Chapter V: Part I: Territorial Studies (2)

IV. THE DOMESDAY CARUCA

Yet more definite and striking, however, is the information on the Domesday _caruca_ afforded by collating D.B. with the I.C.C. I referred at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) to the problem raised by the _caruca_,[68] and recorded my belief that in _Domesday_ the word must always mean a plough team of _eight_ oxen. The eight oxen, as Mr Seebohm has shown, are the key to the whole system of the carucate and the bovate. In Domesday, as I argued, the _formula_ employed involves of necessity the conclusion that the _caruca_ was a fixed quantity. Such entries, moreover, as 'terra i. bovi', 'terra ad iii. boves', etc., can only be explained on the hypothesis that the relation of the _bos_ to the _caruca_ was constant. But as the question is one of undoubted perplexity, and as some, like Mr Pell, have strenuously denied that the number of oxen in the Domesday _caruca_ was fixed,[69] the evidence given below is as welcome as it is conclusive:

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

fo. 96 (_a_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce I. 202 (_a_) 2: 'Terra est.
est ibi terra.' iiii. bobus.'
fo. 103 (_a_) 2: 'iiii. bobus I. 190 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est
est terra ibi.' dimidiæ carucæ.'
fo. 103 (_b_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce I. 196 (_b_) 2: 'Terra est
est ibi [terra].' iiii. bobus.'
fo. 112 (_b_) 1: 'iiii. bobus I. 201 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est
est ibi terra.' dimidiæ caruce.'
fo. 112 (_b_) 2: 'iiii. bobus I. 202 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est
est ibi terra. iiii. bobus, et
Et ibi sunt. Pratum ibi sunt, et
dimidiae caruce.' pratum ipsis bobus.'

It is absolutely certain from these entries that the scribes must have deemed it quite immaterial whether they wrote 'dimidia caruca' or 'iiii. boves'; as immaterial as it would be to us whether we wrote 'half a sovereign' or 'ten shillings'. It is, consequently, as absolutely certain that the Domesday _caruca_ was composed of eight oxen as that our own sovereign is composed of twenty shillings. And from this conclusion there is no escape.[70]

Another point in connection with the _caruca_ on which the I.C.C. gives us the light we need is this:

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

fo. 102 (_a_) 2: 'ii. carrucis I. 200 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est iii.
ibi est terra. Non sunt carruce carucis. Sed non sunt ibi nisi
nisi sex boves.' boves.

Here the Domesday text is utterly misleading as it stands. But the I.C.C., by supplying the omitted 'sex', gives us at once the right sense.

V. THE DOMESDAY HIDE

Similar to its evidence on the Domesday 'plough' is that which the I.C.C. affords as to the hide and virgate. In my criticism of Mr Pell's learned paper, I strenuously opposed his view that the _hida_ of Domesday was composed of a variable number of virgates, and I insisted on the fact that the Domesday 'virgate' was essentially and always the _quarter_ of the geldable 'hide'.[71] The following parallel passages will amply prove the fact:

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

fo. 102 (_a_) 1: i. hidam et i. hidam et iii. virgatas terræ.--
dimidiam et unam virgam. i. 194 (_a_) 2.
fo. 102 (_a_) 1: dimidiam ii. virg' et dimidiam--i. 194
hidam et dimidiam virg'. (_a_) 2.
fo. 103 (_a_) 1: dimidiam ii.^{as} virg' et dimidiam--i. 198
hidam et dimidiam virg'. (_a_) 2.
fo. 103 (_b_) 1: i. hida et i. hida et ii. virg' et dimidiam--
dimidia et dimidia virg'. i. 190 (_a_) 2.
fo. 103 (_b_) 2: i. hida et i. hida et iii. virg'--i. 198
dimidia et i. virg'. (_b_) 1.
fo. 106 (_b_) 2: iiii. hidæ iv. hidæ et iii. virg'--i. 200
et dimidia et una virg'. (_b_) 1.
fo. 112 (_a_) 2: xi. hidæ i. x. hidæ et iii. virg--i. 192
virg' minus. (_b_) 1.

These are only some of the passages of _direct_ glossarial value.[72] Indirectly, that is to say by analysis of the township assessments, we obtain the same result throughout the survey _passim_.[73] Here, again, we are able to assert that two virgates must have been to the scribes as obviously equivalent to half a hide as ten shillings with us are equivalent to half a sovereign. For here, again, the point is that these scribes had no knowledge of the varying circumstances of each locality. They had nothing to guide them but the return itself, so that the rule, in Domesday, of 'four virgates to a hide' must have been of universal application.

But not only were there thus, in Domesday, four virgates to a hide; there were also in the Domesday virgate thirty Domesday acres. Mr Eyton, though perhaps unrivalled in the study he has bestowed on the subject, believed that there were only twelve such acres, of which, therefore, forty-eight composed the Domesday hide.[74] It is, perhaps, the most important information to be derived from the I.C.C. that _a hundred and twenty_ Domesday acres composed the Domesday hide.[75]

We have the following direct statements:

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

fo. 105 (_b_) 2: 'una virg' i. 202 (_b_) 1: 'In dominio
et x. acre in dominio'. dimidia hida xx. acras minus.'
fo. iii. (_a_) 1: 'tenet i. 193 (_b_) 1: 'tenet comes
Rogerus comes xx. acras.' ii. partes unius virg'.'

If 20 acres were identical with two-thirds of a virgate, there must, in a whole virgate, have been 30 acres; and if a virgate, _plus_ 10 acres, was equivalent to half a hide minus 20 acres, we have again a virgate of thirty, and a hide of 120 acres. But the conclusion I uphold will be found to rest on no isolated facts. It is based on a careful analysis of the _Inquisitio_ throughout. Here are some striking examples:

fo. 92 (_b_) 1. 'Belesham pro x. hidis se defendit.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Abbot of Ely 9 0 0
Hardwin 80
'Almar' 40
-- -- --
10 0 0

fo. 99 (_b_) 1: 'tenet hardeuuinus de scal' vi. hidas et i. virgam et vii. acras de rege.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Ely Abbey 2-1/2 0 9 \
7 Sokemen 1-1/2 0 6 }
3 Sokemen 1/2 0 0 } T.R.E.
'Alsi' 1/2 0 0 }
2 Sokemen 1 7 }
5 Sokemen 3-1/2 0 /
----- ----- ----
6 1 7

fo. 79 (a) 2: 'Suafham pro x. hidis se defendit.'

