[p181]CHAPTER VI.THE TRIBAL SYSTEM (IN WALES).I. EVIDENCE OF THE DOMESDAY SURVEY.The Saxon land system has now been examined. No feature has been found to be more marked and general than its universally manorial character; that is to say, the Saxon 'ham' or 'tun' was an estate or manor with a village community in villenage upon it. And the services of the villein tenants were of a uniform and clearly defined type; they consisted of the combination of two distinct things—fixedgafolpayments in money, in kind, or in labour, and the more servileweek-work.
[p181]
The Saxon land system has now been examined. No feature has been found to be more marked and general than its universally manorial character; that is to say, the Saxon 'ham' or 'tun' was an estate or manor with a village community in villenage upon it. And the services of the villein tenants were of a uniform and clearly defined type; they consisted of the combination of two distinct things—fixedgafolpayments in money, in kind, or in labour, and the more servileweek-work.
It is needful now to examine the land system beyond the border of Saxon conquest.
A good opportunity of doing this occurs in the Domesday Survey.
The Tidenham manor has already been examined. It afforded a singularly useful example of the Saxon system. Its geographical position, at the extreme south-west corner of England, on the side of Wales, enabled us to trace its history from its probable conquest in 577, or soon after, and to conclude that it remained Saxon from that time to the date of[p182]the Survey; and distinctly manorial was found to be the character of its holdings and services.
West side of the Wye.
Now, the neighbouring land, on the west side of the Wye, was equally remarkable in its geographical position. For as long as Tidenham had been the extreme south-west corner of England, so long had the neighbouring land between the Wye and the Usk been the extreme south-east corner of unconquered Wales.
Gwent.
Remained Welsh till conquered by Harold.
It was part of the district ofGwent, and it seems to have remained in the hands of the Welsh till Harold conquered it from the Welsh king Gruffydd, a few years only before the Norman Conquest.
Harold seems to have annexed whatever he conquered between the Wye and the Usk—i.e.in Gwent—to his earldom of Hereford; and after the Norman Conquest it fell into the hands of William FitzOsborn, created by William the Conqueror Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent.203
It was he204who built at Chepstow the Castle ofEstrighoiel, the ruins of which still stand on the west bank of the Wye, opposite Tidenham. His son, Roger FitzOsbern, succeeded to the earldom of Hereford and the lordship of Gwent; and, upon his rebellion[p183]and imprisonment, this region of Wales becameterra regis, and as such is described in the Domesday Survey, mostly as a sort of annexe to Gloucestershire,205but partly as belonging to the county of Hereford.206
So also the district of Archenfield.
Nor isGwentthe only district very near to Tidenham whose Welsh history can be traced down to the time of the Domesday Survey. There was another part of ancient Wales, the district ofErgyng, orArchenfield,—which included the 'Golden Valley' of theDour. It lay, like Gwent—but further north—between the unmistakable boundaries of the Wye and the Usk, and it remained Welsh till conquered by Harold; and this is confirmed by the fact that the district of 'Arcenefelde' is brought within the limits of the Domesday Survey207as an irregular addition to Herefordshire, just as Gwent was an annexe to Gloucestershire.
Both districts described in the Domesday Survey.
Here, then, we have two districts, one to the west and the other to the north of Tidenham, both of which clearly remained Welsh till conquered by Harold a few years before the Norman Conquest, and both of them are described in the Domesday Survey. Further, it so happens that because they had been but recently conquered, and had not yet been added to any English county, and because also their customs differed from those of the neighbouring English manors, the services of their tenants, quite out of ordinary course, are described.
So that, by a convenient chance, we are able to bring together upon the evidence of the Domesday[p184]Survey theland systemsof a district which for five hundred years before the Norman Conquest had been the extreme south-east edge of Wales, and of a district which for the same five hundred years had been the extreme south-west corner of Saxon England, beyond the Severn.
We have seen what was the Saxon land system on one side of the Wye, which divided the two districts; let us now see what was the Welsh land system on the other side of the river, so far as it is disclosed in the Survey.
