Direct Management – Central management of estates. Turned to if inflation puts economic pressure on lords or if they are confident they can make profit from continued inflation.
When?
Early C12th = farming out.
1240 -> 1315 = direct exploitation says Britnell.
From 1180s -> says Harvey. Pipe rolls 1155 – 1216: last estate wholly at farm in 1169, the first wholly under direct management in 1194. By 1214 nearly all 42 estates in the sample still had some manors at farm.
Contraction of the demesne. Postan says it happened c13th, Mate argues for the 1380s. Lomas says the process was more gradual. Tavistock abbey still held large parts of the estate in hand as late as c16th. And at Durham only 8 of 22 manors were continuously in hand from 1290 to 1325.
Why?
Monetary Inflation: (Harvey) eg. Winchester estates, price of corn, livestock, etc almost trebled 1180-1220. Land prices rose. Inflation was expected to continue, meaning that it made financial sense to replace relatively low customary rents with direct management. Lords bought more land or reclaimed lease land; Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmund cancelled £19 of arrears owed by Walter of Hatfield to reclaim four manors. The number of markets increased, c13th 8 new ones in Breckland alone, meant cash crops were viable. Corn sales made up 2/3 of the manors total income 1201/02 at Tewkesbury. They needed money to feed the vogue for conspicuous consumption. Thomas de Berkley for example spent £148 in 1345/6 *just* on bedding and feeding guests horses! Direct management was the best way to do this.
Changing attitudes of the lords explains timing. Previously local areas couldn’t support large households so they moved around; by c13th markets meant time was divided between 2 or 3 fave residences. Eg. Earl Marshal ordered supplies to be sent to Soham and Framlingham from a manor at Kennet, Cambridgeshire in 1299. Cash crops were grown and sold for absentee lords. Greater centralisation was thus needed. Eg. Isabelle de Forz had a dispersed flock of 7000 sheep in 1260 controlled centrally through a stock keeper and 10 shepherds.
Growth in number and scope of estate bureaucrats. C12th progress in education = literacy and legal training. Estate management guides (eg. That by Walter de Henley) were in wide circulation, they advised employment of a steward trained in the law (increasingly important) to oversee the estate. Bailiffs to make accurate accounts, reeves to oversee day to day work. On smaller estates literate lords could take on these offices – eg. Henry de Bray served as a steward at St. Andrew’s priory before becoming a landlord himself at Harleston, Northampton. Annual records being kept from the 1270s. Record keeping became invaluable for lords, for example at the manor courts – especially following the statute of Westminster in 1275 which introduced novel disseisin. Problems: pluralism of office, falsification of accounts. But there were auditiors to check accounts. Office could be held for many years – eg. William Kille was reeve of Oakington for 16 years. Could lead to experience rather than corruption.
Population Growth. The population doubled between 1086-1347. This resulted in land hunger, which pushed up land value. But farming out was characterised by long term leases and fixed rents. Eg. Over was leased for life to William Pecche at £6 p.a. in 1088. In 1237 it was still in the family’s possession but the rent had only risen to £7. Commutation of labour services -> landless labourers cheaper to employ. 1310 Abbot of Battle found it cost more to provide meals for tenants doing customary labour services than to hire workers. This made DM economically viable. Large workforce + high demand for goods.
RETURN TO FARMING OUT – WHY?
Abuse of the bureaucratic system: Manorial courts were increasingly restricted by red tape and cases were often delayed and otherwise obstructed. Reeves in particular were accused of not recording all payments and keeping stuff back for themselves. Arbitration meant things weren’t recorded. Statute of Quia Emptores, 1290, loans sub-infeudation of the lords land, making farming out safer.
Decline in population. Agrarian crisis of 1315-22 killed off 10% and the Black Death of 1348 50%. This meant there were less workers, who were thus able to demand (and receive) higher wages and concessions despite the Ordinance (1349) and Statute (1351) of Labourers. Economic recession in the 1370s led to enforcements of these and “manorial reaction”. Land fell vacant and became a means of patronage rather than income – longer lease terms became the norm. By the early c16th 99 years was the average, 40 had seemed exceptional in 1250.
