‘fi

=
—
—
~—
—
*
—
~—
_
—
=

128
565
THS

 
    

STATE UN E TY Ll

Ivllllljlllmlllimmlllill

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Grain Production and Expenditure
On Medieval English Estates

presented by

Michael Keith Sims

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Au— degree in —H—i-S—tG-I-‘-Y—

a T . {we a
/ / Major professor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

____———————--——~—-—-. -
__-—-

 

 

LIBRARY .
Michigan State |
University

 

 

 

PLACE N RENE" BOX to remove thle checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAIN PRODUCTION AND EXPENDITURE
ON MEDIEVAL ENGLISH ESTATES

BY

Michael Keith Sims

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of History
1 995

ABSTRACT

GRAIN PRODUCTION AND EXPENDITURE
ON MEDIEVAL ENGLISH ESTATES

By
Michael Keith Sims

This paper examines the use of grain to meet production expenses on
the estates of two abbeys; Beaulieu and Bec-Holluin. In the past some scholars
have not taken into account in-kind expenses, other than seed, when examining
productivity on medieval estates. By examining a complete yearly account of
the English estates of both these abbeys it is shown that non-seed expenses
can be quite high. Labor costs and fodder consume especially large amounts
of some grains, particularly oats and barley. Overall, about forty-five percent of
the grain harvest on these estates are used to meet production expenses, a
much higher figure than if just seed is taken into account. The paper then
constructs a general model for large estate grain production, which is then used
to make estimates about production and post-expense surplus for estates

where this data is not available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I must thank Professor Emily Tabuteau for her patience and assistance in
getting me here. It took a while, but it's finally done. I also thank my parents,
Bradley and Marie Sims, for all the years of encouragement and support.

Without you, I would be nowhere.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables IV
List of Figures V
Introduction p. 1
Estates of Beaulieu Abbey p._g
Estates of Bec Abbey p. 28
Estate Model and Use p. 32
Conclusion p. 38
Appendix A p. 40
Appendix B _p. 42
MC p44
Appendix D p 46
Bibliography 43. 49

 

List of Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1: Granary Crop Distribution p. 18
2: Bread Grain Content p. 20
3: Bread Use 10. 20
4: Home Grange Labor Cost $22
5: Ale Use p26
6: Beaulieu Grain Consumption p. 27
7: Model Grain Percentages Q3
8: Worcester Estimates p. 34
9: Fitzalan Estimates L37
10: Biddick Estimates p 38
11: Faringdon Detailed Accounts p40
12: Faringdon Totals p. 41
13: Other Granges Detailed Accounts p 42
14: Totals For Other Granges p. 42
15: Totals For Faringdon & Other Granges p. 43
16: Home Granges Detailed Accounts p. 44
17: Totals For Home Granqes p. 45
18: Totals For All Beaulieu Granges J) 45
19: Bec Detailed Accounts p. 46
20: Bec Totals p. 48

 

List of Figures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1: Faringdon Grain Use p. 7

2: Faringdon Grain Production p. 7

3: Other Grange Grain Use J. 13
4: Other Grange Grain Production L14
5: Combined Grain Use L5
6: Combined Grain Production 9. 15
7: Home Granqes Grain Production p. 17
8: Home Grangs Grain Use 4;. 17
9: Beaulieu Total Grain Use L24
10: Bec Grain Use 4). 30
11: Bec Grain Production L30

 

VI

INTRODUCTION

In the study of medieval agriculture it is an unfortunate reality that the
available information is often incomplete. Few complete sets of accounts or
surveys have survived to allow detailed economic analysis, either on the micro-
or macro-economic scale. Our understanding of medieval farm implements is
‘ largely based on some unclear descriptions, a few illustrations and scattered
archeological finds. Archeobotany has only recently begun to expand our
knowledge of the medieval diet beyond the imprecise written sources. Written
sources giving insight into the life of the sari are few and far between. It is thus
often necessary to make estimates about unavailable information, whether it be
acreage, crops planted, production expenses, tool types or whatever.

In this paper I intend to examine one factor that could influence several of
these estimates: the amount of grain production normally used to meet
production expenses. Those who calculate the minimal area of land necessary
to produce a specified amount of grain sometimes assume that the only
deduction for expenses they have to make in their calculations is for seed.1
This assumption might be reasonable when dealing with peasant producers,
although even there one must make a deduction for the tithe.2 However, small
producers probably depended almost exclusively on their own labor. I will
argue that because large estates were forced to depend on a great deal of
compensated labor the grain expended on this labor is too great to be ignored
in calculations of productions expenses. This factor would also affect
calculations showing the likely usable surplus produced by a known amount of

land.

 

1Kathleen Biddick, The Other Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1989), p.138.
2d. 2. Titow, English Rural Society (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 969), pp. 80-1.

This paper will examine this question by looking at the manner in which
the monasteries of Beaulieu and Bec collected and used the grain produced on
their estates. Particular attention will be paid to the amount of grain production
that is used to meet labor expenses. It will be shown that the percentage of
grain used for expenses varies for different types of grain. Wheat tends to be
used little for meeting production expenses, while a majority of the barley and
oats crops are often used for this purpose. In general, about forty-five percent of
the overall grain output is used to meet expenses. This is a percentage too
large to be ignored. l will also show that while different types of estates might
produce different amounts of various crops and use them in different amounts to
meet expenses, they all tend to use about forty-five percent of overall production
to meet expenses. The specific picture presented by the estates of Beaulieu
and Bec will then be used to create a more general model of grain production
and consumption on a large English estate. I will then use this model to make
estimates about grain production and land requirements for some estates for
which this information is unavailable. Such estimates are admittedly very
rough, especially as they are based on only two examples, but if treated only as
estimates they can be of use where such information is totally missing. l will
also make some general observations about Beaulieu's overall grain
consumption, showing that they gave away large amounts of grain while also
having to buy large amounts to meet their own needs.

ESTATES OF BEAULIEU ABBEY

Beaulieu was a Cistercian abbey founded in 1204 by King John.3 The

abbey was located in the New Forest on the southern coast, directly across from

the Isle of Wight. Like almost all monasteries, Beaulieu was endowed with

 

3.x. K. Fowller, A History of Beaulieu Abbey (London: The Car Illustrated, 1911), p. 13.

3
extensive land holdings to support the monks. Since Beaulieu was a Cistercian

abbey, one might expect that a large amount of the labor would be done by lay
brothers (conversr) and thus the monks would be less dependent on
compensated labor than I will show. However, the conversi functioned
primarily as supervisors and the bulk of the work was done by the paid full-time
employees (familia). If this is true for a Cistercian abbey, with its access to
conversi labor, then it is not unreasonable to argue that it would also be true
for other large estates without this advantage.

The primary documents that this paper will examine are the accounts for
Beaulieu Abbey for the year from Michaelmas (Sept. 29) 1269 to Michaelmas
1270, as published by the Royal Historical Society.4 These accounts are
based on two manuscripts, one in the British Library dealing with all of the
accounts and one in the Bodleian Library dealing just with the accounts for the
manor of Faringdon.5 Both versions of the accounts have suffered some
excisions, but by collating the two manuscripts almost the whole set of accounts
has been reconstructed. Most of the gaps that cannot be reconstructed are in
the livestock sections of some of the accounts and so are not of concern here.
Only in the account for the manor of Colbury is there a major, non-
reconstructable gap for the grain accounts, and even here the figures for wheat
are still almost intact. The only other important manuscript problem is some
discrepancies between the two versions of the account for the grange at
Coxwell in the manor of Faringdon. The magnitude of the differences is less
than two percent of the total output, however, so there should be little effect on
the overall numbers. I have chosen to use the numbers from the British Library

 

4s. F. Hockey ed., The Account-Book of Beaulieu Abbey (London: Royal Historical Society,
1975)
5ibid.. p. 1.

4
accounts because they include an entry for malt that is missing from the

Bodlelan and thus they seem to be the more complete.

There is one other possible problem with using these accounts as
evidence. lntemal evidence in the accounts shows that these were intended to
be a set of exemplars.6 Appareme the abbey intended to keep only this one set
of written accounts and in the future use tallies to keep track of the values of the
accounts.7 It could be argued that therefore this set of accounts is actually an
artificial accounting construct whose figures are not the actual accounts but
instead useful fictions. This seems unlikely for a number of reasons. The
accounts add-up properly to within a very small error. if this is an artificial
construct, it was one that was made with very great care. In fact, to make
fictitious numbers add up this precisely might be much more work than using
real figures. In addition, the best exemplar for later accounts would be a real
set of accounts. In an artificial set of accounts items might be missed or
forgotten, while this would be much less likely with a set of real accounts.
Finally, there is nothing in the accounts themselves that indicate they are
anything but real. There are no ridiculous sums, no obviously unreal entries. In
the absence of any concrete reason to doubt the authenticity of the accounts, it
seems best not to do so.