Gwent.
Part of the Welsh district of Gwent is thus described in the Domesday annexe toGloucestershire:—
'Under Waswic, the præpositus, are xiii. villæ; under [another præpositus] xiiii. villæ, under [another præpositus] xiii., under [another præpositus] xiiii. (i.e.54 in all). These render xlvii. sextars of honey, and xl. pigs, and xli. cows, and xxviii. shillings for hawks.208. . .'Under the same præpositi are four villæ wasted by King Caraduech.'209
'Under Waswic, the præpositus, are xiii. villæ; under [another præpositus] xiiii. villæ, under [another præpositus] xiii., under [another præpositus] xiiii. (i.e.54 in all). These render xlvii. sextars of honey, and xl. pigs, and xli. cows, and xxviii. shillings for hawks.208. . .
'Under the same præpositi are four villæ wasted by King Caraduech.'209
Again, a little further on, this entryoccurs:—
'The same A. has in Walesvii. villæwhich were in the demesne of Count William and Roger his son (i.e.Fitz-Osbern, Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent). These rendervi. sextars of honey, vi. pigs, and x. shillings.'210
'The same A. has in Walesvii. villæwhich were in the demesne of Count William and Roger his son (i.e.Fitz-Osbern, Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent). These rendervi. sextars of honey, vi. pigs, and x. shillings.'210
Passing to the Domesday description of the district ofArchenfield, we find a similar record.
Archenfield.
The heading of the survey for Herefordshire211is as follows: 'Hic annotantur terras tenentes in[p185]Herefordscire et in Arcenefelde et in Walis.' And further on212we learnthat—
'InArcenefeldethe king has 100 men less 4, who with their men have 73 teams, and give of custom 41 sextars of honey and 20s.instead of the sheep which they used to give, and 10s.forfumagium; nor do they givegeldor other custom, except that they march in the king's army if it is so ordered to them. If aliber homodies there, the king has his horse, with arms. From avillanuswhen he dies the king has one ox. King Grifin and Blein devastated this land in the time of King Edward, and so what it was then is not known.'Lagademarpertained to Arcenefelde in the time of King Edward, &c. There is a manor [at Arcenefelde] in which 4liberi homineswith 4 teams render 4 sextars of honey and 16d.of custom. Also a villa with its men and 6 teams, and a forest, rendering a half sextar of honey and 6d.
'InArcenefeldethe king has 100 men less 4, who with their men have 73 teams, and give of custom 41 sextars of honey and 20s.instead of the sheep which they used to give, and 10s.forfumagium; nor do they givegeldor other custom, except that they march in the king's army if it is so ordered to them. If aliber homodies there, the king has his horse, with arms. From avillanuswhen he dies the king has one ox. King Grifin and Blein devastated this land in the time of King Edward, and so what it was then is not known.'Lagademarpertained to Arcenefelde in the time of King Edward, &c. There is a manor [at Arcenefelde] in which 4liberi homineswith 4 teams render 4 sextars of honey and 16d.of custom. Also a villa with its men and 6 teams, and a forest, rendering a half sextar of honey and 6d.
There are other instances of similar honey rents,e.g.—
InChipeete57 men with xix. teams render xv. sextars of honey and x. shillings.InCapev. Welshmen having v. teams render v. sextars of honey, and v. sheep with lambs, and xd.InMainaureone under-tenant having iv. teams renders vi. sextars of honey and x.s.InPenebecdocone under-tenant having iv. teams render vi. sextars of honey and x.s.InHullaxii. villani and xii. bordarii with xi. teams render xviii. sextars of honey.
InChipeete57 men with xix. teams render xv. sextars of honey and x. shillings.
InCapev. Welshmen having v. teams render v. sextars of honey, and v. sheep with lambs, and xd.
InMainaureone under-tenant having iv. teams renders vi. sextars of honey and x.s.
InPenebecdocone under-tenant having iv. teams render vi. sextars of honey and x.s.
InHullaxii. villani and xii. bordarii with xi. teams render xviii. sextars of honey.
