Provisional Drogereit pdf

(p. 404), his retinue and the freemen or 2. in the complete ownership of a number of
people, in the majority of cases as a march. From this arose the understanding that all
fully owned land was Folcland [sic], while at the same time there were several types
of leased land, the so-called Bocland. This land, only available to the aristocracy and
the priesthood, had always been encumbered with military service. It was inherited by
the descendants of the laiety, with the male line probably having preference. Also, it
was not allowed to be alienated from the family of the owner or their families 150 .
The discussion was steered into other areas, as J. Allen, in 1830, first researched the
nature of the Folk-land with respect to the general conditions of land ownership. In
his opinion part of the land was obtained by the Anglo-Saxons and made into estates
of inheritance for the individual. This was Bocland. Another part, however, remained
the common property of the public and was left for the state to dispose of. This was
the Folcland, which could either be taken into common ownership or into special
ownership and divided among the individuals in the “folc gemot” and sanctioned by
any freemen present. As it remained Folcland, after a certain agreed time it reverted to
the local community, which could then dispose of it again. The Bocland, separated
from this by a governmental grant, could also be subject to restrictions regarding the
power of disposal. Freemen of any standing could own both types of land 151 .
This idea of an ager publicus, the fund from which everything was taken, completely
prevailed in the 19 th century 152 . However, it was soon established that J. Allen’s
theory, that wanted to put everything together under the headings of Folk-land and
Bocland, was incomplete, and every subsequent researcher changed it in a different
way 153 . Based on his accurate knowledge of the charters and laws, Kemble
determined that this division was far too simple to demonstrate all the differences in
land ownership. He stressed
150 G. Philipps, loc sit, p. 83, 134 Note 377 and p. 137 ff.
151 J. Allen, Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in England 2 (1849) p. 135 ff.,
138 and 142. (This version is just as applicable to our study as the first edition.)
152 P. Vinogradoff, Folkland in: The Collected Papers of P. Vinogradoff, Oxford 1928, Vol. 1, 91 f.,
which lists all researchers who endorsed Allen in their respective studies.
153 We refer to P. Vinogradoff, Folkland p. 92 ff., in which all valuable information is excellently
summarised. However, in order to give a clear line of development, we also have to examine here more
closely the theories of a few other researchers.
404