" 0 10
Glentham and Caenby 7 6
-------------
12 0
Scotton 0 4
" 0 4
" 2 0
" 6 0
-------------
9 0
Irby-on-Humber 1 4
" 1 0
" 0 4
-------------
3 0
Somerby 2 4
" 0 6
-------------
3 0
Barrow-on-Humber 11 0
" 1 0
-------------
12 0
-------------
South Elkington 4 0
" 8 0
-------------
12 0
Winteringham 11 0
" 1 0
-------------
12 0
Nun Ormsby 2 2
" 4 4
" 2 2
-------------
9 0
Croxby 0 3
" 0 5
" 1 0
" 1 0
-------------
3 0
Worlaby 2 2
" 0 6
-------------
3 0
Lastly, to complete the parallel with the Leicestershire Hundreds
_infra_, we may take this case (_cf._ p. 65, note 122):
Claxby and Well 14
Claxby 10
--
24
Precisely the same system prevailed in Holland as in Lindsey, for
the 'Testa de Nevill' preserves for us the constituents of a Holland
Wapentake, that of 'Elhou':
Pinchbeck 12
Spalding 12
Weston 6
Moulton 6
Whaplode and Holbeach 18
Fleet 6
Gedney 8} 12
Lutton 4}
Sutton 9-3/4} 12
Tydd 2-1/4}
----
84
The Lindsey Survey would describe such a Wapentake as containing
'Seven Hundreds'.
Crossing the border from Lincolnshire into Rutland (_i.e._ the Rutland
of Domesday), we find the same system at work that meets us in the
Lindsey Survey. We read:
In Alfnodestou Wapent' sunt ii. Hundrez. In unoquoque [sunt]
xii. carucatæ ad geldum.... In Martinesleie Wap' est i.
hundret, in quo xii. carucatæ ad geldum.--_D.B._, i. 293_b._
On analysing the contents of these Wapentakes, we find this statement
fully borne out, the former containing twenty-four, and the latter
twelve, 'carucatæ terræ'. These are carefully contrasted throughout
with the 'terra carucæ' or areal measure.[146]
In Yorkshire, Notts and Derby, we have less direct evidence. Sawley,
in Derbyshire, has indeed been alleged to be entered in Domesday as
a Hundred of twelve carucates, but Domesday does not justify this
assertion being made.[147] I would rather trust to the notable
formula, which, as I explained at the outset, is common to these
counties for proof that they also were arranged in 'Hundreds' of
twelve carucates.
The prevalence, however, of assessment by sixes, threes, and twelves,
meets us on every side, as does, in hidated districts, the assessments
by fives and tens. At the outset, for instance, of the survey of
Yorkshire we have the district 'gelding' with the city assessed at
eighty-four (12×7) carucates (which would be described in Lincolnshire
as seven 'Hundreds'). We have two lists of the details, which are
given here.[148]
_Car. terræ_ _Car. terræ_
Archbishop 6 Archbishop 6
Osboldeuuic 6 Osboldeuuic 6
Stocthun 6 Stochetun 6
Sa'bura 3 Sa'bure 3
Heuuarde 6 Heuuorde 6
Ditto 3
Fuleford 10 Fuleforde 10
Round the City 3 Round the City 3
Cliftune 18 Cliftune 18
Roudclif 3 Roudeclif 3
Ouertun 5 Ouertune 5
Sceltun 9 Scheltune 9
Mortun 3 Mortune 3
Wichistun 1 Wichintun 3
---- ----
'84' '84'
These lists have a value independent of their illustration of the
arrangement in threes and sixes. They show how Domesday breaks down,
when it supplies a check upon its own evidence, by failing to make its
details agree with its total; and they further show by the discrepancy
between them how easily error may arise, and how rash it must be to
argue from a single case.[149]
Yorkshire presents other traces, in its Hundreds, of the same system.
Thus the townships in the Hundred of 'Toreshou' follow one another
in this order: 18, 18, 20, 6, 18, 8, 12, 12 (8+4), 6, 18, 8, 18, etc.
(_infra_, p. 80).
But my strong evidence is found in an invaluable survey of
Leicestershire, unknown till now to historians,[150] which does for
the carucated districts just what the _Inq. Com. Cant._ does for the
hidated ones. Here we find the townships grouped in small blocks
of from six to twenty-four 'carucatæ terræ', as a rule with almost
monotonous regularity. And these blocks are further combined in small
local Hundreds, of which the very existence is unknown to historians
and antiquaries,[151] and which are usually multiples, like the
Lincolnshire Wapentake, of the six-carucate unit.
It will be remembered that in the case of Cambridgeshire, I selected
for my first two examples a Hundred of 50 hides, composed of 5 Vills
assessed at 10 hides each, and a Hundred of 70 hides, composed of 7
Vills, assessed at 10 hides each. In Leicestershire, precisely in the
same manner, I shall begin with the simplest forms and select Hundreds
of 36 and 48 carucates, composed of Vills uniformly assessed at 12
carucates each.
HUNDRED OF SCALFORD
Scalford 12 (11-1/2 + 1/2)
Goadby 12 (6 + 6)
Knipton 12 (8-3/4 + 3-1/4)
----
36
HUNDRED OF KIBWORTH
Kibworth (Beauchamp) 12
Kibworth (Harcourt) 12
'Bocton' 12
Carlton 12 (10 + 1-1/4 + 3/4)
----
48
From these we may advance to other combinations:
HUNDRED OF HARBY
Harby and Plungar 18
Stathern 18
----
36
HUNDRED OF TONG
Tong 12
Kegworth 15} 18
Worthington 3}
'Dominicum' 12
----
42
HUNDRED OF LANGTON
Langton (1) } { 14-1/2 (11-1/4 + 3-1/4)
Thorp (Langton) } 24 { 3-3/4
Langton (2) } { 5-3/4
Tur Langton } { 12
Shangton } 24 { 12 (10 + 2)
----
48
With these types as clues we are in a position to assert that where
the total assessment of a Hundred varies but slightly from a multiple
of six, there must have been some slight error in one of the figures.
Thus Hundreds of 35-1/2, 34-13/16 carucates, etc., may be safely
assumed to have been Hundreds of 36 carucates; those of 41, 43-7/8,
etc., would be of 42 carucates; those of 48-7/8, 50, etc., would be
of 48 carucates. These slight discrepancies, precisely as in
Lincolnshire, are accounted for by Vills of 6 or 12 carucates, being
entered as of 5-7/8, 5-13/16, 6-3/4, or 11-7/8, 13, etc. Thus:
HUNDRED OF EASTWELL
_Vills_ _Carucates_
Eastwell 12 (2 + 6 + 4)
Eaton 12-1/4 (3-1/4 + 9/16 + 8-7/16)
Branston 12 (7-1/2 + 4-1/2)
-------
36-1/4
The most usual Leicestershire Hundreds are those of 36, 42, and 48
carucates, which, be it observed, would be described in the language
of the Lindsey Survey as 'Wapentakes' of 3, 3-1/2, and 4 'Hundreds'
respectively. The name may be different: the thing is the same.[152]
It will have been seen by this Survey that the 'Vills', single or
grouped, were assessed precisely as in Cambridgeshire, save that there
the assessment was reckoned in fives and tens, while here it was in
sixes and twelves.
VIII. THE LEICESTERSHIRE 'HIDA'
The case of Leicestershire introduces us to a very curious point.
Leicestershire is not one of those counties to which the singular
formula that I discussed above refers. This suggests that it was not
arranged in 'Hundreds' of twelve carucates. The above Survey confirms
this, for it shows us Hundreds resembling in character those found in
the hidated districts. But although the twelve-carucate unit of
the 'Hundred' is not found in Leicestershire, we do find in it a
group-unit, and that unit is the _hida_. Just as we have seen the
Hundred used in two wholly different senses, so also was the 'hida'.
The quite peculiar way in which 'hida' occurs in Leicestershire (which
was not a hidated but carucated district) completely baffled Mr Eyton,
and was misunderstood by Mr Pell.[153] Both writers failed to observe
not only that the use of 'hida' is here of a peculiar character, but
also that the normal 'hida' of Domesday (from which they could not
emancipate themselves) would be quite out of place in this carucated
district.
The first point to grasp is that this Leicestershire 'hida' was a term
which, locally I mean, explained itself. It is used at least a dozen
times in the Survey of Leicestershire without any mention of its
contents. Those contents must have been, therefore, familiar and
fixed. But what were those contents? Three incidental notices enable
us to determine them:
231 (_a_), 2: 'Ibi est i. hida et iiii^{ta.} pars i. hidæ. Ibi
sunt xxii. car' terræ et dimidia.'
236 (_a_), 1: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'
237 (_a_), 2: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'
Just as the 'Hundred' of Lincolnshire was a sum of twelve
carucates, so the 'Hide' of Leicestershire was a sum of _eighteen
carucates_.[154] Working in the light of this discovery (for as such
I claim it), we find that the other 'hides', thus interpreted, give
us an aggregate of 'carucates' obviously suitable to the recorded
ploughlands.[155] It may, however, be fairly asked why Domesday
should speak in one place of half a 'hide', and in another of nine
'carucates'; in one place of a hide and a third, and in another of
twenty-four carucates. The answer is that the singular love of variety
which distinguishes Domesday in Cambridgeshire (as we saw) is at
work here also. For instance, two equal estates are thus described:
'Willelmus iiii. car' terræ et dimidiam et iii. bovatas, et Rogerus
iiii. car' terræ et vii. bovatas' (fo. 234_a_). The same instinct
which led the scribe to enter these seven bovates as half a carucate
_plus_ three bovates, led him also to enter ten and a half carucates
as half a hide _plus_ a carucate and a half (fo. 237_a_).
But to the rule I have established there is a single exception. We
read of 'Medeltone' in this shire: 'Ibi sunt vii. hidæ et una carucata
terræ et una bovata. In unaquaque hida sunt xiiii. carucatæ terræ et
dimidia' (fo. 235_b_). The actual formula employed is unique for the
shire, and the figures are specially given as an exception. But, with
singular perversity, Domesday students have always been inclined to
pitch upon the exceptions as representing the rule, forgetting that
it was precisely in exceptional cases that figures had to be given. In
normal cases they would have been superfluous.
Several years have elapsed since I wrote the above explanation, but
I have decided to publish it exactly as it originally stood. In the
meanwhile, however, Mr Stevenson has dealt with the subject in
an article on 'The Hundreds of Domesday: the Hundred of Land'
(1890).[156] He has advanced the ingenious theory that the
Leicestershire 'hida' was only a clerical error for H[undred], and
that it was really that 'Hundred' of _twelve_ carucates which we
meet with in the Lindsey Survey. To prove this, he reads an entry on
236_a_, 1, as 'Ogerus Brito tenet in Cilebe de rege ii. partes unius
hidæ, id est xii. car[ucatæ] terræ', and claims that this gloss
defines the 'hida' as a 'hundred' of twelve carucates. I confess that
to me such a rendering is in the highest degree non-natural. If we
speak of 'two-thirds of a yard, that is twenty-four inches', we
should clearly imply that the yard itself was thirty-six inches, not
twenty-four. Similarly, I claim to render the 'gloss' as implying that
the 'hida' itself contained eighteen carucatæ, not twelve.[157] If
I am right, Mr Stevenson's suggestion that this 'hida' was really a
'Hundred' also falls to the ground.
After careful study of the Domesday Survey of Leicestershire,
I definitely hold that in that county 'carucata terræ' was the
geld-carucate and 'terra _x_ car[ucis]' the actual ploughlands.[158]
Now there are only three instances in which the Survey records the
assessment both in terms of the 'hida' and in 'carucatæ terræ', and in
all three the figures support my own theory. The Abbot of Coventry's
Burbage estate (231_a_, 2), where a 'hide' and a quarter equates
22-1/2 'carucatæ terræ', is a test-case, and Mr Stevenson there takes
refuge in a suggested 'beneficial hidation'. The exact formula, no
doubt, is peculiar, but reference to the text shows that 's[un]t' has
been interpolated between 'ibi' and 'xxii.' I suspect that the scribe
had written 'ibi' (from the force of habit) when he ought to have
written 'id est'.
I close this portion of my essay by applying my own theory to the case
of 'Erendesbi' (Arnesby). The relative entries are:
'Episcopus Constantiensis tenet in Erendesber iii^{as.}
car[ucatas] terræ et dim. et unam bovatam (231).'
'W[illelmus] Pevrel tenet dim. hidam et iii. bovatas terræ in
Erendesbi (235).'
Put into figures they work out:
_Car._ _Bov._
Bishop of Coutances 2-1/2 1
William Peverel 9 3
------------
12 0
So that Arnesby was a typical Vill assessed at twelve carucates.[159]
IX. THE LANCASHIRE 'HIDA'
There is one other case of a peculiar 'hide' in Domesday. This is that
which is found in the land 'between Ribble and Mersey', that district
of which the description offers so many peculiarities. We find it
divided into six hundreds, and of the 'hides' in the first, that of
(West) Derby, we read: 'In unaquaque hida sunt vi. carucatæ terræ' (i.
269_b_). Whether or not that explanation applies, as is believed, to
the whole district, we have here again a 'Danish' place-name brought
into direct relation with the six-carucate unit. On the opposite
bank of the Mersey lay the Wirral peninsula, in which this system of
assessment cannot be traced.
Mr Green alluded to the Danish 'byes' as found, by exception, 'about
Wirral in Cheshire',[160] and held that Norsemen from the Isle of Man
had founded 'the little group of northern villages which we find in
the Cheshire peninsula of the Wirral'.[161] I cannot find them myself.
