Chapter IV: Part I: Territorial Studies (1)

DOMESDAY BOOK

The true key to the Domesday Survey, and to the system of land assessment it records, is found in the _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_. Although the document so styled is one of cardinal importance, it has, from accident, been known to few, and has consequently never succeeded in obtaining the attention and scientific treatment it deserved. The merit of its identification belongs to Mr Philip Carteret Webb, who published in 1756 a paper originally read before the Society of Antiquaries, entitled, _A Short Account of Danegeld, with some further particulars relating to William the Conqueror's Survey_. It is difficult to speak too highly of this production, remembering the date at which it was composed. Many years were yet to elapse before the printing of Domesday was even begun, and historical evidences were largely inaccessible as compared with the condition of things today. Yet the ability shown by Mr Webb in this careful and conscientious piece of work is well seen in his interesting discovery, which he announced in these words:

In searching for the _Liber Eliensis_, I have had the good
fortune to discover in the Cotton Library a MS. copy of the
Inquisition of the jury, containing their survey for most of
the hundreds in Cambridgeshire. This MS. is written on vellum
in double columns and on both sides of the page. It is bound
up with the _Liber Eliensis_, and begins at p. 76_a_ and ends
at p. 113. It is written in a very fair but ancient character,
not coeval with the Survey, but of about the time of Henry II.
It was given by Mr Arthur Agard to Sir Robert Cotton, and is
marked Tiberius A. VI 4. Your lordship and the Society will
be of opinion that this is a discovery of importance, and what
had escaped the observation of Sir H. Spelman, Mr Selden,
and other antiquarians. A part of this valuable morsel of
antiquity is already transcribed, and in a few weeks I hope to
be able to communicate the whole of it to the Society (p. 26).

Mr Webb's discovery was known to Kelham, and duly referred to by him in his _Domesday Book Illustrated_ (1788). It was also known to Sir Francis Palgrave, strong in his acquaintance with manuscript authorities, who alluded (1832) to the fact that 'fragments of the original inquisitions have been preserved',[1] and described the MS. Tib. A. VI, of which 'the first portion consists of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, extending, as above mentioned, into five counties; it is followed by the inedited _Inquisitio_', etc.[2] It is, however, undoubtedly ignored in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday Book_ (1833), and 'even the indefatigable Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy', writes Mr Birch,[3] 'has omitted all notice of this manuscript in his _Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland_, vol. ii. (1865)'. This, however, is not strictly the case, for in his notice of the Domesday MSS. he observes in a footnote:

The Cottonian MS. [Tib. A. VI] has also a second and unique
portion of this survey, which was not printed in the edition
published by the Record Commission in 1816. It commences 'in
Grantebriggesira, in Staplehouhund', and ends imperfectly 'et
vicecomiti regis v. auras'.

These words prove that Sir Thomas had inspected the MS., which duly begins and ends with the words here given.

It is certain, however, that Mr Freeman, most ardent of Domesday students, knew nothing of this precious evidence, and remained therefore virtually unacquainted with the _modus operandi_ of the Great Survey. The pages, we shall find, of the _Inquisitio_ afford information that no one would have welcomed more eagerly than himself. Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton, when editing this document for the Royal Society of Literature (1876), should have supposed that it had been overlooked till then, or that he was 'the first to bring its importance to light' (p. vi). It is, however, much to be regretted that Mr De Gray Birch should have strenuously insisted that Webb (whose paper he actually names) and Kelham 'appear to have been strangely ignorant of the true and important nature of this manuscript',[4] and should have repeated this assertion[5] after I had shown at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) that the honour of the discovery really belonged to Mr P. C. Webb. One may claim that Webb should have his due, while gladly expressing gratitude to Mr Hamilton for his noble edition of the _Inquisitio_, which has conferred on Domesday students an inestimable boon.[6]

The printing of the document in record type, the collation throughout with Domesday Book, and the appending of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, edited from three different texts, represent an extraordinary amount of minute and wearisome labour. The result is a volume as helpful as it is indispensable to the scholar.

I propose in this paper to take up anew the subject, at the point where Mr Hamilton has left it, to submit the text to scientific criticism, to assign it its weight in the scale of authority, and to explain its glossarial and its illustrative value for the construction and the contents of Domesday Book.

I. NATURE OF THE 'INQ. COM. CANT.'

Exact definition is needful at the outset in dealing with this document. The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, which is entered on fos. 76-113 of Tib. A. VI, must be carefully distinguished from the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ on fos. 38-68. Mr Hamilton doubted whether any one before him 'had distinguished between' the two, but this, we have seen, was a mistake. The distinction however is all-important, the two documents differing altogether in character. One would not think it necessary to distinguish them also from the so-called _Liber Eliensis_ (which is not a survey at all) had not Mr Eyton inadvertently stated that our document has been printed under the title of _Liber Eliensis_.[7]

The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_ (hereafter styled 'the I.C.C.') deals with the county of Cambridge alone, but, in that county, with the lands of all holders. The _Inquisitio Eliensis_ (which I propose to style 'the I.E.') deals with several counties, but, in these counties, with the lands of the abbey alone. The latter was duly printed, with Domesday Book, by the Record Commission; the former remained in manuscript till printed by Mr Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton describes his record at the outset as 'the Original Return made by the _Juratores_ of the county of Cambridge in obedience to the Conqueror's mandate, from which the Exchequer Domesday for that county was afterwards compiled by the King's secretaries', and as 'the original source from which the Exchequer Domesday for that county was derived'. Mr Birch here again repeats the words, insisting 'that we have in this very precious Cottonian MS. _the original source_ from which the Exchequer Domesday of Cambridgeshire was compiled'.[8]

Such a description is most unfortunate being not only inaccurate but misleading. All that we are entitled to predicate of the document is that it is _apparently a copy_ of the original returns from which Domesday Book was compiled. For 'the original source' of both we must look to the now missing returns of the jurors, the primary authority from which Domesday Book and the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._ are independently derived. This distinction is all-important, reducing, as it does, the _Inquisitio_ from the rank of an 'original' to that of a secondary authority on the same level with Domesday Book.[9] Mr Hamilton, like Mr Webb before him, assigned the handwriting of the _Inquisitio_ to about the close of the twelfth century. The copy of the returns which it contains, therefore, was made about a century later than the returns themselves.

The problem then that we have to solve is this: 'Is the I.C.C. an actual transcript of these original returns, and if so, is it faithful?' I will not, like Mr Hamilton, assume an affirmative, but will attempt an impartial inquiry.

