Chapter VIII: Part I: Territorial Studies (5)

In addition to the _Inquisitio_ itself, as printed by the Record Commission, there is a record, or collection of records, which follows it in all three MSS., and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book (pp. 168-89). Although its character is not there described, it can be determined. For in the _Inquisitio_ there are three references to the 'breve abbatis de ely' (pp. 123-4), all three of which can be identified in the above record (pp. 175-7). It is noteworthy that the record in question is only complete in C, which confirms my view that B and its offspring A were independent of C.

Though the word _Breve_ in Domesday Book normally means the king's writ, there are passages which seem to have been overlooked, and in which it bears another and very suggestive meaning. One of them is found at the end of the Survey of Worcestershire and was foolishly supposed by the compilers of the index volume (pp. 250, 315) to relate to lands held by 'Eddeva' and entered immediately before it. The passage is an independent note, running thus:

In ESCH Hund' jacent x. hidæ in Fecheham et iii. hidæ in
Holewei et scriptæ sunt in _brevi de Hereford_.

In DODINTRET Hund' jacent xiii. hidæ de Mertelai et v. hidæ de
Suchelei quæ hic placitant et geldant, et ad Hereford reddunt
firmam suam, et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178).

All four places are found on fo. 180_b_, 'Feccheham' and 'Haloede' [_sic_][243] together (under 'Naisse' Hundred[244]) as paying a joint ferm--'Merlie' (Martley) under 'Dodintret' Hundred and Suchelie (Suckley), now in Herefordshire, as 'in Wirecestrescire' (cf. i. 172).

It is clear then that Domesday here uses 'breve' of a return, not of a writ, and I venture to think the word may refer to the abbreviated entries made in Domesday Book itself as distinct from those _in extenso_ found in the original returns.[245]

This usage is found in both volumes. We read of land at Marham, Norfolk, held by Hugh de Montfort; 'est mensurata in brevi Sanctæ Adeldret' (ii. 238), where the reference is to the 'Terra Sanctæ Adeldredræ' (ii. 212), and of Hurstington Hundred, Hunts, 'Villani et sochemanni geldant secundum hidas in brevi scriptas' (i. 203). The reference, in both cases, is to the text itself.

The former of these two phrases is repeated in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_,[246] a fact of some importance if, as I venture to think, it is there meaningless. The point is worth labouring. We see that the phrase cannot have occurred in the original returns, where all the entries relating to Marham would have come together. But if it was only applicable to Domesday Book itself--where the fiefs were separated--then must the I.E. have copied from Domesday Book.

This, indeed, is the point to which I am working. For Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, I believe, the compilers of the _Inquisitio_ (1086-7) must have worked from the second volume of Domesday as we have it now. We see it _firstly_, in the order of the counties; _secondly_, in the absence of the jurors' names; _thirdly_, in the system of entering the lands. With a fourth and minute test I have dealt just above.

But to make this clearer, we must briefly analyse the return. The Cambridgeshire portion extends from p. 101 to p. 120. It extracts from the original returns, Hundred by Hundred, all that relates to the Abbey of Ely. Following this is a note of its possessions in the Borough of Cambridge[247] (pp. 120-1), and then summaries of the Abbey's estates, in _dominium_ and _thainland_ and _socha_, in all six counties, and of the lands held by Picot the Sheriff, Hardwin d'Eschalers and Guy de Raimbercurt, to which it laid claim as its own (pp. 121-4). Then we resume with Hertfordshire, the extracts from the original returns (pp. 124, 125). Both the Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire portions close with the words, 'De toto quod habemus', etc., referring to the totals worked out by the Abbey from the entries in the original returns.

With Essex, we enter at once on a different system. This portion, which extends from p. 125 to p. 130 (line 8), is arranged not by Hundreds but by fiefs. It first gives the lands actually held by the Abbey (as coming first in Domesday), and then those of which laymen were in possession. To the latter section are prefixed the words: 'Has terras calumpniatur abbas de ely secundum breve regis'. From Essex we pass to Norfolk, the entries for which, commencing on p. 130 with the words 'In Teodforda', end on p. 141 at 'Rogerus filius Rainardi'. These again are divided into two portions, namely, the lands credited to the Abbey in Domesday (pp. 130-6), and those which it claimed but which Domesday enters under other owners (pp. 137-41). Between the two comes the total value of the former portion and a list of the Norfolk churches held by the Abbey. Last of the Eastern counties is Suffolk, which begins on p. 141 at 'In Tedeuuartstreu hund.', and ends on p. 166. This also is in two portions, but the order seems to be reversed, the alleged aggressions on the Abbey's lands coming first and its uncontested possessions last. The latter portion begins on p. 153, where the B text inserts the word 'Sudfulc'.

The following parallel passages are of interest as showing how closely the I.E. followed D.B. even when recording a judicial decision.

_D.B._ _I.E._

In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv.
liberi homines I car. terræ ex lib. homines I car. terre ex
quibus habuit sca. Al. commend. quibus habuit S. Ædel. sacam et
et socam T.R.E. Tunc vi. car. socam et commend. T.R.E. Tunc
modo ii., et iii. acre prati, vi. car. modo ii., et iii. acre
et val. xx. sol. prati, et val. xx.
Rogerus bigot[us] tenet de abbate, sol. R. bigot tenet de Abbate
quia abbas eam derationavit super quia Abbas eam dirationavit
eum coram episcopo de sancto super eum coram episcopo
Laudo, sed prius tamen tenebat de constantiensi. Sed prius
rege (ii. 383). tamen tenuit de rege (p. 157).

The one variation, the Bishop's style, has a curious parallel in Domesday Book (i. 165), where under the rubric 'Terra Episcopi Constantiensis' we read 'Episcopus de Sancto Laudo tenet', etc.

We may take it then that the compilers of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ worked for Cambridge and Herts from the original returns, but, for the eastern counties, from the second volume of Domesday. What are the corollaries of this conclusion? They used, for some reason or other, the second volume of Domesday, but not the first--if, indeed, it then existed. Speaking for myself, I have always felt not a little uneasy as to the accepted date for the completion of Domesday Book.[248] Mr Eyton went so far as to write:

Imperial orders have gone forth that the coming Codex, the
Domesday that is to outlive centuries, is to be completed
before Easter (April 5th, in that year [1086]), when King
William himself expects to receive it in his Court and Palace
of Winchester (_Notes on Domesday_, 15).

And he explicitly stated that:

On any hypothesis as to the time taken by the different
processes which resulted in Domesday Book, the whole, that
is the survey, the transcription, and the codification, were
completed in less than eight months, and three of the eight
were winter months. No such miracle of clerkly and executive
capacity has been worked in England since.[249]

But was it worked then? All that the chronicle says of the King is that the '_gewrita_ wæran gebroht to him', a phrase which does not imply more than the original returns themselves.