The first set of accounts to be examined is those from the manor of
Faringdon. This royal manor had originally been granted to the Cistercians by
John in 1203 as a site for an abbey.8 When John made the grant founding the
abbey at Beaulieu the following year, however, he transferred the manor to the

possession of this new abbey.9 Faringdon was about fifty miles almost due

 

5lbid., pp. 33, 163.

7P. D. A.. Harvey, Manorial Records (London: British Record Association, 1984), p. 26.
8Fowler, p. 8.

9lbid., p.11.

5
north of Beaulieu in the county of Berkshire. Faringdon was not simply a royal

manor, it was a part of ancient demesne, as the residents successfully proved
in 1241 in a suit against their new landlord, in which they complained about
certain undefined “injustices. "10 The manor was sufficiently large and important
and distant so that abbey set up a subsidiary camera at Faringdon. In terms of
production, the Faringdon properties are second only to the abbey's home
granges. The accounts give a picture of a manor much closer to the norm for a
secular estate than most of Beaulieu's other properties. This is not surprising,
for its status as a part of the ancient demesne would have made it more
resistant to change than any of the other lands.

The accounts for the manor include those for the granges at Shilton, Little
Faringdon, lnglesham, Wyke and Coxwell, as well as two mills at Rydon and
Kyndelwere, the church of Faringdon and the trading center at Great Faringdon.
The account for Great Faringdon deals only with receipts for tolls, fines, etc,
from the borough at Faringdon, and so will not be examined here. All the other
accounts are of interest. The pertinent data from the accounts is presented in
Appendix A. Some of the headings are self-explanatory, but others require
some clarification. The organization of the tables somewhat reflects the
organization of the accounts. The left four categories, "Production", "Purchase",
"Tithe" and "Last Year", i.e., surplus from the previous year, represent the four
categories the accounts use for the accumulation of grain. "Production"
normally refers to actual agricultural production, except in the case of the mills,
where it represents grain collected as the fee for milling. The meanings of the

other three accumulation categories are fairly clear.

 

10Robert S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History: 1066-1272 (New York:
Greenwood Press, 1968), p. 220.

6
The next four categories represent the main ways in which this grain was

then dispensed. “Sold" and "Seed" are relatively self-evident in their meanings.
"Labor" is a more complicated category. This category includes the allowance
made to the familia , grain used at the various boons through the year, as well
as for other miscellaneous agricultural labor. It does not include the grain used
to feed the resident conversi or monks at the court, as these are not strictly
agricultural expenses. Where possible, the allowances for shepherds,
swineherds, and other nongrain related employees have also been excluded.
The purpose of this paper is to look at the expenses strictly of grain production,
so it seems best to leave out these other workers. Fortunately the two largest
granges, Wyke and Coxwell, itemize their familia, thereby allowing this
exclusion to be made. The category for "Fodder" includes only those entries
related to grain production or distribution. Fodder for the abbot's horses, for
visitors, or food fed to non-draught animals like pigs has been excluded. It
should be noted that all the numbers do not add up. Some expenses, such as
gifts, pensions for widows, and others mentioned above are not related to grain
production and so do not show up in the table. The sale of grain does not
directly apply to grain production either, but since it is how almost all of the non-
expense grain was disposed of, it has been included.

The final two columns are the percentage of grain output used to meet
labor expenses and the percentage used to meet all three types of agricultural
expenses on the table, seed, labor and fodder. For these purposes, grain
output is assumed to include only actual production. The purchased grain does
not represent annual productive capability, nor does last year's surplus, so they
are excluded from the calculation.

Figures 1 and 2 summarize the total output of all grains for the whole

I %Seed I %Labor I %Fodder

Unweight
Weighted

 

Figure 1: Faringdon Grain Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarters

 

 

 

 

 

1; E: s a 2 2 s = s

o ,_ a! a) 0 .c

.1: g D: E D 8 O. E 3

3 as Cl (D g
Crop

 

 

 

Figure 2: Faringdon Grain Production

8
manor and the total usage for the various classes of expenses. It should be

noted that while the charts do provide numbers for grain production and seed
use, these cannot be used to determine grain yields. The production numbers
represent the grain gathered in the fall of 1269, as Michaelmas is the traditional
date for the end of the harvest.11 It would have been impossible to have had the
grain threshed and the totals calculated so quickly, so it must be assumed that
production totals are for the harvest which is just being finished as the account
begins. The seed totals are for those planted in the late autumn of 1269 and
spring of 1270. Therefore, the production totals are from the 1269 growing
season and the seed totals are from the 1270 growing season and so are not
usable for calculating exact grain yields. The right side of Figure 1 shows
weighted and unweighted totals for all grain production on all the granges of
Faringdon. The unweighted totals are simple sums of all the grains. in the
weighted totals the quantity of each grain is multiplied by its approximate market
value. These values are based on standard values that Beaulieu used for
accounting purposes, along with the actual prices paid for produce recorded in
the accounts.12 The use of weighted totals is important, as it makes clear how
the abbey used its lower value grains to meet expenses.

Looking at the individual crops, it is obvious that the most valuable crop
produced was wheat. Wheat constituted almost half of the total value of all crop
production, slightly over 5000 shillings. Wheat was primarily a cash crop: only
about quarter of it was used to meet expenses, and most of that was in seed.
Rye, drage and beans demonstrate similar patterns, with a quarter or less of the
crop going to meet expenses, and most of that being in seed. Peas and vetches

were produced in such small amounts that no meaningful analysis is possible.

‘

1 1 H. E. Hallam, The Agrarian History of England and Wales Vol. II (Cambridge: Cam bridge
University Press, 1988), p. 839.

12These values are 5 shillings/quarter for wheat, 3s/q for barley, Ss/q for rye, as/q for drage, Zs/q
for cats, 4s/q for beans, as/q tor peas, 3qu for malt and 3.55/q for vetches.

9
None of these crops was used in any important way to meet expenses, other

than for seed.

It is in the figures for cats, barley and malt that use of grain to meet
production expenses must be sought. Oats was produced in quantities second
only wheat, but only Wyke sold it in any large amounts. Instead, almost seventy
percent of all oats went to meet expenses. There are several reasons for this.
Oats is a very low yielding crop, usually producing a little over twice the amount
of seed planted.13 Thus a higher percentage of the output must be reserved as
seed; in these accounts it is about a third of total output. The other main use for
cats was as fodder. It seems that Faringdon must have been making extensive
use of horses as draft animals by this time because a great deal of cats is used
as fodder for the manor's horses. On three of the granges, Shilton, Little
Faringdon and lnglesham, use of cats exceeded output by between one and a
half to two times, requiring the purchase of additional oats.

Barley, on the other hand, was used primarily as a means of
compensating labor. Fully half of the barley output was used to pay for labor
costs. Much of this went directly to the familia. In fact, barley was the only grain
given to them. Barley, along with wheat, was also the primary grain baked for
the harvest and planting boons. Fully sixty percent of the barley went to meet
various production expenses. This number might have been even higher, but
the barley account for the church of Faringdon has been damaged, leaving only
the production numbers and one labor expense.

The other main crop used to meet expenses was malt. Of course, malt is
not an actual crop itself, but rather a grain product. However, these accounts
treat it as another grain and do not generally tell us what grain it is that is being

malted. Normally this would have been barley; but, as will be seen, Beaulieu's

‘

1 3d. 2. Titow, Winchester Yields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 4.

10
brewhouse used a mixture of wheat and oats, so it is probably best not to

speculate about what was being malted and simply treat malt as a separate
crop. Malt cannot be used as seed, but over sixty-five percent of what was
produced was used at the various boons throughout the year. Almost all of this
malt was produced and brewed at Coxwell, far more than Coxwell itself could
have used. All of the granges were operating under the same rules, so it
seems unlikely that Coxwell's workers were virtually swimming in ale while the
others did without. Probably Coxwell was the brewing center and from it the ale
was distributed to the other granges. It is the only grange that clearly had its
own mill, as an allowance for a miller is included in the accounts, and this mill
could have processed the melt.

However, if Coxwell did produce ale for all the granges, it is the only
indication of cooperation between the granges. There is no record of grain
transfers between the granges. This is somewhat surprising, as Wyke had such
a huge oats surplus while several of the other granges had oats shortages. Yet
Wyke sold its oats rather than giving it to the other granges. It even appears that
it did not sell the cats to the other granges, as it sold its oats for a somewhat
lower price than the other granges paid for their purchases. This lack of
cooperation does call into question Coxwell's role as a brewing center, but
there seems to be no other explanation for its consumption of so much ale.

As a whole, the manor of Faringdon used about forty-five percent of its
total grain output to meet expenses. About twenty percent went for seed,
sixteen percent for labor, and nine percent for fodder. These numbers are
somewhat smaller if given as weighted values rather than simple amounts, as it
was the cheaper grains, cats and barley, that were primarily used to meet non-
seed expenses. Even in the weighted totals, however, almost thirty-nine
percent of the total value of the grain output went to meet grain production

11
expenses, and of this less than half was in seed. Clearly, seed was not the only

important production expense met by using grain on this manor.