The two paths which we must follow in turn to arrive at a just conclusion are (1) the construction of the I.C.C., (2) collation with the _Inq. Eliensis_. For I hope to show that the latter record must have been derived from the same source as the _Inq. Com. Cant._

Following the first of these paths, we note at once that while _Domesday Book_ arranges the Manors according to fiefs, the _Inq. Com. Cant._, on the contrary, arranges them by hundreds and townships. Its system is regular and simple. For every hundred it first enumerates the principal jurors who made the return, and then gives the return itself, arranged according to townships (_villæ_). These townships are thus the units of which the Manors they contain are merely the component fractions. This is precisely what we should expect to find in the original returns, but it only creates a presumption; it does not afford a proof. For instance, it might be reasonably urged that these copies may have omitted certain items in the returns, just as Domesday Book omitted others.

To reply to this objection, we must turn to the second path; that is to say, we must collate the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ with the _Inq. Com. Cant._ I shall prove below that the latter cannot have been taken from the former, which only covers a portion of its field, and that, on the other hand, the former cannot have been taken from the latter, because the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is accurate in places where the _Inq. Com. Cant._ is in error. Consequently they must both have been derived independently from some third document. This being so, if we should find that their versions agree closely, we may fairly infer that each is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the above 'third document'. In other words, if neither version omits items which are given in the other, we are entitled to assume that the copy is in each case exhaustive, for two scribes working independently are not likely to have systematically omitted the same items from the document before them.

What then was the 'third document' from which they both copied? Obviously it was either the original returns of the Domesday jurors, or a copy (exhaustive or not) of these returns. Now we cannot suppose that two scribes, working, as I have said, independently, would both have worked, not from the original returns themselves, but from a copy, and that the same copy of these returns--a copy, moreover, of the existence of which we have no evidence whatever. Moreover, in this hypothetical copy, there would, we may safely assert, have been some clerical errors. These would have duly re-appeared in both the _Inquisitiones_, and collation with Domesday Book would enable us to detect them. Yet in no single instance, though each of them contains errors, have I found a clerical error common to both. We are thus driven to the conclusion that in both these _Inquisitiones_ we have copies of the actual returns made by the Domesday jurors.

One of the postulates in the above argument is that the _Inq. Com. Cant._ and the _Inq. Eliensis_ 'agree closely' in their versions. Here is an instance in illustration:[10]

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

Meldeburna pro x. sol[idis] se Meldeburne pro x. hidis se
defendebat T.R.E. et modo pro defendebat in tempore R. ÆD. et
viii. Et de his x. hidis tenet modo pro viii. Et de his x.
predictus abbas ii. hidas et hun[dredis] tenet abbas de eli
I^{am.} virgam. v. carrucis est ii. hidas et i. v[irgam].
ibi terra. Una carruca et dimidia, v. carucis ibi est terra. I.
et una hida et una virga in caruca et dimidia, et i. hida
dominio, et dimidia carruca et dimidia, in dominio, et
potest fieri. iii. Carucæ dimidia caruca potest fieri.
villanis. vi. villani, ix. iii. carucæ hominibus. vi.
bordarii, iii. cotarii, villani, ix. bordarii, iii.
dimidium molendinum de iii. cotarii. Pratum v. carucis.
solidis, et viii. denariis. i. molendinum de ii. solidis
Pratum v. carrucis. Pastura ad et viii. denariis. Pastura ad
pecora villæ, ccc. oves iii. pecora villæ. oves ccc., iii^{es.}
minus, xxxiiii. porci. Inter minus, et xxxiiii. porci. Inter
totum valet c. sol., et quando totum valet v. lib. Quando
recepit totidem. T.R.E. vi. lib. recepit v. lib. T.R.E. vi.
Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit
ecclesia sancte Ædel. de eli in in ecclesia sancte Ædel'
dominio. ely in dominio.

Et de his x. hidis tenet Wido de In eadem villa habet Guido de
Reb' curt de rege, &ca., &ca. Raimbecurt de rege, &ca., &ca.

These extracts are typical and instructive. They leave, in the first place, no doubt upon the mind that both are versions of the same original. This, which proves my postulate, will be shown below to possess a further and important bearing. But while these versions closely agree, we notice (1) independent blunders, (2) slight variants in diction. As to blunders, we see that the I.C.C. has 'sol[idis]' where the I.E. has the correct 'hidis', while, conversely, the I.E. reads 'hun[dredis]' where the I.C.C. has, rightly, 'hidis'. Again the I.C.C. allots to demesne an assessment of a hide and a virgate, but I.E. a hide and a half (_i.e._ two virgates). Collation with Domesday Book confirms the former version. Conversely, the I.C.C. assigns to the mill the value of three shillings and eightpence, but the I.E. of two shillings and eightpence. Collation with Domesday Book confirms the latter. Turning now to the variants, we may express them more clearly thus:

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

T.R.E. = in tempore R. ÆD.
predictus abbas = abbas de eli.
villanis = hominibus.
dimidium molendinum = i. molendinum.
c. sol. = v. lib.
totidem = v. lib.
de his x. hidis tenet = in eadem villa habet.

These prove that verbal accuracy was not aimed at by the transcribers. The same freedom from its trammels is seen in the transposition of the 'mill' and 'meadow' passages, and, indeed, in the highly abbreviated form of the I.E. entries (in which a single letter, mostly, does duty for a word), which shows that the original version must have been either extended in the I.C.C., or (more probably) abbreviated in the I.E.

We are now in a position to advance to the criticism of the text of the _Inq. Com. Cant._, and to inquire how far it can be trusted as a reproduction of the original returns. In other words, are its contents more or less trustworthy than those of Domesday Book?

It might, no doubt, be fairly presumed that a simple transcript of the original returns was less likely to contain error than such a compilation as Domesday Book, in which their contents were (1) rearranged on a different system, (2) epitomized and partly omitted, (3) altered in wording. Mr Hamilton, indeed, who was naturally tempted to make the most of his MS., appears to have jumped at this conclusion; for he speaks in his preface (p. xii) of its 'superior exactness', and gives us no hint of omissions or of blunders. There are, however, plenty of both, as will be seen from the lists below, which do not profess to be exhaustive.

