TERRITORIAL STUDIES
DOMESDAY BOOK
The true key to the Domesday Survey, and to the system of land
assessment it records, is found in the _Inquisitio Comitatus
Cantabrigiensis_. Although the document so styled is one of cardinal
importance, it has, from accident, been known to few, and has
consequently never succeeded in obtaining the attention and scientific
treatment it deserved. The merit of its identification belongs to Mr
Philip Carteret Webb, who published in 1756 a paper originally read
before the Society of Antiquaries, entitled, _A Short Account of
Danegeld, with some further particulars relating to William the
Conqueror's Survey_. It is difficult to speak too highly of this
production, remembering the date at which it was composed. Many years
were yet to elapse before the printing of Domesday was even begun, and
historical evidences were largely inaccessible as compared with the
condition of things today. Yet the ability shown by Mr Webb in
this careful and conscientious piece of work is well seen in his
interesting discovery, which he announced in these words:
In searching for the _Liber Eliensis_, I have had the good
fortune to discover in the Cotton Library a MS. copy of the
Inquisition of the jury, containing their survey for most of
the hundreds in Cambridgeshire. This MS. is written on vellum
in double columns and on both sides of the page. It is bound
up with the _Liber Eliensis_, and begins at p. 76_a_ and ends
at p. 113. It is written in a very fair but ancient character,
not coeval with the Survey, but of about the time of Henry II.
It was given by Mr Arthur Agard to Sir Robert Cotton, and is
marked Tiberius A. VI 4. Your lordship and the Society will
be of opinion that this is a discovery of importance, and what
had escaped the observation of Sir H. Spelman, Mr Selden,
and other antiquarians. A part of this valuable morsel of
antiquity is already transcribed, and in a few weeks I hope to
be able to communicate the whole of it to the Society (p. 26).
Mr Webb's discovery was known to Kelham, and duly referred to by him
in his _Domesday Book Illustrated_ (1788). It was also known to
Sir Francis Palgrave, strong in his acquaintance with manuscript
authorities, who alluded (1832) to the fact that 'fragments of the
original inquisitions have been preserved',[1] and described the MS.
Tib. A. VI, of which 'the first portion consists of the _Inquisitio
Eliensis_, extending, as above mentioned, into five counties; it
is followed by the inedited _Inquisitio_', etc.[2] It is, however,
undoubtedly ignored in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday Book_ (1833),
and 'even the indefatigable Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy', writes
Mr Birch,[3] 'has omitted all notice of this manuscript in his
_Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of Great
Britain and Ireland_, vol. ii. (1865)'. This, however, is not strictly
the case, for in his notice of the Domesday MSS. he observes in a
footnote:
The Cottonian MS. [Tib. A. VI] has also a second and unique
portion of this survey, which was not printed in the edition
published by the Record Commission in 1816. It commences 'in
Grantebriggesira, in Staplehouhund', and ends imperfectly 'et
vicecomiti regis v. auras'.
These words prove that Sir Thomas had inspected the MS., which duly
begins and ends with the words here given.
It is certain, however, that Mr Freeman, most ardent of Domesday
students, knew nothing of this precious evidence, and remained
therefore virtually unacquainted with the _modus operandi_ of the
Great Survey. The pages, we shall find, of the _Inquisitio_ afford
information that no one would have welcomed more eagerly than himself.
Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton,
when editing this document for the Royal Society of Literature (1876),
should have supposed that it had been overlooked till then, or that
he was 'the first to bring its importance to light' (p. vi). It
is, however, much to be regretted that Mr De Gray Birch should have
strenuously insisted that Webb (whose paper he actually names)
and Kelham 'appear to have been strangely ignorant of the true and
important nature of this manuscript',[4] and should have repeated this
assertion[5] after I had shown at the Domesday Commemoration (1886)
that the honour of the discovery really belonged to Mr P. C. Webb.
One may claim that Webb should have his due, while gladly expressing
gratitude to Mr Hamilton for his noble edition of the _Inquisitio_,
which has conferred on Domesday students an inestimable boon.[6]
The printing of the document in record type, the collation throughout
with Domesday Book, and the appending of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_,
edited from three different texts, represent an extraordinary amount
of minute and wearisome labour. The result is a volume as helpful as
it is indispensable to the scholar.
I propose in this paper to take up anew the subject, at the point
where Mr Hamilton has left it, to submit the text to scientific
criticism, to assign it its weight in the scale of authority, and to
explain its glossarial and its illustrative value for the construction
and the contents of Domesday Book.
I. NATURE OF THE 'INQ. COM. CANT.'
Exact definition is needful at the outset in dealing with this
document. The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, which is entered
on fos. 76-113 of Tib. A. VI, must be carefully distinguished from the
_Inquisitio Eliensis_ on fos. 38-68. Mr Hamilton doubted whether any
one before him 'had distinguished between' the two, but this, we have
seen, was a mistake. The distinction however is all-important, the two
documents differing altogether in character. One would not think it
necessary to distinguish them also from the so-called _Liber Eliensis_
(which is not a survey at all) had not Mr Eyton inadvertently
stated that our document has been printed under the title of _Liber
Eliensis_.[7]
The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_ (hereafter styled 'the
I.C.C.') deals with the county of Cambridge alone, but, in that
county, with the lands of all holders. The _Inquisitio Eliensis_
(which I propose to style 'the I.E.') deals with several counties,
but, in these counties, with the lands of the abbey alone. The latter
was duly printed, with Domesday Book, by the Record Commission; the
former remained in manuscript till printed by Mr Hamilton.
Mr Hamilton describes his record at the outset as 'the Original Return
made by the _Juratores_ of the county of Cambridge in obedience to the
Conqueror's mandate, from which the Exchequer Domesday for that
county was afterwards compiled by the King's secretaries', and as 'the
original source from which the Exchequer Domesday for that county was
derived'. Mr Birch here again repeats the words, insisting 'that we
have in this very precious Cottonian MS. _the original source_ from
which the Exchequer Domesday of Cambridgeshire was compiled'.[8]
Such a description is most unfortunate being not only inaccurate but
misleading. All that we are entitled to predicate of the document
is that it is _apparently a copy_ of the original returns from which
Domesday Book was compiled. For 'the original source' of both we must
look to the now missing returns of the jurors, the primary authority
from which Domesday Book and the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._ are
independently derived. This distinction is all-important, reducing, as
it does, the _Inquisitio_ from the rank of an 'original' to that of
a secondary authority on the same level with Domesday Book.[9] Mr
Hamilton, like Mr Webb before him, assigned the handwriting of the
_Inquisitio_ to about the close of the twelfth century. The copy of
the returns which it contains, therefore, was made about a century
later than the returns themselves.
The problem then that we have to solve is this: 'Is the I.C.C.
an actual transcript of these original returns, and if so, is it
faithful?' I will not, like Mr Hamilton, assume an affirmative, but
will attempt an impartial inquiry.
The two paths which we must follow in turn to arrive at a just
conclusion are (1) the construction of the I.C.C., (2) collation with
the _Inq. Eliensis_. For I hope to show that the latter record must
have been derived from the same source as the _Inq. Com. Cant._
Following the first of these paths, we note at once that while
_Domesday Book_ arranges the Manors according to fiefs, the _Inq. Com.
Cant._, on the contrary, arranges them by hundreds and townships. Its
system is regular and simple. For every hundred it first enumerates
the principal jurors who made the return, and then gives the return
itself, arranged according to townships (_villæ_). These townships
are thus the units of which the Manors they contain are merely the
component fractions. This is precisely what we should expect to find
in the original returns, but it only creates a presumption; it does
not afford a proof. For instance, it might be reasonably urged that
these copies may have omitted certain items in the returns, just as
Domesday Book omitted others.