Food rents and clusters of villas under a præpositus.
The distinctive points in these descriptions of the recently Welsh districts west and north of Tidenham are obviously (1) the prevalence of produce or food rents—honey, cows, sheep, pigs, &c.—honeybeing the most prominent item; (2) the absence of the word 'manor,' used everywhere else in the survey of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire; (3) the remarkable grouping in the district ofGwentof the 'villas'in batches of thirteen or fourteen, each batch under a separatepræpositus.[p186]
It is clear that on the Welsh side of the Wye Welsh instead of Saxon customs prevailed, and that these were some of them.213So much we learn from these irregular additions of newly conquered Welsh ground to the area of the Domesday Survey.
The meaning of the peculiarities thus indicated will become apparent when the Welsh system has been examined upon its own independent evidence.
There is no reason why, in trying to learn the nature of the Welsh land system, the method followed throughout, of proceeding backwards from the known to the unknown, should not be followed.
Open-field system in Wales.
It has already been shown that such arable fields as there are in Wales, like the Saxon arable fields, wereopenfields. They were shown to be divided by turf balks, two furrows wide,214into strips called erws—representing a day's work in ploughing. The Welsh laws were also found to supply the simplest and clearest solution given anywhere of the reason of the scattering of the strips in the holdings, as well as of the relations of the grades of holdings to the number of oxen contributed by the holders to the common plough team of eight oxen.
In fact, the Welsh codes clearly prove that, as regards arable husbandry, the open field system was the system prevalent throughout all the three districts of Wales.[p187]
The Welsh mainly pastoral.
But partly from the mountainous nature of the country, and partly from the peculiar stage of economic development through which the Welsh were passing, long after the Norman Conquest they were still apastoralpeople. Cattle rather than corn claimed the first consideration, and ruled their habits; and hence the Welsh land system, even in later times, was very different from that of the Saxons.
In fact, the two land systems, though both using an open-field husbandry, were in their main features radically distinct. In those parts of Wales which were unconquered, and therefore uncivilised, till the conquest of Edward I., we look in vain in the early surveys for the manor or estate with the village community in villenage upon it.
No manors or villages.
The Welsh system was not manorial. Its unit was not a village community on a lord's estate.
Scattered green timber houses.
As late as the twelfth centuryGiraldus Cambrensis215described the houses of the Welsh as not built either in towns or even in villages, but as scattered along the edges of the woods. To his eye they seemed mere huts made of boughs of trees twisted together, easily constructed, and lasting scarcely more than a season. They consisted of one room, and the whole family, guests and all, slept on rushes laid along the wall, with their feet to the fire, the smoke of which found its way through a hole in the roof.216The Welsh, in fact, being apastoralpeople, had two sets of homesteads. In summer their herds fed on the higher ranges of the hills, and in winter in the valleys. So they themselves, following their cattle, had separate[p188]huts for summer and for winter use, as was also the custom in the Highlands of Scotland, and is still the case in the higher Alpine valleys. Giraldus Cambrensis describes the greater part of the land as in pasture and very little as arable; and accordingly the food of the Welsh he describes, just as Cæsar had described it eleven centuries earlier, as being chiefly the produce of their herds—milk, cheese and butter, and flesh in larger proportions than bread.217The latter was mostly of oats.
Welsh ploughing.
The Welsh ploughed for their oats in March and April, and for wheat in summer and winter, yoking to their ploughs seldom fewer than four oxen; and he mentions as a peculiarity that the driver walked backward in front of the oxen, as we found was the custom in Scotland.218
Love of war.
Genealogies.