In his 'Notes on the Domesday Survey, so far as it relates to the
Hundred of Wirral'[162] (1893), Mr Fergusson Irvine, in a paper
which shows, though somewhat discursive, how much can only be done
by intelligent local research, has collated all the Domesday entries.
'Raby' is the one place I can there find in the peninsula with the
'bye' termination; while out of fifty-one entries twenty refer to
places with the English termination 'tone', and the Anglo-Saxon
test-words 'ham' and 'ford' are found in four others. There were,
doubtless, Norse elements in the peninsula, but they were not strong
enough to change the place-names or divide the land on their own
system. In the same way, Chester had its 'lawmen', though it was not
one of the Five Boroughs, nor is what I have termed the Scandinavian
formula applied to Cheshire in Domesday. So, too, there were lawmen at
Cambridge, and their heriot included eight pounds,[163] which occur in
the above formula as the twelve marcs of the Danish 'Hundred'. Yet the
whole system of Cambridgeshire was non-Danish. It was only, in short,
where the northern invaders had settled down as a people that they
were strong enough to divide the land anew and organize the whole
assessment on their own system.
X. THE YORKSHIRE UNIT
We have seen that the unit of assessment for the carucated districts
of England was 'vi. carucatæ terræ', just as five hides was the
old unit in the south. We have also seen that the former reckoning
extended over those districts which the Danish immigrants had settled.
There remains the question whether the Danes had merely substituted
six for five in the pre-existing arrangement, or had made a wholly new
one for themselves based on actual area.
It is _primâ facie_ not probable that they can have adopted the latter
course, for the uniformity of their assessment proves its artificial
character. Yet, in his remarkable paper on 'The Ploughland and the
Plough',[164] Canon Taylor has arrived at the conclusion that:
The geldable carucate of Domesday does not signify what the
carucate usually signifies in other early documents. The
'carucata ad geldum' is not as commonly stated by Domesday
commentators, the quantity of land ploughed in each year by
one plough, but it is the quantity tilled in one year _in one
arable field_ by one plough.[165]
This 'novel and important proposition', as its author truly described
it, was probably the most notable contribution to our knowledge that
the Domesday Commemoration produced. The Canon's theory, which (so
far as his own East Riding is concerned) he certainly seems to have
established, is, at first sight, fatal to mine. But, on the other
hand, my own theory can be proved no less clearly for Leicestershire,
where the 'carucata terræ' and the ploughs are often connected in
about the same ratio as in Yorkshire.[166] This leads us to inquire
whether, even in the East Riding (where his theory works best), we may
not find traces of that assessment by the six-carucate unit which I
advocate myself. Such traces in Yorkshire we have already seen,[167]
but there is other and stronger evidence.
If we take the modern Wapentake of Dickering (the first on Canon
Taylor's list) and examine its three Domesday Hundreds of Turbar,
Hunton, and Burton, we obtain these results:[168]
TURBAR HUNDRED
Hundemanebi 24
Ricstorp, Mustone, Scloftone, and Neuton 18
Flotemanebi 6
Muston and Neuton 6
Fordun and Ledemare 6
Burton, Fulcheton, and Chelc 30
Chelc (2), Ergone, Bringeham, Estolf,
Fodstone, and Chemelinge 19
Nadfartone 23-3/4
Pochetorp 6
Helmeswelle and Gartune 44
HUNTON HUNDRED
Flaneburg and Siwardbi 24-1/2
Marton 9
Bredinton 18
Hilgertorp 6
Wivlestorp and Basingebi 12
Frestintorp 9 }
Eleburne 1/2 } 29-1/2
Eston 6 }
Bovintorp 14 }
Gerendele 12
Ricton, Benton and Spetton 24
Bocheton 12
Fleuston 14 }
Stactone 6 } 27
Foxhole 7 }
BURTON HUNDRED
Burton 12
Grenzmore (4+2) 6
Arpen (4+8) 12
Chillon (30+11+7) 48
Roreston (9+3) 12
Logetorp (1-1/2+5-1/2) 7 }
Thirnon 7 }
Ascheltorp (4+2) 6 } 36
Torp 3 }
Cherendebi 13 }
Caretorp (5+4+3) 12
Rodestain (8+8+8) 24
Twenc 17-1/4
Suauetorp 9
Fornetorp (4+14) 18
Butruid 12
Langetou (9+6) 15 }
Buitorp 5 }
Bruneton 3 } 42
Galmeton 8 }
Binneton 6 }
Widlaueston 5
The evidence of this last Hundred is so overwhelming that it cannot be
gainsaid.[169]
I claim, therefore, that my theory holds good even in Canon Taylor's
stronghold, but I do so without venturing to dispute the accuracy of
his own. How far they can be reconciled I leave to others to decide.
There are certain difficulties, however, which his brilliant
suggestion must raise. It is the essence of his theory that in a
two-field Manor the ploughland of 160 acres (half fallow) was
assessed at _one_ 'carucata terræ', while in the three-field Manor the
ploughland of 180 acres (a third fallow) was assessed at _two_. This
would be an obvious and gross injustice. Again, remembering that,
according to the Canon, the proportion of 'carucatæ' to ploughlands
should be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1, what are we to make of such figures
as these, taken at a venture from a page of the Leicestershire Survey
(232_a_, 1):
_Carucatæ_ _Ploughlands_ _Carucata_ _Ploughlands_
1 2 12 8
1 1/2 11-1/8 7
2 1 9 4
5-5/8 4 7 6
2 1 6 5
2-5/8 4 2 4
1 1 10 7
6 4 9 6
8-7/8 6 5/8 1/2
1/2 1/2 6 4 (thrice)
28 22 4-7/8 3
It is certainly difficult to discover any regular or consistent
assessment in a system where the ploughland was represented by
anything from 1/2 _carucata_ to 2-1/4 _carucatæ_. There is, however,
in so many cases an approximation to an assessment of three _carucatæ_
for two ploughlands, that there seems to have been some underlying
idea, if we could only trace it out. But for this there is needed a
special investigation of all the carucated counties, a work of great
labour and requiring local co-operation. If we could have tables for
each county, arranged Hundred by Hundred and Vill by Vill, showing in
parallel columns the ploughland and the _carucatæ ad geldum_, we
could then, and only then, venture to speak positively. Till that
is accomplished we are not in a position to explain how a system
of assessment, based on actual area, could result in aggregate
assessments uniformly expressed in terms of the six-carucate unit.
XI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In seeking a clue to the origin of that artificial assessment, of
which the traces, whether more or less apparent, linger on the pages
of Domesday, I propose to exclude the carucated district, because
we require, as I have said, more complete evidence as to the system
pursued within it, and because, being associated with the settlement
of the Danes it represents a later introduction, while the very name
'carucate', as I observed in _Domesday Studies_, has, unlike the
mysterious 'hide', an obvious connection with the ploughland.
Confining ourselves to the district assessed in terms of the 'hide',
we seek to learn the origin of the system by which, as I contend, it
was divided for the purpose of taxation into blocks, each of which was
expressed in terms of the five-hide unit.
Now if we follow the clue afforded by the Cambridgeshire evidence,
and hold that the assessment was originally laid not on the Manor,
nor even on the Vill, but on the Hundred as a whole,[170] it might
be suggested that the Hundred itself subdivided the amount among its
constituent elements. In practice, indeed, from the nature of the
case, this principle must have prevailed in every _town_ assessed at a
Hundred or Half-Hundred, for where an urban community was assessed
in 'hides' the burgesses must, as in later days, have settled among
themselves the proportion to be borne by individuals or individual
properties. If, then, they were able to do this, and if, as I hold,
town and country were assessed on the same principle, as part of the
same system, what was to prevent their neighbours, in the court of
the rural Hundred, similarly distributing among its constituents their
respective shares of the common burden?
We might even be tempted to go far further than this, and to carry
our discoveries to a logical conclusion. If, as is asserted, direct
taxation ('geld') began in England with the need for raising money to
buy off the Danes, let us ask ourselves how the Witan would proceed
when confronted with a demand, let us say, for £10,000. As there had
been hitherto, _ex hypothesi_, no direct taxation, there would be no
statistical information at their disposal, enabling them to raise by
a direct levy the sum required. Their only possible resource, we might
hold, would be to apportionate it in round sums among the contributory
shires. Proceeding on precisely the same lines, the county court,
in its turn, would distribute the _quota_ of the shire among its
constituent Hundreds, and the Hundred court would then assign to each
Vill its share. As the Vills were represented in the Hundred court,
and the Hundreds in the Shire court, the just apportionment of the
Shire's _quota_ would be thus practically secured. The arrangement
would, moreover, be as satisfactory to the Witan as it was fair to the
contributors _inter se_; for, by this gradation of responsibility, the
payment of the whole was absolutely secured. This explanation is very
tempting, and, indeed, such a system of apportioning liability is to
be traced from time immemorial in the Indian village community.[171]
Moreover, if the ratio of 'hides' to ploughlands were found to vary to
any marked extent, according to county, the hypothesis that the quota,
in the first instance, was laid upon each county would duly explain
the ratio assessment being higher or lower in one county than in
another.
But such an hypothesis would imply that this assessment dated only
from the days of Æthelred, or _circ._ 1000. Now the five-hide unit,
on the contrary, was undoubtedly an old institution. Church lordships,
the easiest to trace, appear to have retained their hidation unchanged
from early times, and the 'possessio decem familiarum' of Bede seems
to carry the decimal system back to very early days. Mr Seebohm,
indeed--though, like others, he had failed to discover the existence
of the five-hide system--saw in this 'possessio' of Bede a connecting
link with the Roman _decuria_, just as he saw in the Roman _jugatio_
the possible origin of English hidation. And we must, of course, trace
its artificial arrangement (1) either to the Romans, (2) or to the
Britons--assuming them to have had the same system as existed in Wales
for the food-rents, (3) or to the English invaders.
Arrested at this point by the difficulty of assigning to the system I
have described its real origin, I dropped these studies for some years
in the hope that there might come from some quarter fresh light upon
the problem. As I cannot, however, for lack of evidence, propound a
solution capable of proof, I will content myself with indicating the
line of research that offers, I venture to think, the most likelihood
of success.
The proportionate sums contributed by the several counties to the
Danegeld present a fruitful field of inquiry, but one, it would seem,
as yet unworked. Mr Eyton, it is true, observed that 'in Devon and
Cornwall the scope of the gheld-hide was enormous',[172] that is, in
other words, the assessment was strangely low, but it did not occur
to him to seek the cause of the phenomenon he observed. If, as was
the case, West Wales was assessed on quite a different scale to the
counties adjoining it on the east, it may suggest a conclusion no less
important than that, when the latter were originally assessed,
West Wales was not yet a portion of the English realm. But, before
concluding that the hide assessment is proved to be as ancient as
this, we must see whether it is possible to detect any principle at
work in the total assessments of the several counties, any relation
between their area and the sums they contributed to the geld as
entered in the Pipe Roll of 1130, our first evidence on the subject.
For such an enquiry it is especially needful to insist on breadth of
treatment. In the first place, the modern area of the counties may
vary more or less from the original extent;[173] in the second we
have no proof that the assessment had always been the same, though the
tendency in early days, no doubt, was to stereotype such figures. We
must not, therefore attempt close or detailed investigation but if,
on a review of the whole evidence, we detect certain broad features,
uneffaced by the hand of time, we may fairly claim that we have in
these the traces of a principle at work, the witness to a state of
things prevailing in the distant past.
On comparing the contributions to a 'geld' at two shillings on the
hide with the (modern) area of counties, we find that a rate of about
a pound for every seven square miles prevailed widely enough to be
almost described as normal.
The three eastern counties work out thus:
Square Miles (At 1/7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Norfolk 2,119 302-5/7 330 3 2
Suffolk 1,475 210-5/7 235 0 8
Essex 1,542 220-2/7 236 8 0
In all three cases the proportion to the square mile is between a
sixth and a seventh of a pound. In Cambridgeshire it is just under, in
Sussex, just over, a seventh:
Square Miles (At 1/7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Cambridgeshire 820 117-1/7 114 15 0
Sussex 1,458 208-2/7 209 18 6
Most remarkable, however, is this Midland group:
Square Miles (At 1/7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Leicestershire 700 100 100 0 0
Warwickshire 885 126-3/7 128 12 6
Worcestershire 738 105-3/7 101 5 7
Gloucestershire 1,224 174-6/7 179 11 8
Somerset 1,640 234-2/7 227 10 4
It is remarkable, not only for this agreement _inter se_, but also
for the sharp contrast it presents to the groups of counties, lying
respectively to the south-east and the north-west of it. The former
approximates a rate twice as high, namely, _two_-sevenths of a pound
to the square mile:
Square Miles (At 2/7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Buckinghamshire 745 212-3/7 204 14 7
Oxfordshire 756 216 239 9 3
Berkshire 722 206-2/7 200 1 3
Wiltshire 1,354 386-6/7 388 13 0
Taking this group as a whole, it paid £1,032 18s 1d, a curiously close
approximation to the £1,021-4/7 which my suggested rate of 2/7 would
give. Middlesex was so exceptional a county, that one hardly likes to
include it, but there also the rate was a little over two-sevenths.
On the other hand, the counties to the north-west of what I have
termed the Midland group are assessed at a rate singularly low.
