60 acres for teaching embroidery...?

Magmaforge · Post by **Magmaforge** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:44 pm

It is the extraordinary detail in Domesday, bringing 11th century England to life, that makes it so fascinating. Thus we discover that Godric, the sheriff of Oakley, gave Aelfgyth the maid half a hide (60 acres) of land in exchange for teaching his daughter embroidery.

Found this on the Finn's Books site. Okay, now was Godric off his damn rocker or did he have that much land to throw around? What does this say about the relative worth of a trade skill?

Magmaforge · Post by **Magmaforge** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:18 am

come on. What are your thoughts? Someone has to have some commentary. BUMP!

Tom Knighton · Post by **Tom Knighton** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:51 am

Personally, I think it might have been any number of factors. One might have been some type of "money laundering" scheme where he gives the exhorbanant amount of land in return for some trifeling service and some less than legal service from the girls father.

Another could be that there was more to her service than JUST embroidery. Sopme that Godric's wife wouldn't have approved of maybe?

He might HAVE just had enough land to throw around. Not knowing how much land he had total, I can't say for certian.

Also, he might have been trying to just be generous. Granted, he might have over compensated. However, not knowing what the going rate was for something of this nature, I can't possibly make much more than guesses as to his reasons.

Bran

Brodir · Post by **Brodir** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:56 am

Godric and Aelfgyth are both English names. If she was a widow or unmarried, he may have been trying to keep the land in English hands; laws at the time were very specific that 1) widows could hold their own lands and not be stripped of them, and 2) women who married and had lands in their dowries held the rights to those lands if the husband died or cheated on her.

Either that, or the ol' embroidery needle wasn't the only thing going in & out

~Wil

------------------
NorÃ°here- 11th century living history & reenactment in Western Canada

[This message has been edited by Brodir (edited 10-21-2003).]

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:05 pm

Evil minded lot that you are - Embroidery was a very high status skill among Saxon nobility. The early work that remains is exquisite, and the 12th centure "Opus Anglicanum" style defies belief.
"Early in the 7th century Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne wrote a poem mentioning tapestry weaving and embroidery, worked by the women of England. From Early on until the height of the medieval period, when highly organized workshops consisted of male needleworkers, embroidery was chiefly the cherished prowess of Anglo Saxon women. It was done especially by those of noble and privledged position. St. Etheldreda, abbess and patron saint of Ely (d.679) offered St. Cuthbert a stole and maniple finely embroidered by herself, worked with gold and precious stones. ....
Remarkable and beautiful survivals of about 915 are a stole and maniple discovered in 1827 in the tomb of St. Cuthbert at Durham Cathedral. Borh have inscriptions indicating that they were made by Queen AEfflaed, wife of Edward the Elder....
King Edward the Confessors wife Editha embroidered the mantle for his coronation.
Antique Needlework by Lanto Synge
Blandford Press

[This message has been edited by mordreth (edited 10-21-2003).]

ULTRAGOTHA · Post by **ULTRAGOTHA** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:31 am

All the posts, except Mordreth's, seem to be assuming that 60 acres for teaching embroidery is an outrageous price.

The original question asked if it was an outrageous or reasonable price. What documentation is there to show that this is an unusual price?

English embroiderers were in hot demand for a time. *Is* it unusual in the 11th century to pay 60 acres of land to teach someone to be a very good embroiderer?

I've no idea, as I don't study much after 1066. But I'm uncomfortable with an assumption that Godric had an ulterior motive. I'd rather see such statements backed by some kind of documentation.

ULTRAGOTHA

[This message has been edited by ULTRAGOTHA (edited 10-22-2003).]

Glen K · Post by **Glen K** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:09 am

60 acres seems like a lot to us, obviously. However, I think the key phrase in that passage is not "60 acres" but "half a hide".
Remember, a hide (we think) is the unit of land that is required to sustain a single family. As such, the exact unit is not fixed but depends on arable conditions, environment, climate, etc. in the area that is being talked about. So, he gave away half a hide to a well-liked household servant? He was a great lord, and essentially gave her half a household. How many parents do that for their children today? (Granted, not mine, but it does happen).