Another marked peculiarity of the Welsh was their hereditary liking and universal training for warlike enterprise. They were soldiers as well as herdsmen; even husbandmen eagerly rushed to arms from the plough.219Long settlement and the law of division of labour had not yet brought about the separation of the military from the agricultural population of Wales even so late as the twelfth century. And here we come upon traces of their old tribal economy. For the facts that they had not yet attained to settled villages and townships, that they had not yet passed from the pastoral to the agricultural stage, that they were still craving after warfare and wild enterprise—all[p189]these are traces of tribal habits still remaining. And a still clearer mark of the same thing was the stress they laid upon their genealogy. Even the common people (he says) keep their genealogies, and can not only readily recount the names of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but even refer back to thesixthorseventhgeneration, or beyond them, in this manner:Rhys, son ofGruffydh, son ofRhys, son ofTheodor, son ofEineon, son ofOwen, son ofHowel, son ofCadelh, son ofRoderic Mawr, and so on.220
Survivals of the tribal system.
Thus in the twelfth century there were in Wales distinct survivals of a tribal economy. Instead of a system like the Saxons, of village communities and townships, the Welsh system was evidently a tribal system in the later stages of gradual disintegration, tenaciously preserving within it arrangements and customs pointing back to a period when its rules had been in full force.
But the Welsh codes must be further examined before the significance of the Domesday entries can be fully appreciated.
Laws of Howel in the tenth century.
The Welsh version of the ancient laws of Wales contains three several codes: The Venedotian of North Wales, the Dimetian and Gwentian of South Wales. They profess to date substantially fromHowel dda, who codified the local customs about the middle of the tenth century. They contain, however, later[p190]additions, and the MSS. are not earlier than the end of the thirteenth century. There is a Latin version of the Dimetian code in MS. of the early part of the thirteenth century, which is especially valuable as giving the received Latin equivalent of the Welsh terms used in the laws. And there are also, apart from these codes, triads of doubtful date, but professing to preserve traditional customs and laws of the Welsh nation before the time of the Saxon conquest of Britain.221
For the present purpose the actual date of a law or custom is not so important as its own intrinsic character. We seek to gain a true notion of the tribal system, and an economically early trait may well be preserved in a document of later date.
Saxon and Welsh systems contemporary.
There is no reason why we should be even tempted to exaggerate the antiquity of the evidence. The later the survival of the system the more valuable for our purpose. The Saxon and Welsh systems were contemporary systems, and it is best to compare them as such.
It would appear that under this tribal system a district was occupied by a tribe (cenedl) under a petty king (brenhin) or chief.
Free tribesmen of tribal blood.
The tribe was composed of households of free Welshmen, all blood relations; and the homesteads of these households were scattered about on the country side, as they were found to be in the time of Giraldus Cambrensis. They seem to have been grouped into artificial clusters mainly, as we shall see, for purposes of tribute or legal jurisdiction.[p191]
Taeogs without tribal blood.
But all the inhabitants of Wales were not members of the tribes. Besides the households of tribesmen of blood relations and pure descent, there were hanging on to the tribes or their chiefs, and under the overlordship of the latter, or sometimes of tribesmen, strangers in blood who were not free Welshmen; also Welshmen illegitimately born, or degraded for crime. And these classes, being without tribal or family rights, were placed in groups of households and homesteads by themselves. If there were any approach to the Saxon village community in villenage upon a lord's estate under Welsh arrangements, it was to be found in this subordinate class, who were not Welshmen, and had no rights of kindred, and were known asailltsandtaeogsof the chief on whose land they were settled. Further, as there was this marked distinction between tribesmen and non-tribesmen, so also there was a marked and essential distinction between the free tribe land occupied by the families of free Welsh tribesmen, called 'tir gwelyawg,' orfamily land, and the 'caeth land' orbond landof the taeogs and aillts, which latter was also called 'tir-cyfrif' orregister land, and sometimes 'tir-kyllydus' orgeldable land(gafol-land?).222
The main significance of the Welsh system, both as regards individual rights and land usages, turns[p192]on this distinction between the two different classes of persons and the two different kinds of land occupied by them. They will require separate examination.
Let us first take the free tribesmen ('Uchelwyrs' or 'Breyrs') and their 'family land.'
The free tribesmen.
If the professed triads ofDyvnwal Moelmudmay be taken to represent, as they claim to do, the condition of things in earlier centuries, the essential to membership in thecenedl, or tribe, wasbirthwithin it of Welsh parents.