Nottingham and Derby, with a joint area of 1,855 miles, contributed
only £108 8s 6d, representing one-seventeenth;[174] while
Staffordshire, with its 1,169 miles, is found paying £44 0s 11d, a
rate scarcely more than one twenty-seventh. Passing to the opposite
corner of the realm, we have Kent, always a wealthy county, assessed
at the phenomenally low rate of about one-fifteenth (£105 2s 10d,
as against 1,555 miles), rather less than half that of Essex to its
north, and Sussex to its west.
It would seem impossible to resist the conclusion that in these widely
differing rates we have traces of a polity as yet divided, of those
independent kingdoms from which had been formed the realm. Kent, for
instance, which had so steadily maintained, first, its independent
existence, and then its local institutions, had succeeded in
preserving an assessment that its neighbours had cause to envy. In the
west, Cornwall similarly enjoyed a low, indeed a nominal assessment
while that of Devon, though higher than this, was so significantly
lower than those of Somerset and Dorset[175] as to remind us that
here, in part at least, the 'Welsh' long held their own. If the
incidence of geld were shown by shading a map of England, on the plan
so successfully adopted in Mr Seebohm's great work, it would show that
the heavily assessed counties were those which formed the nucleus of
the old West-Saxon realm.[176] All round this nucleus the map would
shade off sharply, another sudden change marking the Danish counties
on the north, the Jutish kingdom on the east, and the British district
in the south-west. It is, perhaps, worthy of remark that Shropshire
was assessed twice as heavily as the adjoining county of Stafford,
possibly because part of it was added, at a very early period, to the
kingdom of the West Saxons. If Mr Eyton was right in his reckoning
that Kesteven was assessed twice as heavily as Lindsey, and Lindsey,
in turn, twice as heavily as Holland, it would illustrate the survival
of local distinctions even within the compass of a modern county, as
well as the 'shading off' tendency of which I have already spoken.
The point I have here endeavoured to bring out is that if the system
of artificial assessment were of Roman or British origin, we should
expect to find it fairly uniform over the whole country, whereas we
find, on the contrary, the very widest discrepancies. It might be
urged, perhaps, that these were due to the differing conditions of
particular counties, to their more or less partial reclamation, for
instance, of the date when they were assessed. But this would not
account for the grouping I have traced, and would imply that each
county ought to differ indefinitely. Nor would it explain the case of
Kent, where a county that must have been foremost in early development
and prosperity enjoyed a phenomenally low assessment.
Another objection that may be raised to my hypothesis is that the
Hundred, as an area for police and rating, was a comparatively late
institution, and that if the artificial system of assessment were
as ancient as I suggest, it could not have operated, as we saw, in
Cambridgeshire, it did operate, through the 'Hundred'. It is, however,
admitted that the _thing_ represented by the 'Hundred' was, whatever
its original name, of immemorial antiquity, as the intermediate
division between the Vill and the Shire or kingdom. Approaching the
subject from the legal standpoint, Professor Maitland has pointed out
that the Hundred having a proper court, which the Vill had not, was
the older institution of the two, and has skilfully seized on the
differentiation of villages originally possessing one name in common
as a hint that some such subdivision may have been going on more
widely than is known. It seems to me to be at least possible that
the district originally representing a Hundred, and named, as we
are learning, in most cases from the primitive meeting-place of its
settlers, was reckoned as so many multiples of five or ten hides,
and that this aggregate was subsequently distributed by its community
among themselves.[177]
If it be not presumption to touch on the controversies as to the
Hundred,[178] I would suggest that while agreeing with Dr Stubbs,
that the name of 'Hundred' may be traced to the ordinance of
Edgar[179]--which did not, however, create the district itself--I
cannot reconcile it with the view to which he leans in his
_Constitutional History_, that 'under the name of geographical
hundreds we have the variously sized _pagi_ or districts in which the
hundred warriors settled'; and that we should 'recognize in the name
the vestige of the primitive settlement, and in the district itself
an earlier or a later subdivision of the kingdom to which it
belonged'.[180] For my part, I have never been able to understand the
anxiety to identify the district known, in later days, as a 'Hundred'
with an original hundred warriors, families, or hides. The significant
remark on the 'centeni' by Tacitus, that 'quod primo numerus fuit, jam
nomen et honor est', would surely lead us to expect that by the
time of the migration the 'Hundred' had become, like the 'hide' of
Domesday, a term even more at variance with fact. Indeed, in his
masterly 'Introductory sketch', Dr Stubbs observed that the 'superior
divisions' made by the 'new-comers' would 'have that indefiniteness
which even in the days of Tacitus belonged to the Hundreds,
the _centeni_ of the Germans', and that their 'system' would be
'transported whole, at the point of development which it has reached at
home'.[181]
The suggestion I have made as to the origin of the five-hide system is
tentative only, and must remain so until we have at our disposal for
the whole hidated region that complete and trustworthy analysis
of assessment, on the need of which I again insist, at the risk of
wearisome iteration.
XII. THE EAST ANGLIAN 'LEET'
In Norfolk and Suffolk we find Domesday recording assessed values not,
as everywhere else, at the outset of an entry, but at its close; not
in terms of hides and carucates, but in terms of shillings and pence.
Instead of saying that a Manor paid on so many 'hidæ' or 'carucatæ
terræ', Domesday, in the case of these counties, normally employs the
phrase: '_x_ denarii de gelto'. Its meaning is that to every _pound_
paid by the Hundred as geld the Manor contributed _x_ pence.[182]
Thus, in the case of a Hundred assessed at a hundred hides, the
formula for a five-hide Manor would be here 'xii. denarii de gelto',
instead of the usual 'defendit se pro v. hidis', or some such phrase
as that. There is an exact parallel to this method of recording
assessed values in the case of fractions of knights' fees where
portions of land are entered as paying so much 'when the scutage is
forty shillings', instead of being assessed in terms of the knight's
fee.[183] This system would seem, however, to have been understood
imperfectly if at all. I may, therefore, point out that its nature is
clear from the case of the Suffolk Hundred of Thingoe.
The case of this Hundred is singularly instructive. We find its
twenty 'Vills' grouped in _blocks_, precisely as in the Cambridgeshire
Hundreds, and these blocks are all _equal units of assessment_, like
the ten-hide groups of the hidated districts. But in this case we
can go further still, for we are not dependent on Domesday alone. The
portion of a special Survey executed about a century later (_circ._
1185) for Abbot Sampson of St Edmund's, which relates to its Hundred,
is fortunately preserved, and gives us the name of the twelve 'leets'
into which this Hundred was divided.[184]
Here are the divisions recorded in it, with the Domesday assessment
(in pence) of each Vill placed against its name.
£ s d
{ Barrow 7
I.{ Flemington 6
{ Lackford 6
------
19 0 1 7
II. Risby 20 0 1 8
{ Saxham (_A_) 7
III.{ Saxham(_B_) 7
{ Westley 6-1/2
------
20-1/2 0 1 8-1/2
IV.{ Hengrave 10
{ Fornham 10
------
20 0 1 8
{ Ickworth 7-1/2
V.{ Chevington 6-1/2
{ Hargrave 7
------
21 0 1 9
{ Brockley 7
VI.{ Rede 7
{ Manston 6
------
20 0 1 8
VII. Whepstead 20 0 1 8
VIII.{ Hawstead 13-1/2
{ Newton 6-1/2
------
20 0 1 8
IX. Horningsheath 20 0 1 8
X., XI., XII. Sudbury 60 0 5 0
----------
£1 0 0-1/2
The two records--Domesday and the Inquest--thus confirm one another,
and their concurrent testimony establishes the fact not only that the
Suffolk Hundred was divided into blocks of equal assessment, but that
these blocks were known by the name of 'leets'.
Now Professor Maitland, in his Dissertation on the 'History of the
Word Leet',[185] pronounces this 'the earliest occurrence of the word'
that he has seen. But I can carry it back to Domesday itself. Though
not entered in the _Index Rerum_, we find it in such instances as
these:
'H[undredum] de Grenehou de xiv. letis' (ii. 119_b_).
'Hund[redum] et dim[idium] de Clakelosa de x. leitis' (ii.
212_b_).
I think it probable that in these cases the entry happened to stand
first on the original return for the Hundred, and so--as in the I.E.,
where it is derived from the original returns--the general heading
crept in. Though Professor Maitland has to leave the origin of the
word unexplained, it seems to me impossible to overlook the analogy
between the Danish _lægd_, described by Dr Skeat as a division of
the country (in Denmark) for military conscription,[186] and the
East Anglian _leet_, a division of the country (as we have seen) for
purposes of taxation.
Sudbury, it will be observed, was _a quarter_ of the Hundred of
Thingoe,[187] just as Huntingdon was a quarter of a Hundred,[188] and
Wisbech a quarter of a Hundred.[189]
Having thus obtained from the Hundred of Thingoe the clue to this
peculiar system, we can advance to more difficult types. The Hundred
of Thedwastre, for instance, was divided not into twelve blocks, each
paying twenty pence in the pound, but into nine blocks, each paying
twenty-seven. This assessment allowed a margin of 3d for every pound
(i.e. £1 0s 3d); but in the case of Thedwastre the total excess
was only 1-1/2d on the pound (i.e. £1 0s 1-1/2d). I group the Vills
_tentatively_, thus:
_d_
I. Barton 27
II. {Fornham 6-1/2} 26-1/2
{Rougham 20 }
{Peckenham 13-1/2}
III. {Bradfield 5 } 26-1/2
{Fornham St Genevieve 8 }
IV. {Thurston 16 } 27
{Woolpit 11 }
V. {Rushbrook 7 } 27
{Ratlesden 20 }
{Hessett 18 }
VI. {Felsham 5 } 28
{Bradfield 5 }
{Gedding 5 }
VII. {Whelnetham 10 } 26
{Drinkston 11 }
{Ampton 7 }
VIII. {Tostock 10-1/2} 27-1/2
{Staningfield 10 }
IX. {Tinworth 14 } 26
{Livermere 12 }
--------
241-1/2 (£1 0s 1-1/2d)
The same unit of 27 (x9)--or, which comes to the same thing, 13-1/2
(x18)--was adopted in Risbridge Hundred. In this case no less than
five Manors are assessed at the same unit--13-1/2d. So, again, in the
Hundred of Blackbourn the units are 34-1/2d and 17-1/4d, one Manor
being assessed at the former, and five at the latter sum. Such is the
key to the peculiar system of East Anglian assessment.
It is to be noted that 'twenty shillings'[190] represents ten hides
at two shillings on the hide (the normal Danegeld rate), and thus
suggests that in Norfolk, as in Cambridgeshire, the Hundreds were
normally assessed in multiples of ten hides. The point, however, that
I want to bring out is that the Hundred, not the Manor, nor even
the Vill, is here treated as 'the fiscal unit for the collection of
Danegeld'.[191]
XIII. THE WORDS 'SOLINUM' AND 'SOLANDA'[192]
Several years ago I arrived at the conclusion that the identity of
these two words was an unsupported conjecture. So long as it remained
a conjecture only, its correction was not urgent; but since then, as
is so often the case, the result of leaving it unassailed has been
that arguments are based upon it. There appeared in the _English
Historical Review_ for July 1892 a paper by Mr Seebohm, in which that
distinguished scholar took the identity for granted, as his no
less distinguished opponent, Professor Vinogradoff, has done in his
masterly work on _Villainage in England_.
I believe the alleged identity was first asserted by Archdeacon Hale,
who wrote in his _Domesday of St. Paul's_ (1858), p. xiv:
The word _solanda_, or, as it is written at p. 142,
_scolanda_, is so evidently a Latinized form of the
Anglo-Saxon _sulung_, or ploughland, and approaches so near
to the Kentish _solinus_, that we need scarcely hesitate to
consider them identical.
Let us start from the facts. In the Domesday of Kent we find the
form _solin_, or its Latin equivalent _solinum_, used for the unit of
assessment, like the hide and the carucate in other counties. In the
Kent monastic surveys it is found as _sullung_ or _suolinga_. But when
we turn to the Domesday of St. Paul's, we find--first, that instead of
being universal, as in Kent, it occurs only in three cases; secondly,
that the form is _solande_, _solanda_, _scholanda_, _scolanda_, or
even (we shall see) _Scotlande_; thirdly, that it is not employed as a
unit of assessment at all.
The three places where the term occurs in the Domesday of St. Paul's
are Drayton and Sutton in Middlesex, and Tillingham in Essex. Hale
would seem to have arrived at no clear idea of what the word meant. At
p. xiv he wrote that 'a _solanda_ consisted of two hides, but probably
in this case the hide was not of the ordinary dimension'. At p.
lxxviii he inferred, from a reference to 'la Scoland' in a survey of
Drayton, that '"ploughed land" would seem to be opposed to "Scoland"'.
At p. cx he was led by the important passage--'De hydis hiis decem,
due fuerunt in dominio, una in scolanda, et vii. assisæ'--to suggest
that it 'appears to denote some difference in the tenure'. This last
conjecture seems the most probable. If we take the case of Sutton and
Chiswick, we read in the survey of 1222:
Juratores dicunt quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem
pro tribus hidis preter solandam de Chesewich que per se habet
duas hidas, et sunt geldabiles cum hidis de Sutton.
Hale (p. 119) believed that this _Solande de Chesewich_ was no other
than the _Scotlande thesaurarii_ of 1181, namely the prebend of
Chiswick. The above passage should further be compared with the survey
of Caddington (1222):
Dicunt juratores quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem
pro x. hidis ... preter duas prebendas quæ sunt in eadem
parochia.
The formula is the same in both cases, and a _solanda_ was clearly
land held on some special terms, and was not a measure or unit of
assessment at all. Indeed Hale himself admitted that it could not be
identified with one or with two hides.