But we will first examine the instances adduced by Mr Hamilton. Out of ten examples in proof of its value, five are cases in which 'the want of precision in Domesday' leaves the identity of the tenant-in-chief 'undefined'. It is difficult to comment on these statements, because in all five cases the name is as carefully recorded in Domesday as in the I.C.C. Mr Hamilton's error can only, it will be found, have arisen from comparing the I.C.C. not with Domesday Book, but with the extracts therefrom printed in his work, which, being torn from their place, do not, of course, contain the tenant's full name, which in Domesday itself is given at the head of the list from which they are taken. Moreover, as it happens, this test demonstrates not the inferiority, but (in one instance at least) the superiority of Domesday, the I.C.C. (fo. 97, col. 2) reading 'Hanc terram tenuit comes alanus' [_sic_], where Domesday has (rightly) 'Hanc terram tenuit Algar comes'. The former must have wrongly extended the abbreviated original entry.[11]

Another of Mr Hamilton's examples is this:

'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' (Domesday) is
abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus
de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton
MS.

But, on referring to the passage in question, we find that the Domesday passage: 'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' has nothing to do with that 'long account', but corresponds to the simple formula in the I.C.C., 'Hanc terram tenuerunt monache de cet'ero T.R.E. et modo tenent'. The example which follows it is this:

At pp. 38, 39 we see a curious alteration in the value of
the land, which had risen from xv. lib. 'quando recepit' and
T.R.E. to xvii. lib. at the time the return was made, and
dropped again to xvi. lib. in the Domesday Survey.

This strange comment implies the supposition that the I.C.C. records an earlier survey than Domesday Book, whereas, of course, they are derived from the same returns, so that the discrepancy of xvi. and xvii. is merely a clerical error. One more instance, the 'curious reading' _Harlestone_ in the I.C.C., is shown below to be merely an error in that MS. Such are eight of the examples adduced by Mr Hamilton. The remaining two merely illustrate not the superior accuracy, but the greater elaboration of the I.C.C. It has been absolutely necessary to dispose of these examples, in order to show that a critical estimate of the value of the I.C.C. has yet to be made.

Taking the omissions in the MS. first, we find some really bad ones. On fo. 79A (2), collation with Domesday gives this result:

_I.C.C._ (p. 12)[12] _D.B._ (I. 196A)

II. hidas et dimidiam et x. acras Tenuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
tenuerunt. [..................... et x. acras. Nec isti potuerunt
................................. recedere absque licentia
................................. abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni,
................................. homines regis E., tenuerunt
....]. Non potuerunt recedere ii. hidas. Non potuerunt
sine licentia. recedere absque licentia.

A similar 'run on' omission is found on fo. 109A (1):

_I.C.C._ (p. 79) _D.B._ (I. 200A, 193A)

Tenet Radulfus de bans de [Widone Tenet Radulfus de Widone iii^{ciam.}
de] rembercurt terciam partem partem i. virgatæ [Terra est i.
unius virge. I. bovi ibi est bovi], et ibi est bos. Valet et
terra, et est bos [.............. valuit ii. sol., et vendere potuit,
................................. et iiii^{tam.} partem unius Avere
................................. vicecomiti invenit.
.................................
................................. In Oreuuelle tenet eadem
................................. æcclesia iiii^{tam.} partem unius
.......................] Valet et virgatæ. Terra est dimidio bovi
valuit semper xii. den.[13] et valet xii. den.

Another instance of 'running on' occurs on fo. 105A (1), where 'xviii. cotarii' (p. 67) is proved by Domesday to stand for 'xviii. [bordarii x.] cotarii'. Again on fo. 79B (2) we have this:

_I.C.C._ (p. 14) _D.B._ (I. 195B 1)

Eadiua unam hidam habuit et Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i.
unam virgam [.................. virgatam et Wluui homo ejus
....] Socham huius habuit ædiua i. hidam et i. virgatam. Socam
T.R.E.[14] ejus habuit Eddeua.

So, too, on fo. 100B(1):

_I.C.C._ (p. 52) _D.B._ (I. 190A)

XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani, XV. villani et xv. bordarii
xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol' cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi,
de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol' et i. molinus de xvi. denariis
de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi. et alii duo molini xxxii.
carrucis. denariis. Pratum xvi. carucis.

The importance of such an omission as this lies in the proof of unintelligent clerkship and want of revision which so unmeaning an entry as 'xv. xvi. carrucis' supplies.

Omissions of another character are not infrequent. On fo. 95B (1) an entire holding of a virgate (held by a sokeman of Earl Alan) is omitted (p. 34). Another sokeman of Earl Alan (p. 32) has his holding (1/4 virgate) omitted on the same folio (95A, 1), so is an entire holding of Hardwin's (p. 36) on fo. 96A (2). A demesne plough ('i. caruca') of Hugh de Port (p. 8) is omitted (78A, 1), and so are the ploughs ('et iiii. villanis') of Aubrey's villeins (p. 9) a few lines lower down. On fo. 90A (1) the words 'ibi est terra' are wanting (p. 15),[15] and so are 'non potuit' on fo. 100 (A) 1.[16] The word 'recedere' is left out on fo. 103B (2),[17] and 'soca' just before (103 (B) 1).[18] 'Odo' is similarly wanting on fo. 90A (1).[19] The note also on the Abbot of Ely's sokeman at Lollesworth (p. 95), is wholly omitted (fo. 113, B, 2), though found both in Domesday Book and in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[20]

Turning now to the clerical blunders, we find an abundant crop. We may express them conveniently in tabular form:

Folio Page

76 (_a_) 2. 'Auenam lvii. nummos,' _for_ 'Aueram (ve)l viii.
denarios' (D.B.) 2
76 (_b_) 1. 'Hominis' _for_ 'ho(mo)' 3
77 (_a_) 2. 'In dominio et iii. villani', _for_ 'una caruca in
dominio et iii. villanis' 7
_Ibid._ 'Mille de anguillis dimidium de piscina', _for_
'i. millen' et dimidium anguill'' (D.B.) 7
78 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. in dominio carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio',
_for_ 'iiii. carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio' 11
79 (_a_) 1. 'cuius honor erat', _for_ 'cuius ho(mo) erat' 12
79 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. bobus', _for_ 'iiii. bord(arii)' 14
91 (_b_) 2. 'valent iii.', _for_ 'valent iii. den.' 21
92 (_b_) 2. 'xliii. car(ucis) ibi e(st) terra', _for_ 'xl.
acras terræ' 25
95 (_a_) 2. 'has v. h(idas) tenet', _for_ 'de his v. h(idis)
tenet' 33
95 (_b_) 1. 'et pro iiii. virgis', _for_ 'et pro iii. virgis' 34
95 (_b_) 2. 'unam virgam minus', _for_ 'dimi' virg' minus' (D.B.) 35
96 (_b_) 1. 'dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'i. virg'' (D.B.) 38
97 (_b_) 1. 'Clintona', _for_ 'Iclintona' 41
97 (_b_) 2. 'unam hidam', _for_ 'dimidiam hidam' (D.B.) 42
100 (_a_) 1. 'Terra est vi. carucis', _for_ 'Terra est v.
carucis'[21] 50
100 (_a_) 2. 'ii. h(idas) et dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'ii. hidas
et i. virgam et dimidiam'[22] (D.B.) 50
100 (_b_) 2. 'vii. sochemanni', _for_ 'iii. soch[emanni]'[23] 52
101 (_a_) 2. 'homities', _for_ 'homines' 54
101 (_b_) 2. 'tenet pic' vicecomes quendam ortum de rege ii. hide',
_for_ 'tenet pic' vicecomes de rege ii. hidas'[24] 55
102 (_a_) 1. 'ii. boves', _for_ 'ii. bord(arii)' 56
104 (_b_) 1. 'iiii. hidas et i. virgam', _for_ 'iii. hidas et
i. virgam' (D.B.) 65
105 (_b_) 2. _bis_ 'Rahamnes', _for_ 'Kahannes' 60
106 (_a_) 1. 'pro vi. hidis' (_bis_), _for_ 'pro vii. hidis' 70
109 (_b_) 2. 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano iii. cottarios',
_for_ 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano. iii.
cottarii' 82
110 (_a_) 1. 'ely tenuit ii. h(idas)', _for_ 'ely tenuit
i. h(idam)' (I.E.) 83
110 (_b_) 1. 'viiii. h(idis)', _for_ 'viii. h(idis)' 84
111 (_a_) 2. 'liii. carrucis est ibi terra', _for_ 'iiii. car' est
ibi terra' 87

Besides these, Ralf 'de bans' is often entered as Ralf 'de scannis'. Again, we find such blunders as this:

_I.C.C._ _D.B._

Hugo de portu tenet sneileuuelle. Ipse Hugo tenet _de feudo
Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. episcopi baiocensis_ snellewelle.
et modo facit _de feudo episcopi Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat]
baiocensis_ (p. 3). semper.

Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate.
abbate de eli. _Et in morte_ ita Non poterat separare ab æcclesia
quod non potuit dare neque extra firmam monachorum T.R.E.
separare ab ecclesia extra _nec in die mortis ejus_.
dominicam firmam monachorum
T.R.E. (p. 63).

Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
hidas et dimidiam virgam _de ely_ vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride
T.R.E. (p. 65). _de Ely_.

In all these three cases the italicized words are misplaced, and in all three the explanation is the same, the scribe having first omitted them, and then inserted them later out of place. Having now criticized the text of the I.C.C., and shown that it presents no small traces of unintelligent clerkship, if not of actual ignorance of the terms and _formulæ_ of Domesday, I turn to the text of Domesday Book, to test it by comparison with that of the I.C.C.

II. CRITICISM OF THE DOMESDAY TEXT

Among the omissions are, on i, 195 (_b_) 1, 'Item et reddebat viii. den. vel aueram si rex in vicecomitatu venit' (p. 5). At Kirtling (p. 11), 'et v^{ta.} caruca potest fieri [in dominio]' is omitted (i. 202 _a_). So is (p. 25) a potential demesne plough of John fitz Waleran (i. 201 _b_). The Countess Judith's sokemen at Carlton (pp. 20, 21) have their values omitted[25] (i. 202, _a_, 2). 'Habuerunt dimidiam hidam, et,' is omitted (p. 28) in the entry of two sokemen of Godwine (201, _b_, 2). On i. 196 (_a_) 1, 'Terra est i. bovi' is wanting (p. 79). More important, however, are the omissions of whole entries. These are by no means difficult to account for, the process of extracting from the original returns, the various entries relating to each particular fief being one which was almost certain to result in such omissions.[26]

Moreover, two entries were occasionally thrown into one, a dangerous plan for the clerks themselves, and one which may sometimes lead us to think that an entry is omitted when it is duly to be found under another head. Lastly, the compilers of Domesday Book had no such invaluable check for their work as was afforded in the original by entering first the assessment of the whole township, and then that of each of its component Manors separately. But of this more below.[27] The only wonder is that the omissions are, after all, so few. Perhaps even of these some may be only apparent. Hardwin's half-hide in _Burwell_ (p. 6) is wanting; so is Aubrey's half-virgate in _Badburgham_, according to Mr Hamilton (p. 36), but the oversight is his. A virgate held in Trumpington by a burgess of Cambridge (p. 51) would seem to be not forthcoming, but its position was somewhat anomalous.[28] Guy de Rembercurt held a hide and a virgate in _Haslingefield_ (p. 73), though we cannot find it in Domesday; and in _Witewelle_ (Outwell) two hides which were held by Robert, a tenant of Hardwin (p. 81), are similarly omitted, according to Mr Hamilton but will be found under 'Wateuuelle' (198, _b_, 2).

There are cases in which the I.C.C. corrects D.B., cases in which D.B. corrects the I.C.C., and cases in which the I.C.C. corrects itself. There are also several cases of discrepancy between the two, in which we cannot positively pronounce which, if either, is right. A singular instance of both being wrong is found in the case of Soham. The assessment of this township was actually eleven hides, its four component holdings being severally assessed at nine and a half hides less six acres, half a hide, one hide, and six acres. The I.C.C. at first gives the total assessment as eleven hides and a half, while D.B. erroneously assesses the first of the four holdings at six hides and forty acres in one place, and nine hides and a half in the other, both figures being wrong. A most remarkable case of yet another kind is found in _Scelford_ (Shelford). Here the entry in I.C.C. agrees exactly with the duplicate entries found in D.B. Yet they both make nonsense.[29] But on turning to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ we obtain the correct version. As this is a very important and probably unique instance, the entries are here given in parallel columns:

_Inq. Eliensis._ _Inq. Com. Cant._ _D.B._ i. 198 _D.B._ i. 198
(_a_) 2. (_a_) 2.

i. hidam et dim. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii.
et vi. acras quas [_sic_] [_sic_] [_sic_]
tenuerunt vi. sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni
sochemanni de i. hidam et i. hidam et i. hidam et
socha abbatis dim. et vi. dim. et vi. dim. et vi.
ely, de quibus acras de soca acras de soca acras de soca
non potuerunt abbatis de ely. abbatis. Non[30] abbatis de ely.
dare nec Non potuerunt potuerunt Non potuerunt
recedere nisi recedere sed recedere cum recedere cum
iii^{cs.} virgas soca remanebat terra, sed soca terra, sed soca
absque ejus abbati. remanebat remanebat
licentia. æcclesia de ely. æcclesiæ Ely.
Et si alias
vendidissent
tres virgas,
predictus abbas
semper socham
habuit T.R.E.