_H._ _V._ _ A._

Hugh de Bolebec 7-1/2 0 10
Geoffrey 1 3 0
Aubrey de Ver 1/2 0 20
----- -- --
10 0 0

fo. 90 (_a_) 'choeie et stoua pro x. hidis se defenderunt.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Odo 1 0 0
Reginald 1/2 0 20[76]
Picot (1) 3 3 0
Picot (2) 4-1/2 0 10
----- -- -----
10 0 0

fo. 96 (_a_) 2: 'Pampeswrda pro v. hidis et xxii. acris se defendit.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Abbot of Ely 2 3-1/2 0
Two Knights 1 0 22
Ralf 'de scannis' 3 0
Hardwin 10
Picot 5
Hardwin 1/2[77] 0
A priest 1/2 0
----- ----- -----
5 0 22

fo. 107 (_a_) 2: 'Barentona pro x. hidis se defendit.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Robert Gernon 7 1-1/2[78] 0
Chatteris Abbey 2 0 0
Ralf 20
Walter fitz Aubrey 40
Picot 1/2 0
----- ----- ----
10 0 0

fo. 108 (_a_) 2: 'Oreuuella pro iiii. hidis se defendit.'

_H._ _V._ _A._

Earl Roger 1 1-1/3 0
Durand 3-1/3 0
'Sigar' 1-1/3 0
Picot 3-1/4 5
Walter fitz Aubrey 1 0
Robert 1 0
Ralf 'de bans' 1/3 0[79]
Chatteris Abbey 1/4 0[79]
--- ------ ---
4 0 0

This last example is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all, in the accuracy with which the virgates and their fractions, by the help of the five acres, combine to give us the required total.

But, it may be asked, how far does the _Inquisitio_, as a whole, confirm this conclusion? In order to reply to this inquiry, I have analysed every one of the Manors it contains. The result of that analysis has been that of the ninety-four townships which the fragment includes (not counting 'Matingeleia', of which the account is imperfect) there are only fifteen cases in which my calculation does not hold good, that is to say, in which the constituents as given do not equal the total assessment when we add them up on the above hypothesis of thirty acres to the virgate, and four virgates to the hide. This number, however, would be considerably larger if we had to work only from D.B., or only from the I.C.C. But as each of these, in several cases, corrects the errors of the other, the total of apparent exceptions is thus reduced. Hence I contend that if we could only get a really perfect return, the remaining apparent exceptions would largely disappear.

In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus, at Triplow, we have 2 acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment--a discrepancy of 1/480. At 'Burch and Weslai' we have a deficit of 5 acres on 10 hides, that is 1/240. At 'Scelforda' the figures of D.B. give us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is 7/2400. The I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.

Another class of exceptions is accounted for by the tendency of both texts, as we have seen, to enter a virgate too much or too little, and to confuse virgates with their fractions. Thus at 'Litlingetona' our figures give us a virgate in excess of the assessment, while at 'Bercheham'[80] and again at 'Witlesforde' we have a virgate short of the amount. At 'Herlestona' we have, similarly, half a virgate too much, and 'Kingestona' half a virgate (15 acres) too little. Lastly, at 'Wicheham', the aggregate of the figures is a quarter of a virgate short of the amount.

A third class of these exceptions is due to the frequent omission in the I.C.C. of estates belonging to the king. Thus at Wilbraham it records an assessment of 10 hides represented only by two estates of four hides apiece. But on turning to Domesday (i. 189 _b_) we read: 'Wilborham dominica villa regis est. Ibi ii. hidæ.' The missing factor is thus supplied, and the apparent discrepancy disposed of. So, too, at 'Haslingefelda' (Haslingfield), where the I.C.C. accounts only for twelve hides and three virgates out of an assessment of twenty hides. Domesday here, again, supplies the missing factor in a royal Manor of seven hides and a virgate. We thus obtain, instead of an exception, a fresh illustration of our rule.

_Haslingfield_

_H._ _V._ _A._

Rex 7 1
Picot 4 3
Count Alan 1 1/2
The same 1/2
Geoffrey de Mandeville 5
Guy de Raimberccurt 1 1 3
Count Alan 12
---- ----- ----
20 0 0

Domesday omits altogether, so far as I can find, the holding of Guy, an omission which would upset the whole calculation. But, in the case of Isleham, the apparent exception is due to the I.C.C., not to Domesday Book. Its assessment, in that document, is given as four hides. But the aggregate of its Manors, as there recorded, gives us an assessment of three hides _plus_ eighty acres. Here any one who was rash enough to argue from a single instance (as Mr Eyton and Mr Pell were too apt to do) might jump at the conclusion that the hide must here have been of eighty acres. Yet Domesday enables us to collect all the constituents of the 'Vill', among them the king's estate, here again omitted. The real figures, therefore, were these:

_H._ _V._ _A._ _D.B._

The King 6 0 40 i. 189 _b._
Bishop of Rochester 1-1/2 0 20 i. 190 _b._
Hugh de Port 1-1/2 0 20 i. 199 _a._
Earl Alan 40 i. 195 _b._
----- --- ----
10 0 0

Isleham, then, was a normal ten-hide township, and confirms, instead of rebutting, the rule that the geldable hide contained 120 acres.[81]

The remaining exceptions are 'Somm[er]tona' partly explained by the omission of _terra Regis_, 'Bathburgeham' (Babraham) with 21 acres short of an assessment of 7 hides, and Carlton, which fitly closes the list of these exceptions. For here, on an assessment of 10 hides, we have, according to the I.C.C., 27 acres short, but, according to D.B., 53-1/2 (27 + 20 + 6-1/2). A demonstrable blunder in Domesday Book and a discrepancy between it and the I.C.C. are responsible, together, for the difference.[82] Thus we see how wide a margin should be allowed, in these calculations, for textual error.

It is necessary to remember that there were three processes, in each one of which error might arise:

I. In the actual survey and its returns, 'by reason of the insignificance of some estates, or by reason of forgetfulness, or inaccuracy, or confusion, or doubt on the part of local jurors and witnesses, or of the clerks who indited their statements'.[83]

II. In the collection and transmission of the returns, by the loss of a 'leaflet or rotulet of the commissioners' work'.[84]

III. In the transcription of the returns into D.B., or into the I.C.C., _plus_, in the case of the former, the rearrangement and abridgment of the materials.