Fortunately I have discovered an occurrence of the word _solanda_
which conclusively proves that it meant an estate, such as a prebend,
and was not a unit of measurement. We have, in 1183, a 'grant by
William de Belmes, canon of St. Paul's, to the chapter of that church,
of the Church of St. Pancras, situate in his _solanda_ near London'
(i.e. his prebend of St. Pancras), etc.[193] This solves the mystery.
The three _solandæ_ at Tillingham were no other than the three
prebends--Ealdland, Weldland, and Reculverland--which that parish
actually contained.[194]
Hale, however, misled Mr Seebohm, who in his great work on the
_English Village Community_ (p. 54), wrote of Tillingham:
There was further in this Manor a _double hide_, called a
_solanda_, presumably of 240 acres. This double hide, called a
_solanda_, is also mentioned in a Manor in Middlesex [Sutton],
and in another in Surrey [Drayton][195]; and the term
_solanda_ is probably the same as the well-known '_Sollung_'
or '_solin_' of Kent, meaning a 'ploughland'.
Proceeding further (p. 395), Mr Seebohm wrote:
Generally in Kent, and sometimes in Sussex, Berks and Essex,
we found, in addition to, or instead of, the hide or carucate,
or 'terra unius aratri', _solins_, _sullungs_, or _swullungs_,
the land pertaining to a '_suhl_', the Anglo-Saxon word for
plough.
Unfortunately no reference is given for the cases of Sussex and Berks,
and I know of none myself.
Turning now to the learned work of Professor Vinogradoff, we find him
equally misled:
Of the _sulung_ I have spoken already. It is a full
ploughland, and 200 acres are commonly reckoned to belong
to it. The name is sometimes found out of Kent, in Essex for
instance. In Tillingham, a Manor of St. Paul's, of London, we
come across six hides 'trium solandarum'. The most probable
explanation seems to be that the hide or unit of assessment is
contrasted with the _solanda_ or _sulland_[196] (sulung), that
is with the actual ploughland, and two hides are reckoned as a
single _solanda_ (p. 255).
Lastly, we come to Mr Seebohm's reply to Professor Vinogradoff
(_ante_, pp. 444-465). Here the identity is again assumed:
Along with parts of Essex, the Kentish records differ
in phraseology from those of the rest of England. Their
_sullungs_ of 240 acres occur also in the Manors of Essex
belonging to St. Paul's, and the custom of gavelkind and
succession of the youngest child mark it off as exceptional.
Mr Vinogradoff ... shows that in the Kentish district, and
in Essex, where the _sullung_ or _solanda_ takes the place of the
hide, and where gavelkind prevailed, the unity of the hides
and virgates was preserved only for the purposes of taxation
and the services; whilst in reality the holdings clustered
under the nominal unit were many and irregular.
I yield to no one in admiration for Mr Seebohm's work, but the
question raised is so important that accuracy as to the fact is
here essential. (1) _Sullung_ is nowhere found in Essex, but only
_solanda_; (2) _Solanda_ does not occur 'in the Manors' referred to,
but at Tillingham alone; (3) In Essex it nowhere 'takes the places
of the hide', as it does in Kent; (4) The Essex instance adduced by
Professor Vinogradoff is taken from a Manor where _solanda_ does not
occur.
Two issues--quite distinct--are involved. In the first place, Mr
Seebohm contends that Professor Vinogradoff must not argue from 'the
custom of Kent' to the rest of England, because (_inter alia_) Kent,
unlike the rest of England, was divided into _sulungs_, which points
to some difference in its organization.[197] This contention is sound,
and is actually strengthened if we reject the identity of _sulung_ and
_solanda_. But, in the second place, he endeavours to explain away
the Essex case of subdivision at Eadwulfsness, to which the Professor
appeals, by connecting it with the Kentish system through the term
_solanda_. This, as I have shown above, is based on a misreading of
the evidence, and is contrary to the facts of the case.
Let us then look more closely at the Essex instance of subdivision.
It is taken from one Manor alone, the great 'soke' of Eadwulfsness,
in the north-east corner of the county. This 'soke' comprised the
townships of Thorpe 'le soken', Kirby 'le soken', and Walton 'le
soken' (better known as Walton-on-the-Naze). Such names proclaim
the Danish origin of the community, and it is noteworthy that the
'hidarii', on whom the argument turns, are found only at Thorpe
and Kirby, the very two townships which bear Danish names. This
circumstance points to quite another track. That the system in this
little corner of Essex was wholly peculiar had been pointed out by
Hale, and it might perhaps have originated in the superimposition of
hides on a previous system, instead of in the breaking up of the hide
and virgate system. But this is only a conjecture. The two facts on
which I would lay stress are that at Thorpe, according to Hale,
'the holders of the nine hides (in 1279) possessed also among them
seventy-two messuages', which, by its proportion of eight to the hide,
favours Mr Seebohm's views; and that the holdings of the 'hidarii'
were rigidly formed on the decimal system (such as 60, 30, 15, 7-1/2
acres, or 40, 20, 10, 5 acres),[198] unlike the holdings of an odd
number of acres on the Kentish Manors of St. Augustine's. The reason
for the Essex system was clearly the necessity of keeping the holdings
in a fixed relation to the hide, that their proportion of the hide's
service might be easily determined. These two points have, perhaps,
I think, been overlooked by both of the eminent scholars in their
controversy.
Before leaving the subject of the _sulung_, one should mention perhaps
that it was divided (as Mr Seebohm has explained) into four quarters
known as _juga_, just as the hide was divided into four virgates. Mr
Seebohm bases this statement on Anglo-Saxon evidence,[199] but it is
abundantly confirmed by Domesday, where we read of Eastwell (in Kent):
'pro uno solin se defendit. Tria juga sunt infra divisionem Hugonis,
et quartum jugum est extra' (i. 13). So far all is clear; but
Professor Vinogradoff, on the contrary, asserts that 'the yokes
(_juga_) of Battle Abbey (in Kent) are not virgates, but carucates,
full ploughlands' (p. 225). This assertion is based on a very natural
misapprehension. In the Battle Manor of Wye (Kent) we find that the
_jugum_ itself was divided into four quarters, called 'virgates'
which were each, consequently, the sixteenth, not, as in the hidated
district, the fourth of a ploughland. Professor Vinogradoff, naturally
assuming that the 'virgate' meant the same here as elsewhere, inferred
that four 'virgates' (that is, a _jugum_) must constitute a full
ploughland. But this change of denotation goes further still. The
Battle Cartulary records yet another 'virgate', namely, the
fourth (not of a ploughland, but) of an acre! This led me, on its
publication, to wonder whether we have here the clue to the origin
of the somewhat mysterious term 'virgate'. Starting from the acre, we
should have in the _virgata_ (rood) its quarter, with a name derived
from the _virga_ (rod) which formed its base in mensuration. The sense
of 'quarter' once established, it might be transferred to the quarter
of a _jugum_, or the quarter of a hide. This is a suggestion which,
of course, I advance with all diffidence, but which would solve
an otherwise insoluble problem. The relation of the bovate to the
carucate, and of the _jugum_ to the _sulung_, are both so obviously
based upon the unit of the plough-team that they raise no difficulty.
But the term 'virgate' does not, like them, speak for itself. If
we might take it to denote merely a 'quarter' of the hide, it would
become a term of relation only, leaving the 'hide' as the original
unit. Should this suggestion meet with acceptance, it might obviously
lead to rather important results.
Mr Elton, in his well-known _Tenures of Kent_, attaches considerable
importance to a list, 'De Suylingis Comitatus Kanciæ et qui eas
tenent', in the Cottonian MS., Claud. C. IV, which he placed little
subsequent to Domesday. Having transcribed it for collation with
the Survey, I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently
trustworthy for publication, for the names, in my opinion, involve
some anachronism. The feature of the list is that it shows us as
tenants-in-chief, the leading tenants of Bishop Odo; and the change
of most interest to genealogists is the succession of Patrick 'de
Caurcio' to the holding of Ernulf de Hesdin.
XIV. THE 'FIRMA UNIUS NOCTIS'
The curious and evidently archaic institution of the _firma unius
noctis_ was clearly connected with the problem of hidation. In
Somerset the formula for a Manor contributing to this _firma_ was:
Nunquam geldavit nec scitur quot hidæ sint ibi (i. 85).
In Dorset it ran:
Nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi quia non geldabat T.R.E. (i. 75).
In Wiltshire we read:
Nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit, _or_ nunquam geldavit: ideo
nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi.[200]
In all these entries the 'hide' is recognized as merely a measure of
assessment quite independent of area.
Hampshire affords us, in a group of Manors, a peculiarly good instance
in point. Of Basingstoke, Kingsclere, and 'Esseborne', we read:
Rex tenet in dominio _Basingestoches_. Regale manerium fuit
semper. Numquam geldum dedit, nec hida ibi distributa fuit....
_Clere_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit,
et pertinet ad firmam diei de Basingestoches. Numerum hidarum
nescierunt....
_Esseborne_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit.
Numerum hidarum non habent....
Hæc tria maneria, Basingestoches, Clere, Esseborne, reddunt
firmam unius diei (39).
Other Manors are found about the county displaying the same
peculiarity.
Ipse rex tenet _Bertune_. De firmâ Regis E. fuit, et dimidiam
diem firmæ reddidit in omnibus rebus.... Nunquam in hid(is)
numeratum fuit.... Numerum hidarum non dixerunt.
Ipse rex tenet _Edlinges_ in dominio. Hoc manerium reddidit
dimidiam diem firmæ tempore Regis E. Numerum hidarum nesciunt
(38).
Manors, such as Andover, not hidated, clearly belonged to the same
system, though neither their value nor their render is given.
Thus, then, within the limits of Wessex, in the four adjacent counties
of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hants, we find surviving, at the
time of the Conquest, an archaic but uniform system of provision for
the needs of the Crown by the assignment of certain estates or groups
of estates, the render of which was expressed in terms of the 'firma
noctis' or 'firma diei', and which, unlike the country around them,
had never been assessed in 'hides'.
Mr Seebohm hints slightly at this _firma_ system,[201] but only speaks
of it as existing in Dorset. Nor does he allude to the significant
fact of such Manors having never been hidated. It would lead us far
afield to speculate on the origin of this system, or to trace its
possible connection with the Welsh _gwestva_.[202] Nor can we here
concern ourselves with the few scattered traces of it that we meet
with elsewhere in Domesday. Its existence in four adjacent counties,
with non-hidation as a common feature, is the point I wish to
emphasize.
The system of grouping townships in the west for the payment of a
food-rent (_firma unius noctis_) was exactly parallel to the grouping
in the east for the payment, not of rent but of 'geld'. We can best
trace this parallel in Somerset, because the _firma unius noctis_
of the days before the Conquest had been there commuted for a money
payment at the time of Domesday. Turning to the Cambridgeshire hundred
of Long Stow, we find one of its 'blocks' (of twenty-five hides)
divided into three equal parts, while another is divided into three
parts, of which one is half the size of the two others. And so in
Somerset we have Frome and Bedminster combined in one group for the
payment of this _firma_, and the two Perrotts similarly combined with
Curry. Frome and Bedminster are each assigned the same payment, but
in the other group the contribution of one is half that of the two
others.
Here are the Somerset groups of demesne, each charged with the render
of a _firma unius noctis_.
_Commutation_ £ s d
Somerton (with Borough of Langport) 79 10 7 }
Chedder (with borough of Axbridge) 21 0 2-1/2} 100 10 9-1/2
North Petherton 42 8 4 }
South Petherton 42 8 4 } 106 0 10
Curry Rivell 21 4 2 }
Williton }
Carhampton } 105 17 4-1/2
Cannington }
Frome 53 0 5 }
Bruton 53 0 5 } 106 0 10
Milborne Port (with Ilchester) 79 10 7
[Bedminster[203] 21 0 2-1/2]
Of these two last, Milborne Port is entered as having paid
three-quarters of a _firma noctis_ under the Confessor, while
Bedminster--though in the midst of this group of _firma_ Manors--is
alone in having no render T.R.E. assigned to it. One is tempted to
look on the two as originally combined in one _firma_ (like Somerton
and Chedder), save that the whole width of the county divides them,
while in the other cases the constituents are grouped geographically.
The Wiltshire Manors, each of which rendered a _firma unius noctis_,
were:
_Ploughlands_ _Valets_
Calne 29
Bedwin 79
Amesbury 40
Warminster 40
Chippenham 100 £110
'Theodulveshide' 40 £100
From the figures given for Somerset and Wilts, it may fairly be
concluded that, in this district, the value of the 'firma' was about
£105. In Somerset, however, there was clearly a special sum, £106 0s
10d, on which calculations were based.
An examination of Mr Eyton's statements on the _firma unius noctis_
in Somerset and Dorset would prove a peculiarly conclusive test of his
whole system.
In the case of Somerset one need not dwell on his giving its amount
for the Williton group as £105 16s 6-1/2d, when the sum named is
£105 17s 4-1/2d, although absolute accuracy is, in these matters,
essential. We will pass at once to the bottom of the page (ii. 2), and
collate his rendering of Domesday with the original:
'T.R.E. reddebat dimidiam 'Reddebat T.R.E. dimidiam
firmam noctis et quadrantem' noctis firmam et unum quadrantem'
(Domesday). (Eyton).