To reply to this objection, we must turn to the second path; that is
to say, we must collate the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ with the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ I shall prove below that the latter cannot have been taken from
the former, which only covers a portion of its field, and that, on the
other hand, the former cannot have been taken from the latter, because
the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is accurate in places where the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ is in error. Consequently they must both have been derived
independently from some third document. This being so, if we should
find that their versions agree closely, we may fairly infer that
each is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the above 'third
document'. In other words, if neither version omits items which are
given in the other, we are entitled to assume that the copy is in each
case exhaustive, for two scribes working independently are not likely
to have systematically omitted the same items from the document before
them.
What then was the 'third document' from which they both copied?
Obviously it was either the original returns of the Domesday jurors,
or a copy (exhaustive or not) of these returns. Now we cannot suppose
that two scribes, working, as I have said, independently, would both
have worked, not from the original returns themselves, but from a
copy, and that the same copy of these returns--a copy, moreover, of
the existence of which we have no evidence whatever. Moreover, in this
hypothetical copy, there would, we may safely assert, have been
some clerical errors. These would have duly re-appeared in both the
_Inquisitiones_, and collation with Domesday Book would enable us to
detect them. Yet in no single instance, though each of them contains
errors, have I found a clerical error common to both. We are thus
driven to the conclusion that in both these _Inquisitiones_ we have
copies of the actual returns made by the Domesday jurors.
One of the postulates in the above argument is that the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ and the _Inq. Eliensis_ 'agree closely' in their versions. Here
is an instance in illustration:[10]
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
Meldeburna pro x. sol[idis] se Meldeburne pro x. hidis se
defendebat T.R.E. et modo pro defendebat in tempore R. ÆD. et
viii. Et de his x. hidis tenet modo pro viii. Et de his x.
predictus abbas ii. hidas et hun[dredis] tenet abbas de eli
I^{am.} virgam. v. carrucis est ii. hidas et i. v[irgam].
ibi terra. Una carruca et dimidia, v. carucis ibi est terra. I.
et una hida et una virga in caruca et dimidia, et i. hida
dominio, et dimidia carruca et dimidia, in dominio, et
potest fieri. iii. Carucæ dimidia caruca potest fieri.
villanis. vi. villani, ix. iii. carucæ hominibus. vi.
bordarii, iii. cotarii, villani, ix. bordarii, iii.
dimidium molendinum de iii. cotarii. Pratum v. carucis.
solidis, et viii. denariis. i. molendinum de ii. solidis
Pratum v. carrucis. Pastura ad et viii. denariis. Pastura ad
pecora villæ, ccc. oves iii. pecora villæ. oves ccc., iii^{es.}
minus, xxxiiii. porci. Inter minus, et xxxiiii. porci. Inter
totum valet c. sol., et quando totum valet v. lib. Quando
recepit totidem. T.R.E. vi. lib. recepit v. lib. T.R.E. vi.
Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit
ecclesia sancte Ædel. de eli in in ecclesia sancte Ædel'
dominio. ely in dominio.
Et de his x. hidis tenet Wido de In eadem villa habet Guido de
Reb' curt de rege, &ca., &ca. Raimbecurt de rege, &ca., &ca.
These extracts are typical and instructive. They leave, in the first
place, no doubt upon the mind that both are versions of the same
original. This, which proves my postulate, will be shown below to
possess a further and important bearing. But while these versions
closely agree, we notice (1) independent blunders, (2) slight variants
in diction. As to blunders, we see that the I.C.C. has 'sol[idis]'
where the I.E. has the correct 'hidis', while, conversely, the I.E.
reads 'hun[dredis]' where the I.C.C. has, rightly, 'hidis'. Again the
I.C.C. allots to demesne an assessment of a hide and a virgate, but
I.E. a hide and a half (_i.e._ two virgates). Collation with Domesday
Book confirms the former version. Conversely, the I.C.C. assigns to
the mill the value of three shillings and eightpence, but the I.E. of
two shillings and eightpence. Collation with Domesday Book confirms
the latter. Turning now to the variants, we may express them more
clearly thus:
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
T.R.E. = in tempore R. ÆD.
predictus abbas = abbas de eli.
villanis = hominibus.
dimidium molendinum = i. molendinum.
c. sol. = v. lib.
totidem = v. lib.
de his x. hidis tenet = in eadem villa habet.
These prove that verbal accuracy was not aimed at by the transcribers.
The same freedom from its trammels is seen in the transposition of the
'mill' and 'meadow' passages, and, indeed, in the highly abbreviated
form of the I.E. entries (in which a single letter, mostly, does duty
for a word), which shows that the original version must have been
either extended in the I.C.C., or (more probably) abbreviated in the
I.E.
We are now in a position to advance to the criticism of the text of
the _Inq. Com. Cant._, and to inquire how far it can be trusted as a
reproduction of the original returns. In other words, are its contents
more or less trustworthy than those of Domesday Book?
It might, no doubt, be fairly presumed that a simple transcript of
the original returns was less likely to contain error than such
a compilation as Domesday Book, in which their contents were (1)
rearranged on a different system, (2) epitomized and partly omitted,
(3) altered in wording. Mr Hamilton, indeed, who was naturally
tempted to make the most of his MS., appears to have jumped at this
conclusion; for he speaks in his preface (p. xii) of its 'superior
exactness', and gives us no hint of omissions or of blunders. There
are, however, plenty of both, as will be seen from the lists below,
which do not profess to be exhaustive.
But we will first examine the instances adduced by Mr Hamilton. Out of
ten examples in proof of its value, five are cases in which 'the want
of precision in Domesday' leaves the identity of the tenant-in-chief
'undefined'. It is difficult to comment on these statements, because
in all five cases the name is as carefully recorded in Domesday as in
the I.C.C. Mr Hamilton's error can only, it will be found, have
arisen from comparing the I.C.C. not with Domesday Book, but with the
extracts therefrom printed in his work, which, being torn from their
place, do not, of course, contain the tenant's full name, which in
Domesday itself is given at the head of the list from which they
are taken. Moreover, as it happens, this test demonstrates not
the inferiority, but (in one instance at least) the superiority of
Domesday, the I.C.C. (fo. 97, col. 2) reading 'Hanc terram tenuit
comes alanus' [_sic_], where Domesday has (rightly) 'Hanc terram
tenuit Algar comes'. The former must have wrongly extended the
abbreviated original entry.[11]
Another of Mr Hamilton's examples is this:
'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' (Domesday) is
abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus
de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton
MS.
But, on referring to the passage in question, we find that the
Domesday passage: 'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' has
nothing to do with that 'long account', but corresponds to the simple
formula in the I.C.C., 'Hanc terram tenuerunt monache de cet'ero
T.R.E. et modo tenent'. The example which follows it is this:
At pp. 38, 39 we see a curious alteration in the value of
the land, which had risen from xv. lib. 'quando recepit' and
T.R.E. to xvii. lib. at the time the return was made, and
dropped again to xvi. lib. in the Domesday Survey.
This strange comment implies the supposition that the I.C.C. records
an earlier survey than Domesday Book, whereas, of course, they are
derived from the same returns, so that the discrepancy of xvi. and
xvii. is merely a clerical error. One more instance, the 'curious
reading' _Harlestone_ in the I.C.C., is shown below to be merely
an error in that MS. Such are eight of the examples adduced by
Mr Hamilton. The remaining two merely illustrate not the superior
accuracy, but the greater elaboration of the I.C.C. It has been
absolutely necessary to dispose of these examples, in order to show
that a critical estimate of the value of the I.C.C. has yet to be
made.
Taking the omissions in the MS. first, we find some really bad ones.
On fo. 79A (2), collation with Domesday gives this result:
_I.C.C._ (p. 12)[12] _D.B._ (I. 196A)
II. hidas et dimidiam et x. acras Tenuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
tenuerunt. [..................... et x. acras. Nec isti potuerunt
................................. recedere absque licentia
................................. abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni,
................................. homines regis E., tenuerunt
....]. Non potuerunt recedere ii. hidas. Non potuerunt
sine licentia. recedere absque licentia.