Here the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ version shows us that the estate had two divisions held by different tenures. Three virgates the sokemen were not free to sell; the other three they might sell, but if they did, 'predictus abbas semper socham habuit'.[31] The two divisions of the estate are confused in the other versions. But all three of these correspond so exactly that we are driven to assign the error to the original returns themselves. In that case the compiler (or compilers) of the I.E. will have corrected the original return from his own knowledge of the facts, which knowledge, I shall show, he certainly possessed.

This brings us to the _errors_ of Domesday. For comparison's sake, I here tabulate them like those of the I.C.C.:

Folio Page
i. 189 (_b_) 2. 'mancipium', _for_ 'inuuardum' (I.C.C.) 4

i. 195 (_b_) 1. 'Terra est ii. carucis et ibi est', _for_
'Terra est i. carucæ et ibi est' 15

i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'xxx. acras', _for_ 'xx. acras' (I.C.C.) 15

i. 196 (_a_) 2. 'iiii. villani ... habent iii. carucas',
_for_ 'iiii. villani ... habent iiii. carucas' 21

i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'De hac terra tenet', _for_ 'adhuc in eadem
villa tenet' (?)[32] 29

i. 198 (_a_) 1. 'tenet Harduuinus i. virgatam' _for_ 'tenet
Hardeuuinus dim. virgatam' (I.C.C.) 38

i. 194 (_b_) 1. 'ii. hidas et i. virg. terræ', _for_ 'ii. hidas
et una virg. et dimidiam' (I.C.C.) 64

i. 199 (_b_) 2. 'xvi. sochemanni', _for_ 'xv sochemanni' 65

i. 198 (_b_) 1. 'tenet Durand ... i. hidam et i. virg.',
_for_ 'tenet Durand i. hidam et dim. virg.' 67

i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'In dominio ii. hidæ et dim', _for_ 'In
dominio ii. hidæ et dim. virg.'[33] 67

i. 200 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Radulf de Picot iii. virg.', _for_
'tenet Radulf de Picot i. virg.' 80

i. 196 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et ii. virg. et
dim.', _for_ 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et
i. virg. et dim.' 74

i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'vii. homines Algari comitis', _for_ 'vi.
homines Algari comitis' 84

Comparing the omissions and errors, as a whole, in these two versions of the original returns, it may be said that the comparison is in favour of the Domesday Book text, although, from the process of its compilation, it was far the most exposed to error. No one who has not analysed and collated such texts for himself can realize the extreme difficulty of avoiding occasional error. The abbreviations and the _formulæ_ employed in these surveys are so many pitfalls for the transcriber, and the use of Roman numerals is almost fatal to accuracy. The insertion or omission of an 'x' or an 'i' was probably the cause of half the errors of which the Domesday scribes were guilty. Remembering that they had, in Mr Eyton's words,[34] to perform 'a task, not of mere manual labour and imitative accuracy, but a task requiring intellect--intellect, clear, well-balanced, apprehensive, comprehensive, and trained withal', we can really only wonder that they performed it so well as they did.

Still, the fact remains that on a few pages of Domesday we have been able to detect a considerable number of inaccuracies and omissions. The sacrosanct status of the Great Survey is thus gravely modified. I desire to lay stress on this fact, which is worthy of the labour it has cost to establish. For two important conclusions follow. Firstly, it is neither safe nor legitimate to make general inferences from a single entry in Domesday. All conclusions as to the interpretation of its _formulae_ should be based on _data_ sufficiently numerous to exclude the influence of error. Secondly, if we find that a rule of interpretation can be established in an overwhelming majority of the cases examined, we are justified, conversely, in claiming that the apparent exceptions may be due to errors in the text.

The first of these conclusions has a special bearing on the theories propounded by Mr Pell with so much ingenuity and learning.[35] I have shown, in an essay criticizing these theories,[36] that the case of Clifton, to which Mr Pell attached so much importance,[37] is nothing, in all probability, but one of Domesday's blunders, of which I gave, in that essay, other instances. So, too, in the case of his own Manor of Wilburton, Mr Pell accepted without question the reading '_six_ ploughlands', as representing the 'primary return',[38] although that reading is only found in the most corrupt of the three versions of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, while the two better versions (B and C texts) agree with Domesday Book, and with the abbreviated return at the end of the A text itself (Tib. A. VI fo. 67, _b_, 1), in giving the ploughlands as _seven_. Really it is nothing but waste of time to argue from a reading which is only found in one out of five MSS., and that one the most corrupt.

This brings me to the existence and the value of duplicate entries in Domesday. Mr Hamilton describes as 'a curious reading' the words in the I.C.C., 'sed soca remanebat _Harlestone_'. Now it so happens that in this case we have five separate versions of the original entry: one in the I.C.C., one in the I.E., and three in Domesday Book. Here they are side by side:

_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(p. 46) (p. 106) (I. 200, (_ibid._, (I. 191,
_a_, 2) in margin) _a_, 2)

Et potuit Potuit Recedere Vendere Potuit
recedere recedere cum terra potuit, recedere sine
quo voluit cum terra sua sua potuit, sed soca licentia ejus,
sed soca absque ejus sed soca Abbati sed soca
remanebat licentia, remansit remansit. remansit
Harlestone. sed semper æcclesiæ. Abbati.
remansit
socha ejus
in ecclesia
sancte Ædel'
ut hund
testantur.