Of course, the chief authority quoted is the colophon to the second volume:

Anno millesimo octogesimo sexto ab incarnatione Domini
vicesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ipsa descriptio non
solum per hos tres comitatus sed etiam per alios.

It seems to have been somewhat hastily concluded that because the Survey ('Descriptio Angliæ') took place in 1086, Domesday Book (which styles itself _Liber de Wintonia_), was completed in that year. The phrase 'per hos tres comitatus' proves, surely, that 'descriptio' refers to the Survey, not to the book.[250]

I have never seen any attempt at a real explanation of the great difference both in scope and in excellence between the two volumes, or indeed any reason given why the Eastern counties should have had a volume to themselves. For a full appreciation of the contrast presented by the two volumes, the originals ought to be examined. Such differences as that the leaves of one are half as large again as those of other, and that the former is drawn up in double, but the latter in single column, dwarf the comparatively minor contrasts of material and of handwriting. So, too, the fullness of the details in the second volume may obscure the fact of its workmanship being greatly inferior to that of the first. Of its blunders I need only give one startling instance. The opening words of the Suffolk Survey, written in bold lettering, are 'Terra Regis de Regione' (281_b_). I have no hesitation in saying that the last words should be 'de _Regno_'. Indeed, the second formula is found on 289_b_, as 'Terra Regis de Regno', while on 119_b_ under 'Terra Regis', we read 'hoc manerium fuit de regno'. So also in the Exon Domesday 'Terra Regis' figures as 'Dominicatus regis ad regnum pertinens'.[251] The muddled order of the tenants-in-chief for Norfolk and for Suffolk--where laymen precede the church[252]--is another proof of inferiority, but only minute investigation could show the hurry or ignorance of the scribes.

Now, all this might, I think, be explained if we took the so-called second volume to be really a first attempt at the codification of the returns. Its unsatisfactory character must have demonstrated the need for a better system, which, indeed, its unwieldy proportions must have rendered imperative. So drastic and so successful, on this hypothesis, was the reform, that while these three counties had needed a volume of 450 folios, the rest of England that was surveyed--some thirty counties--was compressed into a single volume of 382 folios, and on a system which rendered consultation easier and more rapid. In every respect the first volume is a wonderful improvement on the second, but the authorities may have shrunk from ordering the latter to have been compiled _de novo_, when the work, though unsatisfactory, had once been done.

This, it must of course be remembered, is all hypothesis, a hypothesis suggested by the facts. If it were proved that at the time when the Ely return was made, the 'second' volume had been compiled, and the 'first' had not, I should have established my case. But it might be urged that the 'first' volume did exist at the time, and that the Ely scribes used the returns instead, because they contained fuller information. To this I reply, so far as the details of the estates are concerned, that neither the terms of the writ nor the heading of the _Inquisitio_ involved the inclusion of such details as Domesday Book omitted. If the scribes inserted them, it must have been merely because they inserted everything they found in the records from which they copied. It might still be urged that they went to the returns for the names of the _juratores_; but why, if so, did they not do so for the three eastern counties? It certainly seems to me to be the most satisfactory explanation that the materials supplied for compiling this return, as being the recognized official records, were the so-called 'second' volume of Domesday, and (for the rest) the original returns.

XIX. FIRST MENTION OF DOMESDAY BOOK

No one nowadays should require to be told that the pseudo-Ingulf's dealings with Domesday are devoid of all authority. Some, however, may still believe in the tale found in that 'Continuatio' of his chronicle which is fathered on Peter of Blois. It is there that Ellis found (putting Ingulf aside) the only case of an appeal to its witness before the reign of John.[253]

With the 'Continuatio' I shall deal below,[254] but I would observe, while on the subject, that the 'pseudo-Ingulf' (charters and all) was, I believe, largely concocted by the help of hints gathered from Domesday Book.

The absence of any authoritative mention, in its early days, of our great record gives a special importance to an entry in the _Chronicle of Abingdon_ (ii. 115-6), where we read that Abbot Faritius was impleaded by certain men:

Sed is abbas in castello Wincestre coram episcopis
Rogero Saresberiensi, et Roberto Lincolniensi, et Ricardo
Londoniensi, et multis regis baronibus, ratiocinando ostendit
declamationem eorum injustam esse. Quare, justiciarorum regis
judicio obtinuit ut illud manerium, etc. ... sed quia rex tunc
in Normanniâ erat, regina, quæ tunc præsens erat, taliter hoc
sigillo suo confirmavit.

Then follows the Queen's writ, announcing the decision of the plea held in the royal 'Curia', together with the names of the 'barons' present. These names enable us to determine a certain limit for the date of the plea. 'Thurstinus Capellamus', for instance, implies that it was previous to his obtaining the See of York in 1114, while the presence of Richard, Bishop of London, places it subsequent to July 26, 1108. It must, therefore, have been held during the King's absence between July 1108 and the end of May 1109; or in his later absence from August 1111 to the summer of 1113.

The action of the Queen in presiding over this _placitum_ illustrates a recognized practice, of which we have an instance in Domesday itself (i. 238_b_), where it is stated that Bishop Wulfstan, 'terram deplacitasse coram regina Mathilde in presentia iiii^{or.} vicecomitatuum'. The Queen's description of the _Curia Regis_ as 'curia domini mei et mea' should be compared with the phrase employed by the Queen of Henry II, who, similarly acting in her husband's absence, speaks of the Great Justiciar as 'Justicia Regis et mea'.

But the essential portion of the passage before us is this:

Sciatis quod Faritius abbas de Abendona in curia domini mei et
mea, apud Wintoniam in thesauro ... _per Librum de Thesauro_,
diratiocinavit quod, etc.

The court was held 'in castello Wincestre', says the narrative, 'apud Wintoniam in thesauro', says the record. Both are right, for the Royal Treasury was in Winchester Castle.[255]