A similar 'run on' omission is found on fo. 109A (1):
_I.C.C._ (p. 79) _D.B._ (I. 200A, 193A)
Tenet Radulfus de bans de [Widone Tenet Radulfus de Widone iii^{ciam.}
de] rembercurt terciam partem partem i. virgatæ [Terra est i.
unius virge. I. bovi ibi est bovi], et ibi est bos. Valet et
terra, et est bos [.............. valuit ii. sol., et vendere potuit,
................................. et iiii^{tam.} partem unius Avere
................................. vicecomiti invenit.
.................................
................................. In Oreuuelle tenet eadem
................................. æcclesia iiii^{tam.} partem unius
.......................] Valet et virgatæ. Terra est dimidio bovi
valuit semper xii. den.[13] et valet xii. den.
Another instance of 'running on' occurs on fo. 105A (1), where 'xviii.
cotarii' (p. 67) is proved by Domesday to stand for 'xviii. [bordarii
x.] cotarii'. Again on fo. 79B (2) we have this:
_I.C.C._ (p. 14) _D.B._ (I. 195B 1)
Eadiua unam hidam habuit et Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i.
unam virgam [.................. virgatam et Wluui homo ejus
....] Socham huius habuit ædiua i. hidam et i. virgatam. Socam
T.R.E.[14] ejus habuit Eddeua.
So, too, on fo. 100B(1):
_I.C.C._ (p. 52) _D.B._ (I. 190A)
XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani, XV. villani et xv. bordarii
xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol' cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi,
de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol' et i. molinus de xvi. denariis
de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi. et alii duo molini xxxii.
carrucis. denariis. Pratum xvi. carucis.
The importance of such an omission as this lies in the proof of
unintelligent clerkship and want of revision which so unmeaning an
entry as 'xv. xvi. carrucis' supplies.
Omissions of another character are not infrequent. On fo. 95B (1)
an entire holding of a virgate (held by a sokeman of Earl Alan) is
omitted (p. 34). Another sokeman of Earl Alan (p. 32) has his holding
(1/4 virgate) omitted on the same folio (95A, 1), so is an entire
holding of Hardwin's (p. 36) on fo. 96A (2). A demesne plough ('i.
caruca') of Hugh de Port (p. 8) is omitted (78A, 1), and so are the
ploughs ('et iiii. villanis') of Aubrey's villeins (p. 9) a few lines
lower down. On fo. 90A (1) the words 'ibi est terra' are wanting
(p. 15),[15] and so are 'non potuit' on fo. 100 (A) 1.[16] The word
'recedere' is left out on fo. 103B (2),[17] and 'soca' just before
(103 (B) 1).[18] 'Odo' is similarly wanting on fo. 90A (1).[19] The
note also on the Abbot of Ely's sokeman at Lollesworth (p. 95), is
wholly omitted (fo. 113, B, 2), though found both in Domesday Book and
in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[20]
Turning now to the clerical blunders, we find an abundant crop. We may
express them conveniently in tabular form:
Folio Page
76 (_a_) 2. 'Auenam lvii. nummos,' _for_ 'Aueram (ve)l viii.
denarios' (D.B.) 2
76 (_b_) 1. 'Hominis' _for_ 'ho(mo)' 3
77 (_a_) 2. 'In dominio et iii. villani', _for_ 'una caruca in
dominio et iii. villanis' 7
_Ibid._ 'Mille de anguillis dimidium de piscina', _for_
'i. millen' et dimidium anguill'' (D.B.) 7
78 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. in dominio carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio',
_for_ 'iiii. carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio' 11
79 (_a_) 1. 'cuius honor erat', _for_ 'cuius ho(mo) erat' 12
79 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. bobus', _for_ 'iiii. bord(arii)' 14
91 (_b_) 2. 'valent iii.', _for_ 'valent iii. den.' 21
92 (_b_) 2. 'xliii. car(ucis) ibi e(st) terra', _for_ 'xl.
acras terræ' 25
95 (_a_) 2. 'has v. h(idas) tenet', _for_ 'de his v. h(idis)
tenet' 33
95 (_b_) 1. 'et pro iiii. virgis', _for_ 'et pro iii. virgis' 34
95 (_b_) 2. 'unam virgam minus', _for_ 'dimi' virg' minus' (D.B.) 35
96 (_b_) 1. 'dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'i. virg'' (D.B.) 38
97 (_b_) 1. 'Clintona', _for_ 'Iclintona' 41
97 (_b_) 2. 'unam hidam', _for_ 'dimidiam hidam' (D.B.) 42
100 (_a_) 1. 'Terra est vi. carucis', _for_ 'Terra est v.
carucis'[21] 50
100 (_a_) 2. 'ii. h(idas) et dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'ii. hidas
et i. virgam et dimidiam'[22] (D.B.) 50
100 (_b_) 2. 'vii. sochemanni', _for_ 'iii. soch[emanni]'[23] 52
101 (_a_) 2. 'homities', _for_ 'homines' 54
101 (_b_) 2. 'tenet pic' vicecomes quendam ortum de rege ii. hide',
_for_ 'tenet pic' vicecomes de rege ii. hidas'[24] 55
102 (_a_) 1. 'ii. boves', _for_ 'ii. bord(arii)' 56
104 (_b_) 1. 'iiii. hidas et i. virgam', _for_ 'iii. hidas et
i. virgam' (D.B.) 65
105 (_b_) 2. _bis_ 'Rahamnes', _for_ 'Kahannes' 60
106 (_a_) 1. 'pro vi. hidis' (_bis_), _for_ 'pro vii. hidis' 70
109 (_b_) 2. 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano iii. cottarios',
_for_ 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano. iii.
cottarii' 82
110 (_a_) 1. 'ely tenuit ii. h(idas)', _for_ 'ely tenuit
i. h(idam)' (I.E.) 83
110 (_b_) 1. 'viiii. h(idis)', _for_ 'viii. h(idis)' 84
111 (_a_) 2. 'liii. carrucis est ibi terra', _for_ 'iiii. car' est
ibi terra' 87
Besides these, Ralf 'de bans' is often entered as Ralf 'de scannis'.
Again, we find such blunders as this:
_I.C.C._ _D.B._
Hugo de portu tenet sneileuuelle. Ipse Hugo tenet _de feudo
Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. episcopi baiocensis_ snellewelle.
et modo facit _de feudo episcopi Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat]
baiocensis_ (p. 3). semper.
Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate.
abbate de eli. _Et in morte_ ita Non poterat separare ab æcclesia
quod non potuit dare neque extra firmam monachorum T.R.E.
separare ab ecclesia extra _nec in die mortis ejus_.
dominicam firmam monachorum
T.R.E. (p. 63).
Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
hidas et dimidiam virgam _de ely_ vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride
T.R.E. (p. 65). _de Ely_.
In all these three cases the italicized words are misplaced, and in
all three the explanation is the same, the scribe having first omitted
them, and then inserted them later out of place. Having now criticized
the text of the I.C.C., and shown that it presents no small traces of
unintelligent clerkship, if not of actual ignorance of the terms and
_formulæ_ of Domesday, I turn to the text of Domesday Book, to test it
by comparison with that of the I.C.C.
II. CRITICISM OF THE DOMESDAY TEXT
Among the omissions are, on i, 195 (_b_) 1, 'Item et reddebat viii.
den. vel aueram si rex in vicecomitatu venit' (p. 5). At Kirtling (p.
11), 'et v^{ta.} caruca potest fieri [in dominio]' is omitted (i. 202
_a_). So is (p. 25) a potential demesne plough of John fitz Waleran
(i. 201 _b_). The Countess Judith's sokemen at Carlton (pp. 20, 21)
have their values omitted[25] (i. 202, _a_, 2). 'Habuerunt dimidiam
hidam, et,' is omitted (p. 28) in the entry of two sokemen of Godwine
(201, _b_, 2). On i. 196 (_a_) 1, 'Terra est i. bovi' is wanting (p.
79). More important, however, are the omissions of whole entries.