Free-born Welshmen were 'tied' together in a 'social state' by the three tiesof—
(1) Common defence (cyvnawdd).(2) Common tillage (cyvar).(3) Common law (chyvraith).223
Every free Welshman was entitled to three things:—
(1) Five freeerws(or acre strips).(2) Co-tillage of the waste (cyvar gobaith).(3) Hunting.224
The homestead ortyddyn.
The free tribesman's homestead, ortyddyn, consisted of threethings:—
(1) His house (ty).(2) His cattle-yard (bu-arth).(3) His corn-yard (yd-arth).225
And the five free strips, afterwards apparently[p193]reduced to four, of each head of a house—free, possibly, in the sense of their having been freed from the common rights of others over them, as well as being free from charges or tribute—we may probably regard as contained in thetyddyn, or as lying in croft near the homesteads.
The holding that of a household or family.
TheGwentian,Dimetian, andVenedotiancodes all represent the homestead or tyddyn and land of the free Welshman as afamily holding. So long as the head of the family lived, all his descendants lived with him, apparently in the same homestead, unless new ones had already been built for them on the family land. In any case, they still formed part of the joint household of which he was the head.226
When a free tribesman, the head of a household, died, his holding was not broken up. It was held by his heirs for three generations as one joint holding; it was known as the holding of 'the heirs of So-and-so.'227But within the holding there was equality of division between his sons; the younger son, however, retaining the originaltyddynor homestead, and others having tyddyns found for them on the family land. All the sons had equal rights in the scattered strips and pasture belonging to the holding.228
Equality within the family
Thus, in the first generation there was equality between brothers; they were co-tenants in equal[p194]shares of the family holding of which they were co-heirs.
When all the brothers were dead there was, if desired, a re-division, so as to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now first cousins.
When all the first cousins were dead there might be still another re-division, to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now second cousins.
to second cousins.
But no one beyond second cousins could claim equality; and if a man died without heirs of his body, and there were no kindred within the degree of second cousins, the land reverted to the chief who represented the tribe.229
Great-grandfather the common ancestor.
The great-grandfather was thus always looked back to as the common ancestor, whose name was still given to the family holding of his co-heirs. The family tie reached from him to his great-grandchildren, and then ceased to bind together further generations.230
The Gwely or family couch.
We have seen that even in the twelfth century the household all used one couch, extending round the wall of the single room of the house; this couch was called the 'gwely.' The 'tir gwelyawg' was thus the land of the family using the same couch; and the descendants of one ancestor living together were a 'gweli-gordd.'231As late as the fourteenth century, in theRecord of Carnarvon, the holdings[p195]are still called 'Weles' and 'Gavells.' They are essentially 'family' or tribal holdings.232
And now as to the tenure upon which these holdings of the free tribesmen were held.
The Gwestva or food rent.
It was a free tenure, subject to the obligation to payGwestva, or 'food rent,' to the chief, and to some incidents which marked an almost feudal relationship to the chief,viz.:—
(1) TheAmobr, or marriage fee of a female.
(2) TheEbediw,233or death payment (heriot).
(3) Aid in building the king's castles.
(4) Joining his host in his enterprisesinthe country whenever required,outof the country six weeks only in the year.234
These were the usual accompaniments of free tenure everywhere, and are no special marks of serfdom.
Thetunc poundin lieu of it.
Several homesteads were grouped together in 'maenols' or 'trevs' for the purpose of the payment of theGwestva, as we shall see by-and-by. This consisted inGwent, of a horse-load of wheat-flour, an ox, seven threaves of oats, a vat of honey, and 24 pence of silver.235And as the money value of theGwestvawas always one pound, so that its money equivalent was known as 'the tunc pound,' holdings of family land were spoken of, as late as the fourteenth century, as 'paying tunc'236—thegwestva, ortunc poundin lieu[p196]of it, being the distinctive tribute of the free tribesmen.
Such was the tenure of the family land, and these were the services of the free tribesmen.
A free tribal tenure.
