Sac and Soke and their derivitives (socage,
sokeman, sake, soc) are found so frequently in so many different
contexts, I finally started to question whether I understood them at
all. It appears that these terms are more complicated than I first
thought.
The basic definition implies a feudal-like tenancy, where the sokeman rendered non-military services to his lord (using soke as related to ploughshare). The sokeman apparently ranked between the free tenant and the bond tenant (or villein). He was a free man within the lord’s soke,
or jurisdiction. But it does not stop there. According to Peter Rex in
his “HAROLD II” book (p.276), “Then there is the Anglo-Scandinavian
institution called a ‘soke‘. This was an estate made up of a
main or central village and dependent pieces of property called
variously berewicks or sokelands. The tenant of a soke, called a sokeman, held his land by attending the court of his lord, the holder of the soke, and by paying him a money rent and rendering various services of a non-military kind. The sokes
were governed by a great body of custom requiring the sokemen to seek
the lord’s court, his mill, his sheepfold, his church and so on, to the
exclusion of other competing institutions.”
If you look up Soke in the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition is: “The
right in Anglo-Saxon and early English law to hold court and administer
justice with the franchise to receive certain fees or fines arising
from it: jurisdiction over a territory or over people.” The Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases interprets it thus: “Grants of sake and soke
allowed the granter to intercept the fines and other profits of justice
relating to his own estate which would otherwise have gone to the
king.” Do Sac and Soke always go together? Apparently not. The English historian Adolphus Ballard stated that when used alone, soke denoted services. And according to Alexander Mansfield Burrill in his “A law dictionary and glossary”, when mentioned together soc gave the right to constitute a court, and sac gave authority to try cases in it.
In “The Domesday Inquest”, Adolphus Ballard points out that the sake and soc
sometimes “varied according to the social position of those from whom
it was due”. For instance, in the half-hundred of Diss, “all those who
held less than 30 acres…their fines were paid to the officer of the
manor…of all those who held 30 acres or more…their fines were payable to
the sheriff at the hundred-moot.” Even the forfeitures could be broken
up: “The possession of sake and soke did not confer on
its owner the right to all forfeitures. The fines for certain
offenses—peace-breach, “heinfare” (forcible entry), and “forestel”
(assault) were in the King’s demense throughout England and were paid to
him alone; the Earl had no share in them.”
So apparently, sake and soke had more to do with
judgments and fines than mere service owed as a tenant, although that
was certainly an integral part of it. A man could possess sac and soke over others of lower rank (but not over himself), and a sokeman
was the one who did the owing. Apparently the finer definitions go on
and on, and there is plenty of confusion depending on what part of
England you are talking about. Although sac and soke
continued into the Anglo-Norman period, it seems to have been eventually
supplanted by the feudal system, although knowing the difference sounds
like another field of study.
No comments:
Post a Comment