These are by no means difficult to account for, the process of
extracting from the original returns, the various entries relating to
each particular fief being one which was almost certain to result in
such omissions.[26]
Moreover, two entries were occasionally thrown into one, a dangerous
plan for the clerks themselves, and one which may sometimes lead us
to think that an entry is omitted when it is duly to be found under
another head. Lastly, the compilers of Domesday Book had no such
invaluable check for their work as was afforded in the original by
entering first the assessment of the whole township, and then that of
each of its component Manors separately. But of this more below.[27]
The only wonder is that the omissions are, after all, so few. Perhaps
even of these some may be only apparent. Hardwin's half-hide
in _Burwell_ (p. 6) is wanting; so is Aubrey's half-virgate in
_Badburgham_, according to Mr Hamilton (p. 36), but the oversight is
his. A virgate held in Trumpington by a burgess of Cambridge (p.
51) would seem to be not forthcoming, but its position was somewhat
anomalous.[28] Guy de Rembercurt held a hide and a virgate in
_Haslingefield_ (p. 73), though we cannot find it in Domesday; and in
_Witewelle_ (Outwell) two hides which were held by Robert, a tenant of
Hardwin (p. 81), are similarly omitted, according to Mr Hamilton but
will be found under 'Wateuuelle' (198, _b_, 2).
There are cases in which the I.C.C. corrects D.B., cases in which D.B.
corrects the I.C.C., and cases in which the I.C.C. corrects itself.
There are also several cases of discrepancy between the two, in which
we cannot positively pronounce which, if either, is right. A singular
instance of both being wrong is found in the case of Soham. The
assessment of this township was actually eleven hides, its four
component holdings being severally assessed at nine and a half hides
less six acres, half a hide, one hide, and six acres. The I.C.C. at
first gives the total assessment as eleven hides and a half, while
D.B. erroneously assesses the first of the four holdings at six hides
and forty acres in one place, and nine hides and a half in the other,
both figures being wrong. A most remarkable case of yet another kind
is found in _Scelford_ (Shelford). Here the entry in I.C.C. agrees
exactly with the duplicate entries found in D.B. Yet they both make
nonsense.[29] But on turning to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ we obtain
the correct version. As this is a very important and probably unique
instance, the entries are here given in parallel columns:
_Inq. Eliensis._ _Inq. Com. Cant._ _D.B._ i. 198 _D.B._ i. 198
(_a_) 2. (_a_) 2.
i. hidam et dim. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii.
et vi. acras quas [_sic_] [_sic_] [_sic_]
tenuerunt vi. sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni
sochemanni de i. hidam et i. hidam et i. hidam et
socha abbatis dim. et vi. dim. et vi. dim. et vi.
ely, de quibus acras de soca acras de soca acras de soca
non potuerunt abbatis de ely. abbatis. Non[30] abbatis de ely.
dare nec Non potuerunt potuerunt Non potuerunt
recedere nisi recedere sed recedere cum recedere cum
iii^{cs.} virgas soca remanebat terra, sed soca terra, sed soca
absque ejus abbati. remanebat remanebat
licentia. æcclesia de ely. æcclesiæ Ely.
Et si alias
vendidissent
tres virgas,
predictus abbas
semper socham
habuit T.R.E.
Here the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ version shows us that the estate had
two divisions held by different tenures. Three virgates the sokemen
were not free to sell; the other three they might sell, but if they
did, 'predictus abbas semper socham habuit'.[31] The two divisions of
the estate are confused in the other versions. But all three of these
correspond so exactly that we are driven to assign the error to the
original returns themselves. In that case the compiler (or compilers)
of the I.E. will have corrected the original return from his own
knowledge of the facts, which knowledge, I shall show, he certainly
possessed.
This brings us to the _errors_ of Domesday. For comparison's sake, I
here tabulate them like those of the I.C.C.:
Folio Page
i. 189 (_b_) 2. 'mancipium', _for_ 'inuuardum' (I.C.C.) 4
i. 195 (_b_) 1. 'Terra est ii. carucis et ibi est', _for_
'Terra est i. carucæ et ibi est' 15
i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'xxx. acras', _for_ 'xx. acras' (I.C.C.) 15
i. 196 (_a_) 2. 'iiii. villani ... habent iii. carucas',
_for_ 'iiii. villani ... habent iiii. carucas' 21
i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'De hac terra tenet', _for_ 'adhuc in eadem
villa tenet' (?)[32] 29
i. 198 (_a_) 1. 'tenet Harduuinus i. virgatam' _for_ 'tenet
Hardeuuinus dim. virgatam' (I.C.C.) 38
i. 194 (_b_) 1. 'ii. hidas et i. virg. terræ', _for_ 'ii. hidas
et una virg. et dimidiam' (I.C.C.) 64
i. 199 (_b_) 2. 'xvi. sochemanni', _for_ 'xv sochemanni' 65
i. 198 (_b_) 1. 'tenet Durand ... i. hidam et i. virg.',
_for_ 'tenet Durand i. hidam et dim. virg.' 67
i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'In dominio ii. hidæ et dim', _for_ 'In
dominio ii. hidæ et dim. virg.'[33] 67
i. 200 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Radulf de Picot iii. virg.', _for_
'tenet Radulf de Picot i. virg.' 80
i. 196 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et ii. virg. et
dim.', _for_ 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et
i. virg. et dim.' 74
i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'vii. homines Algari comitis', _for_ 'vi.
homines Algari comitis' 84
Comparing the omissions and errors, as a whole, in these two versions
of the original returns, it may be said that the comparison is in
favour of the Domesday Book text, although, from the process of its
compilation, it was far the most exposed to error. No one who has not
analysed and collated such texts for himself can realize the extreme
difficulty of avoiding occasional error. The abbreviations and the
_formulæ_ employed in these surveys are so many pitfalls for the
transcriber, and the use of Roman numerals is almost fatal to
accuracy. The insertion or omission of an 'x' or an 'i' was probably
the cause of half the errors of which the Domesday scribes were
guilty. Remembering that they had, in Mr Eyton's words,[34] to perform
'a task, not of mere manual labour and imitative accuracy, but a task
requiring intellect--intellect, clear, well-balanced, apprehensive,
comprehensive, and trained withal', we can really only wonder that
they performed it so well as they did.
Still, the fact remains that on a few pages of Domesday we have been
able to detect a considerable number of inaccuracies and omissions.
The sacrosanct status of the Great Survey is thus gravely modified.
I desire to lay stress on this fact, which is worthy of the labour it
has cost to establish. For two important conclusions follow. Firstly,
it is neither safe nor legitimate to make general inferences from a
single entry in Domesday. All conclusions as to the interpretation
of its _formulae_ should be based on _data_ sufficiently numerous to
exclude the influence of error. Secondly, if we find that a rule of
interpretation can be established in an overwhelming majority of the
cases examined, we are justified, conversely, in claiming that the
apparent exceptions may be due to errors in the text.
The first of these conclusions has a special bearing on the theories
propounded by Mr Pell with so much ingenuity and learning.[35] I have
shown, in an essay criticizing these theories,[36] that the case of
Clifton, to which Mr Pell attached so much importance,[37] is nothing,
in all probability, but one of Domesday's blunders, of which I gave,
in that essay, other instances. So, too, in the case of his own Manor
of Wilburton, Mr Pell accepted without question the reading '_six_
ploughlands', as representing the 'primary return',[38] although that
reading is only found in the most corrupt of the three versions of
the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, while the two better versions (B and C
texts) agree with Domesday Book, and with the abbreviated return at
the end of the A text itself (Tib. A. VI fo. 67, _b_, 1), in giving
the ploughlands as _seven_. Really it is nothing but waste of time to
argue from a reading which is only found in one out of five MSS., and
that one the most corrupt.
