O NE of the most original and interesting chapters in Mr.
Kemble's Saxons in England is that upon the Mark ; and as Sussex is a county which furnishes a very considerable share of the examples which he has adduced of the existence in Anglo-Saxon times of this territorial division, it may be well to remind our readers of the general purport of Mr. Kemble's views on this point. Prefacing that land may be held by many men in common or by several households, under settled conditions, he observes that
'the smallest and simplest of these common divisions is that which we technically call a Mark, or March (Mearc),—a word less fre- quent in the Anglo-Saxon than in the German muniments, only because the system founded upon What it represents yielded in England earlier than in Germany to extraneous influences. This is the first general division, the next in order to the private estates or alods of the Markmen. As the name denotes, it is something marked out or defined, having settled boundaries ; something serv- ing as a sign to others, and distinguished by signs. It is the plot of land on which a greater or lesser number of free men have settled for purposes of cultivation, and for the sake of mutual profit or protection, and it comprises a portion both of arable land and pasture, in proportion to the numbers that enjoy its produce." The term also denotes "those forests and wastes by which the arable is enclosed, and which separate the possessions of one tribe from those of another. In a second and more important sense of the word, the Mark is "a com- munity of families or households, seated on such plots of land and forest." "This is the original basis upon which all Teutonic society rests, and must be assumed to have been at first amply competent to all the demands of society in a simple and early stage of development." Each Mark had an organization and jurisdiction of its own, and we find in Anglo-Saxon charters the words " Mearcmot," the place where the Court, of the Mark was held, and Mearcbeorh, the hill or mound which was the site of the Court. "Although the Mark seems originally to have been de- fined by the nature of the district, the hills, streams, and forests, still its individual, peculiar, and as it were private character de- pended in some degree also upon long subsisting relations of the Maikmen, both among themselves, and with regard to others." Mr. Kemble adds that he represents them to himself "as great family unions, comprising households of various degrees of wealth, rank, and authority ; some in direct descent from the common ancestors, or from the hero of the particular tribe ; others more distantly connected, through the natural result of increasing population, which multiplies indeed the members of the family, but removes them at every step further from the original stock ; some admitted into communion by marriage, others by adoption, others even by emancipation, but all recognizing a brotherhood, a kinsmanship, on sibsceaft ; all standing together as one unit in respect of other similar communities ; all governed by the same judges and led by the same captains ; all sharing in the same religious rites, and all known to themselves and to their neigh- bours by one general name." The process by which the Mark became merged in larger organizations is easily imagined. Two villages placed on separate clearings in the bosom of a forest, each with "an ill defined boundary in the wood that separates them, each extending its circuit woodward as popu- lation increases and presses on the land, and each attempting to drive its Mark further into the waste, as the arable gradually encroaches upon this," would at last meet, and then merge in one community, either voluntarily or as a consequence of conflict. When this agglomeration has taken place, there would be a ten- dency to drop the distinctive names of the Marks, and so we can account for their disappearance in so many cases. Those names would linger longest and be more likely to be transmitted to pos- terity in the districts in which the intervening forests were densest And widest, or the marshes deeper and more impassable, and it is not surprising, then, that we find them lingering most in the marsh counties of the East of England, and in the forest which spread over Sussex and a considerable part of Kent and Surrey. "The original significance of these names is now perhaps matter of curious rather than of useful inquiry. Could we securely deter- mine it, we should, beyond doubt, obtain an insight into the antiquities of the Germanic races far transcending the actual extent of our historical knowledge." Mr. Kemble favours the hypothesis that "a single family, itself claiming descent, through some hero, from the gods, and gathering other scattered families around itself, retained the administration of the family rites of religion, and gave its own name to all the rest of the community. Once established, such distinctive appellations must wander with the migrations of the communities themselves. In the midst of restless movements so general and extensive as those of our progeni- tors, it cannot surprise us when we find the Gentile names of Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark reproduced upon our own shores. Even where a few adventurers, one only bearing a celebrated name, took possession of a new home, comrades would readily be found, glad to establish themselves around him under an appellation long recognized as heroic ; or a