Villein rents in thirteenth–century England: an analysis of the Hundred Rolls of 1279–1280
in kind, and in labour. An examination of these rents is crucial to any inquiry into the features of medieval society; almost all research into medieval economic history has contained some analysis of villein rents. However, there is little agreement as to what were the principal factors in determining the level of these rents. Historians have so far assumed three factors: economic and demographic forces, seigneurial power, and custom. As regards the first, Postan stated that the ratio between land and population determined the value of land: 'all available evidence, especially for France and England, shows land rents, land prices, and entry fines rising on a scale fully consistent with the hypothesis of "pressure of population" '.2 He argued that demographic pressures, i.e. excess demand for land, pushed up the value of land in the thirteenth century. Marxist historians put forward the alternative view that the crucial element in determining the level of rents is not economic and demographic forces, but the political relationship between landlords and tenants, i.e. seigneurial power. Through 'non-economic compulsion', some lords were able to exact high rent, including labour services on their demesnes.3 Although it is difficult to decide whether or not noneconomic compulsion prevailed over economic and demographic forces, almost all historians, not only marxists, admit that tenants were burdened with heavier rents on large ecclesiastical estates consisting of classical manors: 'the power of the lord, especially power applied continuously over many generations, enabled large and ancient churches to make greater demands on their tenants than did the gentry'.4 A third group of historians suggests that villein rents were the product of a long evolution of custom. Feudal institutions did not always raise the level of rents; the custom under which unfree tenants held their lands might have protected them against the chill wind of market forces. In opposition to the marxist view, Hatcher argues that unfree tenants did not suffer from an excess