Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

In anticipation of the publishing of Domesday (and I know you are all going to want to read it) I thought we should discuss some particulars about it.

One of the things that is interesting is, that while we are all aware of the Peerage hierachy, did you know that there was actually a hierarchy to the peasentry? Yup, there was! In Domesday they were divided into three catagories as follows:

NOTE: There were 25,000 slaves noted in Domesday Book as well.

THE GEBUR, was the lowest status of peasant. They were what was later refered to as a "Villein". The Gebur was provided with a plot of land which he and his family could maintain a living (mostly a really really meagre one) in return for very burdensome services. They were personally free but were so tied to the land that their options were basicaly nonexistant.

THE COTSETLA, was a "cottager". Some had small land holdings and some did not. They were not entirely dependent on what they grew on the land for their livleyhood, as were the Gebur. The Cotsetla could work for wages.

THE GENEAT (also refered to as SOKEMAN in Domesday) Here is the aristocrat of the peasantry. He was usually a substantial farmer. The boundary between this class and the "Thegn" or Lord or even the Lord's Companion, was not always very great.

Call me a cynic, but i've never seen the relevence of the Domesday Book, the Day of Judgement!!

I agree with its historical value, but not with its contents, and what it implies!

Ok, so this was suppose to be a census on the population of 1186 (? yes?), but it only included people that owned land! Surely there were thousands more that weren't included! It also leaves out a large portion of England and Wales, namely London, Winchester, Northumerland, many parts of north west England and only recorded a minute part of Wales!!

I understand its importance in the deeds of land etc., but I think its very misleading!

Well, Dee, I have to disagree with you a bit. Most of Wales wasn't included because only the Marches were actually under English control at that time. Wasn't there a saying about the king's writ not extending across the Rye? William also had trouble consolidating his power base in the north of England due to persistant rebellion pockets. And London was not a rural area fecund with acres, livestock, & crops, so it was probably decided not to bother there. London had its own set of rules regarding taxation & such.

Also, if you look back at Stonehenge's original post, it DOES say that the Domesday Book recorded several different classes of peasantry, not all of whom owned land; it included slaves as well. It gave the identities of the landholders, or tenants-in-chief, who held their lands directly from the Crown, & also their tenants & under-tenants, & all their property, of which slaves would be.

I believe I have read that the main reason it was comissioned was not so much for census purposes, but because William's power was being threatened by the Vikings, & he needed to allot a portion of the taxes collected for the Danegeld necessary to keep them from invading England; therefore, it was important to learn just exactly who had what & how much more tax could be squeezed out of them!

Thanks for disagreeing with me ForeverAmber, that is exactly why I like this group. to see and learn, to understand other peoples reasoning and knowledge of all things historical!

So im off surfing, need to find out more!

Here's some more intersting info, for understanding Domesday. An equivalency chart!

DOMESDAY APPENDICES

MATHEMATICAL EQUIVALENTS

<MENU>

1 hide = 120 acres

1 carucate = 1 hide

1 virgate = .25 hide

1 bovate = .125 hide

1 sulung = 2 hides

1 pound = 20 shillings

1 shilling = 12 pennies (denarii)

1 mark = 13s4d or .66 pound

1 acre = 4840 square yards

1 square mile = 640 acres

1 furlong = 220 yards or .125 mile

1 mile = 8 furlongs

1 sq. furlong = 10 acres

1 league = 24 furlongs or 3 miles

1 sq. league = 576 sq. furlongs or 5760 acres

1 stick of eels = 24 eels

1 ox eats 2 acres of pasture

1 sheep eats 1 acre of pasture

</MENU>

Ok, this is like the pudding thing! What's up with the EELS???

Oh, come on, everybody knows that eels were a dietary mainstay of the middle ages and were sold at market by the "stick".

Yes, but what does that have to do with LAND? Eels are harvested from the SEA.

NO! not sea eels. They got eels from the streams, ponds, marsh lands and such. Why fish aren't included, I'm not sure. But apparently eels were VERY important! They are always being mentioned.