This brings me to the existence and the value of duplicate entries in
Domesday. Mr Hamilton describes as 'a curious reading' the words in
the I.C.C., 'sed soca remanebat _Harlestone_'. Now it so happens that
in this case we have five separate versions of the original entry: one
in the I.C.C., one in the I.E., and three in Domesday Book. Here they
are side by side:
_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(p. 46) (p. 106) (I. 200, (_ibid._, (I. 191,
_a_, 2) in margin) _a_, 2)
Et potuit Potuit Recedere Vendere Potuit
recedere recedere cum terra potuit, recedere sine
quo voluit cum terra sua sua potuit, sed soca licentia ejus,
sed soca absque ejus sed soca Abbati sed soca
remanebat licentia, remansit remansit. remansit
Harlestone. sed semper æcclesiæ. Abbati.
remansit
socha ejus
in ecclesia
sancte Ædel'
ut hund
testantur.
The value of such collation as this ought to be self-evident. It is
not only that we thus find four out of five MSS. to be against the
reading '_Harlestone_' (which, indeed, to any one familiar with the
survey is obviously a clerical error), but that here and elsewhere we
are thus afforded what might almost be termed a bilingual inscription.
We learn, for instance, that the Domesday scribe deemed it quite
immaterial whether he wrote 'recedere cum terra ejus', or 'vendere'
or 'recedere sine licentia'. Consequently, these phrases were all
identical in meaning.[39]
Considerable light is thrown by the I.C.C. on the origin of these
little known duplicate entries in Domesday. In every instance of
their occurrence within the limits of its province they are due to a
conflict of title recorded in the original return. They appear further
to be confined to the estates of two landowners, Picot, the sheriff,
and Hardwin d'Eschalers, the titles of both being frequently contested
by the injured Abbot of Ely. Why the third local offender, Guy de
Raimbercurt, does not similarly appear, it is difficult to say. He
was the smallest offender of the three, and Picot the worst; but it
is Hardwin's name which occurs most frequently in these duplicate
entries.[40] The principle which guided the Domesday scribes cannot be
certainly decided, for they duplicated entries in the original return
which (according to the I.C.C.) varied greatly in their statements of
tenure. Thus, to take the first three:
_I.C.C._ _D.B._
fo. 79 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
descalariis'.[41] { _sub abbate_'.
{I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.
fo. 90 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus
_de abbate_'. { de Escalers _de abbate_'.
{I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.
fo. 92 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 199 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
_de rege_'. { _de abbate_'.
{I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.
Here, whether the original return states Hardwin to hold (1) of the
abbot, (2) of the king, or (3) of neither, the scribes, in each of the
three cases, enter the estates (_A_) under the Abbot's land, as held
of the Abbot, (_B_) under Hardwin's land, as held _in capite_. And
it is singular that in all these three cases the entry of the estate
under the Abbot's land is the fuller of the two.[42]
On the whole it would appear that the Domesday scribes did not
consistently carry out a system of duplicate entry, though, on the
other hand, these entries were by no means due to mere clerical
inadvertence, but were prompted by a doubt as to the title, which
led to the precaution of entering them under the names of both the
claimants.
But the chief point of interest in these same entries is that they
give us, when we add the versions of the I.C.C. and the I.E., four
parallel texts. At some of the results of their collation we will now
glance.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(fo. 92, (p. 107) (I. 190, (I. 199,
_b_, 2) _b_, 2) _a_, 2)
Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram
tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii.
sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni.
homines sub predicto homines _Vendere_
abbatis de ely. abbate ely. abbatis de ely. non potuerunt.
Non potuerunt Non potuerunt Non potuerunt
_recedere absque _vendere terram _dare nec
licentia ejus_. suam sine vendere absque
eius licentia_. ejus licentia
terram suam_.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._
(fo. 79, (p. 102) (I. 190, (I. 199,
_b_, 1) _b_, 2) _a_, 2)
iiii. sochemanni Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram
tenuerunt hanc tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii.
terram T.R.E. Et sochemanni sochemanni, sochemanni
non potuerunt T.R.E. de nec potuerunt abbatis de ely.
_recedere sine abbate ely. _recedere sine Non potuerunt
licentia Non potuerunt licentia _vendere_.
abbatis de ely_. _recedere vel abbatis_.
vendere sine
licentia
abbatis ely_.
These extracts illustrate the use of the terms _dare, vendere,
recedere_, etc. They are supplemented by those given below:
_I.C.C._ _D.B._ _I.E._
(76, _a_, 1) (I. 196, _b_, 1)
Potuit dare sine Terram suam tamen
licentia domini sui dare et vendere
terram suam. potuit.
(76, _b_, 2) (I. 199, _a_, 2) (p. 101)
Absque eius licentia Sine ejus licentia Potuerunt dare vel
dare terram suam poterant recedere vendere terram suam.
potuerunt, sed socham et terram suam dare Saca remansit abbati.
eorum habuit vel vendere, sed
archiepiscopus. soca remansit
Archiepiscopo.
(76, _b_, 2) (I. 196, _b_, 1)
Potuit dare cui Potuit absque[43]
voluit. ejus licentia
recedere.
(77, _b_, 2) (I. 195, _b_, 1)
Potuerunt recedere Potuerunt recedere
cum terra ad quem sine licentia
dominum voluerunt. eorum.
(78, _a_, 1) (I. 190, _b_, 1)
Potuerunt recedere Dare et vendere
cum terra sua absque potuerunt.
licentia domini sui.
(90, _a_, 2) (I. 190, _b_, 2)\ (p. 102)
Non potuerunt Non potuerunt | Non potuerunt recedere
recedere sine recedere sine | vel vendere absque
licentia abbatis. ejus licentia. | eius licentia.
}
(I. 200, _a_, 2) |
Non potuerunt |
vendere sine |
ejus licentia. /
(105, _a_, 2) (I. 200, _a_, 1) (p. 109)
Potuerunt dare et Terras suas vendere Potuerunt dare vel
vendere sine soca. potuerunt. Soca de vendere cui voluerunt,
viii. sochemannis sed saca eorum remansit
remansit in abbatia eidem abbati.
de ely.
(113, _b_, 1) (201, _a_, 1) (p. 112)
Potuerunt recedere Terram suam vendere Potuerunt dare preter
sine soca. potuerunt. Soca licentiam abbatis
vero remansit et sine soca.
abbati.
No one can glance at these passages without perceiving that _dare_,
_vendere_, and _recedere_ are all interchangeably used, and that
even any two of them (whether they have the conjunction 'et' or the
disjunction 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would
be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point.
Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque')
'ejus licentia' is immaterial, it being understood where not
expressed. So too with the words 'cui voluit'. In short, like the
translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday
scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and
paraphrase.[44] Our own conceptions of the sacredness of a text and of
the need for verbal accuracy were evidently foreign to their minds.
Glancing for a moment at another county, we have in the Survey of
Leicestershire a remarkable instance of a whole fief being entered
twice over. It is that of Robert Hostiarius:
Robertus hostiarius tenet de Robertus filus W. hostiari,
rege ii. car. terræ in Howes. tenet de rege in Howes ii.
Terra est iii. carucis. In cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car.
dominio est i. caruca et iii. in dominio et iii. serv[os] et
servi, et viii. villani cum viii. villani cum i. bordario
i. bordario habent ii. car.... habentes ii. car....
Idem [Turstinus] tenet de R. Idem Turstinus tenet de Roberto
iiij. car. terræ in in Clachestone iiii. car. terræ
Clachestone. Terra est ii. et Tetbald[us] ii. car. terræ.
caruca. Has habent ibi iii. Ibi est in dominio i. caruca et
sochemanni cum ii. villanis iii. sochemanni et v. villani
et ii. bordariis. Ibi viii. et iiii. [_sic_] bordarii cum
acræ prati. Valuit et valet iii. carucis et i. servo. Ibi
x. solidos. xiii. acræ prati. Valuit et
valet totum xx. solidos. Has
Tetbald[us] tenet de Roberto terras tenuerunt T.R.E. Outi et
ii. car. terræ in Clachestone. Arnui cum saca et soca.
In dominio est i. caruca cum
i. servo et iii. villani cum
i. bordario habent i. car.
Ibi vi. acræ prati. Valuit et
valet x. solidos.