We may now quit this part of our subject, claiming to have settled, by the aid of the I.C.C., a problem which has puzzled generations of antiquaries, namely: 'What was the Domesday hide?'[85] We have shown that it denoted a measure of assessment composed of four (geld) virgates or a hundred and twenty (geld) acres. What relation, if any, it bore to _area_ and to _value_ is a question wholly distinct, on which the next portion of this essay may throw quite a new light.

VI. THE FIVE-HIDE UNIT

It is one of the distinctive and valuable features of the _Inq. Com. Cant._ that it gives us the total assessment for each Vill of which it treats before recording the several Manors of which that Vill is composed, the aggregate assessments of which Manors make up the total assessment for the Vill. In this feature we have something which Domesday does not contain, and which (independently of its checking value),[86] gives us at once those Vill assessments which we could only extract from the Domesday entries by great labour and with much uncertainty. Let us see then if these Vill assessments lead us to any new conclusions on the whole assessment system.

The first point that we notice is this. The _five-hide unit_ is brought into startling prominence. No careful student, one would suppose, of Domesday, can have failed to be struck by the singular number of Manors in the hidated portion of the realm, which are assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, that is to say, which are entered as of five hides or some multiple of five hides. This is specially the case with towns, and some years ago, in one of my earliest essays, I called attention to the fact, and explained its bearing in connection with the unit of military service.[87] Yet no one, it would seem, has been struck by the fact, or has seen that there must be some significance in this singular preponderance of five-hide Manors. Now what the _Inquisitio_ here does for us is to show us that this preponderance is infinitely greater than we should gather from the pages of Domesday, and that when the scattered Manors are pieced together in their Vills, the aggregate of their assessments generally amounts either to five hides or to a multiple of the five-hide unit. Thus the rural townships are brought into line with towns, and we learn that in both the assessment was based on the _five-hide unit_.

Let us now take a typical Hundred and test this theory in practice:

HUNDRED OF STAINES

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 11-17)

_Vill._ _Hides_ _Ploughlands_ _Valets_

(T.R.E.)

Bottisham 10 20 £16 0 0
Swaffham (1) 10 16 11 10 0
Swaffham (2) 10 13-1/4 12 10 0
Wilbraham 10 17 20 0 0
Stow-cum-Quy 10 11 14 10 0
-- ------ ------------
50 77-1/4 £74 10 0

Here we have five Vills varying in area from eleven ploughlands to twenty, and in value T.R.E., from £11 10s to £20, all assessed alike at ten hides each. What is the meaning of it? Simply that ASSESSMENT BORE NO RATIO TO AREA OR TO VALUE in a Vill, and still less in a Manor.

Assessment was not objective, but subjective; it was not fixed relatively to area or to value, but to the five-hide unit. The aim of the assessors was clearly to arrange the assessment in sums of five hides, ten hides, etc.

Take now the next Hundred in the _Inq. Com. Cant._:

HUNDRED OF RADFIELD

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 17-25)

_Hides_ _Ploughlands_ _Valets_

(T.R.E.)

Dullingham 10 16 £19 5 0
Stetchworth 10 13-1/4 12 15 0
Borough Green
and Westley 10 17 17 1 4
Carlton 10 19-1/2 18 10 0
Weston 10 19-1/4 13 15 0
Wratting 10 15-3/4 8 8 0
Balsham 10 20 12 13 4
-- ------- -------------
70 120-3/4 £102 7 8

Here again we have seven Vills varying in area from thirteen and a quarter ploughlands to twenty, and in value from £8 8s to £19 5s, all uniformly assessed at ten hides each. The thing speaks for itself. Had the hidation in these two Hundreds been dependent on area or value, the assessments would have varied infinitely. As it is, there is for each Vill but one and the same assessment.

Note further that the I.C.C. enables us to localize holdings the locality of which is unnamed in Domesday: also, that it shows us how certain Vills were combined for the purpose of assessment. Thus Borough Green and Westley are treated in Domesday as distinct, but here we find that they were assessed together as a ten-hide block. By this means we are enabled to see how the five-hide system could be traced further still if we had in other districts the same means of learning how two or three Vills were thus grouped together.

We may now take a step in advance, and pass to the Hundred of Whittlesford.

HUNDRED OF WHITTLESFORD

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 38-43)

_Hides_ _Ploughlands_ _Valets_

(T.R.E.)

Whittlesford 12 } 20 11 } 20 £15 2 0 } £34 2 0
Sawston 8 } 9 } 19 0 0 }
Hinxton 20 16 20 10 0
Icklington 20 24-1/2 24 5 0
Duxford 20 20-1/4 27 5 0
-- ------ ---------
80 80-3/4 £106 2 0

Here we are left to discover for ourselves that Whittlesford and Sawston were grouped together to form a twenty-hide block. And on turning from the above figures to the map we find the discovery verified, these two Vills jointly occupying the northern portion of the hundred. Thus, this hundred, instead of being divided like its two predecessors into ten-hide blocks, was assessed in four blocks of twenty hides each, each of them representing one of those quarters so dear to the Anglo-Saxon mind (_virgata_, etc.), and lying respectively in the north, south, east and west of the district. Proceeding on the lines of this discovery, we come to the Hundred of Wetherley, which carries us a step further.

HUNDRED OF WETHERLEY

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 68-83)

_Hides_ _Ploughlands_

Comberton 6} 7 }
Barton 7} 20 12 } 32
Grantchester 7} 13 }

Haslingfield 20 22[88]

Harlton 5} 7 }
Barrington 10} 20 15-3/8 } 27-7/8
Shepreth 5} 5-1/2 }

Ordwell 4} 5-5/16}
Wratworth 4} 5-3/8 }
Whitwell 4} 20 5 } 29-3/16
Wimpole 4} 5 }
Arrington 4} 8-1/2 }
-- --------
80 111-1/16

It is important to observe that, though the grouping is my own, the _order_ of the Vills is exactly that which is given in the _Inq. Com. Cant._, and by that order the grouping is confirmed. Note also how, without such grouping, we should have but a chaos of Vills, whereas, by its aid, from this chaos is evolved perfect symmetry. Lastly, glance at the four 'quarters' and see how variously they are subdivided.