But what was the 'Liber de Thesauro'? I contend that it was Domesday Book, and can have been nothing else. For, passing now to the _Dialogus de Scaccario_ (_circa_ 1177), we there read in reply to an inquiry as to the nature of Domesday Book (which 'in thesauro servatur et inde non recedit'): '_liber ille_ de quo quæris sigilli regii comes est individuus _in thesauro_' (I. XV.). The connection of the Book with the Treasury is brought out strongly in the _Dialogus_, and leads to the presumption, as Mr Hall perceived, that the Treasury being originally at Winchester, the Book was there also--as indeed we see it was under Henry I.[256] On the date of its removal to Westminster, there has been much discussion between my friend Mr Hall and myself.[257] Mr Hall relies mainly on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_, and on the inferences he draws from it, for the early removal of Domesday to Westminster, and the establishment there of the royal Treasury. For myself, I claim for the Winchester Treasury greater importance and continuity than he is willing to admit. The leading records, of course, were stored there as well as treasure. We find William Rufus speaking of 'meis brevibus ... qui sunt in thesauro mea Wyntoniæ';[258] and we read that, on his father's death, 'pergens apud Wincestre thesaurum patris sui ... divisit: erant autem in thesauro illo lx. m[ille] libræ argenti excepto auro et gemmis et vasis et palliis.'[259] Heming's Cartulary describes the Domesday returns as stored 'in thesauro regali', and Henry of Huntingdon states that 'inter thesauros reposita usque hodie servantur'.[260] Now, as the Treasury was in Winchester Castle at the time of the above suit, and as it had been in 1100[261] and 1087, so it was still at the accession of Stephen in 1135, and at the triumph of Matilda in 1141. This is absolutely certain from the Chronicles, nor do they ever mention any other Treasury. Moreover, the contents of this Treasury in 1135--'erant et vasa tam aurea quam argentea'--correspond with those described by the _Dialogus_ forty years later: 'vasa diversi generis aurea et argentea'. Lastly, there is a piece of evidence which has not yet been adduced, namely, that in his _Expugnatio Hibernica_ (1188), Giraldus, speaking of that ring and letters which John of Salisbury declared had been brought by him from the Pope, and were 'still stored in the Royal Treasury', writes of

Annulum aureum in investituræ signum ... qui statim simul cum
privilegio _in archivis Wintoniae_ repositus fuerat.

Giraldus certainly must have looked on the Royal Treasury at Winchester as the only recognized repository for all such objects as these.

Mr Hall, indeed, has gradually modified his original position that 'Ingulphus saw the Domesday register, as it now exists, at Westminster', and that it was sent there for good from Winchester 'early in the reign of Henry I',[262] but he still places the establishment of 'the' Treasury at Westminster, in my opinion, too early. It is the gradual decay of Winchester as the capital and seat of administration that makes it difficult to say positively when or how the national records, Domesday Books among them, were transferred to Westminster. We have seen at least that, in its early days, the 'Liber de Wintonia', as it styles itself, had its home within the walls of the Royal castle of Winchester; and I cannot but think, now as at first, that it began by visiting Westminster for Exchequer sessions only.[263]

In any case, we have seen its witness appealed to on a far earlier occasion than had hitherto been known. In my paper on 'An Early Reference to Domesday',[264] I quoted an even earlier mention of the 'Descriptio Angliæ', but here again the reference seems to make rather to the Domesday Survey itself than to Domesday Book, the 'Liber de Thesauro'.

As an appendix to this paper, I give the pedigree of the Domesday MSS. according to the views I have expressed.[265]

Original Returns
________________________|_________________________
| | | |
Domesday Domesday 'Inquisitio 'Inquisitio[266]
Book, vol. II Book, vol. I Eliensis', Comitatus
| _quoad_ Camb. Cantabrigiensis'
| and Herts (Tib. A. VI.)
| |
| |
'Inquisitio ______|________
Eliensis', | |
_quoad_ Essex, C text B text
Norfolk, Suffolk |
______|______ A text
| | (printed by
C text B text Ellis)
|
A text
(printed by
Ellis)

[Footnote 1: _English Commonwealth_, II, ccccxliv.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 3: _Domesday Book_, p. 42.]

[Footnote 4: _Athenæum_, 1885, I, 472, 566-7; _Domesday Book_,
1887, p. 44.]

[Footnote 5: _Domesday Studies_ (1891), II, 488.]

[Footnote 6: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis._ Cura N.
E. S. A. Hamilton, 1876.]

[Footnote 7: _Notes on Domesday_ (1877), reprinted 1880, p.
15.]

[Footnote 8: The italics are his own, _Domesday Book_, p. 42.
Cf. _Domesday Studies_, II, 486-7.]

[Footnote 9: It is not even _proved_ that the I.C.C. is copied
from the original returns themselves. There is the possibility
of a MS. between the two. See _Addenda_.]

[Footnote 10: These extracts are _extended_ and _punctuated_
to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed
within square brackets.]

[Footnote 11: Curiously enough, the cases in which the I.C.C.
does really supplement the Domesday version, that is, in the
names of the holders T.R.E. and of the under-tenants T.R.W.,
were left unnoticed by Mr Hamilton.]

[Footnote 12: The references to pages are to those of Mr
Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets
are the passages omitted.]

[Footnote 13: In this instance the omission is so gross that
it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnote
that his MS. 'confounds two separate entries'. It would,
however, be more correct to say that the MS. here omits a
portion of each. It is easy to see how the scribe erroneously
'ran on' from the first portion of one entry to the second
portion of another. This entry has a further value, for while
D.B. convicts the I.C.C. of omitting the words 'de Widone',
it is itself convicted, by collation, of omitting the entry,
'Terra est i. bovi'.]

[Footnote 14: The I.C.C. here wholly omits one of the three
holdings T.R.E. 'The three hides and a virgate', at which the
estate was assessed, were thus composed: (1) three virgates
held by Huscarl, (2) a hide and a virgate held by Eadgyth,
(3) a hide and a virgate held by Wulfwine, her man. It is this
last holding which is omitted. Note here that the Domesday
'hide' is composed as ever (_pace_ Mr Pell) of four virgates.]

[Footnote 15: 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.']

[Footnote 16: 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p.
50).]

[Footnote 17: 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'--p.
62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).]

[Footnote 18: 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).]

[Footnote 19: 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).]

[Footnote 20: 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit
æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).]

[Footnote 21: The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the
right one because confirmed by I.E.]

[Footnote 22: This, like the similar cases where D.B. is
given as the authority for the second reading, is proved
arithmetically (_vide infra_).]

[Footnote 23: The I.C.C. enumerates only _three_, which is the
number given in D.B.]

[Footnote 24: The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just
before, and are here wrongly repeated.]

[Footnote 25: 'Inter totum valent et valuerunt xii. den.' This
was _exclusive_ of the value of the Manor, which by the way
the I.C.C. gives as sixteen pounds and D.B. at six pounds, one
of those cases of discrepancy which have to be left in doubt,
though D.B. is probably right.]

[Footnote 26: Mr Eyton, in his _Notes on Domesday_ (p. 16),
called attention to this. 'The result,' he wrote (of the
Lincolnshire Domesday), 'as to arrangement, is in certain
instances just what might have been expected from some haste
of process.... The hurried clerks were perpetually overlooking
entries which they ought to have seen.']

[Footnote 27: Mr Eyton (_ibid._, pp. 17, 18), while ignoring
this valuable and most important feature, notes the employment
of a similar device in Domesday Book itself in the case of
Yorkshire. 'Against such errors and redundancies a very simple
but effective precaution seems to have been adopted by some
clerk or clerks employed on the Yorkshire notes. Before
transcription was commenced an index was made of the loose
notes of that county. This index gave the contents of each
Wapentac or Liberty in abstract under the appropriate title;
then the measure in carucates and bovates of each item of
estate; and lastly (interlined) some hint or indication to
whose Honour or fief each item belonged. This most clerkly
device will have saved the subsequent transcribers much
trouble of roll-searching and a world of confusion in their
actual work.']