Another consideration, more practical: That half a hide, being in Godric's care, was probably just sitting there. By giving it to someone, not only did it become a worked, useful piece of land (we don't know if this was given to Aelfgyth's family in perpetuity or just her lifetime) which in the end would provide more wealth to Godric through land value and taxes.

I don't think such a thing was overkill, or even unusual, at all.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:51 pm

Perhaps it wasn't bvery good land.

Brodir · Post by **Brodir** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:01 pm

OK, Anarra brings up a good point. I'm taking a medieval England class, and our text of primary readings has the Gloucestershire excerpt from the Domesday book. Here is an edited summary;

The king owned a manor of nine hides in King's Barton. Two freemen each owned two hides of this land, but could not sell it or move.

Humphrey owns one hide, occupied by four men.

There are twenty hides in Dymock, held by eleven freemen (again, around 2 hides per man). The church owns 12 acres.

In Longtree Hundred Leofwin holds one hide.

Earl Hugh holds two manors of four hides, and two of his men hold them from him (four hides each).

In Chelthorn Hundred William owns six hides at Pebworth and another ive in Ullington. 'A Frenchman' in Ullington holds 1.5 hides, along with two villeins.

Geoffrey holds three hides in Holmford Hundred.

THere's a bit more info in the chapter, but I am not thorough on bordars and villeins and who owns the land, opposed to who is just working it. THe Domesday book only lists names, not always titles, so it's hard to tell whether someone just owns land to farm, or if they are leasing out to multiple people (IE. a nobleman).

So, if I am interpreting the material correctly, it seems as though the average Anglo-Norman freeman could expect to own 1-3 hides epending on how well fortune favoured him. In this case then, I don't suppose a half-hide is an enormous payment. I guess in this day and age where we are all living on a single acre, 60 just sounds huge.

Really, if a well-off freeman (3 hides) wanted to make sure his daughter was set for life, he could even be willing to pay 1/6 his fortune to ensure she would never go hungry. If a well-off freeman could afford it, I'm sure a sheriff could.

Sorry if my comment seemed sexist, I was just trolling for laughs

~Wil

[This message has been edited by Brodir (edited 10-22-2003).]

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:59 pm

The whole thing makes sense if you consider the skill to be execptionally valued in a culture.
As a side point there would have been a push to teach a girl as early as was possible since dexterity, and vision could be expected to deteriorate.

Magmaforge · Post by **Magmaforge** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:02 pm

Brodir et all, thanks for the contribution. I do have doubts though that the Domesday book included things that may not have been worth knowing to the lord, like how many people serve each noble, or how many people work each hide. Taxes aren't per head as far as he's concerned, they are by land and crop production from the land.

Perhaps half a hide isn't that much in that day and age to a sheriff. Perhaps the maid Alefgyth is not all alone by herself, or by some means able to work 60 acres of land by herself to reasonable profit. Wish we knew.

Brodir · Post by **Brodir** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Magmaforge:
Perhaps half a hide isn't that much in that day and age to a sheriff. Perhaps the maid Alefgyth is not all alone by herself, or by some means able to work 60 acres of land by herself to reasonable profit. Wish we knew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seriously edited the above Gloucestershire excerpt. Whenever land values are listed, the number of bondars, villeins, slaves, plows etc. are listed as well. It is likely the tenants, slaves and tools were included in te value of the land, and would have been part of land deals as a matter of course.

My point is that Alefgyth would not have had to worry about the land being worked, the tenants would have taken care of it. Her responsibilities would have likely only extended to caring for the tenants and paying her taxes.

~Wil

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:27 pm

There is demonstrably less available textual history on English embroidery as a money-making, organized trade than there is for French embroidery trade during the Middle Ages/late Medieval era (if we're to believe Kay Staniland, who wrote _Embroiders_ in the "Medieval Craftsmen" series). But, given the fact that figural embroidery done in polychrome silks with precious metal couching (i.e. opus anglicanum, or "English work") originated in England, we can make the educated guess that the seriously-organized and money-making tradition of embroidery as a full-time trade was as alive in England as it was in France, and possibly at an even earlier point in time than in France (but that last bit is mostly speculation on my part).