End of inflation. After the Black Death prices remained fairly stable. In 1370 most landlords’ income was scarcely 10% less that it had been before the plague. Mid 1370s = poor harvests, flooding, murrain caused some to revert to farming out. Eg. The monks of Canterbury Cathedral priory in 1337/8. But they reclaimed the land the following year when the situation improved. Bumper harvests of 1370s (“Indian Summer”) leads to a fall in grain prices. Specialisation wasn’t feasible for most, although some did (eg. Great Chart focussed on making tiles 1373 -> price rose from 2s. per thousand in 1340s to 3s. 6d – 5s. per thousand in the 1370s.
How successful were landlords at exploiting their lands?
Postan: subsistence economy. No investment by lords.
Marxists: Lords consume rather invest profits. Crisis of distribution.
But poor evidence for secular lords, we rely on generalising ecclesiastical lords.
Evidence is only for the really great lords.
Lords *did* reinvest (c. 5%), they assarted land, kept accounts, intensive farming, etc.
Lords position is precarious. They need to consume conspicuously, etc.
Traditionally people believed that the medieval population grew steadily until it was checked by the Black Death in 1348. Then in the 1930s Postan used Malthusian theory to argue that the population was already in decline by that point. [Malthus? The idea that over population leads to “land hunger”; there isn’t enough land to support the population. So there must a positive mortality check or a preventive fertility check as a result of the declining standards of living.] This view has since been challenged; Russell and Harvey argue that the population *was* sustainable and continued to grow until the exogenous check of the plague.
How can we tell what the population was doing anyway?
There are no accurate figures. Lack of records renders all absolute numbers estimates at best. Using the 1086 Domesday survey – which didn’t cover all of England and listed only tenants not subtenants – and the 1377 poll tax returns – which were widely evaded and only counted over 14s – historians realistically estimate that the population in 1086 was between 1-2 million and in 1347 was between 4-7 million. (Counting backwards from c. 2.5-3million in 1377 – obviously depends on individual interpretations of the impact of plague too…)
So we need to look elsewhere. Postan, Ricardo and economic historians like Hatcher, Miller and Titow suggest looking at the ratio of people to land resources. If their theory is correct the holding size per head would decrease throughout the period regardless of transfer of demesne and colonisation. Harvey and Russell encourage a more complex approach – land holding size isn’t everything! Look at animals, or trade in the area.
General Figures:
- 1086-1315: Recorded households at Fleet increased 62x. (Hatcher)
- Population density reached almost 300 per square mile in some parts of the country by 1300.
- Growth in chevage payments (showing land hunger). EG. Forncett Manor, Norfolk there were 100 anlepimen pa between 1275 and 1300.
- The population of Norwich City grew from 16,000 in 1310 to 25,000 in 1333.
- In Kineton Hundred (S.E.Warwickshire) the landholding population hardly grew at all. On some manors it was actually smaller in 1279 compared to 1086! (Hatcher)
EVEN IF FIGURES AREN’T 100% WE CAN SEE THE GENERAL TRENDS!
Rents, cash paid for land
- Postan et al claimed they rose, proving the existence of land hunger. For example on the Winchester manor of Fonthill entry fines rose from 1s-1s8d per virgate in 1214 to 8s+ after 1277.
- Merchet fines (to marry widows w/ land) also rose dramatically. John Attepond paid £3.6s.8d in Cottenham. The same year Henry Waveney paid 2s. for a marriage licence for his landless daughter.
- BUT. Winchester estates not typical (v. conservative). On the Ramsey estates the highest entry fine for the period 1290-1320 was 5m (£3.6s.8d) for a virgate (c. 30 acres) compared to the £10 Postan found on the Winchester estates.
- Outsiders paid more than the locals. For example Henry Osbern paid £6.13s.4d at Halesowen instead of the customary 6s.8d in 1294 for half a virgate. (Razi)
- Entry fines were often flexible, eg. At Chalgrave 1281-90 a son paid 13s.4d to succeed his father in half a virgate. A daughter taking up a similar holding from her mother paid just 6s.8d.
IF LAND HUNGER WERE THAT DESPERATE, ALL RENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN PUSHED UP!