[Footnote 28: 'Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in
grantebrigga.']

[Footnote 29: To say that the sokeman 'non potuerunt recedere
_sed_ soca remanebat abbati', is nonsense, because if they
were not able 'recedere', the question of 'soca' could not
arise. The formula 'sed soca', etc., is only used in cases
where there _was_ a right 'recedere'.]

[Footnote 30: In this case the 'n[on]' has been added by
interlineation.]

[Footnote 31: The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly
expressed, 'alias' being, seemingly, put for 'illas'.]

[Footnote 32: This error arose thus: The original return
(_see_ I.C.C.) ran: 'De his v. hidis' (i.e. in 'Campes') tenet
Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam.' The Domesday scribe
read this hurriedly as implying that Norman's half hide was
part of Aubrey's estate here (two and a half hides), whereas
it was reckoned and entered as a _separate_ estate.]

[Footnote 33: Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which
agree with each other.]

[Footnote 34: _Notes on Domesday_, p. 16.]

[Footnote 35: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 227-363, 561-619.]

[Footnote 36: 'Domesday Measures of Land' (_Archæological
Review_, September 1889; iv, 130).]

[Footnote 37: _Domesday Studies_, 188, 354.]

[Footnote 38: 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See _Addenda_.]

[Footnote 39: Compare the equivalent tenure recognized in
William of Poitier's charter to Bayonne: 'Le _voisin_ qui
voulait abandonner la cité sans esprit de retour avait le
droit de vendre librement tout ce qu'il possédait maisons,
prairies, vergers, moulins.']

[Footnote 40: We have three separate statements (of which more
anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's
lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-7 of Mr Hamilton's
book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin,
all but one or two can be identified as the subject of
duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in
'Melrede', though not mentioned in this list, is also entered
in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de
Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of
those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in
duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance
of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a
virgate (D.B., i, 199, _b_, 2, gives it erroneously as half
a hide, but D.B., i, 190, _a_, 1, rightly as half a virgate),
which Picot, as sheriff had regained for the king against the
'invading' Aubrey.]

[Footnote 41: The I.E. adds 'sub abbate ely' in each case, but
is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.]

[Footnote 42: This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for
instance, the entry under Hardwin's land is the fuller. It is
noteworthy also that in this case the _later_ entry (i. 198,
_b_, 1) is referred to ('Hæc terra appreciata est cum terra
Hardwini') in the _earlier_ one (i. 191, _a_, 2).]

[Footnote 43: This same change of phrase is repeated four
times on two pages (pp. 4, 5).]

[Footnote 44: So, for instance:
'de appulatione navis' (I.C.C.) = 'de theloneo retis' (D.B.).
'ferarum siluaticarum' (I.C.C.) = 'bestiarum siluaticarum' (D.B.).
'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' (D.B.).]

[Footnote 45: Compare the I.C.C. version on p. 100, _infra._]

[Footnote 46: _Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. xviii, xix.]

[Footnote 47: 'Et dimidiam' [hidam] is omitted in B, and
(oddly enough) in Domesday itself.]

[Footnote 48: All three MSS. err here, as the reading should
clearly be 'dim. _virg._']

[Footnote 49: b. 65. This distinction between the one and the
nine, but not the size of the holding, is preserved in D.B.;
while the I.E., though preserving it, gives the numbers as two
and eight.]

[Footnote 50: This is the I.E. and D.B. version. For 'extra
ecclesiam', the I.C.C. substitutes 'sine ejus [abbatis]
licentia'.]

[Footnote 51: 'Soca _remansit abbati_' is the D.B. and I.E.
version. It should be noted that the I.E. and _Breve Abbatis_
give 'herchenger pistor' as the despoiler, while the I.C.C.
and D.B. record him only as a 'miles' of Picot the sheriff.
This is a case which certainly suggests special local
knowledge in the compiler of the former documents, who also
gives the sokeman's name--Siward.]

[Footnote 52: Thus 'In Branmmeswelle ... lxx. liberi homines
unde abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendatio _et omnes
consuetudines_ ... In eadem villa iiii. liberi homines[*] unde
abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendationem' (p. 161).]

[Footnote *: 'Commend' abbati' (D.B., ii 387 _b_).]

[Footnote 53: _Inq. Com. Cant._, 192-5. see paper on it,
_infra_.]

[Footnote 54: 'In soca et commendatione abbatis de eli'
(D.B., ii. 441).]

[Footnote 55: 'Soca et commendatione tantum' (D.B.).]

[Footnote 56: 'iiii. liberi homines soca et commendatione
tantum' (D.B.).]

[Footnote 57: 'T.R.E. ad socham' (D.B.).]

[Footnote 58: 'Recep'' (D.B., ii. 238).]

[Footnote 59: The _Breve Abbatis_ records 34.]

[Footnote 60: _Ibid._, 7.]

[Footnote 61: I.C.C., fo. 110 (_b_) 1. Cf. D.B., I. 199 (_a_)
2, and I.E., p. 110.]

[Footnote 62: 'Socam comes Algarus habuit' = 'soca remansit
comiti Algaro'. See, for instance, the similar case in which
a 'man' of Earl Waltheof 'terram suam dare vel vendere potuit,
sed abbas de Rameseia socam habuit' (I.C.C., fo. 122, _b_,
2), where D.B. has: 'dare potuit, sed soca remansit abbati de
Ramesy' (i. 202, _b_, 1).]

[Footnote 63: 'Et in eadem villa iii. liberi homines ...
de quibus abbas non habebat nisi commendationem: soca in
kanincghala regis.']

[Footnote 64: 'Hanc terram tenuit godmundus homo comitis
Waltevi; soca vero remansit abbati ely' (p. 115).]

[Footnote 65: 'Unum liberum hominem unde abbas habet sacam et
socam tantum' (p. 140).]

[Footnote 66: _Domesday Studies_, p. 556.]

[Footnote 67: _Inq. El._, pp. 140, 141.]

[Footnote 68: _Domesday Studies_, p. 209.]

[Footnote 69: _Domesday Studies_, p. 187.]

[Footnote 70: It is essential to bear in mind that the
Domesday scribes had nothing to guide them but the bare words
of the return, so that if they thus equated these expressions,
they can only have done so because the rule was of universal
application.]

[Footnote 71: _Archæological Review_, vol. i, p. 286.]

[Footnote 72: Compare also the Exon. Domesday, where
'Stoches', which is entered 'pro. ii. virgatis et dim.'
appears in D.B. as 'dim. hida et dim. virga'.]

[Footnote 73: See below, and _ante_, p. 17, note.]