As a final note on the manor of Faringdon, it is possible to make a few
estimates about the tenants' production from the tithe numbers. The church at
Faringdon collected most of the tithe from the manor, except for the granges of
lnglesham and Coxwell. lnglesham had its own vicar, whose food allowances
are in the accounts, but it is not clear why Coxwell collected its own tithe. In any
case, multiplying the tithe totals can give some idea as to the tenants'
production of crops. The tithe was not necessarily exactly a tenth of tenant
production, but it does give a rough estimate for numbers that are otherwise
unknown. The tenants produced approximately 1100 quarters of wheat, 1350
quarters of barley, 220 quarters of rye, 340 quarters of drage, 270 quarters of
beans and 200 quarters of cats. As in the demesne production, wheat and
barley are the dominant grains. The most striking difference is the lower
production of cats by the tenants. It is likely, however, that the estimate for cats
is low. No tithe of cats was collected at either lnglesham or Coxwell. Yet it
seems very unlikely that the tenants on those granges did not grow this grain,
as cats will grow on poor soil where almost nothing else will. Thus it is possible
that a tithe on oats was simply not collected on all the granges at Faringdon,
making the estimate of production too small. Even if the estimate is correct, it
appears that tenant grain production was moderately larger than demesne
production, so tenants almost certainly held a majority of the land, but probably
less than three-quarters of it.

The granges making up the next group of accounts are not a distinct
group like Faringdon. Instead, they are a collection of properties acquired by
Beaulieu at various time in various ways. Two of them, Burgate and Soberton,

follow a more or less classical manorial pattern in their accounts. Colbury might

12
have followed this same pattern, but almost the whole account is missing. The

forth of these accounts, Cornwall, is unlike any of the others. It is this unusual
one that will be examined first.

The property that is called Cornwall by the accounts was granted to the
abbey in 1235 by Richard, Earl of Cornwall.14 Richard was the son of King
John, founder of the abbey. The property is located on the Lizard peninsula, on
the southern tip of Britain, about 175 miles from the abbey. This property was
not a typical manor with a large demesne worked by tenants. This grange did
have a small demesne, but its primary income was in rents and tithes collected
from the tenants. Most of the grain output from this grange consisted of in—kind
rents, not production on the demesne. Since this grain came in without any real
expense, it would be expected that expense costs on this grange would be
lower. The data confirm this expectation. Other than rye, almost all of which
was fed to the workers, all of the grains show expense levels far below those for
Faringdon. The numbers would be more in line with those from Faringdon if the
grain collected from tenants were excluded from the calculations, but that would
be a mistake. After all, renting land out to tenants in return for in-kind rents as
simply a different way of producing grain on the grange for the landlord. Since
this paper is examining grain production, it is appropriate to include these
numbers. It is interesting to note that the grains collected as rent are primarily
barley, oats, and, in lesser amounts, wheat. These are the same three grains
primarily grown on the Faringdon demesnes, although wheat appears to have
played a smaller role here and oats a larger one. This is consistent with the
findings for the estates of Tavistock Abbey in the south-west of England, where

oats was the dominant crop.15

 

14Hockey, p. 13.
15H. E. Hallam, Rural England 1066-1348 (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1981), pp. 171-2.

13
The other three granges in the second group, Burgate, Soberton and

Colbury, were acquired by the abbey through purchase.16 These three granges
display a pattern of grain consumption and use very similar to those from the
granges at Faringdon, as shown in Appendix 8. Wheat , barley and cats are the
three grains with the highest production. As at Faringdon, the highest
percentage of the crop used for expenses, largely for seed and fodder, is for
cats. Barley was also heavily used to meet expenses, especially as the primary
grain given to laborers. Wheat, while produced in large amounts, is not
generally used in large amounts to meet expenses. At Burgate the percentage
of wheat used for expenses is almost forty percent, but this is all in seed. Unlike
what happened at Faringdon, at Soberton relatively little wheat was sold;
instead, 127 quarters were kept in the barns for the next year.

I %Seed I 96Labor I 96Fodder I
80%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s a s. s. .22 s g x g E s
0 .— 9; a 0 0 -o-r u w
= s *- 0 .E 9- E s a: s
3 3

Grain

 

 

 

Figure 3: Other Grange Grain Use

 

16Hockey, pp. 14-5.

14

 

 

500
450
400
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 ~
150 4
100 1
50 1
0 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wheat
Bartel;
Rue
Drags
Oats
Beans
Peas
Malt
Veto hes

Crop

 

 

 

Figure 4: Other Grange Grain Production

The totals for percentage of grain used as expenses is somewhat lower for

these granges than at Faringdon, as shown in Figure Three. Only the
percentage for rye is significantly higher, but this was grown in such small
amounts that even such a wide variation is not too significant. These lower
numbers are to be expected, because of the low-expense production system on
the Cornwall grange. The general importance to the abbey of these outlying
granges was probably considerably less than that of Faringdon, as their
combined output was only slightly more than a third of Faringdon's.

The combined totals for both of these groups of granges are summarized
in Figures 5 and 6. Wheat is the most heavily produced crop and is little used
for expenses other than seed. Oats is grown almost as much as wheat, and
almost exactly two-thirds is used in expenses, mainly seed and fodder. Barley
is a close third and makes up the bulk of the crops used to compensate

laborers. Rye, drage, vetches, peas and beans are all grown in lesser amounts

 

 

 

 

I 96Seed I %Labor I 96Fodder l

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.52..
0.53::
3.. 3m;
to:
noon.
2ch
300
auto
03.
no: am

«no; 55

 

 

Grain
Figure 5: Combined Grain Use

 

 

 

 

no: 80>

to:

Bed

”zoom

 

 

 

 

$8
cog

on”.

 

 

 

376m

«8...?

 

1400
1200
1000 ~

 

800
600 -
400 -
200
O -l

9. 3.3.5

 

 

 

Crop

Figure 6: Combined Grain Production

 

16
and follow the basic behavior of wheat, with little used to meet expenses other

than seed. Since the outlying granges produced no malt, the totals are identical
with those from Faringdon. Looking at the weighted and unweighted totals for
all grains, they are almost the same as on the Faringdon table. Adding the
outlying granges into the totals therefore only strengthens the evidence that
non-seed expenses cannot be ignored.

The third group of granges is completely unlike the first two groups.
These last six granges make up the Great Close of Beaulieu: Holbury, Sowley,
St. Leonards, Beufre, Hartford and Otterwood. These granges are situated in
the New Forest in the immediate vicinity of the abbey, either on land from the
original grant or on land confirmed to the abbey by Henry III in 1246.17
These six granges directly supplied the abbey with grain, and in return received
food liveries from the abbey. As a result, their accounts are very different from
those of the other granges. The individual accounts and the totals for all six
granges are summarized in Appendix C. Production and use of grain by these
granges are shown on Figures 7 and 8.

These granges did not pay any labor expenses directly out of their grain
production. The familia was given bread from the abbey's bakehouse. These
granges also did not sell any of their grain. Almost everything that was not
needed for seed was sent on to the abbey's granary. A detailed look at the
expenses for these granges must therefore wait until after the abbey‘s granary,
bakehouse and brewhouse have been examined, as these offices were
responsible for collecting the grain, processing it and redistributing it back to the

granges.

 

17lbitl., p. 15.

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2500
2000
1’
o 1500-
u
h
g iooo~
O
500-
o.
'0'" J (D 0') 0')
s a s s e s
3 g 38 s
3:-
Crop
Figure 7: Home Granges Grain Production
-%Seed .%Fodder -%Granary
120%
100%
8096
6096
4096
2096

096

4.,
0
O
.1:
3

:n a V’ 3
,_ c

C! L a $
8 to
Crop

Vetches

 

Oats

 

Figure 8: Home Granges Grain Use

 

 

18
It is possible to make some general observations about these granges

before looking at the granary. Far more than the other granges, the granges of
the Great Close specialized in growing just two grains, wheat and oats.
Practically no barley was produced. This is understandable if barley is
understood to be a grain grown primarily to compensate workers. Since
workers on these granges were given bread from the bakehouse, rather than
raw grain, these granges could do without producing barley. Evidently, the
monks themselves did not choose to consume barley. Even their ale, as will be
discussed later, was made from a mixture of wheat and oats. Of the other crops,

only vetches were grown in any large amount.

Table 1: Granary Crop Distribution

Grain Total Bakehouse Brewhouse Sold Department Gruel
Wheat 1963.63 1339.50 312.00 136.75 15.88
Rye 83.38 83.38
Barley 194.00 166.00 2.63 0.13
Beans 68.00 49.25 18.88
Peas 106.75 98.75 8.00
Vetches 240.88 240.88
Oats 1336.00 550.00 28.00 447.88 262.50

The distribution of crops by the granary is summarized in Table 1. It should be
noted that the totals for cats, wheat and barley are considerably higher than
those supplied by the six home granges. This is because the abbey purchased
large amounts of each of these grain. This does not cause any problems,
however, as the expense totals will be compared with the original production
numbers and not the totals in the granary. Looking at Table 1, it is immediately
obvious that most of the grain was sent to the bakehouse. The majority of the
production of all grains except oats was sent to the bakehouse. The second

largest destination for grain was the brewhouse, which consumed sizable

19
portions of wheat and cats. The use by the brewhouse of this grain and its

redistribution as ale will be examined later, for, as ale was not given to the farm
laborers, this examination can be put off for the moment. Only wheat was sold
in any large amounts, but the amounts were far smaller than the amounts
purchased, so the abbey obviously found ways to consume all of its grain
production and more. The "Departments" heading includes all the various
departments and workshops of the abbey, including the forge, the shoemaker,
the cellar, the piggery, the skinner, etc. The departments used almost 450
quarters of cats, all of which was sent to the stables as fodder.