Anyway, if a woman taught someone's daughter to embroider in late Saxon times, she was, in effect, giving highly guarded and valuable trade training to her. It would be the equivalent of a modern-day woman being gifted with a full scholarship to a decent university to get a professional degree, say, in teaching, or in nursing, or some other skill that is immediately marketable.

Taking an apprentice for the purpose of passing on a highly marketable skill like embroidery was a big deal. A woman with good embroidery skills and proper training in that field could support herself if need be and add money to the household if she were married. Women (and some men too) spent whole working lifetimes producing high-end embellishments on textiles for the church and for nobility and wealthier commoners. The demand was steady and decent-paying.

The original sampling from the Domesday sounds like a completely logical quid pro quo business arrangement to me.

-Tasha

Tom Knighton · Post by **Tom Knighton** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:07 pm

Stop me if I'm wrong here, but I wouldn't think teaching a noble's daughter to do embroidery would be necessarily marketable. Sure she COULD do it for a living I'm sure, but would she NEED a trade skill?

I would have thought that the cost might not be that high, considering what the going rate for instruction might be high. However, it sounds like people are talking about the Sheriff's daughter going out and working for a living. Somehow, I doubt embroidery would have ever been anything but a past time for her.

If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. It just seems like it doesn't jive.

Bran

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:32 pm

Bran, I don't have much more to give you off the top of my head right now, but I can do more reading and get back to you.

My hunch is that lesser nobility still had to worry about the self-sufficiency of daughters should they not be well-married or married at all. The convent was always an option, and having solid embroidery skills would bring you an immediate value and respect there, as nuns often passed time and "earned their keep" with embroidery of church vestments and other textiles.

I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that noblewomen made a habit of embroidering things not only for the improvement of their own household's textiles but for donation to the church in return for places of honor as a member of the church, special blessings/absolutions, and for things like "best plot in the monastic cemetary".

My knowledge in this area is mostly centered in the 14th century, though, so things could have been much different in 11th century England (like maybe embroidery hadn't become such a wide-spread and valuable trade yet?).

But, given the choice between "something more is going on here than just an exchange of land for embroidery skills" and "this is a fair and equitable trade based on the value of embroidery skill known at that time", I'd choose to pursue the second hypothesis.

Anyone have a copy of _The Pictorial History of Embroidery_ handy? The intro sections have some background on English embroidery and might very well answer this question. The Kay Staniland book might say something too. There's also _English Embroidery_ by Patricia Wardle to take a look at, and possibly the V&A's book on embroidery, though that seems to only cover 1250-onward. I have these at home, but not at hand right now.

-Tasha

Tom Knighton · Post by **Tom Knighton** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:42 pm

Please don't think that I still think there was something more going on there. I don't know what the going rate was for embroidery teachers, and I have no reason to doubt that it's not a fair rate. *I* think it seems high, but I also am still having trouble with looking at this without modern eyes. That's alot of acreage to me, but it might not have been so big of a deal then.

My question centers on the necessity for instruction to a noble's daughter in something like embroidery. I understand that it would be a benefit, sure. However, several people have indicated that this was the same as sending a daughter off to college to study. That the daughter would need this skill to make her way. The difference is that, to my admittedly meager understanding, that women typically didn't pay thier own way like many do in our modern world. I may be wrong on this, and if so I'd like to know the correct information.

I do understand that the convent was a possibility, and accept that as a possible explaination. I just can't accept comarisons between this and an apprenticships. If the evidence is to the contrary, please share it with me to fill this void in my knowledge.

Bran

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:51 pm

Bran, I totally understand your questioning of the "women supporting themselves" and "apprenticeship" thing. I too have to do more reading before confirming anything like that for Saxon England.

There is solid evidence (in the way of extant regulations of Parisian trades) that in 13th and 14th century France at least (again, way off for the Saxon England question) women were regularly supporting themselves on embroidery and were organized in guilds that had strict apprenticeship rules. Women apprenticed to women and men, and vice versa, usually for a term of 7 or 8 years. Their names appeared by the tens or hundreds in the various trade listings that were female-centric, for instance -- embroiderers, purse-makers, lace-makers (silk-workers). Often, husband-wife embroidery teams were named too. We can safely assume that some women never did marry for a variety of reasons. Someone had to support them, right? Whether included in a household or on her own, a woman would be valued more highly for pulling her own weight than for sitting there and twiddling her thumbs.

