not forget that these
figures give us rather the number of tenants or occupiers than the
number of human beings. Our readers must multiply them by four, five or
six, according to knowledge or taste, before the population of England
will be attained.
[Danegeld.]
In Column III., for a reason that will become evident hereafter, we
place the amount of danegeld charged against the counties--charged
against them, not actually paid by them[1351]--in the middle of the
twelfth century. The sources of these figures are the Pipe Rolls of 31
Henry I. and 2 and 8 Henry II. In these accounts the amount charged
against a county is approximately constant. Some of the variations are
probably due to a contemptuous treatment of small sums[1352]; but there
are cases in which a sheriff seems to have been allowed to deduct £10 or
so, without any recorded explanation[1353]. We choose the highest
figures when there is any discord between our three rolls. The danegeld
was being levied at the rate of two shillings on the hide, and
therefore, if we would find the number of geldant hides, we have to
multiply by ten the number of pounds that are set against the county.
[Sidenote: Hides, carucates, sulungs.]
Column IV. contains our estimate of _A_: in other words, of the number
of hides, carucates or sulungs. As we are arguing for a large hide, we
have thought right in doubtful cases to lean in favour of inclusion
rather than of exclusion. We count all hides, except those ascribed to
the shire's boroughs[1354], even though we are told that they have
'never' gelded. Also, when a hide is mentioned, we count it, even though
we have a strong suspicion that the same hide is mentioned again on some
other page. Especially in Sussex, where the rapes have recently been
rearranged, this may make our figures too high[1355]. Then, again, we
have frankly begged important questions by assuming that in Domesday
Book the following equations are correct.
1 Hide = 4 Virgates = 120 Acres
1 Carucate = 8 Bovates = 120 Acres
1 Sulung = 4 Yokes = 120 Acres.
In the counties with which we have dealt, except Norfolk and Essex
(Suffolk we have left alone), acres are so rarely mentioned that the
error, if any, introduced by our hypothesis as to their relation to
hides and carucates will be almost infinitesimal, and, even if we are
wrong in supposing that the virgate is the quarter of a hide and that
the bovate is the eighth of a carucate, the vitiation of our results
that will be due to this blunder will but rarely be considerable[1356].
[Reduced hidage.]
Almost everywhere we may find some hides (carucates, sulungs) that do
not geld and many cases in which a tract now gelds for a smaller number
of hides (carucates, sulungs) than that for which it formerly paid. In
four counties, however, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire, we see
that since William's advent there has, rightfully or wrongfully, been a
large and generally distributed reduction in the tale of the gelding
hides. In our Column V. we give a rough statement of the reduced
number[1357]. In Cornwall we read of an assessment that prevailed in the
Confessor's day and of a heavier assessment. The figures which speak of
this heavier assessment we place in our Column V[1358].
[The teamlands.]
We now pass from _A_ to _B_. In Column VI. we set the number of
teamlands, thus answering the question _Quot carucarum [carucis] ibi est
terra_. We have assumed, but this rarely has an appreciable effect on
our calculations, that the land of one ox is the eighth, the land of two
oxen the fourth part of the land of one team. There are certain counties
where we receive no statement about the teamlands, while in certain
others the statement, though it seems to be expected, is often
omitted[1359]. For this reason some blanks will be found in this column.
In most of the other counties instances occur with more or less
frequency in which nothing is said of the teamlands. In these cases we
have thought it fair to assume that there were teamlands equal in number
to the teams (_B_ = _C_). The effect of this assumption will be to bring
the number of teamlands (_B_) somewhat closer to the number of teams
(_C_) than it would otherwise have been, but no very great harm will
have thus been done to our rude statistics[1360].
[The teams.]
Column VII. gives the number of teams. Here we assume (we shall
endeavour to prove hereafter) that the _caruca_ of Domesday Book always
means the same, namely, eight oxen[1361].
[The values.]
Lastly in Column VIII. we place the results attained by Pearson[1362]
and Eyton in their endeavours to add together the various sums which the
various estates in a shire are said to be worth (_valet_) or to render
(_reddit_) in the Conqueror's day, and to thus obtain a total _valet_
for the shire. We need hardly say that these values are 'annual values.'
[The table of ratios.]