Advancing still on the same lines, we approach the very remarkable case of the adjoining Hundred of Long Stow.

Now it is necessary to explain at the outset that, the _Inq. Com. Cant._ being here imperfect, it only gives us the first two of the above 'quarters', its evidence ending with Bourne. But, by good fortune, it is possible to reconstruct from Domesday alone the remaining half of the Hundred, and thus to obtain the most valuable example of the system we are engaged in tracing that we have yet met with. The grouping I have adopted is based on the figures, but in some cases it is obvious from the map: Eltisley and Croxton, for instance, which form a ten-hide block, occupy a projecting portion of the county all to themselves, while Caxton adjoins them.

HUNDRED OF LONGSTOW

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 83-89)

_Hides_ _Ploughlands_

Eversden 8-1/3} 13-3/8 }
Kingston 8-1/3} 25 8-9/16 } 38-1/16
Toft and Hardwick 8-1/3} 16-1/8 }

Grandsen 5 } 25 9 }
Bourne 20 } [23 } 32-1/2

Gamlingay 20}
}
Hatley 4-1/4} 5} 25
[Unnamed] 3/4} }

Croxton 7 } }
Eltisley 3 } 10}
}
Caxton 10} 25
}
Caldecot 1-3/4} }
Long Stow 3-1/4} 5}
--------
100

Several points are here noticeable. Observe, in the first place, how the twenty-five hide 'quarter' which heads the list is divided into three _equal_ blocks of 8-1/3 hides each, just as we found in Wetherley Hundred that one of the twenty-hide 'quarters' was divided into five _equal_ blocks of four hides each. In these cases the same principle of simple equal division was applied to the quarter hundred as we saw applied to the whole hundred in the first two cases we studied--the Hundreds of Staines and of Radfield. Notice next how the two Vills of Toft and Hardwick, which are separately surveyed in Domesday under their respective names, are found from the _Inq. Com. Cant._ to have combined (under the name of 'Toft') in a block of 8-1/3 hides. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the 3/4 hide not localized in Domesday fits in exactly with Hatley to complete its five hides.

The chase now becomes exciting: it can no longer be doubted that we are well on the track of a vast system of artificial hidation, of which the very existence has been hitherto unsuspected. Let us see what further light can be thrown by research on its nature.

On looking back at the evidence I have collected, one is struck, surely, by the thought that the system of assessment seems to work, not as is supposed, _up from_, but _down to_ the Manor. Can it be possible that what was really assessed was not the Manor, nor even the Vill, but the Hundred as a whole? This view is so revolutionary, so subversive of all that has ever been written on the subject, that it cannot be answered off-hand. We will therefore begin by examining the case of the Hundred of Erningford, which introduces us to a further phenomenon, the _reduction_ of assessment.

HUNDRED OF ERNINGFORD

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 51-68)

_Hides_ _Ploughlands_

T.R.E. T.R.W.

Morden (1) 10 8 20
Tadlow 5 4 10-1/2
Morden (2) 5 4 10-3/4
Clopton 5 4 7
Hatley 5 4 7
Croydon 10 8 11-1/2
Wendy 5 4 6-3/4
Shingay 5 4 6
Litlington 5 4 11
Abington 5 4 3-3/4
Bassingburne 10 8 22
Whaddon 10 8 14-3/4
Meldreth 10 8 20-1/2
Melbourne 10 8 19-1/2
--- -- -------
100 80 171

Here we have, as in the last instance, a Hundred of exactly a hundred hides (assessment). But we are confronted with a new problem, that of reduction. Before we form any conclusions, it is important to explain that this problem can only be studied by the aid of the _Inq. Com. Cant._, for the evidence both of Domesday and of the _Inq. El._ is distinctly misleading. Reduction of assessment is only recorded in these two documents when the Manor is identical with the Vill. In cases where the Vill contains two or more Manors, the Vill is not entered as a whole, and consequently the reduction on the assessment of that Vill as a whole is not entered at all.

After this explanation I pass to the case of the above Hundred, in which the evidence on the reduction is fortunately perfect. The first point to be noticed is that in four out of the five Hundreds that we have as yet examined, there is not a single instance of reduction, whereas here, on the contrary, the assessment is reduced in every Vill throughout the Hundred. That is to say, the reduction is _conterminous with the Hundred_. Cross its border into the Hundred of Wetherley, or of Triplow, and in neither district will you find a trace of reduction. Observe next that the reduction is _uniform_ throughout the whole, being 20 per cent in every instance. Now what is the inevitable conclusion from the _data_ thus afforded? Obviously that the reduction was made on the assessment of the Hundred _as a whole_, and that this reduction was distributed among its several Vills _pro rata_.[89] Further research confirms the conclusion that these reductions were systematically made on _Hundreds_, not on Vills. There is a well defined belt, or rather crescent, of Hundreds, in all of which the assessment is reduced. They follow one another on the map in this order: Erningford, Long Stow, Papworth, North Stow, Staplehow, and Cheveley. Within this crescent there lies a compact block of Hundreds, in no one of which has a single assessment been reduced. They are Triplow, Wetherley (? Cambridge[90]), Flendish, Staines, Radfield, Chilford and Whittlesford. Beyond the crescent there lie 'the two Hundreds of Ely', in which, so far as our evidence goes, there would seem to have been similarly no reduction. As the two horns of the crescent, so to speak, are the Hundreds of Erningford and Cheveley, we will now glance at the latter, and compare the evidence of the two.

HUNDRED OF CHEVELEY

(_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 9-11)

_Hides_

T.R.E. T.R.W. _Ploughlands_

Silverley 6-1/2} 4} 8}
Ashley 3-1/2} 10 2} 6 4} 12
Saxon Street 5 3 7[93]
Ditton 5 3[92] (or 4) 10
Ditton 10 1 16
Kirtling 10 6 21
Cheveley 10[91]
--
50

As a preliminary point, attention may be called to the fact that the grouping of Ashley and Silverley, although they are surveyed separately in the _Inq. Com. Cant._, is justified by their forming, as 'Ashley-cum-Silverley' a single parish. So too, Saxon Street may be safely combined with Ditton, in which it is actually situate. We thus have a Hundred of fifty hides divided into five blocks of ten hides each, and thus presenting a precise parallel to the Hundred of Staines, the first that we examined.

