THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 45 



equally true. A two- or three-course rotation of crops did not 

 necessarily imply a two- or three-field system. If we have evi- 

 dence pointing to the former as characteristic of the tillage of 

 demesne lands, or even of the tillage of the entire township, it 

 does not follow that demesne or tenants' holdings had their acres 

 equally divided between two or three large fields. All might 

 have been enclosed and yet a two- or three-course rotation of crops 

 have been found acceptable; for this rotation was adaptable to 

 various field systems. Only in connection with two or three large 

 open fields, intermixed acres, and the annual use of one of the 

 fields as common fallow pasture did it become a constituent part 

 of the two- and three-field system. 



With this in mind we may undertake the interpretation of those 

 phrases of the extents which relate to the tillage of the demesne. 

 If the value of two-thirds of the demesne is estimated but the 

 remaining third is said to be worth nothing because fallow, this is 

 insufficient to assure us that the agricultural system was one of 

 two or three fields. Such a statement was applicable to en- 

 closed demesne where the pasturage of the fallow was not deemed 

 to be of value.^ Again, it is not sufficient to be told, as we often 

 are, that the demesne lands lay in common "while unsown"; 

 for this remark may have referred to the period after harvest, 

 when under various systems these lands would have been thrown 

 open. We must know that the period of common pasturage 

 extended throughout the year.^ Finally, it must be made clear 

 what fraction of the demesne lay fallow and common. Unless it 

 were one-half or one-third, there is no necessary approach to a 

 two- or three-field system. 



1 To be sure, unsown demesne did sometimes have a definite value as pasture. 

 In several Essex extents, for example, the arable acres were worth 4 d. " quando 

 seminantur, et quando non seminantur valet inde pastura . . . pretium acre ii d." 

 (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 67 (10), Latchingdon, 17 Edw. III). But it is 

 not quite certain that these unsown acres were fallowed. Their value was rather 

 high for fallow stubble, and some sort of grass may have been grown after the 

 com years. In general, enclosed fallow was probably worth little and so escaped 

 valuation. 



^ The description of fifty acres of arable at Wrentham, Suffolk, for instance, states 

 that they were worth 2 d. the acre " quum seminantur, et quum non seminantur nihil 

 valent quia iacent in communi" (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. Ill, F. 60 (6), 13 Edw. 