The value of such collation as this ought to be self-evident. It is not only that we thus find four out of five MSS. to be against the reading '_Harlestone_' (which, indeed, to any one familiar with the survey is obviously a clerical error), but that here and elsewhere we are thus afforded what might almost be termed a bilingual inscription. We learn, for instance, that the Domesday scribe deemed it quite immaterial whether he wrote 'recedere cum terra ejus', or 'vendere' or 'recedere sine licentia'. Consequently, these phrases were all identical in meaning.[39]

Considerable light is thrown by the I.C.C. on the origin of these little known duplicate entries in Domesday. In every instance of their occurrence within the limits of its province they are due to a conflict of title recorded in the original return. They appear further to be confined to the estates of two landowners, Picot, the sheriff, and Hardwin d'Eschalers, the titles of both being frequently contested by the injured Abbot of Ely. Why the third local offender, Guy de Raimbercurt, does not similarly appear, it is difficult to say. He was the smallest offender of the three, and Picot the worst; but it is Hardwin's name which occurs most frequently in these duplicate entries.[40] The principle which guided the Domesday scribes cannot be certainly decided, for they duplicated entries in the original return which (according to the I.C.C.) varied greatly in their statements of tenure. Thus, to take the first three:

_I.C.C._ _D.B._

fo. 79 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
descalariis'.[41] { _sub abbate_'.
{I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

fo. 90 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus
_de abbate_'. { de Escalers _de abbate_'.
{I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

fo. 92 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 199 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
_de rege_'. { _de abbate_'.
{I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

Here, whether the original return states Hardwin to hold (1) of the abbot, (2) of the king, or (3) of neither, the scribes, in each of the three cases, enter the estates (_A_) under the Abbot's land, as held of the Abbot, (_B_) under Hardwin's land, as held _in capite_. And it is singular that in all these three cases the entry of the estate under the Abbot's land is the fuller of the two.[42]

On the whole it would appear that the Domesday scribes did not consistently carry out a system of duplicate entry, though, on the other hand, these entries were by no means due to mere clerical inadvertence, but were prompted by a doubt as to the title, which led to the precaution of entering them under the names of both the claimants.

But the chief point of interest in these same entries is that they give us, when we add the versions of the I.C.C. and the I.E., four parallel texts. At some of the results of their collation we will now glance.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(fo. 92, (p. 107) (I. 190, (I. 199,
_b_, 2) _b_, 2) _a_, 2)

Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram
tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii.
sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni.
homines sub predicto homines _Vendere_
abbatis de ely. abbate ely. abbatis de ely. non potuerunt.
Non potuerunt Non potuerunt Non potuerunt
_recedere absque _vendere terram _dare nec
licentia ejus_. suam sine vendere absque
eius licentia_. ejus licentia
terram suam_.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(fo. 79, (p. 102) (I. 190, (I. 199,
_b_, 1) _b_, 2) _a_, 2)

iiii. sochemanni Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram
tenuerunt hanc tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii.
terram T.R.E. Et sochemanni sochemanni, sochemanni
non potuerunt T.R.E. de nec potuerunt abbatis de ely.
_recedere sine abbate ely. _recedere sine Non potuerunt
licentia Non potuerunt licentia _vendere_.
abbatis de ely_. _recedere vel abbatis_.
vendere sine
licentia
abbatis ely_.

These extracts illustrate the use of the terms _dare, vendere, recedere_, etc. They are supplemented by those given below:

_I.C.C._ _D.B._ _I.E._

(76, _a_, 1) (I. 196, _b_, 1)
Potuit dare sine Terram suam tamen
licentia domini sui dare et vendere
terram suam. potuit.

(76, _b_, 2) (I. 199, _a_, 2) (p. 101)
Absque eius licentia Sine ejus licentia Potuerunt dare vel
dare terram suam poterant recedere vendere terram suam.
potuerunt, sed socham et terram suam dare Saca remansit abbati.
eorum habuit vel vendere, sed
archiepiscopus. soca remansit
Archiepiscopo.

(76, _b_, 2) (I. 196, _b_, 1)
Potuit dare cui Potuit absque[43]
voluit. ejus licentia
recedere.

(77, _b_, 2) (I. 195, _b_, 1)
Potuerunt recedere Potuerunt recedere
cum terra ad quem sine licentia
dominum voluerunt. eorum.

(78, _a_, 1) (I. 190, _b_, 1)
Potuerunt recedere Dare et vendere
cum terra sua absque potuerunt.
licentia domini sui.

(90, _a_, 2) (I. 190, _b_, 2)\ (p. 102)
Non potuerunt Non potuerunt | Non potuerunt recedere
recedere sine recedere sine | vel vendere absque
licentia abbatis. ejus licentia. | eius licentia.
}
(I. 200, _a_, 2) |
Non potuerunt |
vendere sine |
ejus licentia. /

(105, _a_, 2) (I. 200, _a_, 1) (p. 109)
Potuerunt dare et Terras suas vendere Potuerunt dare vel
vendere sine soca. potuerunt. Soca de vendere cui voluerunt,
viii. sochemannis sed saca eorum remansit
remansit in abbatia eidem abbati.
de ely.

(113, _b_, 1) (201, _a_, 1) (p. 112)
Potuerunt recedere Terram suam vendere Potuerunt dare preter
sine soca. potuerunt. Soca licentiam abbatis
vero remansit et sine soca.
abbati.

No one can glance at these passages without perceiving that _dare_, _vendere_, and _recedere_ are all interchangeably used, and that even any two of them (whether they have the conjunction 'et' or the disjunction 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point. Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque') 'ejus licentia' is immaterial, it being understood where not expressed. So too with the words 'cui voluit'. In short, like the translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and paraphrase.[44] Our own conceptions of the sacredness of a text and of the need for verbal accuracy were evidently foreign to their minds.

Glancing for a moment at another county, we have in the Survey of Leicestershire a remarkable instance of a whole fief being entered twice over. It is that of Robert Hostiarius:

Robertus hostiarius tenet de Robertus filus W. hostiari,
rege ii. car. terræ in Howes. tenet de rege in Howes ii.
Terra est iii. carucis. In cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car.
dominio est i. caruca et iii. in dominio et iii. serv[os] et
servi, et viii. villani cum viii. villani cum i. bordario
i. bordario habent ii. car.... habentes ii. car....

Idem [Turstinus] tenet de R. Idem Turstinus tenet de Roberto
iiij. car. terræ in in Clachestone iiii. car. terræ
Clachestone. Terra est ii. et Tetbald[us] ii. car. terræ.
caruca. Has habent ibi iii. Ibi est in dominio i. caruca et
sochemanni cum ii. villanis iii. sochemanni et v. villani
et ii. bordariis. Ibi viii. et iiii. [_sic_] bordarii cum
acræ prati. Valuit et valet iii. carucis et i. servo. Ibi
x. solidos. xiii. acræ prati. Valuit et
valet totum xx. solidos. Has
Tetbald[us] tenet de Roberto terras tenuerunt T.R.E. Outi et
ii. car. terræ in Clachestone. Arnui cum saca et soca.
In dominio est i. caruca cum
i. servo et iii. villani cum
i. bordario habent i. car.
Ibi vi. acræ prati. Valuit et
valet x. solidos.