And now for the reductions. As the Vill of Cheveley, unluckily, is nowhere surveyed as a whole, we have in its case no evidence. But of the five remaining Vills above (counting Ashley-cum-Silverley as one), four we see had had their assessments reduced on a _uniform_ scale, just as in the Hundred of Long Stow. Now this is a singular circumstance, and it leads me to this conclusion. I believe that, precisely as in the latter case, the assessment of the Hundred _as a whole_ was reduced by twenty hides. This was equivalent to 40 per cent, which was accordingly knocked off from the assessment of each of its constituent Vills. One of the Dittons is clearly an exception, having nine hides, not four, thus knocked off. I would suggest, as the reason for this exception, that Ditton having now become a 'dominica villa regis' (_Inq. Com. Cant._, p. 10), was specially favoured by having a five-hide unit further knocked off its assessment, just as in the case of Chippenham (_Ibid._, p. 2).[94]

It has been my object in the above argument to recall attention to the corporate character, the _solidarité_ of the Hundred. This character, of which the traces are preserved in its collective responsibility, even now, for damages caused by riot, strongly favours the view which I am here bringing forward, that it was the Hundred itself which was assessed for geld, and which was held responsible for its payment. Although this view is absolutely novel, and indeed destructive of the accepted belief, it is in complete harmony with the general principle enunciated by Dr Stubbs, and is a further proof of the confirmation which his views often obtain from research and discovery. Treating of 'the Hundred as an area for rating', he writes thus:

There can be no doubt that the organization of the Hundred had
a fiscal importance, not merely as furnishing the profits of
fines and the produce of demesne or folkland, but as forming a
rateable division of the county.[95]

Now there are several circumstances which undoubtedly point to my own conclusion. We know from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, that the Domesday Commissioners held their inquiry in the Court of each Hundred, and had for jurors the men of that Hundred. Now if the Hundred, as I suggest, was assessed for geld as a whole, its representatives would be clearly the parties most interested in seeing that each Vill or Manor was debited with its correct share of the general liability. Again we know from the _Inquisitio Geldi_ that the geld was collected and paid through the machinery of the Hundred; and its collectors, in Devonshire, are 'Hundremanni'. The Hundred, in fact, was the unit for the purpose.[96] Further, we have testimony to the same effect in the survey of East Anglia. But as that survey stands by itself, it must have separate treatment.[97]

I need not further discuss the collective liability of the Hundred, having already shown in my 'Danegeld' paper how many allusions to it are to be found in Domesday in the case of urban 'Hundreds'.[98] It is only necessary here to add, as a corollary of this conclusion, that the assessment of a single Manor could not be reduced by the Crown without the amount of that reduction falling upon the rest of the Hundred. Either therefore, that amount must have been allowed ('computatum') to the local collector as were _terræ datæ_ to the sheriff, or (which came to the same thing) the assessment on the Hundred must have been reduced _pro tanto_.

I now proceed to apply my theory that the Hundreds themselves were first assessed, and that such assessments were multiples of the five-hide unit.

We are enabled from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, to determine the assessments of eleven Hundreds.[99] Nine out of these eleven Hundreds prove to have been assessed as follows:

_Hides_
Erningford 100
Long Stow 100
Triplow 90
Staplehow 90[100]
Whittlesford 80
Wetherley 80
Radfield 70
Cheveley 50
Staines 50

This list speaks for itself, but it may be as well to point out how convenient for the Treasury was this system. At the normal Danegeld rate of two shillings on the hide, an assessment of fifty hides would represent £5, one hundred hides £10, and so on.

Can we discover in other counties traces of this same system? Let us first take the adjacent county of Bedfordshire.

I am anxious to explain that for the means of utilizing the Bedfordshire evidence I am entirely indebted to the _Digest of the Domesday of Bedfordshire_ by the late Rev. William Airy (edited by his son, the Rev. B. R. Airy[101]). It was, most happily, pointed out to the author by the Rev. Joseph Hunter 'that what we want is not translations but analyses of the surveys of the several counties' (p. viii). To this most true remark we owe it that Mr Airy resolved to give us a 'digest' instead of that usual 'extension and translation', which is perfectly useless to the Domesday student. It is easy to take from the record itself such an instance as these Beauchamp Manors entered in succession (213): Willington 10 hides, Stotford 15; 'Houstone' 5, Hawnes 5, 'Salchou' 5, Aspley 10, Salford 5; but it is only Mr Airy's work that enables us to reconstruct the townships, and to show how fractions--apparently meaningless--fit in, exactly as in Cambridgeshire, with one another. His work is all the more valuable from the fact that he had no theory to prove, and did not even add together the factors he had ascertained. His figures therefore are absolutely free from the suspicion that always attaches to those adduced to prove a case.

_Risely_ _Tempsford_ _Wymington_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _ V._ _H._ _V._

7 0 1 1-3/4 0 3
1 0 1 1 3 0
1/2 0 4 1 4 0
1/2 0 2 0 1/2 0
1 0 1 1/4 0 3
1 0
------------ ------------ ------------
10 0 10 0 10 0

_Cople_ _Eversholt_ _Clophill_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

4 0 2 0 5 0
5 3 7-1/2 0 4 0
0 1 1/2 0 1 0
------------ ------------ ------------
10 0 10 0 10 0

_Northill_ _Portsgrove_ _Chicksand_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

1-1/2 0 1 0 1/2 0
1-1/2 0 7-1/2 0 3-1/2 0
1/2 0 1 0 3 0
6-1/2 0 1/2 0 1 0
------------ ------------ ------------
10 0 10 0 10 0

_Eyeworth_ _Holwell_ _Odell_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _ V._

9 0 3-1/2 0 4-1/2 1/3
1 0 6-1/2 0 5 1-2/3
------------ ------------ ------------
10 0 10 0 10 0

_Pavenham_ _Houghton Conquest_ _Dean_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

2-1/2 0 5 0 4 0
5 0 1/2 0 2 1/2
2-1/2 0 4-1/2 0 2 7-1/4
0 1/2
------------- ------------- -------------
10 0 10 0 10 0-1/4

