vill2 [56]
extraneus,(17*) who came into the manor as a freeman, and whose progeny lapses into personal villainage; apparently it is a case of villainage by prescription. The other subdivision of the class-freemen holding unfree land(18*) -- has no special denomination. This deprives us of a very important clue as to the composition of the peasantry, but we may gather from the fact how very near both divisions must have stood to each other in actual life. The free man holding in villainage had the right to go away, while the native was legally bound to the lord; but it was difficult for the one to leave land and homestead, and it was not impossible for the other to fly from them, if he were ill-treated by his lord or the steward. Even the fundamental distinction could not be drawn very sharply in the practice of daily life, and in every other respect, as to services, mode of holding, etc., there was no distinction. No wonder that the common term villanus is used quite broadly, and aims at the tenure more than at personal status. Terms which have in view the general economic condition of the peasant, vary a good deal according to localities. Even in private documents they are on the whole less frequent than the terms of the first class, and the Hundred Rolls use them but very rarely. It wOUld be very wrong to imply that they were not widely spread in practice. On the contrary, their vernacular forms vouch for their vitality and their use in common speech. But being vernacular and popular in origin, these terms cannot obtain the uniformity and currency of literary names employed and recognised by official authority. The vernacular equivalent for villanus seems to have been niet or neat.(19*) It points to the regular cultivators of the arable, possessed of holdings of normal size and performing the typical services of the manor.(20*) The peasant's condition is here regarded from the economical side, in the mutual relation of tenure and work, not in the strictly legal sense, and men of this category form the main stock of the manorial population. The Rochester Custumal says(21*) that neats are more free than cottagers, and that they hold virgates. The superior degree of freedom thus ascribed to them is certainly not to be taken in the legal sense, but is merely a superiority in material condition. The contrast with cottagers is a standing one,(22*) and, being the main population of the village, neats are treated sometimes as if they were the only people there.(23*) The name may be explained etymologically by the Anglo-Saxon geneat, which in documents of the tenth and eleventh century means a man using another person's land. The differences in application may be discussed when we come to examine the Saxon evidence. Another Saxon term - gebur - has left its trace in the burus and buriman of Norman records. The word does not occur very often, and seems to have been applied in two different ways-to the chief villains of the township in some places, and to the smaller tenantry, apparently in confusion with the Norman bordarius, in some other.(24*) The very possibility of such a confusion shows that it was going out of common use. On the other hand, the Danish equivalent bondus is widely spread. It is to be found constantly in the Danish counties.(25*) The original meaning is that of cultivator or 'husband' -- the same in fact as that of gebur and boor. Feudal records give curious testimony of the way in which the word slid down into the 'bondage' of the present day. We see it wavering, as it were, sometimes exchanging with servus and villanus, and sometimes opposed to them.(26*) Another word of kindred meaning, chiefly found in eastern districts, is landsettus, with the corresponding term for the tenure;(27*) this of course according to its etymology simply means an occupier, a man sitting on land. Several terms are found which have regard to the nature of services. Agricultural work was the most common and burdensome expression of economical subjection. Peasants who have to perform such services in kind instead of paying rents