Another circumstance contributed to the growing dependence of the cultivators. In Greece and Rome, as well as in India andGermany, we find the precarium, that is, land granted for a term of considerable lengthfor life, or for several livesa rent inkind being reserved. The oldest Anglo-Saxon documents mention the Laenland , land granted to peasants, who were boundto render cattle, corn, poultry or eggs, or else to execute certain agricultural operations on the manorial lands. Thesecultivators, it seems, were attached to the soil; or, at least, the domain was sold " mid mele end mid mannum ." Theircondition, therefore, resembled the Russian serfs. (7) After the Norman conquest, the lords of the manor made use of thepredominance given them by the habit of bearing arms, to reduce the free cultivators more and more into the condition ofvassals. The economic constitution of the manor was as follows. The dwelling of the lord, curia manerii , aula dominii , wasmore or less extensive and well built, according to the wealth of its owner. The territory dependent on it was divided intotwo parts; one being granted to the vassals, terra hominum , tenentium ; the other being farmed directly by the lord, terradominica, or demesne lands. The terra dominica was cultivated by the corvée of the vassals, who had to provide the oxenfor ploughing, and to sow, reap, mow, and gather in the harvest.
Among the cultivators there were distinct classes. In some manors, the lord had granted the cultivation of a portion of theterra dominica to tenants, who were called tenentes de dominico . Their tenure was only a temporary one. There were firstthe villani , whose condition resembled that of the Russian serf; they had a portion of the soil, sufficient for their subsistence,but they had to cultivate the lord's land, to make his hay, and reap and gather in his harvest. Next there were the free tenants, liberè tenentes or tenentes in libero socagio, and the liberi socmanni , who merely owed the lord smaller payments in kindor labour. The rent to be paid by them was often nominal, consisting of a fowl, a pair of gloves, or a flower. Their holdingwas also the old plot, sufficient to support a family, the hide or virgata terrae , of which the extent varied from sixteen tofifty acres. Those, who held only half this, were called socmanni dimidii, or dimidii liberi homines . These were the old freemen. Finally, those who had still less land, or had nothing but their dwelling house, were designated cotarii , or cotmanni ,because they inhabited a cot or cottage. The lord granted out the right of cultivating the waste lands, which formerlybelonged to the village, reserving certain rents, at first in kind, then frequently from the thirteenth century in money. Tenantsholding these lands are called in old documents isti qui tenent de novis essartis . The enjoyment of the forest and pasture landremained collective and undivided between the inhabitants of the village and the lord; but the latter had already usurped theeminent domain, which he was later to convert into full ownership. The meadow lands were generally divided every yearamong the inhabitants. The arable land had become private property; but all the customs of the old agrarian community weremaintained. Every one had plots in the different fields of the rotation. These fieldsand not the several plotsweresurrounded by an enclosure, at which all were bound to work. The peasants combined their forces, and cultivated theirlands, as well as those of the lord, according to a cooperative system imposed on them by the requirements of agriculturallabour. To till the soil, they harnessed eight oxen, or four horses and four oxen, to the plough. If the peasants had notenough beasts, two or three of them united together to form a team.
The population being very thin, the portion of cultivated land was far smaller than the uncultivated. Collective enjoyment,therefore, extended over the greater part of the territory: and even the arable land, as soon as the harvest was gathered inand the enclosures thrown down, became common pasture again for all the cattle of the village, tended by a single herdsman.
As Nasse remarks (8) with great justice and penetration, the inequality resulting from the constitution of the seignorial manormust not be confounded with that which followed from the introduction of feudalism. The relations of the lord of the manorwith his tenants, whether villani , socmanni or cotarii , were purely economic. The payments which the tenants owed to themanor were really a payment of rent for the land, over which the lord claimed a right of ownership or eminent domain. Thissubordination of the tenants to the proprietor, or of serfs to the lord was established, with the aid of the kings, in the sameway as in Germany, and more recently in Russia, without any conquest subjecting vanquished to vanquishers.