Medieval Food

Medieval foods and diets depended much on the class of the individual. For those living in the manor house, there was a wide range of foods available. Fowl such as capons, geese, larks, and chickens were usually available to the lord and his family. They would also dine on other meats; beef, bacon, lamb, and those living close to water may have regularly dined on salmon, herring, eels and other fresh water fish. Fish would either be sold fresh or smoked and salted. Wealthy society could afford large quantities of milled flour and other meals made from grain. Dairy products such as cheese and butter could be seen on the manor table.

Medieval peasants, on the other hand, had a much simpler diet available to them. Most of the wheat they harvested went exclusively to the market, and peasant breads were made from barley and rye, baked into dark heavy loaves. Ales made from barley would quaff the thirst, as would water drawn from the well, sweetened with honey. Peasant society got what little proteins they could from peas and beans that would be added to bread and pottage.

Pottage was often favored over bread, because it did not require the grains that the miller guarded closely. Onions, cabbage, garlic, nuts, berries, leeks, spinach, parsley were some of the foods that would combined to make thick soup. Raw vegetables were considered unhealthy and rarely eaten, but anything that could grown, with the exception of known poisonous plants, were added to the mix. Lucky families may have added salt pork or fatty bacon for flavor and protein. Poorer society depended on these simple foods for survival. It was ironic that after the Black Death ravaged societies, even the poor could find wheat available.

Medieval diets lacked vitamins A, C and D and were not high in calories, making the regular drinking of ale a necessity for most. The only positive part of these diets, were that they were somewhat "heart-smart;" low in fat and high in fiber. But the medieval world was usually a very hungry one.

This mentions eels and a whole lot more!

Cygnets, eels, gannets and gulls -- all on the menu for nobles of medieval England

News-Journal wire services

LONDON -- Chopped sparrow, roast swan, poached pike, conger eel, porpoise and lamprey: if it walked, swam or flew, the English medieval nobility ate it -- usually with a dash of cinnamon, ginger or cloves -- according to an ancient cookbook released to the public Thursday.

Dating from 1500, "A noble bok of festes ryalle and cokery, A bok for a Prynces housholde" is the earliest copy of a printed cookbook in English, according to the British Library. It has been in the archives of Longleat House, the country seat of the Marquess of Bath, since the 18th century, but until now has been reserved for scholarly use.

Longleat staff now plan to publish copies of the book. They have reproduced and eaten some of the recipes, including "pyke and eles in balloke broth," a dish of pike and eels spiced with cloves, cinnamon and saffron, and a mixture of milk and colored eggs called "ledlardes."

"The pike and eels were very strong ... and when we made the dish we weren't as liberal with the spices as they were -- so it was pretty clear that medieval nobles didn't like bland food," said Kate Harris, Longleat's librarian and archivist.

At least one noblewoman adored the dish: "That must our dame have or els she will be wrothe (angry)," the book notes.

Historians say the 80-page book offers new insight into the life of England's nobility, including its kings and archbishops, and was designed for the merchant and gentry classes who aspired to copy their betters.

It is divided into three sections: a history of noble feasts, including the banquet at King Henry V's coronation in 1413, a calendar of seasonal foods and a list of ingredients.

Unlike modern cookbooks, it does not give quantities or cooking times -- cooks to the nobility were expected to be skilled enough to judge that for themselves. Scribbled Latin notes in the margin show that the book was used.

The book was printed by London-based printer Richard Pynson, a Norman who later became the king's official printer.

Harris said it was brought to Longleat when Elizabeth Harley, whose mother Margaret later became the first Duchess of Portland, married the first Marquess of Bath in 1759.

The book reveals that Henry V's coronation feast featured a first course of 31 swans, roasted and probably redressed in their feathers. All carried signs praising the king.

This was followed by dishes of venison, antelope, porpoises and a range of fish, including carp, perch, and lamprey, on which King Henry I is said to have gorged himself to death.

There is no mention of vegetables, and desserts are mentioned in passing as "dowcetes."

Harris said menus for a feast for George Nevill, who became archbishop of York in 1465, list a wide range of bird dishes including sparrows, gannets, gulls, larks and peacocks.

Presentation was lavish, with many animals served whole. Tables were often decorated with sugar sculptures that were painted and sometimes even gilded.

Harris said that contrary to popular belief, the nobility ate tidily and wasted little. They had knives and spoons, but used fingers instead of forks, a later Italian invention.

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
ALL MY TUDORS...history chat	[email protected]