[Footnote 74: _Key to Domesday_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 75: It is to this evidence that I made allusion
in _Domesday Studies_ (p. 225). Similar evidence as to the
Domesday carucate is found in the _Inq. El._ (Ed. Hamilton,
pp. 156, 178) where 'lx. acre' equate 'dim. c[arucata]'.]

[Footnote 76: D.B. erroneously reads 'xxx.' (30) by the
insertion of an 'x' too many. The I.C.C. correctly reads 'xx.'
(20), its accuracy here being proved by the above arithmetic.
Thus the I.C.C. corrects a reading which (1) would, but for
it, appear fatal to the belief that 30 acres = a virgate; (2)
would upset the above arithmetic. This ought to be clearly
grasped, because it well illustrates the element of clerical
error, and shows how apparent discrepancies in our rule may be
due to a faulty text alone.]

[Footnote 77: Here, as in the preceding instance, Domesday is
in error, reading 'one virgate' ('I virgata') where the I.C.C.
correctly gives us half a virgate ('dimidiam virgam'). The
remarks in the preceding note apply equally here.]

[Footnote 78: Here, again, Domesday is in error, reading _two_
and a half virgates, where the I.C.C. has _one_ and a half.]

[Footnote 79: These two entries are by a blunder in the
I.C.C. (see above, p. 23) erroneously rolled into one (of 1/3
virgate). In this case it is Domesday Book which corrects the
I.C.C, and preserves for us the right version.]

[Footnote 80: The I.C.C, which is very corrupt in its account
of this township, gives us a deficiency of 1 hide 0-1/2
virgates.]

[Footnote 81: The apparent exception was caused by the _Inq.
Com. Cant._ reading 'pro iiii. hidis', and omitting the words
'xl. acras minus', the true assessment of the Manor, when the
king's estate was excluded, being 'three hides _less forty
acres_'.]

[Footnote 82: The _blunder_ consists in treating 6-1/2 (geld)
acres as part of the Countess Judith's estate, whereas they
had been reckoned separately; the _discrepancy_ is due to D.B.
reading 'ii. acras', where the I.C.C. has 'xxii. acras'.]

[Footnote 83: Eyton's _Notes on Domesday_, p. 12.]

[Footnote 84: _Ibid._, p. 13.]

[Footnote 85: Dr Stubbs' remarks 'on the vexed question of
the extent of the hide' will be found in a note to his _Const.
Hist._, vol. i (1874), p. 74. Mr Eyton (_Key to Domesday_, p.
14) asserted that the _Domesday_ hide contained 48 geld-acres.
Prof Earle in his _Land Charters and Saxonic Documents_ (1888)
reviews the question of the hide, but leaves it undetermined
(pp. lii-liii, 457-461).]

[Footnote 86: See above, p. 27.]

[Footnote 87: _Antiquary_, June 1882, p. 242. See also
_Domesday Studies_, vol. i, p. 119.]

[Footnote 88: The I.C.C. _omits_ the king's Manor (7-1/4
hides, 8 ploughlands).]

[Footnote 89: I do not here discuss the cause of the
reduction. Indeed, this would be hard to discover; for the
original assessment was distinctly low, whether we compare it
with the aggregate of ploughlands or of valuation. It is true
that the total of _valets_ which had been £235 0s 4d T.R.E.,
and was £203 8s 4d at the time of the survey, had fallen so
low as £161 18s 4d, when the grantees received their lands,
but, even at the lowest figure, the assessment was still
moderate.]

[Footnote 90: 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se
defendebat.'--_D.B._, i. 189.]

[Footnote 91: This figure is arrived at by adding to the 'hida
et dimidia et xx. acræ' of Domesday, and the _Inq. Com. Cant._
the 'viii. hidæ et xl. acræ', which the latter omits, but
which Domesday records. The sum is exactly ten hides.]

[Footnote 92: Domesday reads 'iii.', and _Inq. Com. Cant._
'iiii.']

[Footnote 93: I.C.C. reads 'x.']

[Footnote 94: 'Per concessionem ejusdem regis' (Domesday).
Compare also the five hides knocked off the assessment of
Alveston by Henry I, and another ten hides off that of Hampton
(_Domesday Studies_, pp. 99, 103).]

[Footnote 95: _Const. Hist._, i, 105.]

[Footnote 96: See below, p. 87.]

[Footnote 97: See also _Domesday Studies_, i, 117.]

[Footnote 98: _Domesday Studies_, i, 122-30.]

[Footnote 99: The fragments of the Hundred of Papworth and
North Stow, which it contains, are too small to enable us to
speak with certainty.]

[Footnote 100: Correcting the _Inq. Com. Cant._ by adding from
Domesday the royal Manors in Isleham and Fordham.]

[Footnote 101: Bedford, 1881.]

[Footnote 102: 'Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum
regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L.
hidis.'--_Domesday_, i, 203.]

[Footnote 103: Adjoining Manors held by the Abbot of Ely.]

[Footnote 104: I have not attempted to group these six Manors,
as we have not sufficient information to warrant it. They
would, however, form two groups of twenty hides each, or one
of twenty-five and another of fifteen.]

[Footnote 105: There are five entries relating to Catworth
(fos. 205_b_, 206, 206_b_, 217_b_), which, by the addition
of 11 hides (1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1), would bring up its
assessment to 15; but as they are all credited in Domesday to
other Hundreds, and as there are _two_ Catworths surveyed, I
have adhered to the above figure.]

[Footnote 106: _Introduction to Domesday_, i, 134. The italics
are his own.]

[Footnote 107: _Const. Hist._, i, 99.]

[Footnote 108: This point brings further into line the towns
and the rural Hundreds, through the 100-hide and the 50-hide
assessments of the former. (_See_ my 'Danegeld' Essay in
_Domesday Studies_.)]

[Footnote 109: Edgar spoke of it as three Hundreds.]

[Footnote 110: 'Unum hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslaw in quo
jacent ccc. hidæ.'--_D.B._, i., 172_b._]

[Footnote 111: It also contained one 23-hide and two 24-hide
Manors, which were once perhaps, of 25 hides. The Church
of Worcester, also possessed, outside this Hundred, Manors
(_inter alia_) of 20, 15, 10, and 5 hides. (_See_ below, p.
143.)]

[Footnote 112: D.B., i. 175_b._]

[Footnote 113: I make the aggregate 118-1/2 hides.]

[Footnote 114: 'Quæ hic [Dodintret hundred] placitant et
geldant et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam.' It would
have been said in Cambridgeshire that their 'wara' was in
Doddentree Hundred.]

[Footnote 115: Eyton's _Somerset Survey_, ii, 25.]

[Footnote 116: Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 117: I drew attention in the _Archæological Review_
(vol. 1) to a Cornish survey of 21 Ed. I. (_Testa de Nevill_,
p. 204), in which every Cornish acre contains a Cornish
carucate.]

