the Hetta-Hattai, receiving large modification on the way from the peculiar genius of its transmitters. But it is another and a wholly different thing to affirm on the ground of this general resemblance in art, eked out by a few doubtful comparisons of proper names, that the Hittites were one of the most powerful peoples of the primeval [sic] world, their empire extending from the frontier of Egypt to the shores of the Ægean,' as Mr. Wright twice quotes from Mr. Isaac Taylor. Mr. Wright poses as a champion of the historical accuracy of Scripture. It is at least certain that the supposed fact of a great Hittite empire would never have been suspected from the Biblical accounts taken alone. We may add that, in our judgment, the monuments do not suggest it either. We are disposed also to think that similarities have been eagerly caught at and differences overlooked in the desire to establish a Hittite' origin for all the Anatolian monuments. As Mr. Rylands has remarked, the costumes of the two figures at Ibreez are very unlike those of the figures at Boghaz Keui and Eyuk, and the same difference is observable on comparisor. with the Egyptian picture of the battle of Kadesh, and extends further to form and feature. The monument of 'a king' from Birejik closely resembles the type of Assyrian art which we see in the monoliths of Samsi-Ramman and Assurnasirpal, and differs from the figures at Ibreez and elsewhere. We must also record our doubts as to the 'cartouche' copied by Mr. Sayce from the 'Pseudo-Sesostris' at Karabel. When we have subtracted characters admitted to be doubtful, the rest may fairly be compared with Egyptian symbols. There is also a resemblance between one or two of the signs as given by Mr. Sayce, and the fragment published by Mr. Newton from the base of a column of the temple of Diana at Ephesus. But it is obvious that little can be built, in the way of sound inference, upon an inscription consisting of six or seven more or less weather-worn characters. The Niobe of Mount Sipylos' contributes nothing to the solution of the problem, as it is now 'little more than a shapeless mass of stone' (Rylands), and we cannot make anything of the 'cartouche.' Mr. Isaac Taylor writes that it is now admitted that the primitive art, the mythology, and the metrical standards of Asia Minor, were to a great extent obtained from the Hittites.' But what, we may ask, is really known about Hittite art, or mythology, or metrical standards? The specifications of the tribute of the kings of the Hetta to Thothmes III. do not comprise works of art, such as vases, cups, and dishes, which are obtained from the peoples of Reten hir, and are described as works of the Haru or Phenicians. And as to metric standards, no doubt the 'mana of Carchemish' is often mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions; but whether it was a Hittite invention or not we cannot certainly say. It is evident that the Assyrians would give the name to a standard of weight which they obtained from Carchemish, whether it had been originally invented there or not. In like manner 'the independent system of picture-writing,' which is alleged to be the source of the Cypriote character and of the alphabets of Asia Minor in general, but which is still, in Goethe's phrase, a book with seven seals, may have been the invention of some Asiatic race living northwards in Armenia, or westwards towards Cappadocia, or eastwards in the direction of Media. Obviously its prevalence in northern Syria does not prove that it was invented there. But, as we have said before, all these questions must wait for the discovery of that bilingual inscription which, when found, shall prove to be indeed the Rosetta Stone of Hittite decipherment.' ART. II.—THE RISE AND DECAY OF THE 1. History of Agriculture and Prices. ROGERS. (London, 1866.) 2. Six Centuries of Work and Wages. ROGERS. London, 1884.) By J. THOROLD By J. THOROLD 3. The Industrial Revolution. By A. TOYNBEE. (London, 1884.) 4. The Village Community in England. By F. Seebohm. (London, 1883.) 5. Report of Royal Commission on the Depressed Condition of the Agricultural Interests. (London, 1881-82.) 6. Report of the Royal Commission on the Skye Crofters. (London, 1884.) THE number of portly volumes that have been recently published on the social history of England is certainly striking when we recall how small a share of attention the subject has sometimes received; not that it has ever been entirely ignored, but that it has been too much regarded as a suitable field for the dilettante investigations of amateur antiquarians rather than a matter for serious study. The change which has taken place in our day is undoubtedly due to the political importance which social questions are beginning to assume. All matters connected with the ownership of land are being canvassed with increasing keenness, and it is only natural that many minds should be turned to the inquiries how the soil of England came to be concentrated in the hands of such a comparatively small number of owners as possess it now, or how the rights which landlords exercise have come into being. There can be little doubt that it is to their interest in present-day political discussions rather than to any natural turn for antiquarian inquiry that we owe the researches of Professor Thorold Rogers, Mr. Seebohm, and the late Mr. Toynbee. It is with the first of the two questions mentioned above that we mean to deal at present in examining the rise and decay of the English yeomanry. The word 'yeoman' is itself a vague one. Johnson defines the name in a strict sense as signifying a freeholder, but Lord Bacon used it of 'middle people of a condition between gentlemen and cottagers or peasants,' and popular usage seems to accord with this wider application. What we have to say of changes in rural life during the eighteenth century is true of all small farmers, whether they were freeholders or copyholders. I. For our purpose it is not necessary to go back to very early times, or to discuss the vexed questions as to the completeness of the record in the Domesday Survey, and the precise status of the various classes of