Let us now retrace our steps for a few moments. The hide was calculated upon the arable: it was the measure of the alod,—the éðel, or inherited, individual possession; it was the κλῆρος, lot, or share of the first settler: it kept a plough at work during the year: and, according to its etymology (higid) and the word familia by which it was translated, it was to suffice for the support of one Hiwisc or household.
Did it really so suffice, at first and afterwards? Unquestionably it did. We may safely assert this, without entering into nice speculations as to the amount of population in the Saxon kingdoms of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or even eleventh centuries. We know that in the eighth century, 150 hides were enough for the support and comfort of 600 monks in Yarrow and Wearmouth[[190]]; there is no reason, from their history, to suppose that they were at all sparingly provided for. But allowance must be made also for serfs and dependants, the exercise of hospitality and charity, the occasional purchase of books, vestments and decorations, the collection of reliques, and the maintenance of the fabric both of the church and monastery. Grants and presents, offerings and foundations would do much, but still some portion of these necessary expenses must be carried to the account of the general fund. At this rate however, one hide was capable of maintaining four full-grown men.
Now even at the present day an industrious man can very well support his family upon, not thirty or forty, but ten acres of average land[[191]]. If we look at the produce of such a threefold course as has been mentioned, there can hardly be any doubt upon the subject; the cultivator would have every year twenty Saxon (= 26⅔ Norman) acres under some kind of corn, principally barley in all probability, though much wheat was grown. Assuming the yield at only two quarters per acre, which is an almost ludicrous understatement of the probable amount[[192]], we give each householder forty quarters of cereals, at the very lowest, and deducting his seed-corn and the public taxes, we still leave him a very large amount. The average annual consumption of wheat per head in England is now computed at one quarter: let us add one half to compensate for the less nutritious qualities of barley, and we shall yet be under the mark if we allow our householder at the close of the year, a net receipt of thirty quarters, or food for at least twenty persons. Add to this the cattle, and especially swine fed in the forests,—which paid well for their own keep, and gave a net surplus—and the ceorl or owner of one hide of land, independently of his political rights, becomes a person of some consideration from his property[[193]]: in short he is fully able to maintain himself, his wife and child, the ox that ploughs, and the slave that tends his land,—owning much more indeed, than, in Hesiod’s eyes, would have sufficed for these purposes[[194]]. It may be admitted that the skies of Greece and Italy showered kindlier rays upon the Ionian or the Latin than visited the rough denizen of our Thule; that less food of any kind, and especially less meat, was required for their support[[195]], and that they felt no necessity to withdraw large amounts of barley from the annual yield, for the purpose of producing fermented liquors[[196]]; still, as far as the amount of land is concerned, the advantage is incontestably on the side of the Anglosaxon; and in this one element of wealth, our ceorl was comparatively richer than the comrade of Romulus or the worshipper of Athene.
[145]. Even till the latest period, personal property was not reckoned in the distinction of ranks, although land was. No amount of mere chattels, gold, silver, or goods, could give the Saxon franchise. See the ordinance Be Wergyldum, § 10. Be Geþincðum, § 2. Thorpe, i. 189, 191. This is a fundamental principle of Teutonic law: “Ut nullum liberum sine mortali crimine liceat inservire, nec de haereditate sua expellere; sed liberi, qui iustis legibus deserviunt, sine impedimento haereditates suas possideant. Quamvis pauper sit, tamen libertatem suam non perdat, nec haereditatem suam, nisi ex spontanea voluntate, se alicui tradere voluerit, hoc potestatem habeat faciendi.” Lex Alam. Tit. I. cap. 1. Lex Baiovar. Tit. 6. cap. 3. § 1. Eichhorn, i. 328, note d. Loss of land entailed loss of condition in England, long after the establishment of our present social system. A beautiful passage to this effect occurs in the play of “A Woman killed with kindness”: a gentleman refuses to part with his last plot of ground, on this account:
“Alas, alas! ’tis all trouble hath left me
To cherishe me and my poor sister’s life.
If this were sold, our names should then be quite
Razed from the bedroll of gentility.
You see what hard shift we have made to keep it