Here the last two entries (both relating to Claxton) have been boldly
thrown into one in the second version, which also (though omitting
the number of ploughlands) gives additional information in the name of
Robert's father, and in those of his predecessors T.R.E. This is thus
an excellent illustration of the liberty allowed themselves by the
compilers of Domesday.
An instance on a smaller scale is found in the Survey of
Cambridgeshire, where we read on opposite pages:
In Witelesfeld hund'. In Witelesf' h'd.
In histetone jacet Wara In histetune jac' Wara
de i. hida et dimidia de de hida et dimidia de
M. Cestreforde et est in Cestres' man. et est
Exsesse appreciata, hanc appreciata in Exexe.
terram tenuit Algarus Algar comes tenuit
comes (i. 189 _b_). (i. 190).
The second entry has been deleted as a duplicate, but it serves to
show us that the scribes, even when free from error, were no mere
copyists.[45]
III. 'SOCA' AND 'THEINLAND'
The extracts I have given above establish beyond a doubt the existence
among the 'sochemanni' of two kinds of tenure. We have (1) those who
were free to part with (_vendere_) and leave (_recedere_) their land,
(2) those who were not, i.e. who could not do so without the abbot's
licence. This distinction is reproduced in two terms which I will now
examine.
In the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ and the documents connected with it there
is much mention of the 'thegnlands' of the Abbey. These lands are
specially distinguished from 'sokeland' (_terra de soca_). Both,
of course, are distinct from the 'dominium'. Thus in one of the
Conqueror's writs we read:
Restituantur ecclesiæ terræ que in _dominio_ suo erant die
obitus Æduardi.... Qui autem tenent _theinlandes_ que procul
dubio debent teneri de ecclesia faciant concordiam cum abbate
quam meliorem poterint,... Hoc quoque de tenentibus _socam_
et _sacam_ fiat.[46]
Now this distinction between 'thegnland' and 'sokeland' will be found
to fit in exactly with the difference in tenure we have examined
above. Here is an instance from the 'breve abbatis' in the record of
Guy de Raimbercurt's aggressions:
In melreda ii. hidas et dim. virg.
In meldeburne ii. hidas et dim.[47] et dim. virg.
Hoc est iiii. hidas et iii. virg. Ex his sunt i. virg. et dim.
_thainlande_ et iiii. hidas et dim.[48] _de soca_.
On reference to the two Manors in question, there is, at first sight,
nothing in the I.C.C., the I.E., or Domesday to distinguish the
'thegnland' from the 'sokeland'. Of the first holding we read that it
had been held T.R.E. by 10 _sochemanni_ 'de soca S. Edelride'; of the
second, that it was held by 'viii. _sochemanni_ ... homines abbatis
de Ely'. But closer examination of the I.C.C. reveals, in the former
case, this distinction:
De his ii. hidis et dimidia virga tenuit i. istorum _unam
virgam et dimidiam_. Non potuit dare nec vendere absque
licentia abbatis. Sed alii novem potuerunt recedere et vendere
cui voluerunt.[49]
Here then we identify the virgate and a half of 'theinland'--though
held by a _sochemannus_--and this same distinction of tenure proves
to be the key throughout. Thus, for instance, in the same document
'Herchenger pistor' is recorded to have seized 'in Hardwic i. hidam
_thainlande_ et dim. hidam et vi. acras _de soca_' (p. 177). Reference
to the I.C.C., D.B., and the I.E. reveals that the former holding had
belonged to 'v. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely', and that 'isti
non potuerunt dare neque vendere alicui extra ecclesiam S. Edeldride
ely'.[50] But the latter holding had belonged to a _sochemannus_, of
whom it is said--'homo abbatis de ely fuit: potuit recedere, sed socam
ejus abbas habuit'.[51]
This enables us to understand the distinctions found in the summaries
appended to the Cambridgeshire portion of the I.E., and recorded in
the _Breve Abbatis_. Indeed they confirm the above distinction, for
the formula they apply to holders 'de soca abbatie ely' is: 'Illi qui
hanc terram tenuerunt de soca T.R.E. vendere potuerunt, sed saca et
soca et commendatio et servitium semper remanebat ecclesia de ely.'
These terms are valuable for their definition of rights. Over
the holder of land 'de soco' the lord had (1) 'saca et soca', (2)
'commendatio et (3) servitium'. If the land was thegnland then the
Abbot received 'omnem consuetudinem' as well.[52] We will first
deal with the latter class, those from whom the Abbot received
'consuetudo', and then those who held 'de soca'.
For contemporary (indeed, slightly earlier) evidence, we must turn
to the Ely _placitum_ of 1072-75.[53] The special value which this
_placitum_ possesses is found in its record of the services due from
_sochemanni_, and even from freemen. It thus helps to interpret the
bald figures of Domesday, to which it is actually anterior. The first
two instances it affords are these:
In breuessan tenet isdem W. terram Elfrici supradicte
consuetudinis. In brucge tenet ipse W. terram etfled ejusdem
modi.
The _consuetudo_ referred to was this:
Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque preceperit
prepositus monasterii ire et omnem rei emendationem
persolvere. Et si quid de suo voluerint venundare, a preposito
prius licentiam debent accipere.
The corresponding entries in the I.E. run thus:
'In Brugge una libera femina commend' S. Ædel. de lxxx. ac.
pro manerio.
In Beuresham ten[uit] Ælfricus i. liber homo commed' S.
Ædel.[54] lx. acras pro manerio' (p. 165).
Thus we obtain direct evidence of the services due from commended
freemen owing 'consuetudines'. Turning now to those of _sochemanni_,
we have this important passage:
Willelmus de Warena tenet quadraginta quinque socamans in
predicta felteuuella qui quotiens abbas preceperit in anno
arabunt suam terram, colligent et purgabunt segetes,
adducent et mittent in horrea, portabunt victum monachorum ad
monasterium, et quotiens eorum equos voluerit, et ubicunque
sibi placuerit, totiens habebit, et ubicunque forsfecerint
abbas forsfacturam habebit, et de illis similiter qui in eorum
terram forsfecerint.
Item Willelmus de uuarenna tenet triginta tres socamans,
istius consuetudinis in Nortuuolda.
Item W. tenet quinque socamans istius modi in Muddaforda.
Supradictus Walterus et cum eo Durandus, homines hugonis de
monte forti, tenent xxvi. socamans supradicte consuetudinis in
Maraham.
Collating as before from the I.E. the relative entries, we find they
run thus:
Felteuuelle ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxxiiii.
homines cum omni consuetudine, et alii vii. erant liberi
homines,[55] qui poterant vendere terras, sed soca et
commendatio remansit S. Ædel. (p. 132).
In felteuuella tenet W. de uuarenna xli. sochemannos ... Super
hos omnes habebat S. Ædel. socam et commendationem et omnem
consuetudinem. Illorum vii. liberi erant cum terris suis, sed
soca et commendatio remanebat S. Ædel. (p. 139).
IIII. sochemanni adjacent [_sic_] huic manerio [felteuuella]
T.R.E. Et modo habet eos W. de Warenna (p. 138).
Nortuualde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxx. sochemanni
cum omni consuetudine. Et alii iiii. liberi homines qui
poterant vendere terras, sed saca et commendatio remanebat S.
Ædel. (p. 132).
In Nortuualde S. Ædel. xxxiiii. sochem [annos] ... S.
Ædel. [habuit] socam et commendationem et omnem consuetudinem
de illis xxx. tantum; et iiii. erant liberi homines, socam et
sacam et commendationem [super hos] S. Ædel. habebat[56] (p.
139).
Mundeforde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. septem
sochemanni cum omni consuetudine (p. 132).
In Mundeforde S. Ædel. vii. sochemannos cum omni consuetudine
(p. 139).
Huic manerio [Mareham] T.R.E. adjacebant viginti vii.
sochemanni cum omni consuetudine, sed postquam Rex W. advenit,
habuit eos hugo de Munfort preter unum (p. 130).