Of these fifteen ten-hide townships, the last is selected as an instance of those slight discrepancies which creep in so easily and which account for many apparent exceptions to the rule. Passing to other multiples of the five-hide unit we have:

_Oakley_ _Thurleigh_ _Blunham_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

4 0 0 1 4 1
1 0 1/2 0 0 1
1/2 0 1/2 0
0 1 10 0
3 0
1/2 0
------------- ------------- -------------
5 0 5 0 15 0

_Marston_ _Roxton_ _Dunton_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

{ 2 (less 1/2 virg.) 1 1 { 8 1
10{ 8 (plus 1/2 virg.) 0 4 10{ 1 3

{ 1 1 1 { 5 0
{ 1/2 7-1/2 1 10{ 4-1/2 0
5{ 3 8 3 { 1/2 0
{ 1/2
------------- ------------- ---------------
15 0 20 0 20 0

I now give three illustrations of slight discrepancies:

_Streatley_ _Sutton_ _Eaton Socon_

_H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._

1 0 { 0 3 20 0
4 1 { 1 0 6 3
4-1/3 0 5{ 1-1/2 0 0 1-1/2
0 2/3 { 1/2 0 0 1/2
0 2/3 { 0 3-1/2 9 1
{ 0 1-1/2 0 5-1/2
2 0 2 1/2
0 3 0 1
1/2 0
0 1-1/2
1 0
------------- ------------- -------------
9 3-2/3 9 0-1/2 40 1

In the first case there is a deficiency of 1/120, and in the second of 7/80, while in the third we find an excess of 1/160. No one can doubt that these were really ten-hide, ten-hide, and forty-hide townships. We have to allow, in the first place, for trivial slips, and in the second for possible errors in the baffling work of identification at the present day. One can hardly doubt that if a student with the requisite local knowledge set himself to reconstruct, according to Hundreds, the Bedfordshire Domesday, he would find, as in Cambridgeshire, that even where a township was not assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, it was combined in an adjacent one in such an assessment.

We will now cross the border into Huntingdonshire, and enter the great Hundred of Hurstingston. This, which may be described as a _double_ Hundred, was assessed, Domesday implies, at 200 hides. Quartering this total, on the Cambridgeshire system, we obtain fifty hides, and this quarter was the assessment allotted to the borough of Huntingdon.[102] The total assessment of the Hundred was thus accounted for:

_Hides_
Huntingdon 50
St. Ives (Slepe) 20
Hartford 15
Spaldwick 15
Stukeley 10
Abbots Ripton 10
Upwood 10
Warboys 10
Calne 6 }
Bluntisham 6-1/2 } 20-1/2[103]
Somersham 8 }
Wistow[104] 9
Holywell 9
Houghton 7
Wyton 7
Broughton 4
Catworth 4[105]
--------
200-1/2

Passing on into Northamptonshire, we come to that most curious document, which I shall discuss below (_see_ p. 124), and which was printed by Ellis (_Introduction to Domesday_, i. 187 _et seq._). Ellis, however, can scarcely have read his own document, for he speaks of it as a list 'in which every Hundred is made to consist of a _hundred hides_'.[106] This extraordinary assertion has completely misled Dr Stubbs, who writes:

The document given by Ellis as showing that the Hundreds of
Northampton each contained a hundred hides seems to be a mere
attempt of an early scribe to force them into symmetry.[107]

It is greatly to be wished that some one with the requisite local knowledge should take this list in hand and work out its details thoroughly. In capable hands it should prove a record of the highest interest. For the present I will only point out that its contents are in complete harmony with the results that I obtained on the Hundred in Cambridgeshire; for it gives us Hundreds assessed at 150 (four), 100 (nine), 90 (two), 80 (four), 60 (one), and 40 (one) hides, with a small minority of odd numbers. This list throws further light on the institution of the Hundred by its recognition of 'double' and 'half' Hundreds. Note also in this connection the preference for 100-hide and fifty-hide assessments, which here amount to thirteen out of the twenty instances above, and in Cambridgeshire to four out of nine. These signs of an endeavour to force such assessments into terms of a fifty-hide unit will be dealt with below.[108]

In Hertfordshire, as indeed in other counties, there is great need for that local research which alone can identify and group the Domesday holdings. So far as single Vills are concerned, Bengeo affords a good illustration of the way in which scattered fractions work out in combination.

_H._ _V._
Count Alan 0 1
Hugh de Beauchamp 6 0
Geoffrey de Mandeville 3 1
{ 5 1
{ 6-1/2 0
Geoffrey de Bech { 1 1-1/2
{ 0 5-1/2
{ 0 3-1/2
Peter de Valognes 0 1/2
-----------------
25 0

If we now push on to Worcestershire, we find a striking case in the Hundred (or rather the triple Hundred[109]) of Oswaldslow. Its assessment was 300 hides;[110] and I am able to assert that of these we can account for 299, and that it contained Manors of 50, 40, 35, 25 (two), and 15 hides.[111] We have also, in this county, the case of the Hundred of Fishborough, made up to 100 hides, and remarkable for including in this total the fifteen hides at which Worcester itself was assessed. The special value of this and of the Huntingdon instances lies in its placing the assessments of a borough on all fours with the assessment of a rural Manor, as a mere factor in the assessment of a rural Hundred. By thus combining town and country it shows us that the assessments of both were part of the same general system. This is a point of great importance.

This case of the Hundred of Fishborough is, however, peculiar. The entry, which was prominently quoted by Ellis (who failed to see its true significance), is this:

In Fisseberge hundred habet æcclesia de Euesham lxv. hidæ. Ex
his xii. hidæ sunt liberæ. In illo Hundredo jacent xx. hidæ de
dodentreu. et xv. hidæ de Wircecestre perficiunt hundred.[112]

Now this entry is purely incidental, and its real meaning is this. In the true Hundred of Fishborough (adjoining Evesham on the east), Evesham Abbey held sixty-five hides (assessed value), of which twelve were exempted from payment of geld, a statement which can be absolutely verified from the details given. To this aggregate was added the fifteen hides of Worcester (though in another part of the county), together with twenty hides of the distant _Hundred_ of Doddentree. A total of 100 hides was that arrived at. Now the Hundred of Doddentree had itself made up to about 120 hides,[113] by the addition of eighteen hides, which belonged to Hertford as to 'firma'.[114] A reduction, therefore, of twenty hides suggests a complicated process of levelling the local Hundreds, which may remind us how large a margin must be allowed for these arrangements.

