Profulge pridiaf ageuf gaufque kalendar ANGLO-SAXON CALENDAR-PLOUGHING. (From the original MS.) chief, not as the maire of a French village, but in virtue of an hereditary nobility. And he was superior in wealth as in birth. The earls, in fact, were a territorial aristocracy, who administered justice in times of peace (though we find, as time goes on, professional judges beginning to be employed), and led the host in times of war. The churls (ceorls) formed the mass of the community. They were free; they owned land; they had the right to bear arms. They bore the same relation to the earls as did the plebeians to the patricians of Rome. Probably they may be traced to the same origin; they were late incomers into the community of the original settlers. Under the churl came the "laet." He was not a freeholder; he tilled the land of another. I cannot do better than describe his position in the words of Mr. Green. "In the modern sense of freedom the laet was free enough. He had house and home of his own; his life and limb were as secure as the ceorl's--save as against his lord; it is probable from what we see in later laws, that as time went on he was recognized as part of the nation, summoned to the folk-moot, allowed equal right at law, and called like the full freeman to the hosting. But he was unfree as regards lord and land. He had neither part nor lot in the common land of the village. The ground which he tilled he held of some free man of the tribe, to whom he paid rent in labour or in kind. And this man was his lord. Whatever right the unfree villager might gain in the general social life of his fellow-countrymen, he had no rights as against THE SLAVE, THE THANE, THE ALDERMAN. 171 his lord. He could leave neither land nor lord at his will. He was bound to render due service to his lord in tillage or in fight. So long, however, as these services were done, the land was his own. His lord could not take it from him; and he was bound to give him aid and protection in exchange for his services." Finally came the slave. Sometimes he would be of the same race as his master, one who had been driven in hard times to sell himself and his family for bread, or who had been condemned to a servile condition for crime. Sometimes he would be a captive in war. Most English prisoners would probably be sold abroad, as in the case of those whom Gregory saw in the slave-market at Rome; but some, doubtless, would be kept in their captor's households. Then there would be some descendants of the British tribes whom the English invaders had dispossessed. The slave had no rights; he was a living chattel. Another class remains to be mentioned, that of the thanes (thegns). These were the immediate followers of the king; they may be described as a nonhereditary nobility, raised to the rank they bore for service done to the king. They constituted his bodyguard, and, commonly, his personal counsellors. The steward, the cup-bearer, the armour-bearer, would be among the thanes of early times. Later on, we find these simple functions developed into what may be called high office of State. The alderman (earldorman) was the chief magistrate of a shire or group of shires. His office became more defined and more important as time went on. Originally he was the chieftain of a hundred; and doubtless there were aldermen before there were kings. He became in after-times the vice-gerent and representative of the king for a certain portion of his dominions. This growth of importance goes, of course, with the growth of unity in the monarchy. The greater the king, the greater the alderman. Finally, we see him giving place to an official of similar function in the earl of the later kingdom. The free citizens met in assemblies, town-moots, hundred-moots, and the folk-moot. The supreme assembly, or Witenagemot, was originally an assembly of the whole nation. This soon became an impossibility. It became consequently more and more representative; but the old principle still retained something of its force. When king and nobles and prelates, the wise men specially called to take part in the deliberations of the assembly, had come to a decision, that decision was ratified by cries and clatter of arms from the body of freemen, assembled, not so much as spectators as an integral part of the meeting.1 To turn to social matters, it may be said that their houses was small, mean, and ill-built. Thus we find a king compelled to protect his candles from guttering by enclosing them in lanterns. The whole story is, as has been observed, an indication of the 1 Perhaps we may compare them with the presbyters who lay hands on candidates for ordination along with the bishops. These represent the assenting voice of the whole body of the ministry. SOCIAL MATTERS. 173 rudeness of their domestic appliances. Some of their furniture seems to have been of an ornamental and even splendid kind. Richly coloured curtains were hung upon the walls. Carpets, however, were almost unknown, the floors being covered with straw or rushes. Fresh layers were put over the old, the latter being removed but seldom, an arrangement which must have been anything but cleanly, and must have had something to do with the frequent plagues which we hear of in those times, and with the generally shortness of almost all the lives the beginning and end of which we happen to know. The seats used were commonly benches or stools. Chairs with backs were rare luxuries. Tables were sometimes of a costly kind. We read of tables of silver and gold, and of one particular article made of silver, that was worth three hundred pounds. But the ordinary articles were probably rough and ill-made. We hear of candlesticks and lanterns, but not of lamps. Handbells also were in use. Bed-linen was in use, at least among the wealthier class. Mattresses and pillows were often, if not always, made of straw. For warmth, mats and bear skins, with, presumably, skins of other animals were employed. The ordinary drinking cup was probably made of horn or wood. But cups of gold and silver, with dishes and basons of these metals, were in use among the rich, and at the high tables of the wealthier monasteries. We find a council of the English Church ordering that no vessel of horn should be used in worship. Glass was scarcely known. In |