[Terre hugo de Munford.] In mareham xxvi. sochemanni
quos tenet [_sic_] S. Ædel. T.R.E.[57] ... hanc terram
receperunt[58] pro escangio, et mensurata est in brevi S.
Ædel. (p. 137).
Here then we identify these four cases: Feltwell, with its 41
_sochemanni_ (more accurately described as 34 s. and 7 _liberi
homines_) attached to one Manor and four to another--45 in all;
Northwold, with its 33 or 34;[59] Muddiford with 5 or 7;[60] and
Marham with its 26.
The three former Manors lay in the Hundred of Grimeshoe, the fourth
northwards, towards the Wash. Just to the south of the three Manors,
over the borders of Suffolk, lay Brandon, where Lisois de Moustiers
had usurped the rights of Ely over six _sochemanni_.
In Lakincgeheda et in Brandona vi. sochemanni S. Ædel. ita
quod non potuerunt vendere terras liberati liseie antecessori
eudo[nis] dapif[eri] ... Post eum tenuit eos eudo et tenet cum
saca et soca (p. 142).
The record of the _placitum_, drawn up during the tenure of Lisois,
shows us their limited services: 'Isti solummodo arabant et c'terent
[_sic_] messes ejusdem loci quotienscunque abbas præceperit.' The
difference between these services and the others we have seen recorded
is considerable.
Yet another group of sokemen on Suffolk Manors rendered these
services:
Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque ipse præceperit
in anno arabunt suam terram, purgabunt et colligent segetes,
portabunt victum monachorum ad monasterium, equos eorum in
suis necessitatibus habebit [abbas], et ubicunque deliquerint
emendationem habebit semper et de omnibus illis qui in terris
eorum deliquerint.
This is practically the same definition as we had for the other group,
and suggests that it was of wide prevalence. A notable contrast is
afforded by the entry: 'In villa que vocatur Blot tenet ipse R. iiii.
homines qui tantum debent servire abbati cum propriis equis in omnibus
necessitatibus suis.'
We have now examined the _consuetudines_ due from those 'qui vendere
non potuerunt', and may turn to the rights exercised over the other
class. Excluding 'servitium' (which is usually omitted as subordinate
or comprised in the others), these are: (1) 'commendatio' (2) 'saca et
soca'. The distinction between the two meets us throughout the survey
of the eastern counties. A man might be 'commended' to one lord while
another held his _soca_. Thus we read of Eadwine, a 'man' of the Abbot
of Ely: 'Potuit dare absque eius licentia, sed socam comes Algarus
habuit.'[61] That is to say, he was 'commended to the Abbot of Ely',
but Earl Ælfgar had the right of 'sac and soc' over him.[62]
So too in the case of three 'liberi homines', commended to the Abbot
in Norfolk. He had no right over them, but such as commendation
conferred 'non habebat nisi commendationem', while their 'soca'
belonged to the King's Manor of Keninghall.[63] Conversely, the Abbot
of Ely had the 'soca' of a 'man' of Earl Waltheof,[64] and a 'man' of
John, Waleran's nephew.[65] 'Commendatio', of course, took precedence
as a right. Thus we read of the above three 'liberi homines'--'Hos
liberos homines tenet [tenuit] Ratfridus, postea W. de Scodies, et
abbas saisivit eos propter commendationem suam' (p. 133).
In the above extracts we saw 'liberi homines qui vendere poterant'
distinguished from 'Sochemanni', who could not sell. But we also saw
that the two classes were not always carefully distinguished. We find,
moreover, that the 'liberi homines' were themselves, sometimes, 'not
free to sell'. Thus 'tenuit anant unus liber homo sub S. Ædel. T.R.E.
pro manerio ii. carucatas terræ sed non potuit vendere' (p. 142). Some
light may be thrown on this by the case of the estate held by Godmund,
an abbot's brother:
Totam terram quam tenebat Gudmundus in dominio, id est
Nectuna, sic tenebat T.R.E. de S. Ædel. quod nullo modo
poterat vendere, nec dare; sed post mortem suam debebat
manerium redire in dominio ecclesiæ; quia tali pacto tenuit
Gudmundus de Abbate (p. 144).
With this we may compare these entries:
In Cloptuna ... Ædmundus commendatus S. Ædel. unam carucatam
... quam non potuit vendere nec dare (p. 150).
In Brandestuna Ædmundus presbyter terram quam accepit
cum femina sua dedit S. Ædel. concedente femina T.R.E. ea
conventione quod non posset eam dare nec vendere. Similiter de
Clopetona' (p. 152).
In these cases the holder had only a life interest. Exactly parallel
with the second is the case of 'Eadward', citizen of London, who gave
lands to St. Paul's, reserving a life interest for himself and his
wife--'et mortua illa Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit'.[66]
The above commendation of Edmund the priest ought to be compared with
that of 'unus liber homo S. Ædel. commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat
vendere terram suam sine licentia abbatis', and of 'i. liber homo S.
Ædel. Commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat vendere terram suam extra
ecclesiam (sed sacam et socam habuit stigandus in hersham)'.[67] Thus
both those who were free to sell and those who were not, might belong
to the class of 'liberi homines'. The essential distinction was one,
not of status, but of tenure.
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
The subject that I now approach is one of the highest interest. I
propose to adduce for my theory convincing corroborative evidence
by showing that the part which is played in the hidated district of
England by the five-hide unit is played in the Danish districts by a
unit of six carucates. In other words, where we look in the former
for 'v. hidæ', we must learn to look in the latter for 'vi. carucatæ
terræ'.
One must dissociate at the outset this six-carucate unit from the
'long hundred', or _Angelicus numerus_, with which Mr Pell confused
it. In Mr Stevenson's instructive article on 'The Long Hundred and
its use in England',[132] he has clearly explained that this reckoning
only applied to a whole hundred, which, if a 'long' hundred, was
really 120. Any lesser number was reckoned in our usual manner. This
is seen at once in the test passage at Lincoln (D.B., i. 336_a_),
where 1,150 houses are reckoned as 'novies centum et lxx.', because
'hic numerus Anglice computatur, id est centum pro cxx'.[133] The
persistence, in Lincolnshire, of the long hundred is well shown in
the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ on Robert de Ros, 1311, among those
printed by Mr Vincent.[134] We there read of 'c. acre terra arrabilis
per majorem centenam que valent per annum lx. s. prec' acre vj. den.',
at Wyville and Hungerton (on the border of Leicestershire); while at
Claxby and Normanby (in the north of the county) we have 'cc. acras
per minorem centenam et valent c. s. prec' acre vj. d.' Again, at
Gedney (in the south-east), we have 'cc. acre terre arrabilis per
majus centum et valent per annum xxiiij. li'. prec' acre ij. s. et
iiij^{xx.} acre prati et valet per annum viij. li., prec' acre ij. s.
Et cxiij. acre pasture per majus centum et valent per annum ix. li.
xix. s. vi. d. prec' acre xviij. d.' On the same property there were
due 'ccciiij^{xx.} opera autumpnalia cum falcis, et valent xxxvj. s.
viij. d., prec' operis j. den.', so that these also were reckoned by
the long hundred.
Mr Stevenson was not aware of this evidence, but admitted that as the
Domesday passage refers to 'such a Danish stronghold as Lincolnshire,
it is not free from the suspicion of Danish influence'. His own
evidence from a sixteenth-century rental[135] is subject to a similar
criticism. For the general use, therefore, of the 'long hundred' in
England he is compelled to rely on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_
and Howden's description of the new survey of 1198, the 'hide or
ploughland' being described in both cases as of a hundred acres, where
the 'hundred' must have meant 120. But I venture to think that the
use of this reckoning for the ploughland, or archaic 'hide', does not
establish its general employment. In Domesday, certainly, it is only
at Lincoln that we find it actually recognized, houses being reckoned
everywhere else on the usual system.
I think, therefore, that we fairly may hold the _Anglicus numerus_, or
long hundred, to have specially prevailed in the 'Danish' districts,
which were also assessed, we shall find, in sums of six and twelve.
