FEUDAL ENGLAND
HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES
BY
J. H. ROUND
FIRST PUBLISHED 1895
_Second impression 1909_
_Third impression 1909_
PREFACE
The present work is the outcome of a wish expressed to me from more
than one quarter that I would reprint in a collected form, for the
convenience of historical students, some more results of my researches
in the history of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But to these I
have added, especially on Domesday, so much which has not yet seen the
light, that the greater portion of the work is new, while the rest
has been in part re-written. The object I have set before myself
throughout is either to add to or correct our existing knowledge of
facts. And for this I have gone in the main to records, whether in
manuscript or in print. It is my hope that the papers in this volume
may further illustrate the value of such evidence as supplementing
and checking the chroniclers for what is still, in many respects, an
obscure period of our history.
As a foreign scholar has felicitously observed:
Je lis avec plaisir le chroniqueur qui nous raconte les
événements de son époque. Les détails anecdotiques, les traits
piquants dont son [oe]uvre est parsémée font mes délices. Mais
comment saurai-je s'il dit la vérité si les pages qu'il me
présente ne sont pas un roman de pure imagination? Dans les
chartes, au contraire, tout est authentique, certain, précis,
indubitable. Leur témoignage est contradictoirement établi,
sous le contrôle de la partie adverse, avec l'approbation et
la reconaissance de l'autorité souveraine, en présence d'une
imposante assemblée de notables qui apposent leur signature.
C'est la plus pure de toutes les sources où il soit possible
de puiser un renseignement historique.[1]
An instance in point will be found in the paper on 'Richard the
First's change of seal'.
A collective title for a series of studies covering the period
1050-1200, is not by any means easy to find. But dealing as they do so
largely with the origins of 'Feudal England', I have ventured to give
them this title, which may serve, I hope, to emphasize my point that
the feudal element introduced at the Conquest had a greater influence
on our national institutions than recent historians admit.[2] Even
Domesday Book has its place in the study of feudalism, rearranging, as
it does, the Hundred and the Vill under Fiefs and 'Manors'.
To those in search of new light on our early mediaeval history, I
commend the first portion of this work, as setting forth, for their
careful consideration, views as evolutionary on the Domesday hide and
the whole system of land assessment as on the actual introduction
of the feudal system into England. Although I have here brought into
conjunction my discovery that the assessment of knight-service was
based on a five-knights unit, irrespective of area or value, and my
theory that the original assessment of land was based on a five-hides
unit, not calculated on area or value, yet the two, one need hardly
add, are, of course, unconnected. The one was an Anglo-Saxon
system, and, as I maintain, of early date; the other was of Norman
introduction, and of independent origin. My theories were formed at
different times, as the result of wholly separate investigations. That
of the five-hides unit was arrived at several years ago, but was
kept back in the hope that I might light on some really satisfactory
explanation of the phenomena presented. The solution I now propound
can only be deemed tentative. I would hope, however, that the theories
I advance may stimulate others to approach the subject, and, above
all, that they may indicate to local students, in the future, the
lines on which they should work and the absolute need of their
assistance.
Perhaps the most important conclusion to which my researches point
is that Domesday reveals the existence of two separate systems in
England, co-extensive with two nationalities, the original _five
hides_ of the 'Anglo-Saxon' in the south, and the later _six
carucates_ of the 'Danish' invaders in the north.[3]
No one, I may add, is better qualified to carry further these
inquiries than Prof Maitland, whose brilliant pen has illumined for us
the origins of English law. Himself engaged on the study of Domesday,
he kindly offered to withhold his conclusions until my work should
have appeared.[4]
Among the fresh points here discussed in connection with Domesday Book
will be found the composition of the juries by whom the returns were
made, the origin and true character of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, and
the marked difference of the two volumes compiled from the Domesday
returns.
Of the six early surveys dealt with in conjunction with Domesday, I
would call attention to that of Leicestershire as having, it would
seem, till now remained absolutely unknown. It has long been a wish of
mine to deal with these surveys,[5] not only as belonging to a period
for which we have no records, but also as illustrating Domesday Book.
In 'The Knights of Peterborough' will be found some facts relating
to Hereward 'the Wake', which seem to have eluded Mr Freeman's
investigations, and even those of Mr Tout.
In case it should suggest itself that these papers, and some in the
other portion of the work dwell at undue length on unimportant points,
I would observe that apart from the fact that even small points
acquire a relative importance from our scanty knowledge of the time,
there are cases in which their careful investigation may lead to
unforeseen results. At the last anniversary of the Royal Society, Lord
Kelvin quoted these words from his own presidential address in 1871:
Accurate and minute measurement seems to the non-scientific
imagination a less lofty and dignified work than looking for
something new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of
science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement
and patient, long continued labour in the minute sifting of
numerical results.
The same principle applies to the study of institutional history.
