A HISTORY OF ESSEX 



In the entry relating to Fobbing there is a passage of considerable 

 importance for the status of ' free men ' and ' sokemen.' Count Eustace's 

 estate there was composed of a five-hide ' manor,' which had been held 

 by a thegn, to which Ingelric, the count's predecessor, had added (the 

 holdings of) no fewer than 22 'free men' assessed at more than 

 three times that amount. Domesday states that the ' manor ' had been 

 worth 20 and the sokemen's land (terra socbemanorum) 12, and that 

 in 1086 the value of the whole estate was 36. Here, the unwary 

 might conclude, we have definite evidence that Domesday treated liberi 

 homines and socbemani as convertible terms. 1 Yet at Finchingfield we 

 read of a small estate that it had been held by ' 2 sokemen and i free 

 man' (fo. 35^), a phrase which obviously implies that the two classes 

 were distinct. The references to ' sac and soc ' in the Essex survey are 

 many ; but it cannot be said that they enlighten us on this difficult sub- 

 ject. At Chignal Sawin the priest and ' Erfin ' were ' so. free (liberi ita) 

 that they could sell their land with the sac and soc where they would ' 

 (fo. 59). Wulfwine held his land at Waltham 'freely with (the) soc' 

 (fo. 58), which probably comes to the same thing. But at Rad winter, 

 though jfElfric the sokeman ' had power to sell the land,' which he held 

 ' as a manor,' yet ' the soc and sac remained ' to the lord (fo. 78) ; and 

 so at Theydon (fo. 50^) and at one of the Rodings (fo. 51), though a 

 sokeman in each ' had power to sell his land,' yet ' the soc remained in 

 the manor' (an equivalent formula). At another Roding a free man 

 had held 1 f hides, of which ' half used to render soc to Ansgar, and 

 the rest was free' (fo. 6ib). Where we read, as at Newnham, of soke- 

 men 'remaining with (the) soc' (fo. 34), it probably implies that the 

 sokeman could part neither with the land nor with its soc. At Staple- 

 ford (Abbots) there is a curious entry of ' 2 free men in the soke of the 

 manor' (fo. 20), and at Shopland it is noted of two sokemen that ' their 

 lord had (the) soc and sac' (fo. 34^). When we come to personal 

 ' commendation,' the light is a little clearer. At Prested (in Peering) 

 Brihtmar, who held this manor, was ' commended ' to Siward (of 

 Maldon), ' but could betake himself (ire) with his land where he would ' 

 (fo. 75). At (Abbess) Roding a manor was held of Barking Abbey by 

 a tenant who ' was only the man of Geoffrey's predecessor ' (' Ansgar the 

 staller ') and had no power to dispose of (mittere) this land ' away from 

 the abbey ' (fo. 57^). At Vange a free man ' became, in King William's 

 time, the man of Ranulf's predecessor (Siward of Maldon), but did not 

 give him his land' (fo. 71^), though Ranulf was in possession in 1086. 

 At Manhall (in Saffron Walden) a free man similarly ' became, in King 

 William's time, the man of Geoffrey (de Mandeville) of his own accord,' 

 but this was held to be insufficient to account for the possession of his 

 land by Geoffrey in 1086 (fo. 6zb). At Hanningfield the abbot of Ely 

 claimed the land of two ' free men,' but the jurors found that ' they used 



1 At Pitsea (fo. 45^) there were two manors, of which one had been held by a sokeman of Robert 

 (Fitz Wimarc), and the other by ' I free man,' the soke belonging to Robert. Here the difference between 

 the two is not obvious. 



358 



