In the above extracts we saw 'liberi homines qui vendere poterant' distinguished from 'Sochemanni', who could not sell. But we also saw that the two classes were not always carefully distinguished. We find, moreover, that the 'liberi homines' were themselves, sometimes, 'not free to sell'. Thus 'tenuit anant unus liber homo sub S. Ædel. T.R.E. pro manerio ii. carucatas terræ sed non potuit vendere' (p. 142). Some light may be thrown on this by the case of the estate held by Godmund, an abbot's brother:
Totam terram quam tenebat Gudmundus in dominio, id est Nectuna, sic tenebat T.R.E. de S. Ædel. quod nullo modo poterat vendere, nec dare; sed post mortem suam debebat manerium redire in dominio ecclesiæ; quia tali pacto tenuit Gudmundus de Abbate (p. 144).
With this we may compare these entries:
In Cloptuna ... Ædmundus commendatus S. Ædel. unam carucatam ... quam non potuit vendere nec dare (p. 150).
In Brandestuna Ædmundus presbyter terram quam accepit cum femina sua dedit S. Ædel. concedente femina T.R.E. ea conventione quod non posset eam dare nec vendere. Similiter de Clopetona' (p. 152).
In these cases the holder had only a life interest. Exactly parallel with the second is the case of 'Eadward', citizen of London, who gave lands to St. Paul's, reserving a life interest for himself and his wife—'et mortua illa Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit'.[66]
The above commendation of Edmund the priest ought to be compared with that of 'unus liber homo S. Ædel. commendatus ita quod non poterat vendere terram suam sine licentia abbatis', and of 'i. liber homo S. Ædel. Commendatus ita quod non poterat vendere terram suam extra ecclesiam (sed sacam et socam habuit stigandus in hersham)'.[67] Thus both those who were free to sell and those who were not, might belong to the class of 'liberi homines'. The essential distinction was one, not of status, but of tenure.
IV. THE DOMESDAY CARUCA
Yet more definite and striking, however, is the information on the Domesday caruca afforded by collating D.B. with the I.C.C. I referred at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) to the problem raised by the caruca,[68] and recorded my belief that in Domesday the word must always mean a plough team of eight oxen. The eight oxen, as Mr Seebohm has shown, are the key to the whole system of the carucate and the bovate. In Domesday, as I argued, the formula employed involves of necessity the conclusion that the caruca was a fixed quantity. Such entries, moreover, as 'terra i. bovi', 'terra ad iii. boves', etc., can only be explained on the hypothesis that the relation of the bos to the caruca was constant. But as the question is one of undoubted perplexity, and as some, like Mr Pell, have strenuously denied that the number of oxen in the Domesday caruca was fixed,[69] the evidence given below is as welcome as it is conclusive:
| I.C.C. | D.B. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| fo. 96 (a) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce est ibi terra.' | I. 202 (a) 2: 'Terra est. iiii. bobus.' | ||
| fo. 103 (a) 2: 'iiii. bobus est terra ibi.' | I. 190 (a) 1: 'Terra est dimidiæ carucæ.' | ||
| fo. 103 (b) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce est ibi [terra].' | I. 196 (b) 2: 'Terra est iiii. bobus.' | ||
| fo. 112 (b) 1: 'iiii. bobus est ibi terra.' | I. 201 (a) 1: 'Terra est dimidiæ caruce.' | ||
| fo. 112 (b) | 2: 'iiii. bobus est ibi terra. Et ibi sunt. Pratum dimidiae caruce.' | I. 202 (b) | 1: 'Terra est iiii. bobus, et ibi sunt, et pratum ipsis bobus.' |
It is absolutely certain from these entries that the scribes must have deemed it quite immaterial whether they wrote 'dimidia caruca' or 'iiii. boves'; as immaterial as it would be to us whether we wrote 'half a sovereign' or 'ten shillings'. It is, consequently, as absolutely certain that the Domesday caruca was composed of eight oxen as that our own sovereign is composed of twenty shillings. And from this conclusion there is no escape.[70]