[Footnote 118: _Domesday Studies_, p. 172.]

[Footnote 119: 'A New View of the Geldable Unit of Assessment
of Domesday.' _Ibid_., pp. 227-363, 561-619.]

[Footnote 120: _Archæological Review_, i, 285-95; iv, 130-40,
391.]

[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, iv, 325.]

[Footnote 122: A curious hint of the grouping of Vills is
afforded in Oxfordshire by Adderbury and Bloxham. Domesday
first gives us an assessment of 34-1/2 hides in the two, and
then 15-1/2 hides in Adderbury, making in all, for the two, 50
hides, the same as Banbury.]

[Footnote 123: This evidence is rendered available by the
useful _Notes on the Oxfordshire Domesday_, published by the
Clarendon Press in 1892.]

[Footnote 124: 40 + 5 + 5.]

[Footnote 125: 'Unam hidam et iii^{es.} virgatas et iii^{ciam.}
partem de i. virgata.']

[Footnote 126: 'Dimidiam hidam et iii^{ciam.} partem dimidiæ
hidæ.']

[Footnote 127: Lysons. So also Domesday: '_soco vero jacebat
in Stains_'.]

[Footnote 128: _Domesday Studies_, i. 120. See also _supra_,
p. 45, and the case of Northampton, _infra_.]

[Footnote 129: _Domesday_, i. 64_b._]

[Footnote 130: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 729.]

[Footnote 131: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 728-9.]

[Footnote 132: _Archæological Review_, iv. 313-27.]

[Footnote 133: Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe
on Canon Taylor's 'Carucate' remarks in the _New English
Dictionary_. Strictly, no doubt, the Canon was mistaken, with
Mr Pell, in reckoning 120 as 144 'by the English number'; but
the evidence in his paper on 'the plough and the ploughland'
seems to establish a practice of counting by twelve instead of
ten.]

[Footnote 134: _Genealogist_, N.S., vi. 160-1.]

[Footnote 135: _Archæological Review_, iv. 322.]

[Footnote 136: On this point one may compare with profit
'the making of the Danelaw' (858-78), by the late Mr Green
(_Conquest of England_, pp. 114-29), who had devoted to this
subject much attention. He discusses the limits of Eastern
Mercia, the district of the Five Boroughs, in the light of
local nomenclature (_ibid._, pp. 121-2), and includes within
it, on this ground, Northamptonshire, while observing that the
country about Buckingham, which formed the southern border of
the 'Five Boroughs', has no 'byes'. My own evidence is wholly
distinct from that of local nomenclature, and defines more
sharply the district settled and reorganized by the Danes.
The hidation of Northamptonshire is peculiar, a unit of
four (reminding one of the Mercian shilling) coming into
prominence. Still, it was not carucated, but retained its
assessment in hides.]

[Footnote 137: Stamford is assigned to Lincolnshire by
Domesday, but is now in Rutland. The 'Rutland' of Domesday
(the northern portion of the county as at present constituted)
was included, we shall find, in the carucated district by
which it was surrounded on the north.]

[Footnote 138: Reg. Mag. Alb. at York, pars. ii. 1. Quoted
by Canon Raine, in his edition of John of Hexham (who applies
these _formulæ_ to Hexham itself), p. 61.]

[Footnote 139: _Vide infra_, p. 149, _et seq._]

[Footnote 140: 'Suma iii. hundr' et vi. car. et vi. bov.']

[Footnote 141: 'Suma iiii. hundr' et x. car.' (a wrong
total).]

[Footnote 142: 'Summa iii. hundr' et v. car. et iiii. bov.']

[Footnote 143: See also on these Hundreds Mr Stevenson's
remarks in _English Historical Review_, v. 96, which have
appeared since I made these researches.]

[Footnote 144: This appears to be a clerical error. The actual
figures represent 'Hundreds'.]

[Footnote 145: The Northern division by threes and sixes is
responsible, of course, for the six 'sheaddings' of the Isle
of Man. On their connection with the 'scypfylleth' of three
Hundreds see Vigfusson in _English Historical Review_, ii.
500.]

[Footnote 146: The aggregate of these _areal_ measures does
not bear out the statement of Domesday regarding them, the
former Wapentake containing eighty-four ploughlands, where
Domesday allows it only forty-eight.]

[Footnote 147: The entry is far more suggestive of the
'Hundreds' (_vide infra_) in Leicestershire, on the border of
which Sawley stood. This remark applies also to the entry (i.
291_b_) that Leake (Notts) 'jacet in Pluntree Hund'.]

[Footnote 148: See D.B., i. fos. 298, 298_b_, and fo. 379.]

[Footnote 149: As Mr Pell did in the case of Clifton.]

[Footnote 150: _Vide infra_, p. 160.]

[Footnote 151: 'There is no trace of any,' writes Canon Taylor
(_Domesday Studies_, i. 74).]

[Footnote 152: As with _maenols_ and _trevs_ in North and
South Wales.]

[Footnote 153: Mr Pell tried to explain it by assuming that
the Leicestershire _carucates_ were really small virgates of
the _hida_ in question!]

[Footnote 154: This at once shows the absurdity of taking
these eighteen carucates to be eighteen 'virgates' of a normal
hide, and of all the reasoning based thereupon.]

[Footnote 155: See more below on this point.]

[Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, v. 95.]

[Footnote 157: Mr Stevenson, moreover, should surely,
to obtain the meaning he wants, have extended _car_ as
'car[ucatarum]'.]

[Footnote 158: I also hold the formula 'T.R.E. erant ibi _x_
car[ucæ]' to refer to ploughs, not ploughlands.]

[Footnote 159: Note that the assessment of 2-5/8 carucates
represented 2-1/2 ploughlands, and that of 9-3/8 carucates
only 7 ploughlands. No relation, therefore, can be traced
here.]

[Footnote 160: _Conquest of England_, p. 121 note.]

[Footnote 161: _Ibid._, p. 276.]

[Footnote 162: _Chester Archæological Journal_, vol. v.]

[Footnote 163: 'De harieta Lagemanorum habuit isdem picot
viii. lib,' etc. (i. 189).]

[Footnote 164: _Domesday Studies_, i. 143-86.]

[Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 157.]

[Footnote 166: According to Canon Taylor's ingenious theory,
the ratio should be 1 to 1 (for two-field Manors), or 2 to
1 for three-field Manors. But in Leicestershire there is a
remarkable prevalence of the 3 to 2 ratio, which his theory
can, at best, only explain as exceptional.]

[Footnote 167: _Supra_, p. 74.]

[Footnote 168: The figures are taken from the 'Index' to the
Hundreds at the close of the first volume of Domesday Book,
and the names are arranged in the same order as they are there
found.]