Whether we are dealing with military service, with the land, with
finance, or with the king's court, 'the minute sifting' of facts and
figures is the only sure method by which we can extend knowledge.
To those who know how few are the original authorities for the period,
and how diligently these have been explored and their information
exhausted, the wonder will be not so much that there is little, as
that there was anything at all yet left to discover.
* * * * *
In a work dealing with the history of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, a writer must inevitably find himself at times dealing with
the same subjects as the late Professor Freeman. Without in any way
disparaging the genius of that eminent man, one may deem it a duty to
correct the errors into which he fell, and conscientiously to combat,
as an obstinate and mischievous superstition, the conviction of his
pre-eminent accuracy and authority on matters of fact. It would be far
pleasanter to dwell only on his merits; but when one finds that,
in spite of the proofs I have been producing for years, Mr Herbert
Fisher, representing the Oxford school of history, can still declare
Mr Freeman to have reached 'the highest standard of scholarly
exactitude',[6] it is evident that the works of the Regius Professor
are still surrounded by a false glamour, and that one must further
expose his grave liability to error. I cannot suppose that any
competent scholar who may carefully peruse this work will in future
venture to deny that, in spite of his many and his splendid gifts, Mr
Freeman was as liable as any of us to error, or that however laudable
his intentions, he was capable of precisely the same inaccuracy and
occasionally of the same confusion as he denounced so bitterly in
others.
It is, indeed, my contention, as I have already explained,[7] that
to these denunciations of the errors of others is largely due the
conviction of Mr Freeman's supreme accuracy. The question raised may
seem to affect the whole method of history, for if, as has been said,
it is the argument of the scientific historian that we ought to prefer
accuracy of fact to charm of presentment and to literary style,
the proof that his method fails to save him from erring like any
'literary' historian strikes at the root of his whole contention.
Yet it is not the scientific method, but its prophet himself that was
at fault.
Although I am here only concerned with inaccuracy in matters of fact,
I would guard myself against the retort that, at least, Mr Freeman's
errors are of little consequence as compared with that obliquity of
vision which led Mr Froude, at all hazards, to vindicate Henry
the Eighth. Without insisting on an absolute parallel, I trace a
resemblance even here. Just as his bias against the Roman church led
Mr Froude to vindicate Henry in order to justify the breach with Rome,
so Mr Freeman's passion for democracy made him an advocate on
behalf of Harold, as 'one whose claim was not drawn only from the
winding-sheet of his fathers'. I have elsewhere maintained, as to
Harold's election 'by the free choice of a free people', that Mr
Freeman's undoubted perversion of the case at this 'the central point'
of his history, gravely impairs his narrative of the Conquest, because
its success, and even its undertaking, can actually be traced to that
election.[8] Unless we realize its disastrous effect on the situation
both at home and abroad, we cannot rightly understand the triumph of
the Duke's enterprise.
It had been my hope, in the present work, to have avoided acute
controversy, but the attitude adopted, unfortunately, by the late
Professor's champions has rendered that course impossible. One can
but rejoice that his accuracy should find strenuous defenders, as
it removes the reluctance one would otherwise feel in continuing to
criticize it now. A case is doubly proved when proved in the teeth of
opposition. But one expects that opposition to be fair, and the line
my opponents have taken throughout cannot, by any stretch of courtesy,
be so described. My difficulty, indeed, in dealing with their
arguments on the Battle of Hastings, is that they do not affect or
even touch my case. In spite of their persistent efforts to obscure a
plain issue, there is not, and there cannot be, any 'controversy' as
to Mr Freeman and the 'palisade'. For, while fully recognizing that
the _onus probandi_ lay on those who assert its existence, he failed,
on his own showing, to produce any proof of it whatever.[9] Mr Archer
has ended,[10] as he began,[11] by deliberately ignoring Mr Freeman's
words,[12] on which my case avowedly rests, and without suppressing
which he could not even enter the field. This, indeed, I have
explained so often, that I need not again have disposed of his
arguments had not Mr Gardiner, in the exercise of his editorial
discretion, allowed him to make certain statements,[13] and refused
me the right of exposing them. A typical example will be found on p.
273.[14]
It is not only demonstrable error that justifies critical treatment;
no less dangerous, if not more so, is that subtle commixture of
guess-work and fact, which leaves us in doubt as to what is proved and
what is merely hypothesis. In his lecture on 'The Nature of Historical
Evidence', the late Professor himself well brought out the point:
Many people seem to think that a position is proved if it
can not be disproved.... Very few see with Sir George
Lewis--though Sir George Lewis perhaps carried his own
doctrine a little too far--that in a great many cases we ought
to be satisfied with a negative result, that we must often put
up with knowing that a thing did not happen in a particular
way, or did not happen at all, without being furnished with
any counter-statement to put in the place of that which we
reject.[15]
The question is whether a statement can be proved, not whether it can
be disproved. Cases in point will be found on pp. 291, 298, 331-3.
