第24章

Wemaystartfromthislastobservationinourgeneralestimateoftheterminology。OnemightexpecttofindtracesofverystrongFrenchinfluenceinthisrespect，ifinany。EvenifthetraditionoffactshadnotbeeninterruptedbytheConquest，nameswerelikelytobealteredfortheconvenienceofthenewupperclass。AndtheDomesdaySurveyreallybeginsanewepochinterminologybyitsuseofvillaniandbordarii。But，curiouslyenough，onlythefirstofthesetermstakesrootonEnglishsoil。

NowitisnotawordtransplantedbytheConquest；itwasinusebeforetheConquestastheLatinequivalentofceorl，geneat，andprobablygebur。ItssuccessinthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiesisasuccessofLatin，andnotofFrench，ofthehalf-literaryrecordlanguageoverconversationalidioms，andnotofforeignoververnacularnotions。ThepeculiarlyFrench’bordier’ontheotherhand，getsmisunderstoodandeliminated。

LookingtoSaxonandDanishterms，wefindthattheyholdtheirgroundtenaciouslyenough；butstilltheonemostprevalentbeforetheConquest-ceorl-disappearsentirely，andalltheotherstakentogethercannotbalancethediffusionofthe’villains。’Thedisappearanceofceorlmaybeaccountedforbytheimportantfactthatitwasprimarilythedesignationofafreeman，andhadnotquitelostthissenseeveninthetimeimmediatelybeforetheConquest。ThespreadoftheLatintermischaracteristicenoughinanycase。Itiswellinkeepingwithahistoricaldevelopmentwhich，thoughitcannotbereducedtoanimportationofforeignmanners，wasbynomeansameresequeltoSaxonhistory。(45*)Anewturnhadbeengiventowardscentralisationandorganisationfromabove，andvillanus，theLatinrecordterm，illustratesveryaptlytheremodellingofthelowerstratumofsocietybytheinfluenceofthecuriouslycentralisedEnglishfeudalism。

Thepositionofthepeasantrygetsconsideredchieflyfromthepointofviewofthelord’sinterests，andtheclassificationonthebasisofservicescomesnaturallytothefore。Thedistributionofholdingsisalsonoticed，becauseservicesandrentsarearrangedaccordingtothem。Butthemostimportantfactremains，thatthewholesystem，thoughadmittingtheoreticallythedifferencebetweenpersonalfreedomandpersonalsubjection，worksitselfoutintoUniformityonthegroundofunfreetenure。

Freemenholdinginvillainageandbornvillainsgetmixedupunderthesamenames。Thefacthasitstwosides。Ontheonehanditdetractsfromtheoriginalrightsoffreeorigin，ontheotheritstrengthenstheelementoforderandlegalityintherelationsbetweenlordandpeasant。Thepeasantsarecustumariiattheworst——theyworkbycustom，evenifcustomisregulatedbythelord’spower。Inanycase，evenamereanalysisofterminologicaldistinctionsleadstotheconclusionthatthesimplicityandrigidityoflegalcontrastswaslargelymodifiedbytheinfluenceofhistoricaltraditionandpracticallife。

Ournextobjectmustbetoseeinwhatshapetherightsofthelordarepresentedbymanorialdocuments。Allexpressionsofhispowermaybeconsideredunderthreedifferentheads，asconnectedwithoneofthethreefundamentalaspectsofthemanorialrelation。Therewerecustomsandservicesclearlyderivedfromthepersonalsubjectionofthevillain，whichhaditshistoricalrootinslavery。Someburdensagainlayontheland，andnotontheperson。Andfinally，manorialexactionscouldgrowfromthepoliticalswayconferredbyfeudallordship。

Itmaybedifficulttodistinguishintheconcretebetweentheseseveralrelations，andtheconstanttendencyinpracticemusthavebeenundoubtedlydirectedtowardsmixinguptheseparatethreadsofsubjection。Still，ageneralsurveyofmanorialrightshasundoubtedlytostartfromthesefundamentaldistinctions。

Therehasbeensomedebateonthequestionwhetherthelordcouldsellhisvillains。Ithasbeenurgedthatwehavenotracesofsuchtransactionsduringthefeudalperiod，andthatthereforepersonalserfdomdidnotexisteveninlaw。(46*)Itcanbepointedout，ontheotherside，thatdeedsofsaleconveyingvillainsapartfromtheirtenements，althoughrare，actuallyexist。Theusualformofenfranchisementwasadeedofsale，anditcannotbearguedthatthistreatmentofmanumissionisamererelicofformertimes，becauseboththeFrankandtheSaxonmanumissionsoftheprecedingperiodassumeadifferentshape；

theyarenoteffectedbysale。Theexistingevidenceentitlesonetomaintainthatavillaincouldbelawfullysold，withallhisfamily，hissequela，butthatinpractice