Before leaving Worcestershire, attention should be called to the great Manor of Pershore, which Westminster Abbey held for 200 hides, and to the 100 hides connected therewith under the heading 'Terra sanctæ Mariæ de Persore'.

In Somerset we find some good instances, with the help of Mr Eyton's analyses.

HUNDRED OF CREWKERNE

Merriott (5 + 7) 12}
Seaborough (1-1/2 + 1-1/2) 3} 15
Hinton St. George 13}
In Crewkerne 12} 25
--
40

HUNDRED OF WHITSTONE

East Pennard (19 + 1) 20
Baltonsborough 5
Doulting (14 + 3-1/4 + 2-3/4) 20
Batcombe (10-1/4 + 2 + 7-3/4) 20
Ditcheat (5 + 5-1/2 + 6-1/2 + 5-1/2 + 1 + 7) 30-1/2
Pilton (6-1/2 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 2) 21-1/2
Stoke St. Michael 3
----
120

There are also abundant cases of _Manors_ which work out similarly such as Walton and its group (4-1/2 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2-1/2 = 20), Butleigh (7-1/2 + 8 + 2 + 1/2 + 2 = 20). Again, in the Hundred of Frome we find eight Manors (Camerton, Englishcombe, Charterhouse Hinton, Norton St Philip, Corston, Beckington, Cloford, and Laverton), assessed at ten hides each, in addition to divided Manors, such as Road (9 + 1), and Tiverton (7-1/2 + 2-1/2).[115]

We will now pass to Devon and examine the assessments of its Hundreds. Of these thirty-one are entered in the _Inquisitio Geldi_. Now, as four virgates went to the hide, such assessments as 25-3/4, 9-1/4 hides, show us that the simple doctrine of probability is in favour of only one Hundred in every twenty proving to be assessed in multiples of the five-hide unit. Yet we find that those so assessed form an absolute majority of the whole. When classified, they run thus--50 (four), 40 (one), 30 (two), 25 (four), 20 (five): total, 16 Hundreds.

It will at once be observed that these assessments are, as nearly as possible, on one half the scale of those we met with in Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. But this must be taken in conjunction with the fact that the Devon and Cornwall assessments are altogether peculiar. 'In Devon and Cornwall, where the scope of the gheld-hide was enormous, it was necessary to introduce another quantity, intermediate between the virgate and the acre. This was the Ferndel or Ferdingdel, to wit, the fourth part of the next superior denomination, the fourth part of the virgate.'[116] One might at first sight be tempted to suggest that the hide was in these two counties a term of higher denomination when we find Manor after Manor assessed at a fraction of a hide, while in Cornwall the 'acra terræ' was clearly a peculiar measure.[117] Yet in some Manors adjacent to Exeter or to the neighbouring coast the assessment is much less abnormally low, though even there moderate. There is much scope, here also, for intelligent local research, although we may conclude, from the evidence of the Pipe Rolls, that the hide represented the same unit here as elsewhere, as it would seem did the Devonshire Hundred, in spite of its singularly low average assessment. Indeed, it represented a larger, not a smaller, area than usual. I shall deal with this phenomenon below, and endeavour to explain its significance. For the present it is only necessary to insist on the evidence that the Hundreds afford of assessment on the five-hide system.

Indeed, though I definitely advance the suggestion that the assessment was, in the first instance, laid upon the Hundred itself, and that the subsequent assessment of its Vills and Manors was arrived at by division and subdivision, the truth or falsehood of this theory in no way affects the indisputable phenomenon of the five-hide unit. On the prominence of that unit I take my stand as absolute proof that the hide assessment was fixed _independently of area or value_, and that, consequently, all the attempts that have been made by ingenious men to discover and establish the relation which that assessment bore to area, whether in Vill or Manor, have proved not only contradictory among themselves, but, as was inevitable, vain.

The late Mr Eyton did much to destroy the old belief held by Kemble and other well-known writers that the Domesday hide was an areal measure and to substitute the sounder view that it was used as a term of assessment, and Mr Chester Waters, in his _Survey of Lindsey_ (1883), claimed that the 'key to the puzzle' had been thus finally discovered. Canon Taylor, on the other hand, at the Domesday Commemoration (1886), claimed that if his own most ingenious theory of the relation of the geld-carucate to area could be more generally extended, 'many volumes of Domesday exposition, including, among others, Mr Eyton's _Key to Domesday_, may be finally consigned _al limbo dei bambini_'.[118] Mr Pell's theories--the inclusion of which at enormous length in _Domesday Studies_[119] cannot be too deeply regretted--require a passing notice. According to him, the Domesday hide was virtually an areal term; but the interests of truth and of historical research require, as to his confident calculations, very plain speaking. Although I devoted to the investigation of Mr Pell's theories a deplorable amount of time and labour,[120] I would rather state the inevitable conclusion in the words of that sound scholar, Mr W. H. Stevenson:

All the fanciful calculations that Mr Pell has based upon this
assumption, including his delicious 'Ready Reckoner', may be
safely left to slumber in oblivion by the Domesday student who
does not wish to waste his time.

The only abiding principle underlying Mr Pell's calculations
is that the figures in Domesday, or wherever found, have to
produce a certain total that Mr Pell has already fixed upon.
To do this, virgates may mean hides, carucates may mean
virgates, and, in short, anything may mean anything else.[121]

Although Mr Eyton also indulged in 'fanciful calculations', and committed the fatal error of combining facts and fancies, he was at least on the right track in discarding the notion that the Domesday hide denoted a fixed area, and in treating it as a term of assessment. At the same time, the acceptance of my theory that this assessment was not determined by the real value of the Manor or Vill, but was unconnected with it, would be, of course, destructive of all his calculations.