Size of Holdings
- If Postan is correct the size of holdings will significantly decrease across this period. Eg. The Winchester tithing penny records show that, in Taunton, there were 3.3 acres of arable land per adult male in 1248, but only 2.5 acres in 1311 despite transfer of demesne land.
- Land is transferred from desmesne, and unused land was colonised and converted to arable. Eg. Royal forests were sold off. 23,000 acres of Walland marshes in Kent were “inned” for this purpose.
- 1235 Statute of Merton makes it easier for lords to sell off common land (so long as they leave sufficient pasture for free tenants)
- BUT. Technology.
- Economic diversity.
- Homans claimed that peasants had to inherit land in order to be able to marry and sustain a family. In Boughton however 23% of resident families in the period 1288-1340 had more than one son who acquired land. Despite plot splitting 49% of families 1280 – 1549 had a child who married between the ages of 18 and 22 at Halesowen. (Early marriage = indicator of economic prosperity)
- No consensus over how much land was needed. Harvey claims industry would mean a plot of 2 acres was perfectly sustainable in Cornwall.
Marginal Land
- Poor soil quality. Eg. Sandy soils of Breckland.
- Soil exhaustion, eventually leads to vacant land. Eg. 50 acres at Pickering in 1326.
- Geographically marginal. Eg. Kent marsh intakes only usable with regular uneconomic applications of manure. Bishop of Ely’s reclaimed land was prone to frequent flooding according to 1251 records.
- Markets were volatile and unstable. Eg. Between 1280 and 1350 grain prices fluctuated an average of 26.6% pa.
- Few peasants had a planned production strategy, they just sold their surpluses.
- In times of crisis manufactured goods (eg. Glass from the Forest of Dean) was hard to sell. Such industrialised areas then bore the full strain of not being able to produce satisfactory food crops.
- THE PUSHING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION INTO UNSUITABLE MARGINAL LAND IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF LAND HUNGER CAUSED BY POPULATION GROWTH.
- BUT. In Cornwall plots of 2 acres were the norm. But 1 in 10 adults worked in the tin mining industry. Yields weren’t inevitably poor, there were higher labour to land ratios. Eg. 6x higher than on demesne land in E.Norfolk. Also draught animal to land ration was higher – Downham court rolls suggest that many C14th peasants owned some. Of all peasant animals wandering illegally onto sown land 42% were horses.
Despite these setbacks literacy did increase significantly. Some historians argue that as much as 60% of the English population were literate by 1530. That’s all well and good, I hear you cry, that some stuffy academic with elbow patches tells us that but how do we know it really increased at all?
- The number of schools increased substantially, suggesting that a higher number of people were receiving education. And not for the sole purpose of becoming a priest! Eg. Moran found that in York diocese there were 13 grammar schools in 1300; by 1548 this figure had more than quadrupled to 68. The 1406 Statute of Apprentices enabled even the sons of serfs to be educated: many local priests maintained song or reading schools for the purpose of educating the less well off. (That’s pretty much everyone cos around 80% of the population were peasants – SS)
- Aston draws attention to the increasing number of bibles and service books in the hands of the laity from the 13th century. (eg. from looking at bequests in wills). John Claydon, a London skinner, was burnt to death in 1415 along with his heretical copy of “Lanterne of Lizt.” (Although he was illiterate – his servant had been able to read it to him!) By 1530 men were making livings as booksellers in the cities.
The main problem when considering late medieval literacy is the fact that historians have come to no consensus on a definition of literacy. In 1066 to be considered literacy Joe Bloggs would have had to be able to read and write in Latin. By 1500 he was literate so long as he could read OR write (with minimal proficiency) in Latin OR the vernacular in contemporary eyes. In addition, for much of the medieval period the idea of Clericus:Literatus reigned supreme: in the medieval mind o be literate meant you were a churchman. To be a layman implied you were illiterate. Just like black can not be white, a layman could not be literate – although they clearly were. This serves to confuse records, for example in court proceedings people are referred to as “illiterate” meaning they were laymen rather than that they couldn’t read.