I can give the full citation when I'm home if you want to pursue 13th/14thc French data. I paraphrased that guild stuff above from a 19th century publication of the original French trade regulations of late 13th century Paris. I'll also look up what sources I have for any further English history on this.

Sixty acres does come across as a lot of land to our way of thinking, doesn't it? It's certainly a fascinating mystery to try solving.

Personally, having invested about 300 hours and a lot of money into making my own alms purse to imitate those made in 14th century Paris, I am completely biased about how valuable those embroideries must have been. I *might* be persuaded to part with my purse for 60 acres of _good_ land, for instance.

-Tasha

Stewart Stone · Post by **Stewart Stone** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:13 pm

Which Oakley is being referred to? My UK Ordnance Survay road map lists 5 Oakleys (including Oakley Green) in England. We can omit the Oakley in Fife.
All 5 Oakley place-names are in south-central England. Looks like flat to gently rolling farmland. (If I am wrong on this, will sombody from the UK please correct me?). If so, her half-hide was probably close to the 60 acre figure.
The mid-11th c population for England is something like 2 million people. However, crop yields were much lower than today. Walter of Henley writing in the late 1200's reports yields of 8 bushel of grain per acre. In the upper midwest, we get 40-60 bushels of grain per acre, sometimes more.
Seems that the income from the land, not the land itself,is the issue here. So, she got enough income to support half a household . In modern terms her wages would be about $15,000 or more. Not an outragous wage to teach a valued skill.
What seems sort of funny is that back in the late 50's my parents, 1 set of grandparents, 4 siblings and myself lived off a 120 acre farm. We had a small dairy herd, and raised hogs and chickens on the side. A lot of our neighbors had farms that ranged from 80 up to 160 acres. Guess we were just a bunch of first-world peasants.

Regards,
Stewart

mordreth · Post by **mordreth** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:18 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bran Mac Scandlan:
[B]..... also am still having trouble with looking at this without modern eyes. .....My question centers on the necessity for instruction to a noble's daughter in something like embroidery. I understand that it would be a benefit, sure. However, several people have indicated that this was the same as sending a daughter off to college to study.

Instead of thinking of it as "making her way" think of it as "getting her props" if the girl had a serious reputation as an embroidress her family could parlay it into a better marrage, or a higher status convent for her.
The Saxons in this era were still into the Germanic idea of glory, and reputation, so a skill that would enhance the womans name, and the families reputation would add to their renoun

Tom Knighton · Post by **Tom Knighton** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:27 am

Ok. That makes some sense to me. It was the comparisons to apprenticeships that was really making it difficult to understand. Apprenticeship indicates the need for someone to earn a living. However, making her more marketable for marriage DOES work for me.

Bran

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bran Mac Scandlan:
Ok. That makes some sense to me. It was the comparisons to apprenticeships that was really making it difficult to understand. Apprenticeship indicates the need for someone to earn a living. However, making her more marketable for marriage DOES work for me. Bran<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to back up a bit, I did say, "Whether included in a household or on her own, a woman would be valued more highly for pulling her own weight than for sitting there and twiddling her thumbs."

The point I've been making all along is that a) embroidery was valuable in those times and b) an embroideress was inherently valuable as the producer of embroidery. If we proceed from those demonstrable facts, of course a woman's marriageability factor goes up. I took that for granted and went the next step -- that a properly-taught embroideress receives her knowledge like an insurance policy regardless of where she ends up -- married, living with family, or in a convent. The bigger picture is that not every woman married. Her skills would help her in all situations, not just marriage.

I did follow up on my promise to look up more info, and here are some select quotes that lend a little light to the inherent value of embroidery and a woman's place in making it in Saxon England in this time.