leader dis- tinguished for his skill, his valour, and success, his power or supe- rior wealth, may have found little difficulty in conferring the name of his own race upon those who shared in his adventures. Thus Harlings and Waelsings, names most intimately connected with the great epos of the Germanic and Scandinavian races, are repro- duced in several localities in England ; Billing, the noble pro- genitor of the royal race of Saxony has more than one enduring record, and similarly, all the local denominations of the early settlements may, Mr. Kemble believes, "have arisen and been perpetuated." He gives lists of these names in English topo- graphy. They are "for the most part irregular compositions, of which the former portion is a patronymic in -ing or -ling, declined in the genitive plural. The second portion is a mere definition of the locality, as -geat, -hyrst, -hdm, -wk, -stede, and the like. In a few cases the patronymic stands alone in the nominative plural, as Totingas (Tooting), Surrey ; Wocingas (Woking), Surrey ; Meallingaa (Mailing), Kent ; Wetheringas (Watering), Sussex. In a still smaller number, the name of the eponymus replaces that of his descendants, as Finnesburh (Finsbury), and Waelsesham (Walsham), Norfolk." Mr. Kemble, however, gives a caution as to confusion of the patronymic termination ing with the mere form of the genitive case, and with mere euphonized forms in ing. He appends lists of the names of Marks in England, partly derived from original Saxon documents, and partly inferree from actual local names in England at the present day. Of thos derived from the former source we find the following belonging b Sussex :—Beadlingas, Beorganstedingas, Beorhtingas, Dicelingas Hwaessingas, Paessingas, Palingas, Puningas, Staeningas, Ter ringas, Tudingas, and Witringas. Among inferred names i Sussex we have Aldingas (from Aldingbourn), Aldringas (ft-or Aldrington), /Elmodingas (from Almodington), Angmerings (from Angmering), Ardingas (from Ardingly), Arlingas (fro Arlington), Artingas (from Arlington), 2Escingas (from Astring ton), lEsclingas (from Ashling), /Etheringas (from Athrington Beadingas (from Beddingham), Bedingaa (from Beetling), Billir gas (from Billingshurst), Brihtlingas (from Brightling), Buding (from Buddington), Byttingas (from Butting Hill), Cealfing- (from Chalvington), Cidingas (from Chiddingly), Ciltingas (fro Chiltington), Climpingas (from Climping), Cocingas (fro Cocking), Daellingas (from Dallington), Didlingas (from Didling Dic,elingas (from Ditchling), Doningas (from Donnington), Dyri gas (from Darrington), Ecgingas (from Etchingham), Ferring (from Ferring), Fleccingas (from Fletching), Fokingas (from Fol ington), Funtingas (from Funtington), Gystlingas (from Guet
Heortingas (from Harting), Haestingas (from Misting. Hellingas (from Ilellingly), Holingas (from Hollington), Iping (from Iping), Ifingas (from Jevington), Lytlingas (from Littlin ton), Lullingas (from Lullington), Mallingas (from Mallin: Maecdkinglas (from Maudling), Mecingas (from Matching), Otli gas (from Owing), Paeccingas (from Patching), Paellingas (fit( Pallingham), Pidingas (from Piddinghoe), Puningas (from Po3 ings), Rotingas (from Rottingdean), Rustingrei (from Rustingto Sealfingas (from Salvington), Somtingas (from Somptingl, Sta. ingas (from Steyning), Storringas (from Storrington), Strellintr (from Strellington), Sulingas (from Sullington), Teorringas (fr Tarring), Tilingas (from Tillington), Tortingas (from Tortingtot Wearlingas (from Warlingham), Wearringas (from Warringcam Weartingas (from 1Varthing), Waesingas (from Washiugto Wethering-as (from Wittering), Waetlingas (from Whatlingto Willingas (from Willingdon), Wylmingas (from Wilmington), Weorthingas (from Worthing). In all, the names thus infer' from places in Sussex are 68—more than in any county exct York and Lincoln. Kent comes next, with a total of 60. Of MI 68, 24 still contain the patronymic names simply, without any ad tion of wic, ham, &c., Kent alone having a greater proportion this respect. These patronymics are scarcely to be found no: of the Humber.
Such, then, are our sole memorials of the early Saxon settlers Sussex. There appears to be evidence that after the Norm conquest the county received a new organization, with the vi of retaining more firmly in the hands of the new conquering r; what had proved to be the key to the Kingdom of England. Fr
this time Sussex is divided into six portions, "extending right down from the northern border of the county, and each having a frontage towards the sea. Each of these Rapes (perhaps from the Norse word hrappr ') has within it some one castle or other important station for defence and protection. In Domesday each Rape appears under a military commander. All the original Anglo-Saxon divisions are noticed in the Anglo-Saxon laws, and preserved an Anglo-Saxon tribunal. The Rape is not noticed in any Anglo-Saxon law, and does not possess any Anglo-Saxon tribunal. We therefore have good reason to conjecture that this part of England more peculiarly occupied the attention of William, and that he treated Sussex entirely as a conquered territory." The Rapes are those of Hastings, Lewes, and Pevensey, in the east, and Arundel, Bramber, and Chichester, in the west of the county. "The castles in each of these Rapes were either on or not far from the coast ; and each Rape formed what has been called a high road to Normandy, each having an available harbour at its southern extremity."