A large amount of cats was made into gruel and then sent back to the
granges. Unfortunately, it is not clear who then consumed this gruel. it is listed
simply as being used up in expenses of the domus. The two most likely
candidates for the consumers of this gruel are the conversi and the familia. All
other allowances and liveries to these two groups are clearly marked as such,
however, so it is not clear why it would not have been done in this case as well.
The amounts also seem too high to be intended for the conversi alone, ranging
between two and a half and six quarters per conversus. Perhaps both groups,
conversi and familia. consumed the gruel. The uncertainty requires that the
gruel be left out of expenditures on labor.

For the primary consumer of grain, the bakehouse, the use of the various
grains is summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The grain was used to bake bread of
four qualities. In descending order, these are conventual, hospital, clermatin
and familial bread. As Table 2 shows, the top three grades of bread were all
baked solely from wheat. These grades differed only in the quality of the wheat

used to make them. The final grade of bread, the familial bread, was made from

20

a mixture of variety of grains and even legumes. Familial bread also had extra

bran thrown in, probably as filler.18

Grains

Wheat

Rye

Bafley

Beans

Peas

Vetches

Bran

Totals
Weighted Tot

Conversi
Refectory
GuestHouse
Departments
Sec. Infirmary
Infirmary
Porter
Familia
Non-Ag Labor
Cust. Granges
Totals

Table 2: Bread Grain Content

Breads
Conventual Hospital Clerma tin
428.00 354.50 176.00
428.00 354.50 176.00
2140.00 1772.50 880.00

Table 3: Bread Use

Con ventual Hospital Clerma tin
63.38

257.75 3.63

50.00 90.00 75.00

3.90 147.70 24.15
30.00 15.00
0.25 0.81

6.00 13.25 2.30
11.40 19.18

1.10 27.40 9.10

37.13 12.88

423.78 354.09 123.43

Familial

374.25
83.38
166.00
49.25
98.75
240.88
67.25
1079.75
4122.40

Familial

89.65

126.00
677.00

892.65

Table 3 summarizes how these various grades of bread were then used.

Conventual, the highest grade, was consumed primarily by the members of the

abbey itself. Over seventy-five percent of it was either consumed in the

refectory or sent out to the conversi managing the granges. Most of the rest

was sent either to the guest house, where it was probably served to the guests

 

18h is ironic that the familial bread, despite using low grade wheat, was in fact probably much
healthier than the higher grades. The high content of legumes would have contained a lot of
protein and a variety of nutrients, the extra bran would have contained more roughage, and the
mixture of grains would have provided a wider variety of nutrients.

21
of the highest status, or to the secular infirmary. Hospital bread was sent in

large amounts to the guest house, or hospicium, as one would guess from the
name, but it was sent in even larger amounts to the various departments of the
abbey. Unfortunately these departments did not record the bread as food but
instead entered the bread's value among their receipts, so it is impossible to tell
how the various departments then made use of the bread. The same
accounting problem arises with the bread sent to the custodians of the granges:
its monetary value is recorded but its use is lost among all the other
expenditures. Hospital bread also appears to have been the bread normally
given to specialized laborers doing work around the abbey. Clermatin bread
was evidently a very low grade of wheat bread probably given mostly to the
lower status visitors at the guest house. The wheat used to make it was so poor
that out of the 176 quarters about a third was removed as bran, which is why the
total in Table 3 is so much lower than that in Table 2. Finally, the familial bread
was the bread that was given to the familia of the abbey's six home granges. It
was also the primary bread given to the porter to distribute as aims to the poor,
as well as being used by the departments. Like the clermatin bread, 110
quarters of the familial bread is listed as being thrown out as excess bran. This
is also the place in the accounts where missing grain was recorded. Seventy-
eight quarters of grain are listed as missing under the familial bread heading. It
seems likely that the familial bread was essentially made of all the leftover grain
not needed elsewhere, so it is a reasonable place to record any shortages. The
deduction for bran and the shortage combined explain the difference between
the totals for familial bread in Tables 2 and 3.

With totals for familial bread, it is now possible to add the labor expenses
on the home granges to those found in Appendix C. Unfortunately, because

familial bread is a mixture of many different crops individual grains cannot be

22
considered when looking at labor expenses. Table 4 presents the labor

expenses on the home granges as part of the total production of all grains. The
production numbers are weighted by the value of the grains produced, while the
labor expenses are weighted by the average value of grains put into the familial
bread.19

Looking at the percentage of labor versus total production, it can be
seen that the numbers are highly variable and fit no clear pattern. The two
largest granges, Beufre and St. Leonards, have relatively low labor expenses,

which might be explained as the result of the economy of size. However,

Table 4: Home Grange Labor Cost

G ra ng e Product. Weighted Labor Weighted 96Labor 96Weighted

Holbury 396 1329 27 103 6.80% 7.74%
Sowley 174 619 39 148 22.30% 23.94%
St.Leonard 1558 5411 196 747 12.56% 13.81%
Beufre 1182 4065 170 649 14.37% 15.95%
Harford 566 1864 145 555 25.68% 29.78%
Otterwood 445 1547 100 383 22.55% 24.77%
Totals 4321 14834 677 2585 15.67% 17.43%

Holbury has even lower labor costs although it is the second smallest of the
granges. The only consistent pattern among the home granges is that the
weighted percentages are higher than the unweighted ones. This is
understandable, as much of the production on the home granges is of low value
oats, while labor costs are met with the relatively higher valued wheat, barley
and legumes.

The entries for bread sent to the granges also provide evidence that most

of the work being done on the granges was being done not by conversi but

 

19This value, 3.818 shillings/quarter, is shown at the bottom of Table Nine and is a weighted
average of all the crops in familial bread.

23
rather by paid laborers. The entries tell how many conversi and how many

members of the familia were being provided bread. It is clear from these entries
that the hired laborers greatly outnumbered the members of the order on all the
granges. The home granges had a total of twenty-seven conversi living on
them. They also had at least ninety-three members of the familia. but vagaries
in the denoting of workers makes it possible that there might have been as
many as one hundred and twenty. Even if the smaller total is correct, the
conversi were outnumbered more than three to one by permanent wage
laborers. This is further supported by the accounts for the Faringdon grange of
Wyke, which had two conversi and fifteen famuli. This is the only one of the
non-home granges which specifically states the number of resident conversi,
but it is unlikely that the other distant granges had a higher proportion of
conversi than the home granges. Several of the accounts were attested by
reeves rather than by a member of the order and may these granges may not
have had any member is residence. Given these numbers, it is evident that
Beaulieu depended on wage labor for most of its agricultural work.

It is now possible to go back and make some comparisons between expenses
on the home granges and on the other granges. Figure 9 summarizes the
weighted and unweighted totals for all grains on the home granges, on the
other granges, and on all the granges combined. An examination of the table
shows that the home granges had higher seed and labor expenses and higher
overall expenses, but lower fodder expenses. The higher seed expense is
understandable due to the high percentage of low-yielding oats grain on the
home granges. The difference is greatly reduced when weighted totals are
used, due to the relatively low value of cats. The lower fodder totals for the

home granges might be a result of their proximity to each other and the abbey,

24
which might have allowed them to share horses when necessary and also

limited the distance they had to carry produce.

 

 

I I %Seed I %Fodder I %Labor

 

 

 

 

 

 

...r
.C
U‘
w—
0)
3
C
D

Other
Granges

All
Granges

Unweight
Weighted
Unwelght
Weighted

 

 

 

Figure 9: Beaulieu Total Grain Use

The labor expenses raise other issues. While the unweighted totals are
quite close, the weighted numbers are further apart. This is no doubt because
on the other granges the familia was paid primarily with low price barley, while
on the home granges they were paid with a mixture including more expensive
grains. Still, it is surprising that the home grange totals are not higher than they
are. The other granges probably had the advantage of requisitioning labor from
their tenants. The Faringdon granges certainly had this advantage, as fines to
avoid customary labors are recorded in the accounts?0 At Faringdon the abbey

had essentially made a capital investment of half or more of its land in return for

 

20Hockey, p. 21.

25
free labor and the usual rents and payments.21 Yet even without this "free"

labor, three of the six home granges had labor expenses at or below the level at
Faringdon. Clearly the Cistercian granges could be more efficient than a more
conventional manor in the use of labor, although we lack a manorial survey that
would enable us to quantify this.