The five-hide unit which lies at the root of my theory is found ever to the front, turn where we will. In Oxon[122] we find entered in succession the Bishop of Lincoln's Manors 90, 60, 40, 50, 50 hides, while if we work through the southern extremity of the county (lying south of Ewelme), following the bend of the Thames, we find the assessments are as follows: Preston Crowmarsh, 5; Crowmarsh Gifford, 10; Newnham Murren, 10; Mongewell, 10; Ipsden, 5; North and South Stoke, 20-1/4; Checkenden, 5; Goring, 20; Gethampton, 6-1/2; Whitchurch, 10; Mapledurham, 10; Caversham, 20; Dunsden, 20; Bolney (8) and Lashbrook (12) 20; Harpsden, 5; Rotherfield, 10; Badgemoor, 5; Bix 5. So too on the western border we have in succession Churchill, 20; Kingham, 10; Foxcote (1) and Tilbury (14), 15; Lyneham, 10; Fyfield, 5; Tainton, 10; Upton, 5; Burford (8) and Widford (2), 10; Westwell, 5.[123]

Berkshire undoubtedly offers a fruitful sphere of study. On the one hand, we have so large a proportion of Manors assessed at 5, 10, 15, 20 hides, and so forth as to strike the reader at once without special research; on the other, we find these archaic assessments reduced under the Conqueror in the most sweeping manner, and the old system thus effaced. Fortunately for us in this case its existence is recorded in the Domesday entries of the previous assessments. What is here, as elsewhere, wanted is a thorough local analysis of the hidage, Hundred by Hundred. For no county is such an analysis more urgently needed.

In Bucks the Primate's three Manors are of 40, 5, 30 hides, while nine Manors of Walter Giffard follow one another with these assessments: 20, 10, 10, 20, 3-1/2, 10, 5, 5, 10; and in Gloucestershire we are met on every side by Manors of 5, 10, 15, 20 hides, and so on. In Surrey, the Primate's six Manors are assessed at 30, 20, 80, 5, 20, 14 hides. As a proof that this feature is in no way of my own creation, I will take the Wiltshire Manors selected by Mr Pell for his tables. Seven out of the eleven selected by him are five-hide assessments, being 5, 10, 20, 40, 20, 5, 10. The marvel is that any one can have failed to observe the general occurrence of the fact.

In Middlesex the five-hide unit is peculiarly prominent. We have only to glance at the pages of Domesday to be struck by such assessments as Harrow (100 hides), Fulham (50 hides[124]), Isleworth (70 hides), Harmondsworth (30 hides), while on folios 129B-130, we have seven Manors in succession of which the assessments are 15, 35, 30, 30, 7-1/2, 15, 10, representing 3, 7, 6, 6, 1-1/2, 3, 2, multiples of the five-hide unit. But, here again, conspicuous as is this unit even in the case of Manors, its prevalence would be still more apparent, if we could reconstruct the Vills. Thus, for instance, in the Hundred of Spelthorne we find these assessments:

_Hides_ _Folio_
Staines 19 128
'In Speletorne Hundred' 1 128_b_
'Hatone' 1-1/2 129
Haneworde 5 129
'Leleham' 2 129
'Exeforde' 1 129
'Bedefunt' 2 129
Felteham 12 129
Stanwelle 15 130
'Bedefunde' 10 130
'West Bedefunde' 8 130
'Haitone' 1-5/6[125] 130
'Leleham' 8 130_b_
'In Hundredo de Spelethorne' 2/3[126] 130_b_
'Cerdentone' 5 130_b_

'Exeforde' is Ashford, which 'appears from a very early period till after the dissolution of the monasteries to have been an appendage of Stains'.[127] Thus we obtain an assessment of 20 hides for Staines _cum_ Ashford. So too we have at once for Laleham an assessment of ten hides, while that of East and West Bedfont was, we see, twenty hides. The most striking case, however, is that of Hatton; for, if we add to its two named Manors the nameless estates in the above list, the four fit in like a puzzle, giving us an aggregate assessment of exactly five hides.

The hundred, therefore, was assessed thus:

_Hides_
Stains with Ashford 20
Stanwell 15
West Bedfont 10
East Bedfont 10
Laleham 10
Feltham 12
Hanworth 5
Charlton 5
Hatton, etc. 5

Let us now connect the territorial with the institutional unit. Dealing in my 'Danegeld' essay with the evident assessment of towns in terms of the five-hide unit, I traced it to the fact that 'five hides were the unit of assessment for the purpose of military service'.[128] The evidence I have adduced in the present paper carries further its significance; but we must not allow its financial to obscure its military importance. I appealed, at that time, to the Exeter instance:

Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare serviebat hæc
civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ;

and to the service of Malmesbury:

Quando rex ibat in expeditione vel terra vel mari habebat de
hoc burgo aut xx. solidos ad pascendos suos buzecarlos aut
unum hominem ducebat secum pro honore v. hidarum.[129]

Of course this brings us to the notoriously difficult question of the thegn and his qualification. With this I am only concerned here so far as it illustrates the prevalence of a five-hide unit. Mr Little, who holds that Maurer, followed by Dr Stubbs, has gone too far, and that 'there is no proof of any general law or widely prevalent custom which conferred on the owner of five hides pure and simple the title, duties, and rights of a thegn',[130] sets forth his view thus:

What then is the meaning of the frequent recurrence in the
laws of possession of five hides of land as the distinctive
mark of a particular rank?

An explanation may be hazarded: at the end of the seventh
century it was the normal and traditional holding of a royal
_thegn_.... It is not too much to infer from the parallelism
of the two wergelds, that five hides formed also the regular
endowment of a Saxon king's thegn.[131]

Dr Stubbs' views will be found in his _Constitutional History_ (1874), i. 155-6, 190-2, and those of Gneist in his _Constitutional History_ (1886), i. 13, 90, 94. The latter writer follows Schmidt rather than Maurer, but sums up his position in the words: 'Since under Ælfred and his successors every estate of five hides is reckoned in the militia system as one heavy-armed man, the rank of a thane becomes the right (as such) of a possessor of five hides.'

Lastly, it is an interesting and curious fact that we owe to the five-hide unit such place-names as Fivehead, Somerset; Fifehead, Dorset; Fifield, Oxon; Fifield and Fyfield, Wilts; Fyfield, Hants; and Fyfield, Essex--all of them in Domesday 'Fifhide' or 'Fifehide'--as well as Fyfield, Berks, which occurs in Domesday as 'Fivehide'. Philologists will note the corruption and its bearing on the original pronunciation.

To the probable antiquity and origin of the five-hide system I must recur, after glancing at the evidence for the northern and eastern districts of England.

VII. THE SIX-CARUCATE UNIT