It may, in view of certain comments, be desirable, perhaps, to
explain that the study on the origin of knight-service appeared in Mr
Freeman's lifetime,[16] and that my open criticism of his work began
so far back as 1882. It will be seen, therefore, that I challenged its
accuracy when he was himself able to reply.
To those who may hold that in these studies excessive attention is
bestowed on Anglo-Norman genealogy, I commend the words, not of a
genealogist, but of the historian Kemble:
It is indispensable to a clear view of the constitutional law
and governmental institutions of this country, that we should
not lose sight of the distribution of landed estates among
the great families, and that the rise and fall of these houses
should be carefully traced and steadily borne in mind....
Amidst all the tumult and confusions of civil and foreign
wars; throughout religious and political revolutions; from the
days of Arminius to those of Harald; from the days of Harald
to our own; the successions of the landowners and the
relations arising out of these successions, are the running
comment upon the events in our national history: they are at
once the causes and the criteria of facts, and upon them has
depended the development and settlement of principles, in laws
which still survive, in institutions which we cling to with
reverence, in feelings which make up the complex of our
national character.[17]
The paper on 'Walter Tirel and his wife' may serve to show that in
this department there is still needed much labour before we can hope
for a perfect record of the great houses of the Conquest.
* * * * *
I have to thank Mr Murray for his kind permission to make use of two
of the articles I have contributed to the _Quarterly Review_. Some
of the studies have previously appeared in the _English Historical
Review_, and these are now republished with Messrs Longmans' consent.
Lastly, I would take the opportunity afforded by this preface of
acknowledging the encouragement my researches have derived from the
approval not only of our supreme authority--I mean the Bishop of
Oxford--but also of that eminent scholar, Dr Liebermann, whose name
one is proud to associate with a work on mediaeval history.
J. H. ROUND
[_Note_: I have not thought it needful to include in the index names
of persons or places only introduced incidentally in illustration of
arguments. The prefix 'Fitz', as in _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, has been
retained as a useful convention, whatever the actual name may have
been.]
[Footnote 1: _Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes
imprimés concernant l'histoire de la Belgique._ Par Alphonse
Wauters, vol. i, p. xxxi.]
[Footnote 2: See pp. 198, 208, 404-5.]
[Footnote 3: See p. 430.]
[Footnote 4: Prof Maitland informs me that since the
appearance of his _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_, he has
discovered the earlier occurrence of the word 'leet' (see p.
90).]
[Footnote 5: See _Domesday Studies_.]
[Footnote 6: _Fortnightly Review_, December 1894, pp. 804-5.]
[Footnote 7: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892.]
[Footnote 8: See _Quarterly Review_ as above. ]
[Footnote 9: See pp. 263-9.]
[Footnote 10: _English Historical Review_, July 1894.]
[Footnote 11: _Contemporary Review_, March 1893, pp. 335-55.]
[Footnote 12: _Norman Conquest_ (2nd Ed.), iii, 763-4.]
[Footnote 13: _English Historical Review_, as above.]
[Footnote 14: I have, therefore, been obliged to refer in some
detail to these statements, while for those I have already
disposed of I have given the references to the _Q.R._ and
_E.H.R._]
[Footnote 15: _Methods of Historical Study_, p. 141.]
[Footnote 16: _English Historical Review_, July 1891-January 1892.]
[Footnote 17: _The Names, Surnames, and Nicknames of the
Anglo-Saxons._ Read at Winchester, September 11, 1845.]
CONTENTS
FOREWORD _page_ 7
PREFACE 9
PART I. TERRITORIAL STUDIES
DOMESDAY BOOK 17
Nature of the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._, 19--Criticism
of the Domesday text, 26--'Soca' and 'Theinland', 35--The
Domesday 'caruca', 40--The Domesday hide, 41--The five-hide
unit, 47--The six-carucate unit, 66--The Leicestershire
'hida', 76--The Lancashire 'hida', 79--The Yorkshire unit,
79--General conclusions, 82--The East Anglian 'Leet',
88--The words _Solinum_ and _Solanda_, 91--The
'Firma unius noctis', 96--'Wara', 100--The Domesday
'juratores', 102--The _Inquisitio Eliensis_, 106--The
Ely Return, 114--First mention of Domesday Book, 120
THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE GELD-ROLL 124
THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH 131
THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I) 140
THE LINDSEY SURVEY (1115-18) 149
THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY (1124-29) 160
THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I-Hen. II) 175
THE INTRODUCTION OF KNIGHT SERVICE INTO
ENGLAND 182
The _cartae_ of 1166, 189--The 'servitium debitum',
197--Scutage, aid, and 'donum', 209--The total number of
knights due, 228--The normal knight's fee, 231--The early
evidence, 232--The Worcester Relief, 241