There is reason to believe that the latter measure implied ordinarily a quantity of land not very different in amount from our own statute acre[[157]]. I argue this from a passage in the dialogue attributed to Ælfríc, where the ploughman is made to say: “ac geiúcodan oxan and gefæstnodan sceare and cultre mid ðǽre syl ælce dæg ic sceal erian fulne æcer oððe máre;” that is, “having yoked my oxen, and fastened my share and coulter, I am bound to plough every day a full acre or more.” Now experience proves[[158]] that a plough drawn by oxen will hardly exceed this measure upon average land at the present day; an acre and a quarter would be a very hard day’s work for any ploughman under such circumstances. Hence for all practical purposes we may assume our actual acre not to differ very materially from the Anglosaxon. And now, how is an acre constituted?
It has many divisors, all multiplying into the required sum of 4840 square yards. Thus, it is clear that a length of 4840 yards, with a breadth of one yard, is quite as much an acre as a length of 220 yards with a breadth of 22 (in other words, ten chains by one, or 22 × 10 × 22,) the usual and legal computation: that is to say, twenty-two strips of land each 220 yards long and one wide, if placed together in any position will make up an acre. Placed side by side they will make an oblong acre whose length and breadth are as 10:1. A space rather more than sixty-nine and less than seventy yards in each side would be a square acre; it is however not probable that the land generally allowed of square divisions, but rather that the portions were oblong, a circumstance in favour of the ploughman, whose labour varies very much with the length of the furrow.
The present divisors of the acre are 5·5 and 40; combinations of these numbers make up the parts not only of the acre or square measure, but also the measure of length. Thus 5·5 × 40 = 220, which taken in yards are one furlong, and which with one yard’s breadth are 1⁄22 of an acre. Again, forty times 5·5 yards with a breadth of 5·5 yards (or 220 × 5·5) are 1210 yards square, ·25 of an acre: twice that, or forty times 5·5 with a breadth of eleven yards are ·5 acre: and twice that, or 220 × 20 (that is in modern surveying ten chains by one) = 4840 yards or the whole acre. The same thing may be expressed in another way: we may assume a square of 5·5 yards, which is called a rod, perch, or pole: forty of these make a rood, which is a furlong with a breadth of 5·5 yards; and four such roods, or a furlong with a breadth of twenty-two yards, are an acre of the oblong form described above, and which is still the normal or legal acre.
My hypothesis goes on to assume that such, or nearly such, were the elements of the original calculation: in fact, that they were entirely so, with the substitution only of 5 for 5·5 as a factor. It remains to be asked why these numbers should be fixed upon? Probably from some notion of the mystical properties of the numbers themselves. Forty and eight are of continual recurrence in Anglosaxon tradition, and may be considered as their sacerdotal or mythical numbers: forty divided by eight gives a quotient of five; and these may have been the original factors, especially if, as there is every reason to believe, the first division of lands (whether here or on the continent matters not) took place under the authority and with the assistance of the heathen priesthood.
If this were so, the Saxon acre very probably consisted of 5 × 5 × 40 × 4 = 4000 square yards[[159]]; in which case the rod would be 25 yards square, and the furlong 200 yards in length. At the same time as the acres must be considered equal for all the purposes of useful calculation, 4000 Saxon square yards = 4840 English, 5 Saxon = 5·5 English, and 200 Saxon = 220 English yards. Further, the Saxon yard = 1·1 English, or 39·6 inches. This I imagine to be the metgyrde or measuring-yard of the Saxon Laws[[160]]. If then we take 5 × 5 × 40 yards we have a block of land, 200 Saxon yards in length, and five in breadth; and this I consider to have been the Saxon square Furlang or small acre, and to have been exactly equal to our rood, the quarantena of early calculations[[161]]. There is no doubt whatever of the Saxon furlang having been a square as well as long measure[[162]]; as its name denotes, it is the length of a furrow: now 220 (= 200 Saxon) yards is not at all too long a side for a field in our modern husbandry[[163]], and is still more readily conceivable in a less artificial system, where there was altogether less enclosure, and the rotations of crops were fewer. Five yards, or five and a half, is not too much space to allow for the turn of the plough; and it therefore seems not improbable that such an oblong block (200 × 5) should have been assumed as a settled measure or furlong for the ploughman, two being taken alternately, as is done at this day, in working, and forming a good half-day’s work for man and beast: the length of the furrow, by which the labour of the ploughman is greatly reduced, being taken to compensate for the improved character of our implements.
I think it extremely probable that the Saxons had a large and a small acre, as well as a large and small hundred, and a large and small yard: and also that the quarantena or rood was this small acre. Taking forty quarantenae we have a sum of ten large acres, and taking three times that number we have 120 quarantenae, or a large hundred of small acres = 30 large acres, giving ten to each course of a threefold system of husbandry. This on the whole seems a near approximation to the value of the Hide of land; and the calculation of small acres would then help to account for the number of 120 which is assigned to the Hide by some authorities[[164]].
In the [appendix] to this chapter I have given various calculations to prove that in Domesday the value of a Hide is forty Norman acres. It has been asserted that 100 Saxon = 120 Norman acres, and if so 40 Norman = 33⅓ Saxon: which does not differ very widely from the calculation given above.
It must be borne in mind that the Hide comprised only arable land: the meadow and pasture was in the common lands and forests, and was attached to the Hide as of common right: under these circumstances if the calculation of thirty, thirty-two or thirty-three acres be correct, we shall see that ample provision was made for the family[[165]].
Let us now apply these data to places of which we know the hidage, and compare this with the modern contents in statute-acres.
According to Beda[[166]] the Isle of Wight contained 1200 hides or families: now the island contains 86,810 acres, which would give 72⅓ acres per hide. But only 75,000 acres are under cultivation now, and this would reduce our quotient to 62·5 acres. On the hypothesis that in such a spot as the Isle of Wight (in great portions of which vegetation is not abundant) our Saxon forefathers had half as much under cultivation as we now have, we should obtain a quotient of about thirty-one acres to the hide, leaving 49,610 acres of pasture, waste, etc.: the ratio between the cultivated and uncultivated land, being about 37:49, is much too near equality for the general ratio of England, but may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the island.