But what was the boundary of this Danish district? It was not the
border between Mercia and Wessex, for Mercia was itself divided
between the 'six' and the 'five' systems.[136] Of the two adjacent
Mercian shires, for instance, of Leicester and Warwick (afterwards
united under one sheriff), we find the latter decimal and the former
duodecimal. The military service of Warwick and Leicester was arranged
on the same method, yet Leicester sent _twelve_ 'burgesses' to the
fyrd where Warwick sent _ten_. But, it may be urged, the two shires
were divided by the Watling Street, the boundary (under the peace of
Wedmore) of Danelaw. Was then the Danelaw the district within which
the systems prevailed? No, for the Danelaw, under this treaty,
included all Cambridgeshire and other hidated districts. The answer,
therefore, which I propound is this: The district in which men
measured by carucates, and counted by twelves and sixes, was not the
district which the Danes _conquered_, but the district which the Danes
_settled_, the district of 'the Five Boroughs'.
Dependent on these 'Five Boroughs' were the four shires of Leicester,
Derby, Nottingham, and Lincoln. For two of the Boroughs, Lincoln and
Stamford, both belonged to this last shire, which was, indeed, the
stronghold of the system.[137] Between Stamford and Cambridge we
have the same contrast as between Warwick and Leicester, for while
Cambridge was divided into _ten_ wards ('custodiæ'), Stamford was
divided into _six_. Lincolnshire, as I have said, was the stronghold
of the system, and it is in Lincoln itself that we find Domesday
alluding _eo nomine_ to the _Anglicus numerus_, the practice of
counting 120 as 100.
Now in the peculiar district of which I am treating there occurs an
important formula which covers Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire,
and Notts. Domesday has nothing like it for the other parts of
England. Here are the three passages in which we find it recorded:
LINCOLNSHIRE YORKSHIRE DERBY AND NOTTS
Pax manu regis vel Pax data manu regis In Snotingehamscyre
sigillo ejus data, vel sigillo ejus, et in Derbin scyre
si fuerit infracta, si fuerit infracta, pax regis manu vel
emendatur per regi solummodo sigillo data, si
xviii. hundrez. emendatur per xii. fuerit infracta,
Unumquidque hundret hundrez, unumquidque emendatur per xviii.
solvit viii. libras. hundret viii. libras. hundrez, unumquidque
Duodecim hundrez Pax a comite data et hundret viii. libras.
emendant regi et vi. infracta a quolibet Hujus emendationis
comiti.--i. 336_b._ ipsi comiti per vi. habet rex ii. partes,
hundrez emendatur, comes terciam. Id est
unumquidque viii. xii. hundred emendant
libras--i. 298_b._ regi et vi. comiti--i.
280_b._
For comparison with these three passages we may turn to the charter of
immunities confirmed to York Cathedral by Henry I, Stephen, and Henry
II. We there read:
Si quis enim quemlibet cujuscumque facinoris aut flagitii
reum et convictum infra atrium ecclesiæ caperet et retineret,
universali judicio vi. _hundreth_ emendabit; si vero infra
ecclesiam xii. _hundreth_ infra chorum xviii. ... _In
hundreth_ viii. _libræ continentur_.[138]
As there were _twelve_ carucates in the 'Hundred', so it paid _twelve_
marcs, which, if we can trust the above explanation, themselves came
to be termed a 'Hundred'. Moreover, the 'Hundreds' themselves were
grouped in multiples of _six_. So too the Yorkshire thegn who held
_six_ Manors or less paid three marcs to the sheriff; if he held more
than six, _twelve_ marcs to the king (_Domesday_, i. 289_b_).
It is a special feature of the 'Danish' district that each
territorial 'Hundred' contained twelve 'carucatæ terræ'. This point
is all-important. Just as a 'Hundred' to an Anglo-Saxon suggested one
hundred 'hides', so to the Danes of this district it suggested twelve
'carucates'. Nay, to the men of Lincolnshire there could be no more
question that twelve carucates made a 'Hundred' than there could be
now, among ourselves that twelve pence make a shilling. If we turn to
the Lindsey Survey,[139] a generation later than Domesday, we obtain
proof to that effect. We find that Survey, in three instances, adding
up all the estates of a tenant within a Wapentake, and giving us the
result in 'Hundreds' and 'carucates'. Here are the actual figures:
_Car._ _Bov._ _Car._ _Bov._ _Car._ _Bov._
2 4 12 0 12 0
2 0 10 0 11 4
2 4 10 6 3 0
11 0 8 0 1 0
5 0 6 0 2 0
11 0 1 4 3 0
8 6 0 4 3 4
1 0
0 6
2 0
1 6
-------- -------- ----------
H. 3 6 6[140] H. 4 0 6[141] H. 3 5 4[142]
Now we must observe that these 'Hundreds' are not _districts_ with 'a
local habitation and a name'; they are merely sums of twelve carucates
produced by compound addition. We further find, at the head of the
survey of each Wapentake, a note that it is reckoned to contain so
many 'Hundreds', with the explanation, in some instances that in each
'Hundred' were 'xii. carucatæ terræ'.[143] But even here the real unit
is shown to be 'six carucates', for several Wapentakes contain an odd
'half-hundred', while in that of Horncastle this is actually entered
as 'six carucates'.
Here are the nineteen Wapentakes, with the number of Hundreds assigned
to each, and the number of 'carucatæ terræ' that such Hundreds would
imply:
West Trithing
_Wapentake_ _Hundreds_ _Car. terr._
Manley []-1/2
Aslacoe 7-1/2 90
Lawress 12 144
Corringham 5 60
Axholme 4 48
Well 7 84
North Trithing
Walshcroft 8 96
Haverstoe 7-1/2 90
Bradley 3-1/2[144] [and 3 bov.] 42-3/8
Ludborough 3 36
Yarborough 14 168
Bolingbroke 8 96
Gartree 6 72
South Trithing
Candleshoe 10 120
Calceworth 10 120
Wraghoe 9 108
Hill 6 72
Lothesk 10 120
Horncastle 6-1/2 78
All the above, it will be seen, are multiples of the six-carucate
unit. That the aggregate of recorded 'carucatæ terræ' appears to
differ, though slightly, from the totals here given only shows how
vain is the argument that, because the recorded aggregates of Hundreds
may often be uneven figures, there could therefore have been no
system at work such as I contend there was. Clerical error and special
alterations have both to be allowed for.
It has never, so far as I know, been pointed out that these Lindsey
Trithings were so arranged as to contain an approximately equal number
of 'Hundreds'. So far as it is possible now to reckon them, the South
Trithing contained 51-1/2, the North Trithing 51-1/2, and the West
Trithing 49-1/2. Fifty 'Hundreds' would represent 600 _carucatæ_; and
it is, to say the least, a singular coincidence that, in the archaic
territorial list that has hitherto baffled investigation, the North
Gyrwa, South Gyrwa, and Spalda are reckoned each at 600 hides.[145]
I shall now give some instances of Lindsey townships assessed on the
basis of the six-carucate unit:
_Car._ _Bov._
Willoughton 3 5-1/2
" 2 2-1/2
--------------
6 0
Faldingworth 2 4
" 1 0
" 2 4
-------------
6 0
Reepham 0 4
" 0 6
" 4 6
-------------
6 0
Thoresway 0 2
" 5 6
-------------
6 0
Benniworth 2 4
" 3 4
-------------
6 0
Thorganby 1 7
" 0 5
" 1 6
" 0 6
" 1 0
-------------
6 0
Beelsby 4 4
" 1 0
" 0 4
-------------
6 0
Riby 1 4
" 4 4
-------------
6 0
Rigsby 3 6
" 2 2
-------------
6 0
South Kelsey 4 4
Thornton le Moor 1 4
-------------
6 0
These instances will illustrate the value of the Lindsey Survey
in enabling us to group the fractional assessments which appear in
Domesday Book. Here are some other varieties:
_Car._ _Bov._
Dunholm 5 3
" 2 5
" 2 0
" 2 0
-------------
12 0