tenants enumerated there. It is enough for our purpose to take English rural society as we find it in the beginning of the reign of Edward I., when the Royal Commissioners compiled the Hundred Rolis. The land in each village consisted then, as it often does still, of three parts-the arable fields, the meadow lands, and the common waste. Each occupier of land had rights of pasturing his cattle, gathering fuel and so forth on the waste; but when these needs were sufficiently provided for, the remainder of the waste and its produce belonged to the lord of the manor. The right of cutting grass on each strip of meadow was apportioned, in many cases by lot, among the different occupiers of land, unless they were mere cottars who owned no cattle at all. Part of the arable fields belonged to the lord of the manor, and formed his demesne, and part to the tenants; but, generally speaking, these two portions were not separated. The whole of the arable fields were divided into half-acre strips, and the holdings of the lord and of the tenants were all intermixed. Not only so, but each of the smaller farms consisted, not of a compact holding, but of a number of these strips, scattered all over the common fields. There may have been a certain fairness in this system, as it rendered the ground of each man equal to that of his neighbours, not only in size, but in quality and exposure; but it entailed great inconveniences. The usual size of holding appears to have been about thirty acres, and it is obvious that there must have been terrible waste and inconvenience in working thirty acres which consisted of sixty parts or more, some of which may have been a mile or two separated from others; this is exhibited in the most convincing manner in the excellent map of Hitchin which Mr. Seebohm has printed in colour to show the true character of the ordinary holding of about thirty acres. The necessary stock for carrying on the farm was apparently supplied by the lord to each tenant on his entering on the holding, but was subsequently the tenant's property; two oxen, or the fourth part of a team, was the share of stock which each holder of thirty acres required. The lord of the manor, too, had additional teams for ploughing on the demesne lands. So far there is no real difficulty; but when we come to consider the relations between the different classes of occupiers and the lord, we find ourselves face to face with a most complicated problem. The old writers on tenures enumerate a very great variety of terms on which land might be held, but the Hundred Rolls do not recognize these fine distinctions. The tenants are grouped into two great classes, Libere tenentes and Villani. About the villani, and the inferior sub-classes grouped under this heading, there need be no great difficulty; analogous social grades appear in Domesday Book and in earlier English documents. But who were the libere tenentes, and in what sense were they liberi? Did they exist as a class at the time of the Domesday Survey or not? If not, how had they arisen, and what was their exact place in the social scale? The word 'free' has associations for us that incline us to regard the libere tenentes as necessarily better off than those who were servile. But a glance at the Hundred Rolls and at the rents which were often paid enables us to see that many of the free tenants must have been comparatively poor and had mere cottages or gardens from the lord. Nor does it appear that they were all free in the sense of not being obliged to render predial services to the lord: there are many instances' of free tenants whose duty it was to labour certain days each year for the lord. Nor does it seem possible to account for these cases by supposing that persons who were free had come to occupy plots to which servile incidents were attached. There is one group of sixteen free socmen,2 who were bound to perform many services of different kinds, such as ploughing and carting for the lord. On the other hand, there seem to have been many estates on which the services of the villains were commuted for quit rents. In some instances the lord reserved the right of claiming the labour services or the money payment, whichever suited him (debet xx s. vel opera ad valorem3), in some the actual services appear to have been rendered, but to have been defined in terms of money (et dictæ precaria appreciantur ad xv d.), and in others the money payment was regularly accepted (reddit pro omnibus operationibus et serviciis quos antecessores sui facere solebant). Since some villains were thus free from actual service, and some libere tenentes paid actual service, we must look in some other direction than this for the marked feature which distinguished one class from the other. 4 6 The real point appears to have been whether there was a definite tie between the person and the estate or no. The estate was stocked with meat and men; the villain went with the estate, he could not change his residence or seek to better his position elsewhere. But of the fully free tenant it is noted in Domesday Book, 'potuit absque ejus licentia recedere,' or, 'et dare et vendere potuit. So, too, in the time of the Hundred Rolls certain classes of tenants were called villani because they were bound to the estate, and others were libere tenentes because they could drive their own bargains and go or come as they pleased. The villain who lived at a quit rent might find that rent very onerous, but he could not give notice, or attempt to insist on a reduction. The free tenant, on the other hand, could throw up his connexion with the estate if he desired to do so. But, though thus free to drive his own bargain, it did not necessarily follow that he preferred a cash payment. It might suit him to agree to work out part of his rent, like William of Swafham, a smith,' who bargained to provide axles and wagon-wheels. So long as he kept his holding he was bound to fulfil this bargain, but it was not 1 Rot. Hund. ii. 478, 479, 496. 2 At Swafham Prior, Rot. Hund. ii. pp. 484, 485. 3 Rot. Hund. ii. 324. 5 Ibid. 636. Domesday, i. 1956, 196a. VOL. XX.-NO. XL. 4 Ibid. 494. 7 Rot. Hund. ii. 499. U |