THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 



In this case a vill of less than 4! hides is divided between no fewer than 

 1 3 sokemen, whose average holding was thus no more than a third of a 

 hide apiece. It is of such communities as this that Professor Maitland 

 writes 



Any theory of English history must face the free, the lordless village, and must 

 account for it as one of the normal phenomena which existed in the year of grace 

 1066 . . . just as normal as the village which was completely subject to seignorial 

 power. We have before us villages which, taken as wholes, have no lords. 1 



We must remember however that Wickham, like the Pelhams, lay on 

 the border of those eastern counties which, to quote his words, were 

 'the home of liberty.' Nor was Widiall, which he takes as an instance 

 of a manor of 5^ hides formerly held by 9 sokemen, far distant from 

 the Essex border. In this last instance there is a marked inequality of 

 holdings which leads the professor to observe that 'such lordships as 

 exist in it are plainly not the relics of a dominion which has been split 

 up among divers persons by the action of gifts and inheritances.' On the 

 other hand we can, I think, detect in Hertfordshire at least one case in 

 which the equality of the portions proves, and another in which it 

 suggests subdivision between brothers. The former is found at Barley, 

 and the latter at Wakeley, where what is now Wakeley farm was divided, 

 after as before the Conquest, between three distinct holders. 



WAKELEY 



H. V. A. 



Edith the Fair (as a 'manor') O O 40 



./Elfward, a man of earl Harold O O 40 



Eadric, a man of earl JElfgzr o o 40 



This is a most remarkable case of subdivision, the first fraction only 

 being styled a manor, and the holders of the other two being com- 

 mended to the heads of the greatest rival houses in England. 



The division of vills among several holders is characteristic of 

 the east of England in Professor Maitland's opinion, and, as I have already 

 explained, is probably due in Hertfordshire to its adjoining Essex on the 

 east. Our county, in fact, impinged on what the professor terms 'the 

 rich and thickly populated shires.' 2 But the evidence of Domesday 

 Book on population and kindred matters is notoriously very vague. 

 A male population of some 5,000 is actually enumerated in the county, 

 but of this figure we can only say that it shows a ratio to area not 

 far removed from that of the adjoining counties (except Essex). The 

 area under cultivation, though relatively greater than in Middlesex, was 

 proportionately far less than in Bedfordshire and substantially less than 

 in Northants. 3 The former must always have been a rich agricultural 

 county, but the latter, at the time of Domesday, was largely covered by 

 forest, which illustrates the unexpected and hazardous character of the 

 results obtained from Domesday figures. 



1 DomeiJay Book and Beyond, p. 141. * Ibid, pp. 20-3. 



3 See tables, ibid. pp. 4023. 



I 289 U 