Here the last two entries (both relating to Claxton) have been boldly thrown into one in the second version, which also (though omitting the number of ploughlands) gives additional information in the name of Robert's father, and in those of his predecessors T.R.E. This is thus an excellent illustration of the liberty allowed themselves by the compilers of Domesday.

An instance on a smaller scale is found in the Survey of Cambridgeshire, where we read on opposite pages:

In Witelesfeld hund'. In Witelesf' h'd.
In histetone jacet Wara In histetune jac' Wara
de i. hida et dimidia de de hida et dimidia de
M. Cestreforde et est in Cestres' man. et est
Exsesse appreciata, hanc appreciata in Exexe.
terram tenuit Algarus Algar comes tenuit
comes (i. 189 _b_). (i. 190).

The second entry has been deleted as a duplicate, but it serves to show us that the scribes, even when free from error, were no mere copyists.[45]

III. 'SOCA' AND 'THEINLAND'

The extracts I have given above establish beyond a doubt the existence among the 'sochemanni' of two kinds of tenure. We have (1) those who were free to part with (_vendere_) and leave (_recedere_) their land, (2) those who were not, i.e. who could not do so without the abbot's licence. This distinction is reproduced in two terms which I will now examine.

In the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ and the documents connected with it there is much mention of the 'thegnlands' of the Abbey. These lands are specially distinguished from 'sokeland' (_terra de soca_). Both, of course, are distinct from the 'dominium'. Thus in one of the Conqueror's writs we read:

Restituantur ecclesiæ terræ que in _dominio_ suo erant die
obitus Æduardi.... Qui autem tenent _theinlandes_ que procul
dubio debent teneri de ecclesia faciant concordiam cum abbate
quam meliorem poterint,... Hoc quoque de tenentibus _socam_
et _sacam_ fiat.[46]

Now this distinction between 'thegnland' and 'sokeland' will be found to fit in exactly with the difference in tenure we have examined above. Here is an instance from the 'breve abbatis' in the record of Guy de Raimbercurt's aggressions:

In melreda ii. hidas et dim. virg.

In meldeburne ii. hidas et dim.[47] et dim. virg.

Hoc est iiii. hidas et iii. virg. Ex his sunt i. virg. et dim.
_thainlande_ et iiii. hidas et dim.[48] _de soca_.

On reference to the two Manors in question, there is, at first sight, nothing in the I.C.C., the I.E., or Domesday to distinguish the 'thegnland' from the 'sokeland'. Of the first holding we read that it had been held T.R.E. by 10 _sochemanni_ 'de soca S. Edelride'; of the second, that it was held by 'viii. _sochemanni_ ... homines abbatis de Ely'. But closer examination of the I.C.C. reveals, in the former case, this distinction:

De his ii. hidis et dimidia virga tenuit i. istorum _unam
virgam et dimidiam_. Non potuit dare nec vendere absque
licentia abbatis. Sed alii novem potuerunt recedere et vendere
cui voluerunt.[49]

Here then we identify the virgate and a half of 'theinland'--though held by a _sochemannus_--and this same distinction of tenure proves to be the key throughout. Thus, for instance, in the same document 'Herchenger pistor' is recorded to have seized 'in Hardwic i. hidam _thainlande_ et dim. hidam et vi. acras _de soca_' (p. 177). Reference to the I.C.C., D.B., and the I.E. reveals that the former holding had belonged to 'v. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely', and that 'isti non potuerunt dare neque vendere alicui extra ecclesiam S. Edeldride ely'.[50] But the latter holding had belonged to a _sochemannus_, of whom it is said--'homo abbatis de ely fuit: potuit recedere, sed socam ejus abbas habuit'.[51]

This enables us to understand the distinctions found in the summaries appended to the Cambridgeshire portion of the I.E., and recorded in the _Breve Abbatis_. Indeed they confirm the above distinction, for the formula they apply to holders 'de soca abbatie ely' is: 'Illi qui hanc terram tenuerunt de soca T.R.E. vendere potuerunt, sed saca et soca et commendatio et servitium semper remanebat ecclesia de ely.'

These terms are valuable for their definition of rights. Over the holder of land 'de soco' the lord had (1) 'saca et soca', (2) 'commendatio et (3) servitium'. If the land was thegnland then the Abbot received 'omnem consuetudinem' as well.[52] We will first deal with the latter class, those from whom the Abbot received 'consuetudo', and then those who held 'de soca'.

For contemporary (indeed, slightly earlier) evidence, we must turn to the Ely _placitum_ of 1072-75.[53] The special value which this _placitum_ possesses is found in its record of the services due from _sochemanni_, and even from freemen. It thus helps to interpret the bald figures of Domesday, to which it is actually anterior. The first two instances it affords are these:

In breuessan tenet isdem W. terram Elfrici supradicte
consuetudinis. In brucge tenet ipse W. terram etfled ejusdem
modi.

The _consuetudo_ referred to was this:

Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque preceperit
prepositus monasterii ire et omnem rei emendationem
persolvere. Et si quid de suo voluerint venundare, a preposito
prius licentiam debent accipere.

The corresponding entries in the I.E. run thus:

'In Brugge una libera femina commend' S. Ædel. de lxxx. ac.
pro manerio.

In Beuresham ten[uit] Ælfricus i. liber homo commed' S.
Ædel.[54] lx. acras pro manerio' (p. 165).

Thus we obtain direct evidence of the services due from commended freemen owing 'consuetudines'. Turning now to those of _sochemanni_, we have this important passage:

Willelmus de Warena tenet quadraginta quinque socamans in
predicta felteuuella qui quotiens abbas preceperit in anno
arabunt suam terram, colligent et purgabunt segetes,
adducent et mittent in horrea, portabunt victum monachorum ad
monasterium, et quotiens eorum equos voluerit, et ubicunque
sibi placuerit, totiens habebit, et ubicunque forsfecerint
abbas forsfacturam habebit, et de illis similiter qui in eorum
terram forsfecerint.

Item Willelmus de uuarenna tenet triginta tres socamans,
istius consuetudinis in Nortuuolda.

Item W. tenet quinque socamans istius modi in Muddaforda.

Supradictus Walterus et cum eo Durandus, homines hugonis de
monte forti, tenent xxvi. socamans supradicte consuetudinis in
Maraham.

Collating as before from the I.E. the relative entries, we find they run thus:

Felteuuelle ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxxiiii.
homines cum omni consuetudine, et alii vii. erant liberi
homines,[55] qui poterant vendere terras, sed soca et
commendatio remansit S. Ædel. (p. 132).