Looking at the larger issue of overall expenses, the home granges once
again support the importance of taking into account non-seed expenses. On
these granges the unweighted total for expenses was over fifty percent of total
production, with the weighted total nearly that high. Seed expenses made up
slightly more than half of this, with labor making up most of the rest. Although
the inability to break up the labor expenses by grain is unfortunate, the numbers
continue to support the contention that non-seed expenses cannot be

considered trivial.

Table Five: Ale Use

Grain
Equivalent
GoodAle SecondAle Tatals Whea t 0a ts
Total 191.37 120.66 312.03 312.03 550.05
Production
Refectory 142.70 142.70 142.70 251.55
Conversi 15.00 15.00 15.00 26.44
Guesthouse 36.00 76.00 112.00 112.00 197.44
Porter 0.33 1.66 1.99 1.99 3.51
Sec. 1.50 18.50 20.00 20.00 35.26
Infirmary
Small 4.50 1.50 6.00 6.00 10.58
Expenses
Departments 2.70 0.50 3.20 3.20 5.64
Labor 0.60 3.15 3.75 3.75 6.61
Sold 0.80 5.80 6.60 6.60 11.63
Gifts 6.16 2.16 8.32 8.32 14.67
Total 195.29 124.27 319.56 319.56 563.33
Expenses

(Ale totals are in dolia, grain in quarters)

 

2”see above, p. 9.

26

While these accounts provide no more information on the main theme of
this paper, several other interesting observations can be made about the
abbey's use of grain based on these accounts. A detailed breakdown of the
abbey's grain use shows the monks to be more than adequately supplied to
meet their needs, while still having a lot of surplus to give to the poor and host
guests. Before this breakdown can be done an examination must be made of
the brewhouse account, for large amounts of grain were processed there and
redistributed to various departments as ale.

The brewhouse used two grains, wheat and cats, to produce the malt
necessary to make the ale. 312 quarters of wheat and 550 quarters of cats
produced a total of 310 dolia of ale.22 The distribution of this ale is detailed in
Table 5 The ale was divided into two grades, referred to simply as good ale
and second ale. The actual production numbers for the two grades of ale are
257 dolia of good ale and 53 dolia of second, but about 67 dolia of the good ale
were mixed with the second ale. The numbers in Table 5 reflect this transfer.
As the table shows, the majority of good ale was consumed by the monks
themselves at the refectory, and most of the rest was used by the guesthouse.
The guesthouse was also the primary consumer of second ale, with most of the
rest either sent to conversi out at the granges or used by the secular infirmary.
The second section of Table 5 shows the grain equivalents of the ale production
and expenses, that is, the amounts of wheat and oats necessary to produce the
ale. With these numbers, and those from Tables 3 and 4, it is now possible to

make estimates of how much grain was devoted to various uses by the abbey.

 

221 dolium = 240 gallons

27

Table 6: Beaulieu Grain Consumption

Wheat Oats Mixed Total
Refectory 404.00 251.50 655.50
Conversi 78.40 26.40 104.80
Guesthouse 327.00 197.40 524.40
Porter 23.55 3.50 126.00 153.05
Sec. Infirmary 65.00 35.30 100.30
Departments 194.85 453.50 116.70 765.05
Labor 71.95 6.60 677.00 755.55
Misc. 71.90 298.90 370.80

Table 6 shows the consumption of wheat, oats, and the mixture of grains
and legumes used to make familial bread for different types of expenditures.
Between the refectory and the food sent out to the conversion the granges, the
members of the monastery personally consumed just over 482 quarters of
wheat and nearly 278 quarters of cats. The monks gave away almost as much
as they consumed. The abbey's guesthouse functioned as a hospice for all
classes of guests, though the higher classes got better food and treatment.23
The porter actually functioned more as an almoner, giving away food and old
clothing as well as choosing thirteen poor men to be fed and housed in the
guesthouse every night. When consumption in the secular infirmary is also
included, the total amount of grain given away by the abbey is about 425
quarters of wheat, 235 quarters of cats and 126 quarters of mixed grains.

The various departments and workshops of the abbey consumed the
largest quantity of grain. By far the largest amount was consumed by the
stables, which used over 453 quarters of cats as fodder. Wheat and mixed
grains were consumed by fifteen different departments, the largest consumers
being the shoemaker/tanner and the skinner. Labor expenses consumed only
slightly less grain than the departments. The familia consumed large amounts

of mixed grain and a little wheat, while about 40 quarters of wheat was used to

 

23Hockey, p. 33.

28
meet non-agricultural labor expenses. Miscellaneous consumption included

50 quarters of wheat and 262 quarters of cats which were sent back to
custodians of the granges for the expenses of the domus. As noted above, the
actual use of this grain cannot be determined, so it must be left in the
miscellaneous category.

An examination of these numbers indicates several things about the
abbey's grain supply. It might seem that the monks were well supplied with
grain, since they were able to give away about as much grain as they
personally consumed. in fact, however, the granary purchased a net of 335
quarters of wheat, 372 quarters of cats, and 316 quarters of the other grains.24
This is somewhat more than what they gave away. Thus the abbey actually had
a slight shortage in grain that had to be made up through purchases. it is
unfortunately impossible to know whether this was a bad year and so such
purchases were uncommon, or whether this was standard practice. in any
case, the home granges evidently could not be counted on always to supply the
abbey with all the necessary grain. The fact that the monks were willing to
purchase the additional grain and its inclusion in the accounts as a normal
expense indicate that abbey's charity was considered part of everyday
business.

ESTATES OF BEC ABBEY

In order to test whether the conclusions drawn from the accounts of
Beaulieu Abbey have any general validity, it is useful to compare these
accounts to ones from other sources. Unfortunately, accounts giving such
complete detail are relatively rare and difficult to find. Other, less detailed,
accounts have survived, and so it is in such accounts that comparisons must be

sought. One relatively complete set of accounts that has survived is that for the

 

24lbid. pp. 286-9.

29
English properties of the French abbey of Bec—Hellouin. The abbey provided

two Archbishops of Canterbury to serve under the new Norman dynasty and
played a leading role in the reform of the Norman and English churches.25 As a
result it received several properties in England from the crown and from
members of William's court.26 The accounts for sixteen of Beds manors for the
year 1288-9 survive,27 and these accounts will be compared with those from
Beaulieu.

The estate systems of the two abbeys were different in a number of ways.
Beaulieu was a Cistercian abbey and made use of lay-brothers and hired
workers on its granges, with tenants only on the outlying granges. Benedictine
Bec depended on tenant labor on all its manors, as well as full-time familia. 28
Bec itself had sufficient grain supplies from its closer French possessions and
so did not depend on its English properties to supply any grain but instead sold
all the surplus.29 In this it clearly differed from Beaulieu, whose home granges
which supplied food to the monks. Bee's English properties were also widely
scattered around the countryside,30 with manors stretching from East Anglia to
Devonshire. All of the manors listed in the accounts were under the authority of
the Prior of Ogbourne, who was responsible for managing the estates and
collecting the revenues.31 However, the geographic distances between manors
prevented them from being operated as an interdependent system; instead, the

individual manors sold their excess produce at nearby markets.32 This is like

 

25Sally Vaughn, The Abbey of Bee and the Anglo-Norman State 1034-1136 (Bury St. Edmunds:
Boydell Press, 1981 ), pp. 12

26Marjorie Morgan, The English Lands of the Abbey of Soc (London: Oxford University Press,
1946), pp. 138-150.

27Marjorie Chibnall ed., Select Documents of the English Lands of the Abbey of Bec Camden
series 3, vol. LXXlll, (London: Royal Historical Society, 1951).

28Morgan, pp. 77-91.

29|bicl., pp. 41-2.

3olbid., p. 38.

31lbiti., p. 39.

321bid., p. 49.

30

 

 

 

I %Seed I %Labor I 96Fodder1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90%
8096
70%
6096
5096
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
z c g D g 056) 3 fig .1:
3'95“ 5 265336 1:73
3 (3% ID CL“: 2c) 1:."
E :3
Crop
Figure 10: Bee Grain Use
3000
2500-
22000.
0
215004
S
51000-
5001
0.
*6 '= S =" 8 «5w 3 P2
2&9“ g £96826
3 fig in 11‘” Zr:
Crop

 

Figure 11: Bee Grain Production

 

 

31

the outlying granges of Beaulieu but very different from its home granges.
Comparison of two such different sets of accounts should help to clarify whether
the results from Beaulieu's accounts are consistent with more typical, non-
Cistercian estates.

The production and expenditures of different grains on the estates of Bec
are detailed Appendix D. The totals for these estates are summarized in
Figures 10 and 11. There are striking similarities between these totals and
those found in Figures 5 and 6, which show the grain totals for Faringdon and
Beaulieu's outlying granges. As on the Beaulieu granges, wheat had the
highest production, followed closely by cats, with barley a more distant third.
Approximately a quarter of the wheat went to meet expenses, a far lower total
than for either barley or cats. Oats had the highest percentage going to meet
expenses, due both to a high seed percentage and to a large need for fodder.

In fact, the fodder requirements were even higher on the Bee estates,
consuming almost half the cats crop. Barley was the most important grain in
meeting labor expenses. Unlike the Beaulieu granges, however, Bec used both
wheat and rye in large amounts as well as barley to compensate the familia.
The wheat percentage is about the same, but on the Bee estates rye played a
much larger role in meeting labor expenses. Even if the barley and rye totals in
each table are combined, the totals for the Bec estates are somewhat lower.33 It
is apparently not just a matter of using rye instead of barley to meet labor
expenses on the Bee estates, their overall labor costs were actually lower. As
Figure 10 shows, labor expenses on the Bec estates were about eleven percent

of production versus fourteen percent on the Beaulieu granges. In all three

 

330n Bec estates, total rye & barley production equals 1562 quarters, labor expense equals 399
quarters, labor percentage equals 25.5%. On Beaulieu granges production equals 1169
quarters, labor expense equals 417 quarters, labor percentage equals 35.7%.

32
categories of expenses the overall totals are similar, the weighted totals being

even closer than the unweighted.34 No totals differ by more than two
percentage points. The similarities between the Bee estates and Beaulieu's
non-home granges is not unemcted, as they played similar roles in their
respective abbeys' manorial systems. The grain on all of them was meant
primarily for sale or to meet production expenses.

When the weighted totals for the Bee estates are compared with those
from all of Beaulieu's granges, including the home granges, the totals become
even more similar. It is only in the labor expenses that the difference becomes
larger. As noted above, this is undoubtedly because Beaulieu's home granges
lacked the "free" tenant labor that both the Bee estates and the other Beaulieu
estates had at their disposal. Taking into account this difference, the general
picture presented by the Boo accounts is consistent with that from the Beaulieu
accounts. They give further evidence for the importance of taking into account
non-seed expenses when examining manorial accounts and calculating net
production of grains. This is especially true for barley and oats.

ESTATE MODEL AND USE

Using these totals, one can produce a model for the distribution of grain
production and expenses on an English manor in the late thirteenth century.
The percentages of grain production can be derived, as well as the average
percentage of each grain used to meet production expenses. Using Titow's
numbers for approximate grain yields per acre,35 it is also possible to calculate
the percentage of the arable planted with each category of grain. These
percentages are displayed in Table 7.

 

34The same figures were used to weight the Bee accounts as on the Beaulieu accounts, with a
value of 25. lquarter used for berimancom. As with the other values this was calculated from the
prices occurring in the accounts.

35Titow, Winchester Yields, pp. 121 -35, 149.

33
Table 7: Model Grain Percentages

Grain 96Tot Prod 96Used Exp. 96Acreage Yield/A cre
Wheat 34% 25% 3996 1.20
Barley 2096 4996 1396 2.21
Oats 29% 79% 32% 1.25
Others 17% 38% 1696 1.45

The "Others" category on this table includes rye, drage, peas and the
other crops which were grown only sporadically and so do not merit their own
category. With this table, manorial surveys can be used to make estimates of
grain production and use where the accounts do not exist.

An example of this possible application is Christopher Dyer's work on the
estates of the bishopric of Worcester.36 As he notes in this work, these estates
do not have an existing series of accounts from the pre-1348 period, although
records and surveys do show the size of and profits from these estates for
several years.37 Dyer asks at one point "What use did they make of the
demesne?"38 Unfortunately, he lacks any accounts to tell him much detail. With
the figures calculated in this paper, however, it is possible to make some
estimates. Dyer states that the total demesne arable land in 1290 was about
6,460 acres.39 He also states that the survey of 1299 indicates that throughout
the estates of the bishopric a two-field rotation was used.40 Thus the area of
demesne in production in 1290 was probably about 3230 acres. Applying our
numbers to this area, with some modifications discussed below, yields the

results displayed in Table 8.

 

35Christopher Dyer, Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1980).

37lbid., p. 52.

38lbid., p. 67.

39lbid.

401bid., p. 68.

34

Table 8: Worcester Estimates

Crop Acreage Production Profit(Qu. ) Profit Value(£)
Wheat 1001 1202 901 225
Barley 420 929 474 71
Cats 1292 1615 339 34
Others 517 749 465 70
Total 3230 4495 2179 400

Thus the total profit from grain sales for the bishopric of Worcester in
1290 could have been around £400. Grain sales were probably less than this,
as the bishop and his entourage would have consumed much of the grain
themselves. The necessary records to show what the bishop consumed do not
exist, but some estimate is possible. The prior and convent of Westminster
Abbey consumed about 900 quarters of wheat, 540 quarters of barley and 1095
quarters of cats per year.41 This is on the same magnitude with the above
figures for Beaulieu. It is unlikely that the Bishop of Worcester's household
could have consumed much more than a whole convent, so this can be used as
a maximum figure. This amount of grain would cost about £420, leaving about
£20 worth of grain to buy. These figures indicate that the bishop could have
probably fed his court from his own estates some of the time, but perhaps not
always.

This total is consistent with the income numbers for the estates. The total
income for c. 1290 was 21170.42 The total income from rents in 1299 was
2700,43 leaving about £470 to account for. Other than grain income, the
bishop's main income source on the estates would have been his sheep herds,

and in c. 1290 he had 5650 sheep.44 If about seventy-five percent of these

 

41 Barbara Harvey, Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977), p. 142.

42Dyer, p. 54.
43lbid., p. 73.
44lbtd., p. 70.

35
sheep were old enough to be shorn,45 then they would have produced wool

worth about £135 a year.46 This means the grain values must make up £335 to
balance the books, about £65 less than our figures. The difference might result
from a difference in rental levels between 1290 and 1299 or from a poor fit with
our model. Most likely the difference is at least partly caused by variations in
the quality of the harvest. Estate incomes certainly were highly variable, as the
bishopric recorded an income of £1192 in 1299 but only £850 in 1302. It is
likely that such a large difference is result of a bad harvest, rather than
variations in rental levels. Given such wide variations, an estimate within £65 is
not unacceptable.

The figures in Table 8 were calculated by statistics changed from the
percentages in 7 in two ways. The figures on grain consumption calculated in
this paper are based on estates found mostly in southern central England. By
this time estates in this area were making heavy use of horses for plowing,
about thirty percent of plow team were made up of horses.47 In the area of the
Worcester estates the number was only about ten percent.48 Since horses
consume about six times as much oats as oxen,49 the fewer number of horses
would have reduced the amount of cats needed for fodder. The difference
would reduce the cats necessary as fodder by forty percent, or about nineteen
percent of total oats production. This increased profits by about £14.

Another adjustment that has been made was to increase the percentage of
acreage planted with cats and decrease that planted with wheat. This is

 

45Biddick, p. 101.

46lbid., p. 109.

47John Langdon, Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986), p. 93.

48lbid.

49John Langdon, ”Horses and Oxen in Medieval England”, Agricultural History Review Vol. 30,
pt. 1 (Leeds: British Agricultural History Society), p. 33.

36
consistent with data from Worcester which shows that cats usually exceeded

wheat in acreage planted, unlike the area on which our data is based.50

Another example of the use of these estimates is its application to the
estates of the Fitzalan Earls of Arundel. A comprehensive survey of the earl's
estates exists for the year 1301, but there are no accounts to go with it.51 The
surveys states that the total income from the estates was £1291.52 Of this, £390
was from rents and £100 from various feudal dues.53 This leaves £800 to
account for from other sources. Most of this can be accounted for in agricultural
production. The Fitzalan estates in 1300 had about 5200 acres in demesne
production and at least 2850 sheep. The sheep population was almost
certainly higher, because on some of the estates a shepherd is recorded, but
we have no total for sheep on the same manor. Thus there are almost certainly
more sheep than are attested in the records. A second survey from circa 1405
records about 14,000 wool-producing sheep on the Fitzalan estates, although
the estates had expanded somewhat by that time.54 Even taking into account
this expansion, it is clear that 2850 is a low estimate for the size of the herd in
1300. Using Biddick's numbers, these 2850 sheep would have produced about
£65 worth of wool. If the actual flock was even half the size of the c. 1400 flock,
the wool produced would have been worth at least £212.

The Fitzalan estates are concentrated in Sussex and Shropshire. By this
time the three-field system was common in Shropshire,55 and many Sussex

estates had twenty percent or even less of their demesne in fallow.56 At least

 

50Hallam, Agrarian Hist.., pp. 354-62, 380-2.

51 Marie Clough, ed., Two Estate Surveys of the Fitzalan Earls of Arundel, Sussex Record
Society Vol. 67 (Lewes, U.K.: Sussex Record Society, 1969)

52lbid., p.90.

53lbid., pp. 89-90.

54lbld., pp. 94-101.

55Hallam,Agrarian Hist, p. 414.

56lbid., p. 321.

37
3500 acres of the Fitzalan estates were probably in production each year.

These two counties were also places where oxen were predominate-57 so the
same adjustment to cats production should be made as was done for
Worcester. The percentages of acreage planted with each grain have not been
modified because while in Shropshire cats were more common than wheat,58 in
Sussex the tendency was in the opposite directions9 The two tendencies
balance each other out. The results of the calculations are in Table 9.

Table 9: Fitzalan Estimates

Crop Acreage Production Profit(Qu. ) Pro fit
Value(£)
Wheat 1365 1638 1229 307
Barley 455 1007 S13 77
Oats 1 120 1400 560 56
Others 560 812 503 76
Total 3500 4857 2805 516

If we assume the larger size for the sheep herd, then the combination of
wool and grain values account for almost the whole of the unaccounted £800.
This is consistent with the prevailing theory of demesne exploitation, which
considers this time to be part of the "high farming " era when landlords
maximized profits from direct exploitation of the demesne.60 This is indicated by
agricultural production worth twice the rent collected. The above figures for the
bishopric of Worcester, however, have rents exceeding production by almost
two to one, so the combined evidence is inconclusive.

This approach to grain expenses can also be of use when the amount of
grain is known, and the amount of land necessary to produce it is want we wish

to calculate. In her book The Other Economy Kathleen Biddick calculates the

 

57Langdon, Horses, Oxen and Tech, p. 88.
58Hallam, Agrarian Hist, pp. 459-72.
59Hallam, Rural England, p. 64.

60Titow, English Rural Society, p. 51.

38
amount of land necessary to meet the grain consumption needs of the monks of

Peterborough Abbey.61 Based on data from Ramsey Abbey, she estimates the
necessary grain to be 288 quarters of wheat, 160 quarters of barley and 80
quarters of cats.62 However, she bases her calculations on net yields J. 2. Titow
calculated for tenant grain production, rather than for demesne production.
Titow's numbers include reductions for seed and for the tithe, but nothing else.63
As has been shown in this paper, these are not the only reductions that must be
made for demesne production, and the tithe reduction is not an appropriate
reduction for a monastic estate. Fortunately, earlier in the book Biddick

provides a detailed breakdown of how the grain produced in the estate is used,
including how much is used to meet expenses.64 Thus it is not even necessary
to use estimates for these percentages. The difference between Biddick's and

the new estimates are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Biddick Estimates

Wheat Barley Oats Total
Biddick 741 288 288 1317
New Estimate 900 218 320 1437

The actual difference between the two sets of numbers is not great, the
new numbers are only about ten percent higher. Even if the numeric difference
is not great, the methodology behind the new estimates is more sound, as it is
based on demesne rather than peasant production figures.

C O N C L U SI 0 N
These examples demonstrate the usefulness of approach I have

developed and used in this paper. Using yield ratios calculated by Titow twenty

 

61Biddick, p. 139.

62lbid.

53Titow, English Rural Society, pp. 80-1.
64Biddick, p. 73.

39
years ago, scholars have been able to calculate approximate gross yields of

grains on medieval demesnes.65 Without detailed accounts, however,
calculating net yields has been almost impossible. Using my approach, it is
now possible to approximate the net productivity of a designated amount of
land. This is more useful than gross yields as the not yield represents the
amount grain available to the owner for consumption and sale, la, the owner's
disposable income. These estimates are only very rough and can be altered by
a number of factors, including the draft animals used, the proportion of land
planted with each crop and amount of land left fallow. Even a rough estimate is
better than none, however, and these factors can be compensated for in some
cases. Finally, when accounts do exist, as for Peterborough, this approach can
be used to calculate very accurate net yields, or as in Biddick's book, the area

needed to produce a given amount of grain.

 

65Titow, Winchester Yields

APPENDICES

Shilton
Wheat
Bafley
Drage
Oats
Ln.Fan
Wheat
Bafley
Drage
Oats

lnglesham -------------------

Wheat
Bafley
Beans
Oats
Wyke
Wheat
Rye
Bafley
Beans
Peas
Vetches
Malt
Oats
Coxwell
Wheat
Rye
Bafley
Beans
Oats
Malt
Church
Wheat
Rye
Bafley
Drage
Beans
Oats
Mills
Wheat
Barley
Malt

Prod. Pure Tithe Last Seed Sold Labor Fodder

74
65

66

All Amounts are in Quarters.

Appendix A

Table 11: Faringdon Detailed Accounts

hase

13

1O
12

22
41

Yr.

18 88
12 21
35 57

7
16 90
17 38
28 97

10
23 72
14 67
1 13

7
10 68 331
3 11
17 1
3 1
0 1 4
1 1
2 171 217
30 36 148
24 92
16 37
5 2
13 52 19
7 46
1 10
34
0 19
5 10
17
25
66

40

96 Lab

1 Quarter = 8 Bushels.

Crop

Wheat
Bafley
Rye
Drage
Oats
Beans
Peas
Malt
Vetches

Unweight
e1
Weighted

Total

8nd

900 168
496 75
121 28
218 64
748 251
21 8

5 1
112 0
4 1
2625 595
9192 1935

41

Table 12: Faringdon Totals

Labor

87
308

O-h-f-‘POO

Totals
for
474

1593

0 255
0 383
0 28
0 64
274 529
0 11
0 1
0 74
2 3
All
Grains
276 1346
514 4087

19%
15%
23%
29%
34%
39%
10%

0%
14%

23%
21%

10%
62%
0%
0%
0%
7%
10%
66%
0%

18%
17%

0%

11%
6%

Fodder Expenses 96$eed 96Lab 96Fod 96
Exp.

28%
77%
23%
29%
71%
50%
20%
66%
71%

51%
44%

42

Appendix B

Table 13: Other Granges Detailed Accounts

Prod. Pur— Tithe Ten- Last Seed Sold Labor Fod- 96Lab %Exp
chase ants Yr. der
Cornwall
Wheat 7 34 2 3 34 0% 7%
Rye 5 1 1 5 108% 121%
Barley 65 103 1 5 148 16 10% 1396
Drage 14 14 0% 0%
Beans 7 7 0% 0%
Peas 4 4 0% 0%
Oats 33 96 6 96 1 15 1% 17%
Burgate -------------------------------- ---- ----
Wheat 32 11 13 31 096 40%
Rye 9 3 4 7 096 4796
Barley 81 11 43 22 2796 4196
Peas 11 2 9 096 1696
Vetches 3 2 2 096 5096
Oats 78 5 40 37 6 096 5996
Soberton -------------------------------- - - - - - - - -
Wheat 142 39 27 17 11 7% 27%
Barley 132 18 36 25 66 5096 7796
Beans 2 0 1 1 0% 38%
Peas 24 4 0 7 17 1 2% 3196
Vetches 25 1 9 4 0% 37%
Oats 258 11 94 34 1 127 096 8696
Colbury -------------------------------- ---- ----
Wheat 30 8 9 29 0% 3096
Table 14: Totals For Other Granges

Crop Output Seed Labor Fodder Expen 96$eed 96Lab 96Fod %Exp
Wheat 245 52 11 0 62 2196 496 096 2596
Barley 381 52 105 0 157 14% 27% 0% 41%
Rye 14 5 5 0 10 35% 37% 0% 73%
Drage 14 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Oats 465 140 2 148 290 30% 0% 32% 62%
Beans 2 1 0 0 1 50% 0% 0% 50%
Peas 32 9 1 0 9 28% 396 0% 31%
Malt 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Vetch 28 11 0 0 11 38% 0% 0% 38%
Unwei 1178 269 123 148 539 2396 10% 1296 4596
Weigh 3609 785 397 296 1478 2296 11% 896 4196

43

Table 15: Totals for Faringdon & Other Granges

Crop Output Seed Labor Fodder Expense 96Seed 96Lab 96Fod 96Exp

Wheat 1145 220 97 0 317 1996 896 096 2896
Barley 877 127 412 0 S40 1496 4796 096 6196
Rye 13S 33 5 0 38 24% 496 0% 2896
Drage 232 64 0 0 64 2896 0% 096 2896
Oats 1213 391 6 422 819 32% 096 3596 6896
Beans 23 9 1 1 11 39% 4% 4% 48%
Peas 37 9 1 0 10 24% 3% 0% 2796
Malt 112 74 0 74 0% 6696 096 66%
Vetch 32 11 0 2 13 35% 0% 696 4196

Unweig 3803 864 596 426 1885 23% 16% 11% 50%
Weight 12801 2720 1990 850 5565 21% 16% 7% 43%

44

Appendix C

Table 16: Home Granges Detailed Accounts

Production Last Sad Fodder Granary %Seed %Granary

Year &Fodder

Holbury

Wheat 155 24 128 1596 83%
Barley 3 096 0%
Peas 4 3 1 6996 25%
Vetches 43 10 10 43 23% 100%
Oats 191 4 48 15 130 3396 68%
Sowley ----------------------------------------
Wheat 83 8 74 1096 9096
Peas 5 1 3 1196 67%
Vetches 13 3 9 2696 7496
Oats 75 29 46 3896 6296
St. Leonards ----------------------------------------
Wheat 656 53 604 8% 92%
Rye 60 3 53 5% 8996
Beans 41 1 11 31 2796 75%
Peas 33 1 7 24 2196 74%
Vetches 23 4 20 1596 8596
Oats 746 4 254 81 400 4596 5496
Beufre ----------------------------------------
Wheat 500 96 405 19% 81%
Rye 9 8 096 9396
Beans 20 6 13 2896 6396
Peas 32 2 4 29 1196 89%
Vetches 69 8 62 1196 89%
Oats 552 6 238 99 210 61% 3896
Hartford ----------------------------------------
Wheat 208 83 126 4096 60%
Rye 14 1 13 796 93%
Beans 9 1 8 6% 89%
Peas 5 4 096 8196
Vetches 28 7 4 31 12% 10996
Oats 302 4 172 59 56 7696 1996
Ottemood ----------------------------------------
Wheat 202 53 150 2696 7496
Rye 6 1 5 1896 8296
Beans 3 0 2 1496 7696
Peas 8 1 6 1496 7496
Vetches 13 2 11 1696 8496
Oats 213 109 40 34 70% 1696

Grain
VVheat
Rye
Bafley
Beans
Peas
ytnches

Home Gra.
Unweight.