Domesday gives the payment (in a characteristic phrase), as
_three-quarters_ [a half and a quarter] of a _firma noctis_. Mr Eyton
first interpolates a 'unum', and then overlooks the 'quadrantem',
with the result that he represents the due T.R.E. as a _firma dimidiæ
noctis_ (i. 77). So far, this is only a matter of error _per se_. But
Domesday records the commutation of the due T.R.W. at £79 10s 7d. This
proves to be _three-quarters_ of the commutation, in two other cases,
for a whole _firma noctis_ (£106 0s 10d). Mr Eyton, however, imagining
the due to have been only _half a firma_ set himself to account
for its commutation at so high a figure (i. 77-8). This he found
no difficulty in doing. He explained that 'this was not a
mere commutation', but 'was doubtless a change which took into
consideration the extra means and enhanced value of Meleborne'.
The probability is, then, that what we have called the
_enhanced ferm_, was enhanced by something less than the
gross profits we have instanced; that is, that a part of
those profits, say the Burgage rents, or some of them,
had contributed to the _dimidia firma noctis_ before the
commutation.
All these ready assumptions, we must remember, are introduced to
account for a discrepancy which does not exist.
Great masses of Mr Eyton's work consist of similar guesses and
assumptions. Now, if these were kept scrupulously apart from the
facts, they would not much matter; but they are so inextricably
confused with the real facts of Domesday that, virtually, one can
never be sure if one is dealing with facts or fancies.
And far more startling than the case of Somerset is that of Dorset,
the 'Key to Domesday'. Mr Eyton here held that Dorchester, Bridport,
and Wareham paid a full _firma unius noctis_ each, the total amount
being reckoned by him at the astounding figure of £312 (p. 70)!
Exeter, which affords a good comparison, paid only £18 (as render),
though the king had 285 houses there: the three Dorset towns in which,
says Mr Eyton, the Crown had 323 houses, paid in all, according to
him, £312. The mere comparison of these figures is sufficient.
But further, Mr Eyton observes (p. 93), that in 1156 'Fordington,
Dorchester, and Bridport' were granted by Henry II to his uncle, 'as
representing Royal Demesne to the annual value of £60'. This is an
instructive commentary on his view that Dorchester and Bridport alone
rendered £208 per annum. Our doubts being thus aroused, we turn to
Domesday and find that it does not speak of any of these towns as
paying that preposterous _firma_. The right formula for that would be
'reddit firmam unius noctis' (p. 84). Instead of that, we only have
'exceptis consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad firmam unius noctis' (p.
70). The explanation is quite simple. Just as in Somerset, Mr Eyton
admits, Langport and Ilchester, although boroughs, were 'interned' in
groups of Royal demesne, paying the _firma unius noctis_, so in Dorset
the boroughs were 'interned' in groups of Royal demesne. Indeed one of
these groups was headed by Dorchester, and is styled by Mr Eyton the
'Dorchester group'. But he boldly assumed that 'Dorchester' must have
two different meanings:
[A] We assume about 100 acres to have belonged to the Domesday
Burgh, and perhaps 882 acres to represent land, subinfeuded
at Domesday, and annexed to Dorchester Hundred. [B] It follows
that we assume about 429 acres, [to be that] ... which here
figures [fo. 75] under the name Dorchester.
It is not too much to say that any one, who refers to pp. 70-3, 78-101
of the _Key to Domesday_, will find that the singular misconception as
to the Dorset Boroughs makes havoc of the whole calculation. But here
again the point to be insisted on is not the mere mistake _per se_,
but the elaborate assumptions based upon it and permeating the whole
work.[204]
Apart from the Manors grouped for a _firma unius noctis_, if we take
the comital Manors (_mansiones de comitatu_) of Somerset, which were
in the King's hands in 1086, we find their rentals given on quite a
different principle to those of the Manors in private hands.
(1) They are entered as renders ('reddit'), not as values ('valet').
(2) The sums rendered are 'de albo argento'.
(3) In at least ten out of the fifteen cases, they are multiples of
the strange unit £1 3s.
As this fact seems to have escaped Mr Eyton's notice, I append a list
of these Manors, showing the multiples of this unit that their renders
represent:
_£_ _s_ _d_
Crewkerne 46 0 0 40
Congresbury 28 15 0 25
Old Cleeve 23 0 0 20
North Curry 23 0 0 20
Henstridge 23 0 0 20
Camel 23 0 0 20
Dulverton 11 10 0 10
Creech St Michael 9 4 0 8
Langford 4 12 0 4
Capton[205] 2 6 0 2
Whatever this strange unit represented, it formed the basis in these
Manors of a reckoning wholly independent of the 'hides' or ploughlands
of the Manor, and as clearly artificial as the system of hidation I
have made it my business to explain.
XV. 'WARA'
The meaning of 'Wara' is made indisputable by the I.C.C. When land was
an appurtenance, _quoad_ ownership, of a Manor in one township, but
was assessed in another in which it actually lay, the land was said to
be in the former, but its 'wara' in the latter. As this 'wara' was an
integral part of the total assessment of the township, it had to
be recorded, under its township, in the I.C.C. Here are the three
examples in point:
[HISTON.] De his xx. hidis jacet Warra de una hida et dimidia
in hestitone de manerio cestreford. Hanc terram tenuit comes
alanus [_sic_] et est appretiata in essexia (p. 40).
[SHELFORD.] De his xx. hidis tenet petrus valonensis iii.
hidas de firma regis in neueport.... Hæc terra est berewica in
neueport, sed Wara jacet in grantebrigge syra (p. 49).
[TRUMPINGTON.] De his vii. hidis [tenet] unus burgensis de
grenteburga i. virgam. Et Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra
in grantebrigga (p. 51).
To these I may add a fourth instance, although in this case the name
_wara_ does not occur:
[BATHBURGAM.] De his vii. hidis tenet Picotus in manu
regis dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virgam. Hæc terra jacet in
cestreforda et ibi est appretiata xxx. sol. in essexia (p.
36).
The lands at Histon and 'Bathburgam' were mere outlying portions of
the royal Manor of Chesterford in Essex, and those at Shelford were a
'berewick' of the royal Manor of Newport, also in Essex. But they were
all _assessed_ in Cambridgeshire, where they actually lay.
So also we read under Berkshire (61_b_): 'Hæc terra jacet et
appreciata est in Gratentun quod est in Oxenefordscire, et tamen dat
scotum in Berchesire'. Again (203_b_) we read under Pertenhall: 'Hec
terra sita est in Bedefordsire, set geldum et servitium reddit in
Hontedunscyre'. A good instance of the same arrangement in another
part of England is found in those Worcestershire Manors which were
annexed as estates to Hereford, but which were assessed in those
Worcestershire Hundreds where they actually lay (see p. 61).
A similar expression is applied to the possession of 'soca'. Thus
under Shelford we read:
De hac terra adhuc tenuerunt iii. sochemanni dimidiam hidam
sub gurdo comite. Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia comitis
gurdi. Et soca jacebat in Witlesforda (p. 48).
Here the land was in Shelford, but the jurisdiction (soca) was
attached to Earl Gyrth's Manor of Whittlesford.
Prof Vinogradoff has dealt with 'the word _wara_' in his _Villainage
in England_ (i. 241-4), and asserts that the 'origin and use of the
term is of considerable importance'. But he does not allude to the
above evidence, and I cannot follow him in his argument. While rightly
disregarding Mr Pell's fanciful derivation from 'warectum', he asserts
that:
We often find the expression 'ad inwaram' in Domesday, and it
corresponds to the plain 'ad gildam [_sic_] regis'. If a Manor
is said to contain seven hides _ad inwaram_, it is meant that
it pays to the king for seven hides.... The Burton cartulary,
the earliest survey after Domesday, employed the word 'wara'
in the same sense.
One cannot disprove the first proposition without reading through all
Domesday for this purpose. I can only say that I do not remember
ever meeting in Domesday Book with such an expression. The
solitary instance of its use known to me is in the _Liber Niger_ of
Peterborough (p. 159), where we read: 'in Estona sunt iii. hidæ ad
in Waram'; and there the relevant entry in Domesday has no such
expression. Of the statement as to the Burton cartulary, one can
positively say it is an error. Its 'waræ' have quite another meaning
and are spoken of as virgates would elsewhere be.
Collation with what I have termed the Northamptonshire geld-roll
renders it clear that 'wara', in Domesday, represents the old English
word for 'defence', in the sense of assessment, the 'defendit se'
formula of the great Survey leading even to the phrase of 'Defensio
x. acrarum', for assessment to Danegeld, which is found in the first
volume of Fines published by the Pipe-Roll Society.
XVI. THE DOMESDAY 'JURATORES'
I now approach the subject of the Domesday _juratores_.
The lists of these in the I.E. and in the I.C.C. afford priceless
information. The latter gives us the names for all but three of
the Cambridgeshire Hundreds, the former for all Cambridgeshire (one
Hundred excepted) and for three Hertfordshire Hundreds as well.
The opening paragraph of the I.E. tells us 'quomodo barones regis
inquisierunt, videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis scire et omnium
baronum et eorum francigenarum et tocius centuriatus presbyteri
prepositi vi. villani [_sic_] uniuscuiusque ville'.[206] Careful
reading of this phrase will show that the 'barones regis' must have
been the Domesday Commissioners. The difficulty is caused by the
statement as to the oaths of the sheriff, the tenants-in-chief
(_barones_), and their foreign (? military) under-tenants
(_francigenæ_). The lists of _juratores_ contain the names of many
_francigenæ_ in their respective hundreds, but, so far as I can find,
of no tenants-in-chief. The sheriff, of course, stands apart. His name
indeed in the I.C.C. is appended to the list of jurors for the first
Hundred on the list, but is not found in the I.E. Moreover, it should
be noted that the above formula speaks of all the tenants-in-chief,
but only of a single Hundred court. Two hypotheses suggest themselves.
The one, that the sheriff and _barones_ of the county made a
circuit of the Hundreds, and then handed in, on their oaths, to the
commissioners a return for the whole county; the other, that the
circuit was made by the commissioners themselves, attended by the
sheriff and _barones_. In the former case it is obvious that the
commissioners would fail to obtain at first hand that direct local
information which it was their object to elicit: and further, when we
find the sheriff and _barones_ charged with wrongdoing in these very
returns, it is, to say the least, improbable that they were their own
accusers, especially in the case of such a sheriff as Picot, at once
dreaded and unscrupulous.
It seems, therefore, the best conclusion that the Domesday
commissioners themselves attended every Hundred court, and heard the
evidence, sometimes conflicting, of 'French' and 'English'.[207]
The _order_ in which the Hundreds occur must not be passed over,
because their sequence distinctly suggests a regular circuit of the
country. Here is the sequence given in our three authorities: the
I.C.C., the I.E., and the list of jurors prefixed to the latter:
Staplehow Staplehow Staplehow
Cheveley Cheveley Cheveley
Staines Staines Staines
Radfield Flammenditch Erningford
Flammenditch Childeford Triplow
Childerford Radfield Radfield
Whittlesford ([208]) Flammenditch
Triplow Triplow Whittlesford
Erningford Erningford Weatherley
Weatherley Weatherley Stow
Stow Stow Papworth
Papworth Papworth Northstow
Northstow Northstow Chesterton
Chesterton Ely
Ely
On comparing the first two of these lists it will be found that
(except in the case of three contiguous Hundreds, which does not
affect the argument) the Hundreds are taken in a certain sequence,
which is seen, on reference to the valuable map prefixed to Mr
Hamilton's book, to represent a circuit of the southern portion of the
county from north-east to north-west, followed by an inquest on the
district to its north, the 'two Hundreds' of Ely.
The third list, on the other hand, misplaces the Hundreds of Triplow
and Erningford altogether, and wholly omits that of Childeford. The
transposition and omission are both notable evidence that the B and C
texts, as I shall urge, were derived from some common original which
contained these defects.
The essential point, however, is that a circuit was made of the county
whether merely by the sheriff, or, as seems most probable, by
the Domesday Commissioners themselves--the 'barones regis' of
the record--who must have attended the several Hundred-courts in
succession.
But when we speak of the Hundred-court it is necessary to explain at
once that the body which gave evidence for the Domesday Inquest was
of a special and most interesting character. It combined the old
_centuriatus_--deputations of the priest, reeve, and six villeins from
each township (_villa_)--with the new settlers in the Hundred, the
_francigenæ_. A careful investigation of the lists will prove that
half the _juratores_ were selected from the former and half from the
latter. This fact, which would seem to have been hitherto overlooked,
throws a flood of light on the compilation of the Survey, and
admirably illustrates the King's policy of combining the old with the
new, and fusing his subjects, their rights and institutions, into one
harmonious whole. Conquerors and conquered were alike bound by their
common sworn verdicts.[209]
We have the lists, in all, for eighteen Hundreds, fifteen in
Cambridgeshire and three in Herts, of which two were 'double'. There
were, practically, for each Hundred exactly eight _juratores_, half
of them 'French' and half 'English'. But the two 'double' Hundreds had
sixteen each, half of them 'French' and half 'English'. Although it is
recorded that 'alii omnes franci et angli de hoc hundredo juraverunt',
it is obvious that the eight men always specially mentioned were, in
a special degree, responsible for the verdict. Their position is
illustrated, I think, by the record of a Cambridgeshire _placitum_
found in the Rochester chronicles. This is the famous suit of
Bishop Gundulf against Picot the sheriff in the County Court of
Cambridgeshire,[210] which affords a valuable instance of a jury being
elected to confirm by their oaths the (unsworn) verdict of the whole
court:
Cum illis (i.e. omnes illius comitatus homines) Baiocensis
episcopus, qui placito præerat, non bene crederet; præcepit
ut, si verum esse quod dicebant scirent, ex seipsis duodecim
eligerent, qui quod omnes dixerant jure jurando confirmarent.
Now we read of this jury:
Hi autem fuerunt Edwardus de Cipenham, Heruldus et Leofwine
saca de Exninge, Eadric de Giselham, Wlfwine de Landwade,
Ordmer de Berlincham, et alii sex de melioribus comitatus.
Investigation shows that the names mentioned are local. The land in
dispute was a holding in Isleham in the Hundred of Staplehoe. One
juror, Eadric, came from Isleham itself, two from Exning, one from
Chippenham, one from Landwade, while the sixth, Ordmer, was an
under-tenant of Count Alan, in the Manor from which he took his name
(Badlingham), and was a Domesday juror for the Hundred. These six,
then, were clearly natives chosen for their local knowledge. The
other six, chosen 'de melioribus comitatus', were probably, as at the
Domesday inquest, Normans (_Franci_). Thus the double character of the
jury would be here too preserved, and the principle of testimony from
personal knowledge upheld.
So again in the Dorset suit of St. Stephen's, Caen (1122),[211] the
men of seven Hundreds are convened, but the suit is to be decided
'in affirmatione virorum de quatuor partibus vicinitatis illius
villæ'.[212] Accordingly, 'sexdecim homines, tres videlicet de
Brideport, et tres de Bridetona, et decem de vicinis, juraverunt se
veram affirmationem facturos de inquisitione terræ illius'. The
names of the jurors are carefully given: 'Nomina vero illorum qui
juraverunt, hæc sunt'. Again in the same Abbey's suit for lands in
London, 'per commune consilium de Hustingo, secundum præceptum
regis, elegerunt quatuordecim viros de civibus civitatis Londoniæ qui
juraverunt'. And in this case also we read: 'Hæc sunt nomina illorum
qui juraverunt.... Et hæc sunt nomina eorum in quorum præsentia
juraverunt.'[213]
This corresponds, it will be seen, exactly with the writ to which the
_Inquisitio Eliensis_ was, I hold, the return: 'Inquire ... qui eas
(terras) juraverunt et qui jurationem audierunt' (_infra_, p. 114).
Enough has now been said to show that the names of the Domesday jurors
recorded for each Hundred represent a jury of eight, elected to swear
on behalf of the whole Hundred, and composed of four foreigners and
four Englishmen, in accordance with the principle that the conflicting
interests ought to be equally represented.[214]
We may take, as a typical set of _juratores_, those for the Hundred of
Erningford, the survey of which, in Mr Hamilton's book, occupies pp.
51-68. I give them in their order:
[_Francigenæ_] [_Angli_]
Walterus Monachus Colsuenus
Hunfridus de anseuilla Ailmarus eius filius
Hugo petuuolt Turolfus
Ricardus de Morduna Alfuuinus odesune
All four _francigenæ_ can be identified in the Hundred. Walter held
a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai' from the wife of Ralf Tailbois;
Humfrey, a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai', from Eudo dapifer;[215]
Hugh, a hide and a half in 'Melrede', from Hardwin de Scalers; and
Richard, three virgates in 'Mordune', from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Of
the _Angli_, Colsuenus was clearly Count Alan's under-tenant at three
townships within the Hundred, holding in all two hides; 'Ailmarus',
his son, was, just possibly, the 'Almarus de Bronna', who was a
tenant of Count Alan in two adjacent townships, holding two hides and
three-eighths; 'Turolfus' and 'Alfuuinus' cannot be identified, and
were probably lower in the social scale.
It will be observed that Colsweyn belongs to a special class,
the English under-tenants. He is thus distinct at once from the
_Francigenæ_, and from the villeins of the township. He and his peers,
however, are classed with the latter as jurors, because they are both
of English nationality. In the great majority of cases the English
_juratores_ cannot be identified as under-tenants, and may therefore
be presumed to have belonged to the township deputations.
XVII. THE 'INQUISITIO ELIENSIS'
The record known by this name has long been familiar to Domesday
students, but no one, so far as I know, has ever approached the
questions: Why was it compiled? When was it compiled? From what
sources was it compiled? These three questions I shall now endeavour
to answer.
First printed by the Record Commission in their 'Additamenta' volume
of Domesday (1816), its editor, Sir Henry Ellis, selected for his
text the most familiar, but, as I shall show, the worst of its three
transcripts (Cott. MS., Tib. A. VI), though he knew of what I believe
to be the best, the Trin. Coll. MS., O. 2, 1, which seems to be the
one styled by him 68 B 2.[216] In his introduction he thus described
it:
The _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is a document of the same kind with
the Exeter Domesday; relating to the property of the Monastery
of Ely recorded afterwards in the two volumes of the Domesday
Survey (p. xiv).
From this it would seem that Ellis believed the _Inquisitio_, at any
rate, to be previous to Domesday Book, but he practically left its
origin altogether in doubt.
Sixty years later (1876) the _Inquisitio_ was published anew,
but without any further solution of the points in question being
offered.[217] For this edition three MSS. were collated, with
praiseworthy and infinite pains, by Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton. Taking
for his text, like Ellis, the Cottonian MS. Tib. A. VI, which he
distinguished as A, he gave in footnotes the variants found in the
MSS. at Trinity College, Cambridge, viz.: O. 2, 41 (which he termed
B), and O. 2, 1 (which he distinguished as C). In Mr Hamilton's
opinion (p. xiv) the 'C' text 'appears to have been derived from the
"B" MS. rather than the Cottonian' ('A'). From this opinion, it will
be seen, I differ wholly.
A careful analysis of the three texts has satisfied me beyond question
that while C is the most accurate in detail, it is marred by a
peculiar tendency to omission on the part of its scribe. This, indeed,
is its distinctive feature. Now B cannot be derived from C, because
it supplies the latter's omissions. On the other hand, C cannot be
derived from B, because it corrects, throughout, B's inaccuracies.
Consequently they are independent. More difficult to determine is
the genesis of A, the worst of the three texts; but as it virtually
reproduces all the inaccuracies found in B (besides containing many
fresh ones), without correcting any, it can only be inferred that B
was its source. Thus we have on the one hand C, and, on the other B
(with its offspring A), derived independently from some common source.
And this conclusion agrees well with the fact that a long catalogue of
lands abstracted from the House of Ely is found in C, but not in A
or B,[218] and with the circumstance that the famous rubric ('Hic
subscribitur inquisitio'), which heads the inquisition in A and B, is
placed by C at the end of the lists of jurors.[219]
Starting from this conclusion, let us now proceed to ask, what was the
document from which B and C copied independently? Clearly, it was
not Domesday Book, for outside the eastern counties they record the
returns in full, like the _Inq. Com. Cant._ itself. Were they then
taken from the original returns, or at least from the copy of those
returns in the _Inq. Com. Cant._? This point can only be determined
by close analysis of the variants; if we find B and C containing
occasionally the same errors and peculiarities, although copied
independently, it follows that the document from which they both
copied must have contained those same errors and peculiarities. Let
us take the case of Papworth. The right reading, as given both in
Domesday and the _Inq. Com. Cant._, I have placed on the left, and the
wrong reading, in B and C, on the right:
[tenet abbas] ii. hidas et iii. [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et dim.
virgas et dim. [virgam]. virgam et[220] iii. virgas.
I. hida et i. virga et dimidia I. hida et dimidia virga et una
[virga] in dominio. virga[221] in dominio.
Here are some further illustrations of errors in the I.E.:
_D.B. and I.C.C._ _I.E._
VIII. hidas et dimidiam et VIII. hidis et dimidia et dimidia
dimidiam virgam.... In dominio virga ... iii. hidæ et dimidia
iii. hidæ et dimidia (p. 18). _et dimidia virga_ in dominio
(p. 104).
II. carruce in dominio. Et IIII^{or.} carruce ... in
tercia potest fieri (p. 21). dominio.
I. hida _et dimidia_ et xii. I. hida et xii. acræ in dominio
acræ in dominio (p. 87). (p. 110).
tenet Radulfus de Picot (p. 85). Rod[bertus] tenet de vicecomite
(p. 110).
Johannes filius _Waleranni_ Johannem filium
(p. 27). _Walteri_ (p. 103).
Again, the clause 'Tost[222] pro viii. hidis et xl. acris', which
ought to head the Hardwick entries, is wrongly appended in the I.E.
(p. 110) to a Kingston entry with which it had nothing to do. So too,
'hoc manerium pro x. hidis se defendit [_sic_] T.R.E. et modo pro
viii. hidis', which belongs to Whaddon, is erroneously thrown back by
the I.E. (p. 107), into Trumpington, a Manor in another Hundred. It
is singular also that all the MSS. of the I.E. read 'iii. cotarii' (p.
101), where D.B. and the I.C.C. have 'iii. bordarii' (p. 3), and 'x.
cotarii' (p. 101), where they have 'x. bordarii' (p. 6): conversely,
the former, in one place, read 'xv. bordarii' (p. 107), where the
latter have 'xv. cotarii' (p. 63).
In comparing the text of the I.E. with that of the I.C.C., we
shall find most striking and instructive variants in the lists of
_juratores_ for the several Hundreds. Take, for instance, the lists
for the Hundreds of Cheveley and Staines, which follow one another in
both MSS.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
CAUELEIE CAUELAI[223]
Ric[ardus] Ric[ardus] _prefectus huius
hundreti_.
Euerard[us] filius Brientii Æduuard[us] _homo Alb[er]ici de
uer_
Radulfus de hotot Radulfus de hotot
Will[elmu]s de mara Will[elmu]s de mara
Stanhardus de seuerlei Standard[224] de seuerlaio
Frauuin[us] de Curtelinga Frawinus[225] de quetelinge[226]
Carolus de cauelei _Brunesune_ Carlo de cauelaio[227]
Vlmar[us] homo Wigoni _et Wlmar' homo Wighen[228]
o[mne]s alii franci et
angli juraverunt_
The second name on these lists can be conclusively tested. For the
relative entry in the I.C.C. is 'Esselei tenet euerard[us][229] filius
brientii de Alberico'. This proves that the I.C.C. is right in reading
'Euerard[us]', while the I.E. is right in adding 'homo Alb[er]ici de
uer'.
These are the lists for Staines Hundred.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
STANE STANAS
Harold[us] Alerann[us]
Roger[us] Rogger[us] _homo Walt[er]i
giffardi_[230]
Aleranus _francigena_
Ric[ardus] fareman Ric[ardus] _p[ræ]fectus hui[us]
hundreti_ Farmannus
Huscarl de suafham[231] Huscarlo de suafham[231]
Leofuuin[us] _de bodischesham_ Leofuuin[us]
Harald _homo Hard[uuini] de
scalariis_
Alric[us] de Wilburgeham _et_ Aluric[us] de Wiburgeham _et
_omnes franci et angli_. alii omnes franci et angli
de hoc hundreto_.
In these two lists the points to strike us are that Harold is placed
first on one list and seventh on another; Aleran third on one list and
first on another; and 'Fareman' distinguished more clearly in the I.E.
than in the I.C.C. as a separate individual.
If we now collect from the other Hundreds some instances of
instructive variants, we shall obtain important evidence.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
Rob[ertus] de Fordham Rob[er]tus _angli[cus]_ de Fordham
Picotus vicecomes [Omitted][232]
Walterus Monac[us] Walt[erus][233]
Gerardus Lotaringus _de Girardus lotherensis _Herveus de
salsintona_ salsitona_
Pagan[us] homo hardeuuini Paganus _dapifer_ Hard'
Rad[ulfus] de _scannis_ Radulfus de _bans_[234]
Fulco _Waruhel_ Fulcheus _homo vicecomitis_
Rumold[us] _de cotis_ Rumold _homo comitis Eustachio_
Will[elmu]s Will[elmus] _homo picoti vice
comitis_
Wlwi _de doesse_ Wlwi de _etelaie_
Godlid de _stantona_ Godliue
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
FLAMENCDIC FLAMMINGEDICH
Robert[us] de Hintona Rodb[er]t[us] de Histona
Fulcard[us] _de Dittona_ Osmundus parvus
Osmund[us] parvulus Fulcold _homo abbatis de
Ely_
Baldeuuinus _cum barba_ Baldeuuinus _cocus_
Æduuin[us] presbyter Æduuinus presbyter
Ulfric[us] de teuersham Wlfuric de teuersham
Silac[us] _eiusdem villæ_ Syla
Godwun[us] _nabesone_ Goduuine _de fulburne_
It is impossible to examine the italicized variations in these
parallel texts without coming to the conclusion that they must have
been independently derived from some common original, an original
containing more detail than either of them. On the other hand, the
comparatively close agreement between the texts of the actual returns
in the I.C.C. and the I.E. leads one to infer that these were copied
with far more exactitude than the comparatively unimportant surnames
of the jurors. For us the value of these variations in the jurors'
lists lies in the evidence afforded to the origin of the existing MSS.
The object of this careful scrutiny has been to prove that as certain
errors and peculiarities are found in two independent MSS., they must
have existed in the original document from which both were copied,
and which was neither the I.C.C. transcripts nor the original Domesday
returns. What then was this document? It was, and can only have been,
the true _Inquisitio Eliensis_, the date and origin of which I
shall discuss below. Further, I should imagine this document to
have probably been a roll or rolls, which--on its contents being
subsequently transcribed into a book for convenience--was allowed,
precisely as happened to the Domesday rolls themselves, to disappear.
In perfect accordance with this view we find the whole contents of the
_Inquisitio_ arranged for a special purpose, and no mere transcript of
the Domesday returns. Thus, after abstracting all the entries relating
to the Cambridgeshire estates, and subjoining a list of houses held in
Cambridge itself, it proceeds to add up all the items independently,
and record their total values to the Abbey. This analysis is carried
out for several counties (pp. 121-4), and is, of course, peculiar
to the _Inquisitio_, although inserted between the abstracts of the
Domesday returns for Cambridgeshire and Herts. So too the breviate
or short abstract of the estates (pp. 168-173), which was part of the
original document--for it is found in all the derived MSS.--must have
been specially compiled for it, and so also was the _Nomina Villarum_
(pp. 174-83).
Another peculiarity of the _Inquisitio_ is the care with which it
records the names of sokemen on the Abbey estates when omitted in the
I.C.C. and D.B. This may lead us to ask whether its compilers supplied
these names from their personal knowledge. We might think not, for in
some cases they are recorded by the D.B. and the I.C.C., while in
one (p. 106) the I.E. actually omits the name, reading only 'quidam
sochemanus', where the other two documents (p. 46) supply his name
('Fridebertus'). From this we might infer that the names were probably
recorded in the original returns, but deemed of too slight importance
to be always copied by the transcriber. Yet the balance of evidence
leads me to believe that the I.E. did supply names from independent
knowledge. With the values, however, the case is clearer. The
I.E. contains special and exclusive information on the value of
socman-holdings, and must, I think, have derived it from some other
source than the original Domesday returns. Here are some instances in
point.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
III. sochemanni fuerunt ... In Erningetone fuit quidam
secundus homo abbatis de Ely sochemannus, _Ædwardus_, et
tenuit ii.[235] hidas ... habuit i. hidam. Homo abbatis
Potuerunt Eli fuit in obitu regis Ædwardi,
recedere (p. 83). sed terram suam vendere potuit;
sed soca semper S. Ædeldrede
remansit (p. 110).
X. sochemanni ... et i. istorum In Ouro fuit quidam sochemannus
homo abbatis de Ely fuit. _nomine Standardus_, qui dimidiam
Dimidiam hidam habuit. Non hidam habuit sub abbate ely. Non
potuit dare neque vendere, et potuit ire ab eo nec separare ab
ii. istorum, homines predicti ecclesia _et valet viginti
abbatis, iii. virgas habuerunt, solidos_. Et modo habet
vendere potuerunt; soca remansit Hardwinus. Et alii ii. sochemanni
abbati (p. 91). iii. virgatas habuerunt.
Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine
soca cui voluerunt et modo tenet
Hardwinus. _Et valet_ xv.
_solidos_ (p. 112).
Et x^{us} [sochemannus] homo Quidam sochemannus sub abbate
abbatis de ely fuit. i. hidam et eli i. hidam et dim. tenuit
dim. habuit. Et omnes isti T.R.E. potuit dare sine licentiam
recedere potuerunt; et vendere [_sic_] eius, sine socha. Et modo
terram suam cui voluerunt Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub
(p. 95). abbate ely. _Valet_ x. _sol_.
(p. 113).
This last passage, of itself, is full of instruction. Firstly,
the I.E. alone gives the value of the holding. Secondly, the I.E.
preserves the 'sine socha' which qualifies the holder's right. Now
D.B. gives the last clause as:
Hi omnes terras suas vendere potuerunt. Soca tantum hominis
abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ.
This qualification corresponds with the 'sine socha' of the I.E., and
is, we should observe, wholly omitted in the I.C.C. Thirdly, the
three versions of the original return employ three different words
to express the same one--'recedere', 'vendere', 'dare'. Fourthly, the
superiority of the C text of the I.E. over B (which makes two blunders
in this passage) and of B over its offspring A (which adds a third) is
here well illustrated. Fifthly, the phrase 'Picot vicecomes tenet
eam sub abbate ely' differs notably from Domesday, which assigns the
estate to Picot unreservedly, and still more from the I.C.C. which
reads 'tenet Robertus de Picoto vicecomite in feudo regis'.
The next example is taken from the township immediately preceding.
_I.C.C._ _I.E._
V. istorum (sochemannorum) Fuerunt quinque sochemani
homines abbatis de Ely fuerunt. Et T.R.E. unus istorum _sugga
unus istorum i. virg. et dim. habuit. nomine_ habuit una virg. et
Non potuit recedere. Et alii iiii. dim. sub abbate ely.
habuerunt v. hidas et i. virg. Non potuit recedere.
Potuerunt recedere sine soca (p. 95). _Et valet_ x. _sol._
Et alii iiii^{or}
sochemani v. hidas
et i. virg. tenuerunt de
abbate eli. Potuerunt
dare preter licentiam
abbatis et sine socha et modo
tenet eam Picot vicecomes
de abbate ely _et valet_
iii. _lib._ (p. 112).
I have said that in all these cases it might perhaps be held that
the additional details found in the I.E. were not due to special
information possessed by its compilers, but were derived from the
original returns, though omitted by their other transcribers. It is
possible, however, to put the matter to the test. If, anticipating for
a moment, we find that we have, for the eastern counties, in Domesday
the actual materials from which the compilers of the I.E. worked, we
can assert that any additional details must have been supplied from
their own knowledge. An excellent instance in point is afforded by
Tuddenham, in Suffolk:
_D.B._ _I.E._
In Tudenham Geroldus i. lib' In Tudenham i. li. homo Ælfric'
hominem ... comend' Saxæ de commend' S. Ædel' xii. ac' et iii.
abbate T.R.E. xii. ac' pro man', b. et i. c. et iii. ac' prati et
iii. bord' Semp' i. car. ii. ac' val. viginti iii. s.
prati ... val. iii. sol.; et in
eadem ii. liberi homines comend' In eadem i. l. ho' hedric'[236]
i. sancte Æ. et alter comend' commend' S. Ædel' viii. ac' et val'
heroldi x. ac', et dim. car. et xx. den. Hoc tenet R. de Raimes
val. ii. sol. Hoc tenet Geroldus (p. 151).
de R. [de Raimes] (ii. 423_b_).
One knows not, truly, which blunder is the worst, that of the Domesday
scribe, who has converted a probable 'S. æ',[237] i.e. Ely Abbey, into
'Saxæ', or that of the compiler of the I.E., who, by interpolating the
word 'viginti', has converted three shillings into three-and-twenty.
But the point is that the latter could name the Abbot's sokeman
(nameless in Domesday) and could supply his acreage and the value of
his holding. The actual details seem to have been:
Acres Pence
Abbot's sokeman 8 20
Harold's sokeman 2 4
---------------
10 24
Domesday records the totals only.
Enough has now been said of the twelfth century transcripts in which
alone are preserved to us the contents of the _Inquisitio_. We have
seen that they point to the existence of some common original, which,
while closely parallel with Domesday, as a record of the Abbey's
possessions, contained certain special features and additional
information. Why, when, and from what sources that original was
compiled, I shall now endeavour to explain.
XVIII. THE ELY RETURN
The theory I propound for the origin of the so-called _Inquisitio
Eliensis_ is that it was the actual return ordered by that writ of the
Conqueror,[238] of which a copy is given in all three MSS. (A, B, C)
and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book, on p. xxi (No. VIII).
I give the wording of the writ, followed by the heading to the
_Inquisitio_ with which it should be closely compared.
Willelmus Rex Anglorum Lanfranco archiepiscopo salutem....
Inquire per episcopum Constantiensem et per episcopum
Walchelinum et per ceteros qui terras sanctæ Ædeldrede
scribi et jurari fecerunt, quomodo jurate fuerunt et qui eas
juraverunt, et qui jurationem audierunt, et qui sunt terre,
et quante, et quot, et quomodo vocate [et] qui eas tenent. His
distincte notatis et scriptis fac ut cite inde rei veritatem
per tuum breve sciam. Et cum eo veniat legatus abbatis.
RETURN
Hic subscribitur inquisicio terrarum, quomodo barones regis
inquisierunt,[239] videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis
scire et omnium baronum et eorum francigenarum, et tocius
centuriatus, presbiteri, prepositi, vi. villani [_sic_]
uniuscujusque ville; deinde quomodo vocatur mansio, quis
tenuit eam tempore R.E., quis modo tenet, quot hide, quot
carruce[240] in dominio, quot hominum, quot villani, quot
cotarii, quot servi, quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni,
quantum silve, quantum prati, quot[241] pascuorum, quot
molendina, quot piscine, quantum est additum vel ablatum,
quantum valebat totum simul,[242] et quantum modo, quantum
quisque liber homo vel sochemannus habuit vel habet. Hoc totum
tripliciter, scilicet tempore regis Æduardi, et quando Rex
Willelmus dedit et qualiter modo sit, et si potest plus haberi
quam habeatur.
Isti homines juraverunt, etc., etc.
Especially important is the fact that the return contains the jurors'
names, in accordance with the express injunction to that effect in the
Conqueror's writ.
Now if this theory meet with acceptance, and the writ be taken to
refer, as I suggest, to the Domesday Inquest itself, it follows that
the Bishop of Coutances and Bishop Walchelin were the heads of the
Domesday Commission for this district. This, of course, has been
hitherto unknown; but it adds to the presumption in favour of the
facts that Bishop Walchelin is not mentioned in any of the Ely writs
as taking part in the _placita_ concerning the Abbey's lands,
and that, therefore, the only Inquest in which he could have been
concerned was the Domesday Inquest itself. It should be added,
however, that these two Bishops may have been, respectively, the heads
of two distinct commissions for adjoining groups of counties.
The heading to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is so well known, and has
been so often quoted by historians, that it is a gain to fix its
_status_, the more so as it has been loosely described as the
'official' instructions for the Survey itself. We may also determine
the date of the writ as the very close of the Conqueror's reign. For
it must have been issued between William's departure from England,
_circ._ September 1086, and his death (September 1087).
And now, how was the return compiled? It deals, we find, with six
counties, arranged in this order: Cambridgeshire, Herts, Essex,
Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hunts. For _Cambridgeshire_ it copies, clearly,
from the original returns. For Herts it must have done so also,
because it gives full details, which are not found in Domesday Book.
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, for these two counties,
it gives the jurors' names (for the hundreds dealt with), which it
could only have obtained from those original returns. For _Essex_,
_Norfolk_, and _Suffolk_, on the contrary, it simply gives the same
version as the second volume of Domesday Book, and omits accordingly
the jurors' names. The case of the four Manors in _Hunts_ I leave in
doubt, because the version in the _Inquisitio_ (pp. 166-7) has more
details than that of Domesday, though the latter is here exceptionally
full, and because it places first the Manor which comes fourth in
Domesday (i. 204). The additional details (as to live-stock) are such
as we might expect to be derived from the additional returns; but the
names of the witnesses for the Hundred are not recorded, a fact to be
taken in conjunction with the belated entry of these Huntingdonshire
Manors not following, as they should, those in Cambridgeshire and
Herts.
In addition to the _Inquisitio_ itself, as printed by the Record
Commission, there is a record, or collection of records, which follows
it in all three MSS., and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book (pp.
168-89). Although its character is not there described, it can be
determined. For in the _Inquisitio_ there are three references to
the 'breve abbatis de ely' (pp. 123-4), all three of which can be
identified in the above record (pp. 175-7). It is noteworthy that the
record in question is only complete in C, which confirms my view that
B and its offspring A were independent of C.
Though the word _Breve_ in Domesday Book normally means the king's
writ, there are passages which seem to have been overlooked, and in
which it bears another and very suggestive meaning. One of them is
found at the end of the Survey of Worcestershire and was foolishly
supposed by the compilers of the index volume (pp. 250, 315) to relate
to lands held by 'Eddeva' and entered immediately before it. The
passage is an independent note, running thus:
In ESCH Hund' jacent x. hidæ in Fecheham et iii. hidæ in
Holewei et scriptæ sunt in _brevi de Hereford_.
In DODINTRET Hund' jacent xiii. hidæ de Mertelai et v. hidæ de
Suchelei quæ hic placitant et geldant, et ad Hereford reddunt
firmam suam, et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178).
All four places are found on fo. 180_b_, 'Feccheham' and 'Haloede'
[_sic_][243] together (under 'Naisse' Hundred[244]) as paying a
joint ferm--'Merlie' (Martley) under 'Dodintret' Hundred and Suchelie
(Suckley), now in Herefordshire, as 'in Wirecestrescire' (cf. i. 172).
It is clear then that Domesday here uses 'breve' of a return, not of
a writ, and I venture to think the word may refer to the abbreviated
entries made in Domesday Book itself as distinct from those _in
extenso_ found in the original returns.[245]
This usage is found in both volumes. We read of land at Marham,
Norfolk, held by Hugh de Montfort; 'est mensurata in brevi Sanctæ
Adeldret' (ii. 238), where the reference is to the 'Terra Sanctæ
Adeldredræ' (ii. 212), and of Hurstington Hundred, Hunts, 'Villani
et sochemanni geldant secundum hidas in brevi scriptas' (i. 203). The
reference, in both cases, is to the text itself.
The former of these two phrases is repeated in the _Inquisitio
Eliensis_,[246] a fact of some importance if, as I venture to think,
it is there meaningless. The point is worth labouring. We see that
the phrase cannot have occurred in the original returns, where all
the entries relating to Marham would have come together. But if it
was only applicable to Domesday Book itself--where the fiefs were
separated--then must the I.E. have copied from Domesday Book.