[Footnote 169: There is plenty of similar evidence elsewhere
in the shire. Thus we find the Craven Manors assessed at 6,
6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 6, 10, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3,
3 carucates. These assessments would give us
24 (6 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 3) + 24 (4 + 6 + 10 + 2 + 2) + 18
(3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) + 11 (2 + 3 + 3 + 3).]

[Footnote 170: _Supra_, pp. 51, 62.]

[Footnote 171: Compare the 'Reparto de la contribucion',
found in the Spanish village communities, the members of which
apportioned the assessment among themselves.]

[Footnote 172: _Key to Domesday_: Dorset, p. 14.]

[Footnote 173: The anomalous position of Rutland also was, of
course, a disturbing element.]

[Footnote 174: This low assessment is equally obvious in that
of the several Manors.]

[Footnote 175: Probably 1/27, as against about 1/6 for
Somerset and Dorset jointly.]

[Footnote 176: See Mr Green's maps in his work, _The Making of
England_, and Mr Freeman's map of 'Britain in 597', in vol.
i. of his _Norman Conquest_. The figures for Hampshire,
unfortunately, are wanting in the roll of 1156, as in that of
1130.]

[Footnote 177: Even if such assessment were not required, at
first, for financial reasons, it might be necessary for such
obligations as eventually formed the 'trinoda necessitas'.]

[Footnote 178: See Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 67-9, and
_Const. Hist._, i. 96-9.]

[Footnote 179: Select Charters, p. 67.]

[Footnote 180: Vol. i., pp. 98, 99. Cf. _Select Charters_, p.
67: 'It is sometimes stated that the Hundred is a primitive
subdivision consisting of a hundred hides of land, or
apportioned to a hundred families, the great objection
to which theory is the impossibility of reconciling the
historical Hundreds with any such computation.']

[Footnote 181: _Select Charters_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 182: Thus, the first entry for East Anglia (ii.
109_b_) has 'de xx. solidis reddit xvi. d. in gelto.']

[Footnote 183: Compare also the very curious system of
'purses' adopted by the Cinque Ports. The 'purse' was £4
7s, and to every 'purse' Sandwich, for instance, paid twenty
shillings, while, whenever it paid twenty such shillings, its
four 'members' were assessed to pay three and fourpence apiece
towards it.]

[Footnote 184: 'In hundredo de Tinghowe sunt xx. villæ ex
quibus constituuntur ix. lete, quas sic distinguimus.' Gage's
_Suffolk_, p. xii.]

[Footnote 185: _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_ (Selden
Society), I., lxiii.--lxxvi.]

[Footnote 186: _Ibid._, p. lxxvi.]

[Footnote 187: 'De gelto v. sol'' (D.B., ii. 286_b_). Sudbury
was an outlying portion of the Hundred of Thingoe, in which
is situated Bury St Edmunds, of which we read (D.B., ii. 372):
'quando in hundredo solvitur ad geldum i. libra, tunc inde
exeunt lx. d. _ad victum monachorum_.' This substitution,
apparently, of Sudbury (as three leets) for Bury St
Edmunds (of which the monks received the geld) deserves
investigation.]

[Footnote 188: See p. 58.]

[Footnote 189: 'Wisbeche, quæ est quarta pars centuriatus
insulæ' (_Liber Eliensis_ p. 192).]

[Footnote 190: 'In Sparle et in Pagrave, xviii. d. quando
hundret scotabat xx. solidos et in Acra vi. d. et in pichensam
xii. d. quicunque ibi teneat' (ii. 119_b_). See also note
182.]

[Footnote 191: See _Domesday Studies_, p. 117.]

[Footnote 192: Reprinted from the _English Historical Review_,
October 1892.]

[Footnote 193: Ninth Report on Historical MSS., App. I, 38.]

[Footnote 194: _Domesday of St. Paul's_, p. iv.]

[Footnote 195: This is a slip. Drayton was in Middlesex, and
the words (which Mr Seebohm quotes) are 'cum _una_ hida de
solande'.]

[Footnote 196: I know of no authority for this form.]

[Footnote 197: The '_Lathes_' of Kent of course point in the
same direction.]

[Footnote 198: Professor Vinogradoff states, on the contrary,
that 'all are irregular in their formation'.]

[Footnote 199: _English Village Community_, pp. 54, 139, 396.]

[Footnote 200: The phrase 'quot hidæ _sint_ ibi' is of
importance because such _formulae_ as 'T.R.E. geldabat pro ii.
hidis, sed tamen _sunt_ ibi xii. hidæ', have sometimes been
understood to imply two geldable, but twelve arable hides,
whereas both figures refer to assessment only.]

[Footnote 201: _English Village Community_, 212 note.]

[Footnote 202: We might also compare the _droit de gîte_ on
the other side of the Channel.]

[Footnote 203: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr
Eyton's work.]

[Footnote 204: It is a further and fundamental error that
Mr Eyton speaks of the _firma unius noctis_ as 'borough
taxation', whereas it was essentially of the nature of rent,
not taxes.]

[Footnote 205: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr
Eyton's work.]

[Footnote 206: We should perhaps read this as explaining
the composition of the centuriatus, viz.: 'the priests, the
reeves, and six villeins from each Vill'.]

[Footnote 207: Of this conflict there is a good instance,
almost at the outset of the Cambridgeshire survey (p. 3):
'Hanc terram posuit Orgarus in vadimonio ... ut homines
Goisfridi dicunt. Sed homines de hundredo neque breve
aliquid neque legat' R.E. inde viderunt, neque testimonium
perhibent.']

[Footnote 208: Whittlesford omitted, because in this Hundred
no lands were held or claimed by the Abbey.]

[Footnote 209: Compare Wilkins, 125 (quoted by Palgrave,
_English Commonwealth_, i. 464) on English and 'Welsh' in
Devon: 'Disputes arising between the plaintiffs and defendants
of the two nations were to be decided by a court of twelve
"lawmen"--six English and six Welsh--the representatives of
the respective communities. And it may be observed that
the principle which suggested this dimidiated tribunal was
generally adopted in our border law.']

[Footnote 210: Wharton's _Anglia Sacra_, i. 339.]

[Footnote 211: Palgrave's _Commonwealth_, ii. 183.]

[Footnote 212: This seems of great importance as a very early
instance of the _quatuor villatæ_ system, on which see Gross's
'The Early History and Influence of the Office of Coroner'
(_Political Science Quarterly_, vol. vii, No. 4), where the
researches of Prof Maitland and others are summarized.]

[Footnote 213: Only four, however, of the fourteen actually
swore: 'reliquos vero decem quietavit Willelmus abbas, qui
parati erant jurare'.]

[Footnote 214: The number eight perhaps, is unusual for
the jury of a Hundred but we have an instance in 1222, of a
'jurata per octo legales cives Lincolniæ et præterea per octo
legales homines de visneto Lincolnie' (_Bracton's Note-book_,
ii. 121); and see Addenda.]