Historians too have come to wildly different figures using their own definitions. Du Boulay claimed 40% were literate by 1530; Sir Thomas More was even more optimistic putting the figure at 60% - both based their estimates on reading ability. Cressy, defining literacy as the ability to write, claimed only around 10% were literate by 1530. Without clear records any figure can only be an estimate with a high error margin – but even so that’s a pretty big difference! For essay purposes literacy can be defined as “minimal competence in reading Latin or the Vernacular.” Writing was considered a separate art for the majority of the period (c.1050 – 1550)
So, who became literate? When? And, why?
Kings: They could generally read even before the Conquest. Evidence of letters, etc written in kings’ own hand.
Nobility: If the King is known to be able to read it increases the status of literacy, the nobility is quick to jump on the bandwagon. Noble women learn to read so they can emulate the idea of female piety portrayed in depictions of the Virgin Mary: to be able to read and contemplate scripture. They then passed on literacy to their children. Men learnt, on the whole, or more pragmatic business reasons: record keeping was becoming increasingly common, for example the 1086 Domesday book and the introduction of chancery and plea rolls in the late 12th/early 13th century. Also the movement towards direct exploitation of estates from the late 12th century onwards meant literacy became the norm for the nobility by the end of the 12th century. The work of Chaucer and Gower in the reign of Richard II was mostly confined to the court circle, but suggests the nobility could read in English by this time.
Gentry: The written word was used more and more increasingly throughout this period, as evidenced by the development of the cursive script in around 1200 to allow scribes to write faster. Statutes of 1275 and 1293 established the coronation of Richard I (1199) as the limit of memory, eroding the importance of oral testimony. The gentry became literate to emulate their betters, to directly manage their estates, and to gain positions in the increasingly paper based legal system or as estate officials. The Seneschaucy, a mid 13th century estate management guide, presumes that the estate steward and bailiff would both be able to read French. By 1300 literacy had become the norm for the gentry. Eg. In 1293 Sir Hugh was put on trial for rape: he was unable to read from a roll to challenge the accusation which sent the court into chaos (someone had to whisper the words in his ear so he could say them aloud). Clearly by this point the ability to read amongst the upper classes was taken for granted.
Upper Peasantry (Yeomen, Husbandsmen, Craftsmen, Merchants…): Initiallt this class was only becoming passively literate, that is to say they became familiar with seeing the written word – the importance of it was well understood. During the 1381 peasant’s revolt, for example, hundred rolls and other records were burned. The main impetus for this class becoming literate was pragmatic: they needed it for business purposes. By 1422 the guild of brewers recognised that whilst their members might be ignorant of French and Latin, they could still keep records in English. Literacy was seen as a way to get on in life; ie. Getting into positions of local officialdom such as serving on juries or working as JP or Reeve. Religion also played its part; the Black Death of 1348 wiped out around 40% of the clergy (-Hatcher) and their replacements were for the most part ill-educated. By 1548 46% of chantry chaplains in York diocese had had very little to no education. This led people to want to be able to read the bible for themselves. From the 1370s Lollard vernacular translations made this possible (eg. 1410 translated copies of Speculum Vite Christi were in wide circulation). The introduction of the printing press to England in the 1470s made books more affordable and demand for service books massively outstripped supply. (60% of those sold had to be imported.) John Gratchet, the major York bookseller between 1516 and 1533, made his living just from selling service books.
Lower Peasantry and the Unfree: Now nobody’s suggesting the great unwashed were sat around debating the finer points of illiteration in the Floretum. They were however becoming increasingly literate in the passive sense. In the 12th century church paintings had depicted hellish demons collecting up mispronounced hymns and gossip, in the form of sounds, into his sack. From the 1280s the demon had become a scribe who noted down the congregations misdemeanours on parchment. The written word had been demystified, by the 1240s even vagrants were expected to carry around testimonials of trustworthiness. By 1300 even the unfree had to have a seal suggesting that almost everyone read (or at least recognise) their own name.
Conclusion
Literacy was actually pretty common by 1550, even serfs could probably recognise their own name. The reason for this had been devotional and, to a greater extent, pragmatic. Society had come increasingly to depend on the written word, which in turn had led to a growing number of people being able to make sense of it so as to help them get on in life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment