Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:25:56.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Preplague Population of England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Josiah C. Russell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sometime in the period 1300-48, English population reached its high point in the Middle Ages. All agree that it rose rapidly in the thirteenth century and dropped catastrophically in 1348-77. Its course in the first half of the century, however, is the subject of two sharply divergent opinions. One is that population increased gradually to about 3,700,000 at the outbreak of the plague, a point at which “the agricultural people were being crowded.” The other opinion is less exact: population reached its height about 1315, when the great famine and pestilence of 1315-17 reduced the population markedly and started a decline, restrained perhaps by a mild recovery in the two decades before 1348. According to this second theory population was much denser than the 3,700,000: even in the late thirteenth century, England had a “starving and over-populated countryside,” with “the poor sokemen of Lincolnshire — [struggling] to support five people on five acres of land,” and “a society in which every appreciable failure of harvests could result in large increases in deaths in a society balanced on the margin of subsistence.”

This study will discuss first the pattern of English society as it appears in Domesday Book and the descriptions of manors called extents, which must be understood in order to estimate population properly. Next, it will consider some interesting evidence concerning social class differential mortality. Third, it will try to estimate the mortality of the 1315-17 famine and pestilence. Fourth, it will take up the trend of population change from 1300 to 1348. Fifth, it will consider the reliability of the poll tax data. Lastly, it will discuss the problem of household size and its relationship to the total population of England in the period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1966 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Russell, J. C., British Medieval Population (Albuquerque, 1948), pp. 280, 314Google Scholar.

2. Postan, M. M., The Famulus. The Estate Labourer in the Twelfth and the Thirteenth Centuries, Econ. Hist. Rev., Supplement, No. 2 (1954), p. 20Google Scholar; H. E. Hallam, “Further Observations on the Spalding Serf Lists,” ibid., second series, XVI (1963), 350; M. Postan and J. Titow, “Heriots and Prices on the Winchester Manors,” ibid., second series, XI (1959), 409.

3. Inman, A. H., Domesday and Feudal Statistics (London, 1900), p. 2Google Scholar; other estimates run about the same. For literature on Domesday Book and its composition, see Galbraith, V. H., The Making of Domesday Book (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar.

4. Russell, J. C., “The Short, Dark Folk of England,” Social Forces, XXIV (1946), 340–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Postan, , The Famulus, pp. 6–8Google Scholar.

5. Oschinsky, Dorothea, “Medieval Treatises on Estate Management,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, VIII (1956), 296–309, esp. 302–03CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 62–63Google Scholar.

7. Russell, J. C., Late Ancient and Medieval Population, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., new series, XLVIII (1958), Pt. 3, 13–19Google Scholar. A survey of the very extensive skeletal evidence shows a high sex ratio. This has been done recently by Russell.

8. Hallam, , “Further Observations,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XVI, 339Google Scholar.

9. E. A. Kosminsky, “Russian Work on English Economic History,” ibid., I (1927), 208–33, esp. 222, mentioning the work of Granat.

10. E. A. Kosminsky, “The Hundred Rolls of 1279–80 as a Source for English Agrarian History,” ibid., III (1931), 16–44, esp. 42.

11. Kosminsky, E. A., Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century [Studies in Medieval History] (Oxford, 1956)Google Scholar.

12. Krause, J., “The Medieval Household: Large or Small?” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, IX (1957), 421Google Scholar.

13. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 180–82Google Scholar.

14. Hallam, H. E., “Some Thirteenth-Century Censuses,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, X (1958), 349Google Scholar. The difference in survival among the classes suggests much migration.

15. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 180–81Google Scholar. Using figures in Table 8.3, the result (of dividing 4,228 by 18,552) is actually 22.8.

16. Postan, and Titow, , “Heriots and Prices,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XI, 398–99Google Scholar; J. Longden, “Statistical Notes on Winchester Heriots,” ibid., second series, XI (1959), 412–17.

17. The calculations for fiefholders come from information on Russell's cards, collected for his British Medieval Population: the method of collection is given on pp. 94–114 of that volume.

18. These are explained at the foot of Table 1.

19. Notice the menu in Russell, J. C. and Heironimus, J. P., The Shorter Latin Poems of Master Henry of Avranches relating to England [Mediaeval Academy of America] (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), p. 69Google Scholar.

20. For the crowded living conditions of the wealthy, see Smyser, H. M., “The Domestic Background of Troilus and Criseyde,” Speculum, XXXI (1956), 297–315, esp. 311–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 178–80Google Scholar.

22. Lucas, H. S., “The Great European Famine of 1315, 1316 and 1317,” Speculum, V (1930), 343–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The figure for Ypres comes from pp. 367–68. For Bruges, H, van Werveke, “La famine de l'an 1316 en Flandre et dans les regions voisines,” Revue du Nord, XLI (1959), 5–14Google Scholar.

23. Stubbs, W. (ed.), Annales Londinenses, The Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II [Rolls Series] (London, 1882), I, 236Google Scholar, under 1315; de Trokelowe, John, Chronica Monasterii S. Albani [Rolls Series] (London, 1866), III, 94Google Scholar; Luard, Henry Richards (ed.), Annales Monastici [Rolls Series], III, Annals of Bermondsey (London, 1866), 470Google Scholar.

24. The incidence of death by month of 1316 from the inquisitions post mortem is: January—3, February—4, March—6, April—15, May—4, June—11. April and June were normally months of low mortality. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 197–98Google Scholar.

25. Trokelowe, , Chronica, III, 94.Google Scholar “Morbus enim dysentericus, ex corruptis cibis conceptus, fere omnes maculavit; quem sequebatur acuta febris vel pestis gutturosa.” If “gutturosa” is a mistake for “guttosa,” the pestilence was probably dysentery, which thrives in just such conditions as 1316 offered.

26. For death rate see Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 216–17Google Scholar. For net loss subtract about 3 per cent a year for birth rate.

27. Postan, and Titow, , “Heriots and Prices,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XI, 408Google Scholar.

28. Estimated by dividing expectation of life in years into one hundred. For the generation born before 1276 it was 2.83 per cent and for those born 1276–1300 about 3.13 per cent. Russell, , British Medieval Population1, pp. 180–81Google Scholar.

29. See section IV below for evidence of 3 per cent decade increase.

30. Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, pp. 108–09Google Scholar; Baratier, E., La démographie provençale du XIIIe an XIVe siècle (avec chiffres de comparaison pour le XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 1961), pp. 75–81Google Scholar.

31. Russell, , British Medieval Population, p. 245Google Scholar. The number of those aged 30–59 in Life Table (8.5), ibid., p. 182, compared to those aged 0–29 is one to 2.40 (column Tx), which assumes a stationary population. The actual succession is 2.61, which provides about an 8 per cent increase 1310–40.

32. ibid., pp. 258 and 250. The median is the midpoint in the series arranged by order of size.

33. Helston in Trigg: 134 in 1300: Maclean, John, The Parochial and Family History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor (London, 1866), II, 289Google Scholar; 136 in 1337: ibid., II, 290. Westaford: 12 in 1303 and 14 in 1317: Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset, X (1907), 185, 186Google Scholar. Curry Mallet: 56 in 1307 and 1312, 59 in 1346: Maclean, John, Historical and Genealogical Memoir of the Family of Poyntz (Exeter, 1886), p. 25Google Scholar; PRO, Chancery, Inquisitions post Mortem, C 134, 2 (19), and 26 (11).

34. Fairford: from 1314 to 1349 cottars increased, others remained the same: Fry, E. A., Abstracts of Inquisitions post Mortem for Gloucestershire [British Record Society] (London, 1910), pp. 143–45, 336–40Google Scholar. Brimmesfield: 58 in 1299 and 83 in 1327: Madge, S. J., Abstracts of Inquisitions post Mortem for Gloucestershire [British Record Society] (London, 1903), pp. 201–05Google Scholar; Fry, , Abstracts … Gloucestershire, pp. 208–09Google Scholar. Tewkesbury: about 180 in 1307 and 1349: ibid.,pp. 148–50, 332–34; but see also pp. 89–95. Alweston: 32 in 1311 and perhaps 25 (17 for two parts) in 1323: ibid., pp. 126–28, 180–81. Kingsham: 32 in 1304 and 19 in 1345: ibid., pp. 19–23, 306. Southorp: 19 in 1315 and 18 in 1333: ibid.,pp. 139–40, 248. Bagworth: 83 in 1299 and 46 in 1327: Madge, , Abstracts … Gloucestershire, pp. 205–09Google Scholar; Fry, , Abstracts … Gloucestershire, p. 210Google Scholar; the 1327 number may be that of a moiety (half), in which case there is a slight increase. Lechlade: villani increased from 25 to 33, cottars from 18 to 21, but freemen declined from 75 to 33 from 1301 to 1333. The lords are the Abbot of Hayles and Earl of Kent, so these may be two different fiefs. Madge, , Abstracts … Gloucestershire, pp. 238–40Google Scholar; Fry Abstracts … Gloucestershire, p. 231Google Scholar. Paynswick: 54 in 1314 and 124 in 1324, probably two different holdings, by Denise de Montchenesy and Aymer de Valence: ibid., pp. 137–38, 186.

35. Itchel: 28 in 1301 and 33 in 1324: Baigent, F. J., Collection of Records: Documents relating to the Hundred and Manor of Crondal [Hampshire Record Society] (London, 1891), pp. 416–17, 425Google Scholar. Aystone (Ashton Gifford): 15 in 1299 and 14 in 1327: Fry, E. A., Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions post Mortem [British Record Society] (London, 1908), p. 325Google Scholar; Stokes, E., Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquisitions post Mortem [British Record Society] (London, 1914), p. 11Google Scholar. Cyriel: 37 in 1301 and 1315 and 35 in 1324–25: Fry, , Abstracts … Wiltshire, pp. 408–09, 445Google Scholar.

36. Hallam, H. E., “Population Density in Medieval Fenland,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XIV (1961), 79Google Scholar.

37. J. Z. Titow, “Some Evidence of the Thirteenth Century Population Increase,” ibid., second series, XIV (1961), 218–24, esp. 224.

38. M. Postan, “Some Economic Evidence of Declining Population in the Later Middle Ages,” ibid., second series, II (1950), 221–46, esp. 225.

39. ibid., II, 245.

40. ibid., II, 237.

41. ibid., II, 225.

42. Revised from Russell, , British Medieval Population, p. 146Google Scholar. J. R. Strayer suggested that the addition of 50 per cent for children be confined to the poll tax laity alone.

43. Abbott, Isabel R., “Taxation of Personal Property and of Clerical Incomes, 1399 to 1402,” Speculum, XVII (1942), 471–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Only 1 or 2 per cent were allowed for expenses of collection. ibid., XVII, 478, 488, 497.

44. Russell, , British Medieval Population, ch. viGoogle Scholar.

45. Krause, , “The Medieval Household,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, IX, 425Google Scholar.

46. Oman, C., The Great Revolt of 1381 (London, 1906), pp. 183–85Google Scholar. An explanation of the form of collection is on pp. 28 ff.

47. For one comparative list see Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, p. 51Google Scholar.

48. This falls within medieval possibilities; see ibid., pp. 17–19.

49. Age specific mortality rates appear in Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 216–20Google Scholar.

50. On the failure of births during plague years and the years following, see data from Augsburg, , Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, pp. 41–42Google Scholar.The failure of parents to have enough children to succeed them appears in Russell, , British Medieval Population, p. 245Google Scholar, where the number of children to parents appears about 1.50 and 1.37 to one. It required at least 2.5 to one to maintain population on the same level.

51. Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, p. 45Google Scholar.

52. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 27–29Google Scholar.

53. ibid., pp. 28–29.

54. Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, p. 15Google Scholar.

55. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

56. Russell, J. C., “Recent Advances in Mediaeval Demography,” Speculum, XL (1965), 88–90Google Scholar.

57. Russell, J. C., “The Metropolitan City Region of the Middle Ages,” Journal of Regional Science, II (1960), 55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with bibliography at end; Russell, , Late Ancient and Medieval Population, pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

58. Hallam, , “Further Observations,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XVI, 339–44Google Scholar, an answer to J. C. Russell, “Demographic Limitations of the Spalding Serf Lists,” ibid., second series, XV (1962), 138–44, which criticized Hallam, “Some Thirteenth-Century Censuses,” ibid., second series, X.

59. It is difficult to believe that “De filiis et filiabus inquisitio facta nativorum domini prioris in Milton” refers to all children, whereas “Nomina puerorum de rusticis J. Prioris in villa Spalding” refers to only the children still with their parents. Both statements were written by the same prior, at about the same time, apparently for the same purpose.

60. Russell, retreats from his original interpretation in “Demographic Limitations,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XV, 139Google Scholar, but believes, as stated earlier, that “with mother” means with a widowed mother in a separate household.

61. Titow, “Some Evidence,” ibid., second series, XIV, esp. 222.

62. Russell, , British Medieval Population, p. 67Google Scholar.

63. Krause, , “The Medieval Household,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, IX, 420–32Google Scholar.

64. J. Titow, “Evidence of Weather in the Account Rolls of the Bishopric of Winchester,” ibid., second series, XII (1960), 360–407, esp. 363–65; Postan and Titow, “Heriots and Prices,” ibid., second series, XI, 404–09; Longden, “Statistical Notes,” ibid., second series, XI, 417.

65. Russell, , British Medieval Population, pp. 196–98Google Scholar.

66. Kosminsky, , Studies in the Agrarian History, p. 294Google Scholar.

67. Postan, and Titow, , “Heriots and Prices,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XI, 397Google Scholar.

68. Kosminsky, , Studies in the Agrarian History, p. 240Google Scholar.

69. ibid., p. 228. On the topic of subsistence see also Postan, M. M., “Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XV (1962), 219–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Bath, B. H. Slicher, “Yield Returns, 810–1820,” [Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis Landbouwhogeschool] A. A. G. Bijdragen II (Wageningen, 1964)Google Scholar.

70. The author is writing of the year 1316, in the depth of the famine. Denholm-Young, N. (ed. and tr.), The Life of Edward the Second (London, 1957), p. 70Google Scholar.

71. Gras, N. S. B., The Evolution of the English Corn Market from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1926), pp. 100–01 for imports and pp. 110–11 for exportsGoogle Scholar.