Weighted
Other Gra

Unweight.

Weighted

All Grang.
Unweight.

Weighted

Product.

1804
88

3

72
87
189
2079

Product
4321
14834

4163
14152

8484
28986

45

Table 17: Totals for Home Granges

Seed

3

8

Seed
1231
3519

864
2720

2095
6239

16
5
0

17

15

30

49

Fodder

Fodder

292
584

425
855

717
1439

NOOOOOO

Labor

677
2585

596
1990

1273
4575

79

0
53
67

175
876

1885
5565

4085

12253

28%
24%

21%
19%

25%
22%

Granary 96Seed %Exp
1485

Table 18: Totals for All Beaulieu Granges

Expense %Seed 96Fod
2200
6688

7%
4%

10%
6%

8%
5%

%Granary

96Lab
1696
17%

14%
14%

15%
16%

82%
89%

0%

73%
77%
93%
42%

%Exp

51%
45%

45%
39%

48%
42%

Table 19: Bec Detailed Accounts

46

Appendix D

Production Seed Labor Fodder %Seed %Lab %Fod %Exp

Cotesford
Wheat 34 18 5 52% 14% 0% 66%
Rye 70 8 53 9 11% 7596 12% 98%
Drage 52 30 57% 0% 0% 57%
Oats 50 28 2 20 56% 4% 40% 100%
Adreston -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 110 30 41 27% 37% 0% 64%
Rye 9 6 6 65% 68% 0% 132%
Peas 21 9 42% 0% 0% 42%
Barley 10 S 47% 0% 0% 47%
Drage 9 5 56% 0% 0% 56%
Oats 129 32 5 36 24% 3% 28% 56%
Wedon -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 150 24 9 16% 6% 0% 22%
Rye 120 8 24 6% 20% 0% 26%
Mixed Grains 34 10 0% 31% 0% 31%
Peas 27 8 2 5 31% 7% 19% 57%
Drage 180 21 7 12% 0% 4% 16%
Oats 173 66 3 73 38% 2% 42% 82%
Swnecumb -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 88 22 14 25% 16% 0% 41%
Mancorn 49 26 17 54% 34% 0% 88%
Barley 72 28 18 39% 26% 0% 65%
Drage 9 4 45% 0% 0% 45%
Oats 68 47 2 76 70% 3% 113% 186%
Waneting -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 417 27 6% 0% 0% 6%
Barley 216 10 42 5% 20% 0% 24%
Beans 44 5 1 11 12% 2% 26% 39%
Oats 50 11 3 28 21 % 6% 56% 83%
Bledel -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 252 28 10 11% 4% 0% 15%
Mancorn 23 3 11 13% 45% 0% 58%
Barley 44 8 12 19% 28% 0% 46%
Beans 10 6 61% 0% 0% 61%
Cats 79 39 2 58 50% 3% 73% 125%
Rislep -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Wheat 962 101 168 11% 17% 0% 28%
Barley 7 0% 0% 0% 0%
Beans&Peas 190 20 6 1 3 10% 3% 7% 20%
Cats 913 213 16 454 23% 2% 50% 75%
Wretham -------- - - - - -----------------------------
Rye 108 14 23 13% 21% 0% 35%
Barley 149 46 23 31% 16% 0% 46%
Oats 79 42 6 37 53% 8% 46% 107%

Lesingham
Wheat
Bafley
Peas
Oats
Blankenham
Wheat
Rye
Bafley
Peas
Oats
Cumbe
Wheat
Be rico rn
Bafley
Oats
Hungerford
Wheat
Be rico rn
Bafley
Drage
Oats
Querle
Wheat
Bafley
Berima ncorn
Drage
Peas & Beans
Oats
Ama
Wheat
Be rico rn
Bafley
Drage
Oats
Povinton
Wheat
B a rle y
Peas& Beans
Oats
Mule burn
Wheat
8 e rico rn
B a rley
Oats

Production

Table 19 (Continued)

47

Seed Labor Fodder

3
43
13
33

5
14
23

2
42
19
26
29
35
10

7

7

4
11
15
41

4

32
2

2 20
26
1

3 30
2
25
8

3 38
5
19

3 14
6
49

0
2

1 41
3
26

2

20
0
34
2

1 6
3

23%

0%
22%
6%
3%
0%
38%
0%
18%
4%
2%
24%
6%
4%
6%
0%
40%
0%
9%
6%
31%
0%
0%
11%
1%
5%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
35%
32%
2%
0%
0%
17%
0%

%Seed %Lab %Fod

0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
40%
0%
0%
0%
48%
0%
0%
0%
0%
39%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
41%
0%
0%
0%
6%
36%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
6%

%Exp

23%
52%
41%
90%
7%
58%
39%
44%
99%
21%
48%
28%
97%
19%
17%
55%
27%
78%
23%
58%
13%
36%
39%
98%
24%
71%
48%
51%
125%
31%
66%
73%
58%
77%
61%
55%
91%

Totals
Wheat
Beriman
corn
Rye
Bafley
Drage
Peas &
Beans
Oats
Mixed
Grains

Totals
Weight

Product
2 516
263

306
1256
349
361

2014
34

7098
24660

Seed
345
77

49
301
96
71

741

1680
5013

48

Table 20: Bee Totals

Labor

261
52

132
267
0
17

51
10

790
3055

Fodder

OLDOQO CO

95

00

997
2057

%Seed %Lab
14% 10%
29% 20%
16% 43%
24% 21%
28% 0%
20% 5%
37% 3%

0% 31%
24% 11%
20% 12%

%Fod %Exp
0% 24%
0% 49%
3% 62%
0% 45%
3% 30%
8% 32%

47% 86%
0% 31%
14% 49%
8% 41%

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Astill, Grenville, and Annie Grant. The Countryside of Medieval England.
Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

Biddick, Kathleen. The Other Economy. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1989.

Chibnall, Marjorie. Select Documents of the English Lands of the Abbey of Sec.
Camden Third Series, Vol. LXXIII, 1951.

Clough, Marie, ed. Two Fitzalan Surveys. Sussex Record Society Vol. 67.,
1969.

Denholm-Young, N. Seignorial Administration in England. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1937.

Dyer, Christopher. Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Fowler, James K. A History of Beaulieu Abbey. London: The Car Illustrated,
1911.

Hallam, H. E. Rural England (1066-1348). Sussex: Harvester Press, 1981.

Hallam, H. E. Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. 2. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Harvey, Barbara. Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Harvey, P. D. A. Manorial Records. London: British Record Assoc, 1984.

Hockey, S. F., ed. The Account-Book of Beaulieu Abbey. Camden Fourth
Series, Vol. 16, 1975.

Hoyt, Robert S. The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History: 1066-
1272. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.

Knowles, David. The Religious Orders in England. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1948.

Langdon, John. "The Economics of Horses and Oxen in Medieval England," in
Agricultural History Review, Vol. 30, 1982.

49

50

Langdon, John. Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Latham, R. E. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List. London: British Academy,
1965.

Miller, Edward, and John Hatcher. Medieval England- Rural Society and
Economic Change, 1086-1348. London: Longman Group, 1978.

Morgan, Marjorie. The English Lands of the Abbey of Bec. London: Oxford
University Press, 1946.

Platt, Colin. The Monastic Grange in Medieval England. London: Macmillan,
1969.

Postan, M. M. The Famulus: The Estates Labourer in the Xllth and Xlllth
Centuries. Economic History Review Supplements, Num. 2, 1956.

Postan, M. M. The Medieval Economy and Society London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1972.

Titow, J. 2. English Rural Society. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969.
Titow, J. 2. Winchester Yields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Vaughn, Sally N. The Abbey of Bee and the Anglo-Norman State 1034-1136.
Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1981.

 

HICHIGRN srnTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
1|!ll111"WWI“NI111111IHIWWWIHIIWI
31293014110666