There is no trace here of villenage, or of the servileweek-workof the Saxon serf. The tribesmen had no manorial lord over them but their chief, and he was their natural and elected tribal head. So, when Wales was finally conquered, thetuncwas paid to the Prince of Wales, and no mesne lord was interposed between the tribesman and the Prince.
Thus the freedom of the free tribesman was guarded at every point.
Theailltsortaeogs.
Their tyddyns and ploughs.
Turning now to the other class, theailltsortaeogs—who in the Latin translations of the laws are calledvillani—the key to their position was their non-possession of tribal blood, and therefore of the rights of kindred. They were not free-born Welshmen; though, on the other hand, by no means to be confounded withcaeths, or slaves. They must be sworn men of some chieftain or lord, on whose land they were placed, and at whose will and pleasure they were deemed to remain.237Each of these taeogs had histyddyn—his homestead, with corn and cattle yard. In his tyddyn he had cattle of his own. In South Wales several of these taeogs' homesteads were grouped together into what was called ataeog-trev. Further, the arable fields of the 'taeog-trev' were ploughed on the open-field system by the taeogs'[p197]common plough team, to which each contributed oxen.
Equality in the taeog-trev.
But the distinctive feature of the taeog-trev was that anabsolute equalityruled, not between brothers or cousins of one household, as in the case of the family land of the free tribesmen, butthroughout the whole trev. Family relationships were ignored. All adults in the trev—fathers and sons, and strangers in blood—took equal shares, with the single exception ofyoungest sons, who lived with their fathers, and had no tyddyn of their own till the parent's death. This principle of equality ruled everything.238The common ploughing must not begin till every taeog in the trev had his place appointed in the co-tillage.239Nor could there be any escheat of land in the taeog-trev to the lord on failure of heirs; for there was nothing hereditary about the holdings. Succession always fell (except in the case of the youngest son, who took his father's tyddyn) to the whole trev.240When there was a death there was a re-division of the whole land, care, however, being taken to disturb the occupation of the actual tyddyns only when absolutely needful.241
Per capitano account of blood relationship.
The principle upon which the taeog's rights rested was simply this: where there was no true Welsh blood no family rights were recognised. In the absence of these, equality ruled between individuals; they shared 'per capita,' and not 'per stirpes.'
Their register land.
The land of a taeog-trev was, as already said called 'register land'242—tir cyfrif.[p198]
There were other incidents marking off the taeog from the free Welshman. He might not bear arms;243he might not, without his lord's consent, become a scholar, a smith, or a bard, nor sell his swine, honey, or horse.244Even if he were to marry a free Welsh woman, his descendants till the fourth, and in some cases the ninth degree, remained taeogs. But the fourth or ninth descendant of the free Welsh woman, as the case might be, might at last claim his five free strips, and become the head of a new kindred.245
Incidents to their tenures.
Even the taeog was, however, under these laws, hardly a serf. With the exception of his duty to assist the lord in the erection of buildings, and to submit tokylch,i.e.to the lord's followers, being quartered upon him when making a 'progress,' and todovraith, or maintenance of the chief's dogs and servants, there seems to have been no exaction of menial personal services.246
Food-rents.
The taeogs' dues, like those of free Welshmen, consisted of fixed summer and winter contributions of food for the chief's table. InGwentthey had to provide in winter a sow, a salted flitch, threescore loaves of wheat bread, a tub of ale, twenty sheaves of oats, and pence for the servants. In summer, a tub of butter and twelve cheeses and bread.247
These tributes of food were called 'dawnbwyds,' gifts of food, or 'board-gifts,' and from these the taeog or register land is in one place in the Welsh laws calledtir bwrdd, or 'board-land' (terra mensalia,[p199]or 'mensal land'248), a term which we shall find again when we come to examine the Irish tribal system.
The caeth or slave.
Lastly, it must not be forgotten that beneath the taeogs, as beneath the Saxongeneatandgebur, were the 'caeths,' or bondmen, the property of their owners,249without tyddyn and without land, unless such were assigned to them by their lord. These caeths were, therefore, not settled in separate trevs, but scattered about as household slaves in the tyddyns of their masters.