In felteuuella tenet W. de uuarenna xli. sochemannos ... Super
hos omnes habebat S. Ædel. socam et commendationem et omnem
consuetudinem. Illorum vii. liberi erant cum terris suis, sed
soca et commendatio remanebat S. Ædel. (p. 139).

IIII. sochemanni adjacent [_sic_] huic manerio [felteuuella]
T.R.E. Et modo habet eos W. de Warenna (p. 138).

Nortuualde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxx. sochemanni
cum omni consuetudine. Et alii iiii. liberi homines qui
poterant vendere terras, sed saca et commendatio remanebat S.
Ædel. (p. 132).

In Nortuualde S. Ædel. xxxiiii. sochem [annos] ... S.
Ædel. [habuit] socam et commendationem et omnem consuetudinem
de illis xxx. tantum; et iiii. erant liberi homines, socam et
sacam et commendationem [super hos] S. Ædel. habebat[56] (p.
139).

Mundeforde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. septem
sochemanni cum omni consuetudine (p. 132).

In Mundeforde S. Ædel. vii. sochemannos cum omni consuetudine
(p. 139).

Huic manerio [Mareham] T.R.E. adjacebant viginti vii.
sochemanni cum omni consuetudine, sed postquam Rex W. advenit,
habuit eos hugo de Munfort preter unum (p. 130).

[Terre hugo de Munford.] In mareham xxvi. sochemanni
quos tenet [_sic_] S. Ædel. T.R.E.[57] ... hanc terram
receperunt[58] pro escangio, et mensurata est in brevi S.
Ædel. (p. 137).

Here then we identify these four cases: Feltwell, with its 41 _sochemanni_ (more accurately described as 34 s. and 7 _liberi homines_) attached to one Manor and four to another--45 in all; Northwold, with its 33 or 34;[59] Muddiford with 5 or 7;[60] and Marham with its 26.

The three former Manors lay in the Hundred of Grimeshoe, the fourth northwards, towards the Wash. Just to the south of the three Manors, over the borders of Suffolk, lay Brandon, where Lisois de Moustiers had usurped the rights of Ely over six _sochemanni_.

In Lakincgeheda et in Brandona vi. sochemanni S. Ædel. ita
quod non potuerunt vendere terras liberati liseie antecessori
eudo[nis] dapif[eri] ... Post eum tenuit eos eudo et tenet cum
saca et soca (p. 142).

The record of the _placitum_, drawn up during the tenure of Lisois, shows us their limited services: 'Isti solummodo arabant et c'terent [_sic_] messes ejusdem loci quotienscunque abbas præceperit.' The difference between these services and the others we have seen recorded is considerable.

Yet another group of sokemen on Suffolk Manors rendered these services:

Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque ipse præceperit
in anno arabunt suam terram, purgabunt et colligent segetes,
portabunt victum monachorum ad monasterium, equos eorum in
suis necessitatibus habebit [abbas], et ubicunque deliquerint
emendationem habebit semper et de omnibus illis qui in terris
eorum deliquerint.

This is practically the same definition as we had for the other group, and suggests that it was of wide prevalence. A notable contrast is afforded by the entry: 'In villa que vocatur Blot tenet ipse R. iiii. homines qui tantum debent servire abbati cum propriis equis in omnibus necessitatibus suis.'

We have now examined the _consuetudines_ due from those 'qui vendere non potuerunt', and may turn to the rights exercised over the other class. Excluding 'servitium' (which is usually omitted as subordinate or comprised in the others), these are: (1) 'commendatio' (2) 'saca et soca'. The distinction between the two meets us throughout the survey of the eastern counties. A man might be 'commended' to one lord while another held his _soca_. Thus we read of Eadwine, a 'man' of the Abbot of Ely: 'Potuit dare absque eius licentia, sed socam comes Algarus habuit.'[61] That is to say, he was 'commended to the Abbot of Ely', but Earl Ælfgar had the right of 'sac and soc' over him.[62]

So too in the case of three 'liberi homines', commended to the Abbot in Norfolk. He had no right over them, but such as commendation conferred 'non habebat nisi commendationem', while their 'soca' belonged to the King's Manor of Keninghall.[63] Conversely, the Abbot of Ely had the 'soca' of a 'man' of Earl Waltheof,[64] and a 'man' of John, Waleran's nephew.[65] 'Commendatio', of course, took precedence as a right. Thus we read of the above three 'liberi homines'--'Hos liberos homines tenet [tenuit] Ratfridus, postea W. de Scodies, et abbas saisivit eos propter commendationem suam' (p. 133).

In the above extracts we saw 'liberi homines qui vendere poterant' distinguished from 'Sochemanni', who could not sell. But we also saw that the two classes were not always carefully distinguished. We find, moreover, that the 'liberi homines' were themselves, sometimes, 'not free to sell'. Thus 'tenuit anant unus liber homo sub S. Ædel. T.R.E. pro manerio ii. carucatas terræ sed non potuit vendere' (p. 142). Some light may be thrown on this by the case of the estate held by Godmund, an abbot's brother:

Totam terram quam tenebat Gudmundus in dominio, id est
Nectuna, sic tenebat T.R.E. de S. Ædel. quod nullo modo
poterat vendere, nec dare; sed post mortem suam debebat
manerium redire in dominio ecclesiæ; quia tali pacto tenuit
Gudmundus de Abbate (p. 144).

With this we may compare these entries:

In Cloptuna ... Ædmundus commendatus S. Ædel. unam carucatam
... quam non potuit vendere nec dare (p. 150).

In Brandestuna Ædmundus presbyter terram quam accepit
cum femina sua dedit S. Ædel. concedente femina T.R.E. ea
conventione quod non posset eam dare nec vendere. Similiter de
Clopetona' (p. 152).

In these cases the holder had only a life interest. Exactly parallel with the second is the case of 'Eadward', citizen of London, who gave lands to St. Paul's, reserving a life interest for himself and his wife--'et mortua illa Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit'.[66]

The above commendation of Edmund the priest ought to be compared with that of 'unus liber homo S. Ædel. commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat vendere terram suam sine licentia abbatis', and of 'i. liber homo S. Ædel. Commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat vendere terram suam extra ecclesiam (sed sacam et socam habuit stigandus in hersham)'.[67] Thus both those who were free to sell and those who were not, might belong to the class of 'liberi homines'. The essential distinction was one, not of status, but of tenure.