"Literary records mention a whole series of aristocratic Anglo-Saxon ladies who distinguished themselves as embroideresses, and also som men, such as St. Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury. The stole and maniple of St. Cuthbert... provide eloquent testimony to the supurb quality of Anglo-Saxon embroidery prior to the Normal conquest. They were commissioned by Aelfflaed, wife of Edward the Elder, for Frithestan, Bishop of Winchester, between 909 and 916. After the conquest, according to the reports of the chroniclers, Anglo-Saxon women continued to practise their embroidery, which was to attain the summit of its fame as opus anglicanum, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. At the Council of Bari in 1098 a splendid cope excited universal admiration as the most beautiful which had ever been seen in Italy."
p. XV, _The Pictorial History of Embroidery_. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1963. (Marie Schuette and Sigrid Muller-Christensen)

Further discussion of the surviving stole and maniple from Donald King:

"The designer of these pieces was clearly an artist of great accomplishment, probably a manuscript painter, while the embroidery, in silk on a background of gold thread, is of superb quality, unparalleled in Europe at this time. It is likely that both the designer and the embroiderers worked at Winchester, the principle seat of the anglo-Saxon court." p. 11, _The Victoria and Albert Museum's Textile Collection: Embroidery in Britain from 1200 to 1750_. London: V&A Publications, 1993.

In reference to the Bayeux tapestry, King says, "This great pictorial representation of the Normal invasion of England in 1066 was worked only a few years after the event and was probably designed and executed in Kent, quite possibly at Canterbury." (p.11-12)

There is an excellent discussion in Kay Staniland's _Embroiderers_ about the tradition of English women passing time with embroidery, for entertainment, for practical domestic decoration, and for credit/status. She cites two kings, one, Canute (1016-35) who proudly presented his wife's handiwork to two abbeys, and another, Edward the Confessor (1042-66), who routinely wore fancy clothing embroidered by his wife at festivals. (p. 7).

She goes on to talk about what a problem embroidery became in convents and how "in the 11th century the lady Aelthelswitha, daughter of King Canute's second wife Queen Aelgiva (Emma) 'rejected marriage and was assigned Coveney, a place near the monastery [of Ely] where', so Thomas of Ely recorded, 'in retirement she devoted herself, with her maids, to gold embroidery. At her own cost and with her own hands, being extremely skilled in the craft, she made a white chasuble.' Church vestments seem to have been the main product of this little workshop, some of which were presented to Ely Cathedral." (p.

Also on p. 8, Staniland discusses the very quote from the Domesday that started this whole thread:

"Fine embroidery was not solely confined to convents, however, and professionals -- those paid to carry out their skills -- already existed in the secular working community. It was probably still a somewhat rare and specialized skill, the ability to work with gold thread being especially prized, and the embroideresses were well rewarded. The Domesday Survey contains at least two references to such skilled embroideresses. Aelfgyd held land at Oakley in Buckinghamshire 'which Godric the sheriff granted her [to hold] as long as he was sheriff, on condition of her teaching his daughter embroidery work' whilst Leofgyd held a good estate of moderate size at Knook in Wiltshire because 'she used to make, and still makes, the embroidery of the King and Queen'."

Patricia Wardle, in _Guide to English Embroidery_, speculates that, "The Normans seem to have appreciated and encouraged the work of the embroiderers among their new subjects. During the century and a half following the conquest it is possible to trace a steady development that was to culminate in the flowering of opus anglicanum." (p. 6)

She also confirms that rigid apprenticeship systems were in place in England, like in France, by the late 13th century. (When contractual apprenticeship in guilds began, though, is still unknown, as none of these books acknowledge any recorded proof, so this question is, for now, lost in the mists of time.)

Take care,
Tasha

jester · Post by **jester** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:39 pm

Unsupported thoughts from my bus ride this morning (a particularly productive ride):

Why is embroidery so valued? It's a sign of wealth/power (conspicuous consumption).

A daughter that has this skill will be able to enhance the appearance and reputation of her husband. This allows for her family to arrange a better marriage which will then benefit the family as a whole as well as the daughter in particular. Viewed in this light half a hide seems like a reasonable investment, particularly if the Sheriff didn't have many other children. There is also the consideration of dowry negotiations. A highly marketable skill will likely be a big bargaining chip.