The relations between our divers sets of figures are more important than
the figures themselves, therefore we have worked the division sums the
results of which are printed in the second Table, the first seven
columns whereof are filled by quotients[1363]. The last column calls for
more remark. The _valets_ obtained for the various counties by Pearson
and Eyton are somewhat precarious. They involve theories as to the
relation between the values of gold and silver, as to the relation
between the value of a pound reckoned by tale and a pound reckoned by
weight, as to 'blanched' money and the cost of 'a night's farm.' Also a
good deal is included that can hardly be called the value of land, since
it comprehends, not only the value of mills and the like, but also in
some cases the revenue derived from courts. In order therefore that we
might compare the values given to land in the various counties, we have
taken at hazard a number of small estates in order that we might by
addition and division obtain the value of a typical teamland with
typical appurtenances. In general we have chosen ten estates each of
which has one teamland, ten estates each of which has two teamlands and
ten estates each of which has five teamlands, and then we have divided
the sum of their values by eighty, the number of teamlands that they
comprise. On the whole, the figures that we thus obtain and place in
Column XVI. are not widely removed from those in Column XV., which
represent the quotients arising from a division of Pearson's 'county
values' by the number of teamlands that are contained in the
counties[1364].
[An apology.]
In order that not too much credence and yet just credence enough may be
given to the figures that we have hastily put together, we will set
beside those that we have stated for Gloucestershire the results of a
minute analysis accomplished by Mr Charles Taylor[1365]. We have set
down: _Population_, 8366 (from Ellis); _Hides_, 2388; _Teams_, 3768;
_Total Valet_, £2827 6_s._ 8_d._ (from Pearson). Mr Taylor gives:
_Population_, 8239[1366]; _Hides_, 2611 (or 2596); _Teams_, 3909; _Total
Valet_, £3130 7_s._ 10_d._ Now these variations are wide and may in some
sort be discreditable to those who differ from Mr Taylor[1367]. But they
are not very substantial if we come to averages and ratios and a
comparison of counties. For the purposes for which we shall use our
figures, it is no great matter whether in this county there are 2·1 or
2·2 'recorded men' to the plough-team[1368]. The broad features of
Gloucestershire are that its hides fall far short of its teams, that its
recorded population is sparse, that the average value of the land
tilled by a team falls well below twenty shillings, that this shire
differs markedly and in certain assignable respects from Wiltshire,
where the hides exceed the teams, from Lincoln, where, despite the fen,
the population is thick, from Kent, where the average value of land
tilled by a team rises above thirty shillings[1369].
[Constancy of ratios.]
Our figures tell of wide variations; but we may be allowed to call
attention to the stability of certain ratios, a stability which is
gratifying to the diffident arithmetician. In twenty-one counties we can
divide 'the recorded population' by the number of teamlands. The
quotient never falls as low as 2 and only twice exceeds 4[1370]. For the
same twenty-one counties we can divide the number of teamlands by the
number of teams. Only twice will the quotient fall below 1 and only once
will it touch 2. We must not, however, be led away into a general
discussion of these figures. That task would require a wary and learned
economist. We must keep our minds bent on what may be called the _A B C_
of our subject[1371].
[The team.]
Now we may start with what seems to be the most objective of our three
statements, that which gives us _C_, the number of teams. We know that
in _A_ there is an element of estimation, of assessment; we may fear
that this is true of _B_ also; but an ox or a team ought to be a fact
and not a theory. At the outset, however, a troublesome question
arises. We have assumed that whenever our record speaks of a _caruca_ it
means eight oxen. On the other hand, there are who maintain that whereas
the _carucae_ of the demesne consisted of eight, those ascribed to the
villeins comprised but four oxen[1372], and others have thought that the
strength of Domesday's _caruca_ varied from place to place with the
varying practice of divers agriculturists.
[Variability of the _caruca_.]
But, in the first place, it is abundantly clear that the clerk who
compiled the account of Cambridgeshire from the original verdicts held
himself at liberty to substitute 'half a team' for 'four oxen' and 'four
oxen' for 'half a team[1373].' In the second place, the theory of a
variable _caruca_ would in our eyes reduce to an absurdity the practice
of stating the capacity of land in terms of the teams and the oxen that
can plough it. We are carefully told about each estate that 'there is
land for _b_ teams, or for _b´_ oxen, or for _b_ teams and _b´_ oxen.'
Now if a 'team' has always the same meaning, we have here a valuable
truth. If, on the other hand, a 'team' may mean eight or may mean four
oxen, we are being told next to nothing. The apparently precise 'there
is land for 4 teams' becomes the useless 'there is land for 32 or 16 or
for some number between 32 and 16 oxen.' What could the statesmen, who
were hoping to correct the assessment of the danegeld, make of so vague
a statement? They propose to work sums in teams and teamlands. They
spend immense pains in ascertaining that here there is 'land for half a
team' or 'land for half an ox.' We are accusing them of laborious folly
unless we suppose that they can at a moment's notice convert teams into
oxen.
[The _caruca_ a constant.]