Editing Manorialism (section)

==Variation among manors==
Like [[feudalism]] which, together with manorialism, formed the legal and organisational framework of feudal society, manorial structures were not uniform or coordinated. In the later Middle Ages, areas of incomplete or non-existent manorialisation persisted while the manorial economy underwent substantial development with changing economic conditions.

Not all manors contained all three classes of land.  Typically, [[demesne]] accounted for roughly a third of the arable area, and [[villein]] holdings rather more; but some manors consisted solely of demesne, others solely of peasant holdings. The proportion of unfree and free tenures could likewise vary greatly, with more or less reliance on wage labour for agricultural work on the demesne.

The proportion of the cultivated area in demesne tended to be greater in smaller manors, while the share of villein land was greater in large manors, providing the lord of the latter with a larger supply of obligatory labour for demesne work. The proportion of free tenements was generally less variable, but tended to be somewhat greater on the smaller manors.

Manors varied similarly in their geographical arrangement: most did not coincide with a single village, but rather consisted of parts of two or more villages, most of the latter containing also parts of at least one other manor. This situation sometimes led to replacement by cash payments or their equivalents in kind of the demesne labour obligations of those peasants living furthest from the lord's estate.

As with peasant plots, the demesne was not a single territorial unit, but consisted rather of a central house with neighbouring land and estate buildings, plus strips dispersed through the manor alongside free and villein ones: in addition, the lord might lease free tenements belonging to neighbouring manors, as well as holding other manors some distance away to provide a greater range of produce.

Nor were manors held necessarily by lay lords rendering military service (or again, cash in lieu) to their superior: a substantial share (estimated by value at 17% in [[Domesday Book|England in 1086]]) belonged directly to the king, and a greater proportion (rather more than a quarter) were held by [[Diocese|bishoprics]] and [[monastery|monasteries]]. [[Ecclesiastical]] manors tended to be larger, with a significantly greater villein area than neighbouring lay manors.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

The effect of circumstances on manorial economy is complex and at times contradictory: upland conditions tended to preserve peasant freedoms (livestock husbandry in particular being less labour-intensive and therefore less demanding of villein services); on the other hand, some upland areas of Europe showed some of the most oppressive manorial conditions, while lowland eastern England is credited with an exceptionally large free peasantry, in part a legacy of Scandinavian settlement.

Similarly, the spread of [[money]] [[economy]] stimulated the replacement of labour services by money payments, but the growth of the money supply and resulting inflation after 1170 initially led nobles to take back leased estates and to re-impose labour dues as the value of fixed cash payments declined in real terms.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/manorialism |title=Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "manorialism". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 Oct. 2022 |access-date= 28 January 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=An Economic Explanation of English Agricultural Organization in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries |first1=Clyde G |last1=Reed |first2=Terry L |last2=Anderson |journal=The Economic History Review |issue=1 |date=1973 |volume=26 |pages=134–137 (4 pages) |doi=10.2307/2594763 |jstor=2594763 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2594763 |access-date= 28 January 2024 }}</ref>