There were, then, these two kinds of holdings—those of the free tribesmen, of 'family land,' and those of the taeogs, of 'register land.' There remains to be considered the system on which the holdings were clustered together.
The holdings grouped for payment of the food-rent or tunc pound.
The principle of this it is not very easy at first to understand, and the difficulty is increased by a confusion of terms between the codes. But there is one fact, by keeping hold of which the system becomes intelligible, viz., that the grouping seems to have been based upon the collective amount of thefood-rent. The homesteads, or tyddyns, each containing its four free erws, were scattered over the country side. But they were artificially grouped together for the purpose of the payment of the food-rent, ortunc poundin lieu of it. And by following the group which pays the[p200]'tunc pound' as the unit of comparison, the at first conflicting evidence falls into its proper place.
In the Venedotian Code themaenolis this unit. In the Dimetian and Gwentian Codes this unit is thetrev.
In North Wales themaenolthe unit for food-rent.
According to the Venedotian Code of North Wales,250
Thecymwdor half-hundred of twelve maenols.
Thecymwdwas thus a half-hundred, and each cymwd had its court, and so was the unit of legal jurisdiction. At its head was amaerand acanghellor, the two officers of the chief who had jurisdiction over it.
The twelve maenols in the cymwd were thusdisposed:—
1free maenol for the support of the office of maer.1free maenol for the support of the office of canghellor.6occupied by 'uchelwrs,' or tribesmen.—Making8free maenols of 'family land,' from each of which a gwestva ortunc poundwas paid.The other4maenols were 'register land' occupied by aillts or taeogs, paying 'dawn bwyds.'—12in the 'cymwd.'251
Now, it must be admitted that all this singular system, arranged according to strict arithmetical rules,looksvery much like a merely theoretical arrangement, plausible on paper but impossible in practice.
It will be found, however, that there is more[p201]probability, as well as reason and meaning in it, than at first sight appears.
Threescore pence of the tunc pound to each trev.
In the first place, as regards the twelve maenols making up thecymwd, there is no difficulty; four of them were taeog maenols and eight were free maenols. But there is an obvious difficulty in the description of the contents of each maenol. Taken literally, the description in the Venedotian Code seems to imply that every maenol was composed of four trevs, each of which contained four gavaels composed of four randirs, each of which contained four tyddyns composed of four erws. But in this case the maenol would contain nothing but tyddyns—nothing but homesteads!—there would be no arable and no pasture. This cannot be the true reading. A clue to the real meaning is found in a clause which, after repeating that from each of the eight free maenols in the cymwd the chief has agwestvayearly, 'that is a pound yearly from each of them,' goes on to say, 'Threescore pence is charged on each trev of the four that are in a maenol, and so subdivided into quarters in succession until each erw of the tyddyn be assessed.'252
Four gavaels or holdings in each trev.
Now, from this statement it may be assumed that there must be some correspondence between the number of pence in the tunc pound and the number of erws in the maenol, otherwise why speak of each erw being assessed? But, according to the foregoing figures, there would be 1,024 erws in the maenol.253[p202]Each trev, which thus contains 256 erws, is to pay threescore pence. How can 256 erws be divided into quarters till each erw is assessed? Dividing the trev by four we get the gavael of sixty-four erws, and threescore pence divided by four is sixty farthings. It is evident that sixty farthings cannot be divided between sixty-four erws. But if we suppose each trev to contain four homesteads or tyddyns, then thegavael254of sixty-four erws would be the single holding belonging to a tyddyn or homestead, and the four erws in the actual tyddyn (which are to befreeerws) being deducted, then the sixty farthings exactly correspond with the remaining sixty erws forming the holding of land appendant to the tyddyn, and each erw would pay one farthing. We may take it then as possible that each Venedotian maenol contained four trevs, paying sixty pence each, and that each trev was a cluster of four holdings of sixty erws each, in respect of which the holders paid sixty farthings each to thegwestva, holding their actual tyddyns free.