[Footnote 215: His surname is there omitted, but his identity
is proved by Humphrey 'de Anslevilla' occurring elsewhere as
an under-tenant of Eudo.]

[Footnote 216: So I conclude from his _Introduction to
Domesday_, i. 22, note 2.]

[Footnote 217: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, pp. 97
_et seq._]

[Footnote 218: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 184-9.]

[Footnote 219: _Ibid._, pp. 97, 101.]

[Footnote 220: C omits 'et'.]

[Footnote 221: Here the scribe of C, puzzled by the
evident corruption of the text from which he copied, read
'inv[enit]'.]

[Footnote 222: 'Toft' (rightly) in C.]

[Footnote 223: Chauelæi, C.]

[Footnote 224: Stanhard[us], B, C.]

[Footnote 225: Frauuis, C.]

[Footnote 226: Chertelinge, C.]

[Footnote 227: Cheleia, C.]

[Footnote 228: Wigeni, C. This was 'Wigonus de mara' (I.C.C.)
or 'Wighen' (D.B.) Count Alan's under-tenant at Ditton.]

[Footnote 229: Eurard[us] in D.B.]

[Footnote 230: 'Juraverunt homines scilicet Alerann[us],
Rogger[us] homo Walteri Giffardi' omitted in C.]

[Footnote 231: A sokeman of the Abbot of Ely at Suafham.]

[Footnote 232: Staplehoe Hundred.]

[Footnote 233: This is a noticeable case because 'mo' has
been interlined in B text of I.E., and because this man can
be identified in I.C.C. and D.B. as an under-tenant in the
Hundred.]

[Footnote 234: The I.E. version ('bans') is the right one.]

[Footnote 235: Rectius 'I. hidam'.]

[Footnote 236: C text.]

[Footnote 237: Commend' 'S. ae.' is found on 386_b_, _ad
pedem_.]

[Footnote 238: From internal evidence I hold this writ to have
been sent from over sea. It cannot have been issued by William
Rufus, for the Bishop of Coutances rebelled against him in
1088, and William Rufus did not go abroad till later in his
reign.]

[Footnote 239: This is usually quoted 'inquirunt', which is
the wrong reading.]

[Footnote 240: The right reading.]

[Footnote 241: Quantum in C text.]

[Footnote 242: The text here seems to be corrupt, C reading
'tunc' for 'simul'. As the 'tunc' and 'modo' formula is
represented in the next clause, it seems more probable that
'simul' is the right reading, and refers to the totals entered
in the _Inquisitio_. In that case the words 'et quantum modo'
are an interpolation.]

[Footnote 243: Hallow near Worcester.]

[Footnote 244: Note, Ash--'Esch'--'Naisse'.]

[Footnote 245: Compare the heading of the 'breve abbatis':
'Hic imbreviatur quot carucas', etc., etc. The returns of the
Norman barons in 1172 were styled 'breves'.]

[Footnote 246: Ed. Hamilton, p. 137.]

[Footnote 247: This also seems to have been taken from the
detailed original returns.]

[Footnote 248: So far back as 1887 I raised this question,
writing: 'Indeed, heretical though the view may be, I see no
_proof_ whatever that Domesday Book was itself compiled in
1086' (_Antiquary_, xvi. 8).]

[Footnote 249: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 526, 626.]

[Footnote 250: The most erroneous date that has been suggested
for Domesday is the year 1080. Ellis wrote, referring to
Webb's 'short account', that 'the Red Book of the Exchequer
seems to have been erroneously quoted as fixing the time of
entrance upon it as 1080' (i. 3). Mr Ewald,[*] following in
his footsteps, has repeated his statement (under 'Domesday
Book'), in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; and, lastly, Mr
de Gray Birch asserts on his authority that 'this valuable
manuscript' is not responsible for that date (_Domesday Book_,
p. 71). All these writers are mistaken. The _Diologus de
Scaccario_, indeed, does not mention a year, but Swereford's
famous Introduction, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, does
give us, by an astounding blunder, the fourteenth year of the
Conqueror (1079-80) as the date of Domesday (see below, p.
210).]

[Footnote *: Author of _Our Public Records_.]

[Footnote 251: I am not sure that even the 'pertin[ent] ad
rege[m]' of the 'first' volume (100_b_) is not a mistake for
'regnum'.]

[Footnote 252: On fo. 17 is a curious deleted list of church
fiefs in Essex, which has no business there.]

[Footnote 253: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 354.]

[Footnote 254: _Vide infra_, p. 154.]

[Footnote 255: Henry, says Orderic, in 1100, 'concito cursu
ad _arcem Guentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur_,
festinavit'.]

[Footnote 256: This account of the Winchester placitum is
taken from my second article on 'The Custody of Domesday Book'
(_Antiquary_, xvi. 9-10).]

[Footnote 257: _Academy_, November 13, 1886; _Domesday
Studies_, p. 537 note; and Mr Hall's _Antiquities of the
Exchequer_, chap. i.]

[Footnote 258: _Mon. Ang._, iii. 86.]

[Footnote 259: _Hen. Hunt._, 211; Richard of Hexham says
of Henry I's charter of liberties that 'in ærari suo apud
Wintoniam [eam] conservari præcepit' (p. 142).]

[Footnote 260: _Domesday Studies_, 546-7.]

[Footnote 261: _Supra_, note 255.]

[Footnote 262: _Athenæum_, November 27, 1886.]

[Footnote 263: See also _Domesday Studies_, 547 note^{2}.]

[Footnote 264: _Domesday Studies_, 539 _et seq._]

[Footnote 265: It will be observed that I do not touch the
_Liber Exoniensis_.]

[Footnote 266: Possibly at second-hand, see p. 20 note
(Footnote 9, above), and Addenda.]

THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE GELD-ROLL

This remarkable document was printed by Sir Henry Ellis (1833) in his _General Introduction to Domesday_ (i. 184-7) from the fine Peterborough Cartulary belonging to the Society of Antiquaries (MS. 60). I shall not, therefore, reprint it here, but will give the opening entry as a specimen of its style:

This is unto Suttunes (Sutton) hundred, that is an hundred
hides. So it was in King Edward's day. And thereof is
'gewered' one and twenty hides and two-thirds of a hide, and
[there are] forty hides inland and ten hides [of] the King's
ferm land, and eight and twenty hides and the third of a hide
waste.

We have seen (_supra_, p. 59) that Ellis not only erred, but even led Dr Stubbs into error, as to the character of the 'hundreds' enumerated in this document. Except for that, I cannot find any real notice taken of it, although it has been in print over sixty years. It appears to be not even mentioned in Mr Stuart Moore's volume on _Northamptonshire in Domesday_; and no one, it seems, has cared to inquire to what date it belongs, or what it really is.[1]