In the distribution of lands among the conquerors, the greatest Sussex landowner was Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury, who had 83 manors, comprising (in the time of the Confessor) 818 hides. Next to him in acreage is William de Warren, Earl of Warren, in Normandy, who was made Earl of Surrey by William Rufus. He and his wife Gudreda (a daughter of the Conqueror), founded the Priory of St. Pancras, at Lewes, in 1078. Re held 43 manors, with an area of 620 hides. Then comes Robert, Earl of Moretaine and Cornwall, half-brother of the Conqueror, who married Matilda, youngest daughter of Roger de Montgomery. He had 81 manors, with an area of 520 hides. The next is William de Braiose, the founder of Sele Priory, whose family continued in the male line to the latter part of the reign of Edward III. He had 38 manors in Sussex, with an area of 452 hides. These are the greatest Norman landowners in Sussex. The next layman in extent of possessions was William de Ow or Eu, son of Robert, Earl of Eu, the Conqueror's second cousin. He was executed at Salisbury in 1096, for conspiracy against William Rufus. His father had been the original grantee of this Sussex property, including the castlery of Hastings. There is at least one solitary Saxon tenant-in-chief, Aldred or Eldred, who held one manor, with an area of 4 hides. Possibly Odo of Winchester (who holds 1 manor of 6 hides) is another. King William held in his own hands 2 manors, containing 59 hides. There were nine ecclesiastics who shared in the territorial spoil in Sussex, but their portion was a comparatively small one, and of the manors which they held, several are expressly said to have been held by them, or the sees or monasteries which they represented, in the reign of Edward the Confessor. The Abbot of the new Abbey of Battle, founded after the Battle of Hastings, has a grant of the manors of Alcister and Bocheham, and considerable other pro- perty is mentioned as belonging to this abbey in the Rapes of Hastings and Pevensey. The principal ecclesiastical holders in the country were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Chi- chester, the Bishop of Exeter, and the Abbot of Fescamp, in Normandy. The Eu property lay chiefly in the Rape of Hastings. The Earl of Moretaiue's chief castle was Pevensey, and his posses- sions chiefly in that Rape. De Warren had the borough of Lewes, and his manors lay in that Rape. The Castle of Brambe4and the chief possessions in the Rape of that name were assigned to De Braiose. Earl Roger de Montgomery held the castles of Chichester and Arundel, and predominated in those Rapes. In Surrey the De Warren family, who held the Earldom, predominated for a considerable tone after the Conquest. At a later period the Holland'', Fitzalans, Mowbrays, and llowards became the Earls and leading proprietors. The chief Surrey proprietors in Domesday Survey were the King (who held besides other places in North Surrey Gildeford (Guildford), Wochinges (%Yoking), Cherchefelle (Reigate), Dorchinges (Dorking), Godehninge (God- aiming), &c. ; Eustace, Earl of Boulogne ; Ida, wife of Eustace of Boulogne the younger, his son, whose son, Godfrey of Boulogne, was the Crusader King of Jerusalem ; the Earl of Moretaine, Earl Roger de Montgomery ; Richard de Tonbrige, son of the Earl of Brionne, and half-brother of the Conqueror ; William de Braiose, William Fitz-Ansscalf, whose principal possessions lay in the neighbourhood of the Castle of Dudley, in Staffordshire, which he held ; Walter Fitz-Other; Walter de Douuai ; Gilbert Fitz- Richer de Aquila; Goishid de Mameville or Madeville; Goisfrid prnatelle ; Edward of Sarisberie ; Robert Malet ; Milo Crispin ; Hain°, Vice-Comes; Humphrey the Chamberlain ; Ralph de Felgeres ; Oswald ; Teodric, and other servants of the King.
During the early part of the Norman period the county of Sussex MIA united with that of Surrey, and only one Sheriff was
chosen for both. They were divided in the 9th of Queen Elizabeth (1567), united in 1571, and finally divided in 1636.
Previous page