This, indeed, is the point to which I am working. For Essex, Norfolk,
and Suffolk, I believe, the compilers of the _Inquisitio_ (1086-7)
must have worked from the second volume of Domesday as we have it now.
We see it _firstly_, in the order of the counties; _secondly_, in the
absence of the jurors' names; _thirdly_, in the system of entering the
lands. With a fourth and minute test I have dealt just above.
But to make this clearer, we must briefly analyse the return. The
Cambridgeshire portion extends from p. 101 to p. 120. It extracts
from the original returns, Hundred by Hundred, all that relates to
the Abbey of Ely. Following this is a note of its possessions in
the Borough of Cambridge[247] (pp. 120-1), and then summaries of the
Abbey's estates, in _dominium_ and _thainland_ and _socha_, in all
six counties, and of the lands held by Picot the Sheriff, Hardwin
d'Eschalers and Guy de Raimbercurt, to which it laid claim as its own
(pp. 121-4). Then we resume with Hertfordshire, the extracts from
the original returns (pp. 124, 125). Both the Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire portions close with the words, 'De toto quod habemus',
etc., referring to the totals worked out by the Abbey from the entries
in the original returns.
With Essex, we enter at once on a different system. This portion,
which extends from p. 125 to p. 130 (line 8), is arranged not by
Hundreds but by fiefs. It first gives the lands actually held by the
Abbey (as coming first in Domesday), and then those of which laymen
were in possession. To the latter section are prefixed the words: 'Has
terras calumpniatur abbas de ely secundum breve regis'. From Essex we
pass to Norfolk, the entries for which, commencing on p. 130 with
the words 'In Teodforda', end on p. 141 at 'Rogerus filius Rainardi'.
These again are divided into two portions, namely, the lands credited
to the Abbey in Domesday (pp. 130-6), and those which it claimed but
which Domesday enters under other owners (pp. 137-41). Between the two
comes the total value of the former portion and a list of the Norfolk
churches held by the Abbey. Last of the Eastern counties is Suffolk,
which begins on p. 141 at 'In Tedeuuartstreu hund.', and ends on p.
166. This also is in two portions, but the order seems to be reversed,
the alleged aggressions on the Abbey's lands coming first and its
uncontested possessions last. The latter portion begins on p. 153,
where the B text inserts the word 'Sudfulc'.
The following parallel passages are of interest as showing how closely
the I.E. followed D.B. even when recording a judicial decision.
_D.B._ _I.E._
In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv.
liberi homines I car. terræ ex lib. homines I car. terre ex
quibus habuit sca. Al. commend. quibus habuit S. Ædel. sacam et
et socam T.R.E. Tunc vi. car. socam et commend. T.R.E. Tunc
modo ii., et iii. acre prati, vi. car. modo ii., et iii. acre
et val. xx. sol. prati, et val. xx.
Rogerus bigot[us] tenet de abbate, sol. R. bigot tenet de Abbate
quia abbas eam derationavit super quia Abbas eam dirationavit
eum coram episcopo de sancto super eum coram episcopo
Laudo, sed prius tamen tenebat de constantiensi. Sed prius
rege (ii. 383). tamen tenuit de rege (p. 157).
The one variation, the Bishop's style, has a curious parallel in
Domesday Book (i. 165), where under the rubric 'Terra Episcopi
Constantiensis' we read 'Episcopus de Sancto Laudo tenet', etc.
We may take it then that the compilers of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_
worked for Cambridge and Herts from the original returns, but, for
the eastern counties, from the second volume of Domesday. What are the
corollaries of this conclusion? They used, for some reason or other,
the second volume of Domesday, but not the first--if, indeed, it then
existed. Speaking for myself, I have always felt not a little uneasy
as to the accepted date for the completion of Domesday Book.[248] Mr
Eyton went so far as to write:
Imperial orders have gone forth that the coming Codex, the
Domesday that is to outlive centuries, is to be completed
before Easter (April 5th, in that year [1086]), when King
William himself expects to receive it in his Court and Palace
of Winchester (_Notes on Domesday_, 15).
And he explicitly stated that:
On any hypothesis as to the time taken by the different
processes which resulted in Domesday Book, the whole, that
is the survey, the transcription, and the codification, were
completed in less than eight months, and three of the eight
were winter months. No such miracle of clerkly and executive
capacity has been worked in England since.[249]
But was it worked then? All that the chronicle says of the King is
that the '_gewrita_ wæran gebroht to him', a phrase which does not
imply more than the original returns themselves.
Of course, the chief authority quoted is the colophon to the second
volume:
Anno millesimo octogesimo sexto ab incarnatione Domini
vicesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ipsa descriptio non
solum per hos tres comitatus sed etiam per alios.
It seems to have been somewhat hastily concluded that because the
Survey ('Descriptio Angliæ') took place in 1086, Domesday Book (which
styles itself _Liber de Wintonia_), was completed in that year. The
phrase 'per hos tres comitatus' proves, surely, that 'descriptio'
refers to the Survey, not to the book.[250]
I have never seen any attempt at a real explanation of the great
difference both in scope and in excellence between the two volumes,
or indeed any reason given why the Eastern counties should have had
a volume to themselves. For a full appreciation of the contrast
presented by the two volumes, the originals ought to be examined. Such
differences as that the leaves of one are half as large again as those
of other, and that the former is drawn up in double, but the latter in
single column, dwarf the comparatively minor contrasts of material
and of handwriting. So, too, the fullness of the details in the second
volume may obscure the fact of its workmanship being greatly inferior
to that of the first. Of its blunders I need only give one startling
instance. The opening words of the Suffolk Survey, written in bold
lettering, are 'Terra Regis de Regione' (281_b_). I have no hesitation
in saying that the last words should be 'de _Regno_'. Indeed, the
second formula is found on 289_b_, as 'Terra Regis de Regno', while on
119_b_ under 'Terra Regis', we read 'hoc manerium fuit de regno'. So
also in the Exon Domesday 'Terra Regis' figures as 'Dominicatus regis
ad regnum pertinens'.[251] The muddled order of the tenants-in-chief
for Norfolk and for Suffolk--where laymen precede the church[252]--is
another proof of inferiority, but only minute investigation could show
the hurry or ignorance of the scribes.
Now, all this might, I think, be explained if we took the so-called
second volume to be really a first attempt at the codification of the
returns. Its unsatisfactory character must have demonstrated the need
for a better system, which, indeed, its unwieldy proportions must have
rendered imperative. So drastic and so successful, on this hypothesis,
was the reform, that while these three counties had needed a volume
of 450 folios, the rest of England that was surveyed--some thirty
counties--was compressed into a single volume of 382 folios, and on
a system which rendered consultation easier and more rapid. In every
respect the first volume is a wonderful improvement on the second, but
the authorities may have shrunk from ordering the latter to have been
compiled _de novo_, when the work, though unsatisfactory, had once
been done.
This, it must of course be remembered, is all hypothesis, a hypothesis
suggested by the facts. If it were proved that at the time when the
Ely return was made, the 'second' volume had been compiled, and the
'first' had not, I should have established my case. But it might be
urged that the 'first' volume did exist at the time, and that the
Ely scribes used the returns instead, because they contained fuller
information. To this I reply, so far as the details of the estates are
concerned, that neither the terms of the writ nor the heading of the
_Inquisitio_ involved the inclusion of such details as Domesday
Book omitted. If the scribes inserted them, it must have been merely
because they inserted everything they found in the records from which
they copied. It might still be urged that they went to the returns for
the names of the _juratores_; but why, if so, did they not do so for
the three eastern counties? It certainly seems to me to be the most
satisfactory explanation that the materials supplied for compiling
this return, as being the recognized official records, were the
so-called 'second' volume of Domesday, and (for the rest) the original
returns.
XIX. FIRST MENTION OF DOMESDAY BOOK
No one nowadays should require to be told that the pseudo-Ingulf's
dealings with Domesday are devoid of all authority. Some, however, may
still believe in the tale found in that 'Continuatio' of his chronicle
which is fathered on Peter of Blois. It is there that Ellis found
(putting Ingulf aside) the only case of an appeal to its witness
before the reign of John.[253]
With the 'Continuatio' I shall deal below,[254] but I would observe,
while on the subject, that the 'pseudo-Ingulf' (charters and all)
was, I believe, largely concocted by the help of hints gathered from
Domesday Book.
The absence of any authoritative mention, in its early days, of our
great record gives a special importance to an entry in the _Chronicle
of Abingdon_ (ii. 115-6), where we read that Abbot Faritius was
impleaded by certain men:
Sed is abbas in castello Wincestre coram episcopis
Rogero Saresberiensi, et Roberto Lincolniensi, et Ricardo
Londoniensi, et multis regis baronibus, ratiocinando ostendit
declamationem eorum injustam esse. Quare, justiciarorum regis
judicio obtinuit ut illud manerium, etc. ... sed quia rex tunc
in Normanniâ erat, regina, quæ tunc præsens erat, taliter hoc
sigillo suo confirmavit.
Then follows the Queen's writ, announcing the decision of the plea
held in the royal 'Curia', together with the names of the 'barons'
present. These names enable us to determine a certain limit for the
date of the plea. 'Thurstinus Capellamus', for instance, implies that
it was previous to his obtaining the See of York in 1114, while the
presence of Richard, Bishop of London, places it subsequent to July
26, 1108. It must, therefore, have been held during the King's absence
between July 1108 and the end of May 1109; or in his later absence
from August 1111 to the summer of 1113.
The action of the Queen in presiding over this _placitum_ illustrates
a recognized practice, of which we have an instance in Domesday
itself (i. 238_b_), where it is stated that Bishop Wulfstan,
'terram deplacitasse coram regina Mathilde in presentia iiii^{or.}
vicecomitatuum'. The Queen's description of the _Curia Regis_ as
'curia domini mei et mea' should be compared with the phrase employed
by the Queen of Henry II, who, similarly acting in her husband's
absence, speaks of the Great Justiciar as 'Justicia Regis et mea'.
But the essential portion of the passage before us is this:
Sciatis quod Faritius abbas de Abendona in curia domini mei et
mea, apud Wintoniam in thesauro ... _per Librum de Thesauro_,
diratiocinavit quod, etc.
The court was held 'in castello Wincestre', says the narrative, 'apud
Wintoniam in thesauro', says the record. Both are right, for the Royal
Treasury was in Winchester Castle.[255]
But what was the 'Liber de Thesauro'? I contend that it was Domesday
Book, and can have been nothing else. For, passing now to the
_Dialogus de Scaccario_ (_circa_ 1177), we there read in reply to an
inquiry as to the nature of Domesday Book (which 'in thesauro servatur
et inde non recedit'): '_liber ille_ de quo quæris sigilli regii comes
est individuus _in thesauro_' (I. XV.). The connection of the Book
with the Treasury is brought out strongly in the _Dialogus_, and leads
to the presumption, as Mr Hall perceived, that the Treasury being
originally at Winchester, the Book was there also--as indeed we see
it was under Henry I.[256] On the date of its removal to Westminster,
there has been much discussion between my friend Mr Hall and
myself.[257] Mr Hall relies mainly on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_, and
on the inferences he draws from it, for the early removal of Domesday
to Westminster, and the establishment there of the royal Treasury.
For myself, I claim for the Winchester Treasury greater importance
and continuity than he is willing to admit. The leading records, of
course, were stored there as well as treasure. We find William
Rufus speaking of 'meis brevibus ... qui sunt in thesauro mea
Wyntoniæ';[258] and we read that, on his father's death, 'pergens apud
Wincestre thesaurum patris sui ... divisit: erant autem in thesauro
illo lx. m[ille] libræ argenti excepto auro et gemmis et vasis et
palliis.'[259] Heming's Cartulary describes the Domesday returns
as stored 'in thesauro regali', and Henry of Huntingdon states that
'inter thesauros reposita usque hodie servantur'.[260] Now, as the
Treasury was in Winchester Castle at the time of the above suit, and
as it had been in 1100[261] and 1087, so it was still at the accession
of Stephen in 1135, and at the triumph of Matilda in 1141. This is
absolutely certain from the Chronicles, nor do they ever mention
any other Treasury. Moreover, the contents of this Treasury in
1135--'erant et vasa tam aurea quam argentea'--correspond with those
described by the _Dialogus_ forty years later: 'vasa diversi generis
aurea et argentea'. Lastly, there is a piece of evidence which has not
yet been adduced, namely, that in his _Expugnatio Hibernica_ (1188),
Giraldus, speaking of that ring and letters which John of Salisbury
declared had been brought by him from the Pope, and were 'still stored
in the Royal Treasury', writes of
Annulum aureum in investituræ signum ... qui statim simul cum
privilegio _in archivis Wintoniae_ repositus fuerat.
Giraldus certainly must have looked on the Royal Treasury at
Winchester as the only recognized repository for all such objects as
these.
Mr Hall, indeed, has gradually modified his original position
that 'Ingulphus saw the Domesday register, as it now exists, at
Westminster', and that it was sent there for good from Winchester
'early in the reign of Henry I',[262] but he still places the
establishment of 'the' Treasury at Westminster, in my opinion, too
early. It is the gradual decay of Winchester as the capital and seat
of administration that makes it difficult to say positively when or
how the national records, Domesday Books among them, were transferred
to Westminster. We have seen at least that, in its early days, the
'Liber de Wintonia', as it styles itself, had its home within the
walls of the Royal castle of Winchester; and I cannot but think,
now as at first, that it began by visiting Westminster for Exchequer
sessions only.[263]
In any case, we have seen its witness appealed to on a far earlier
occasion than had hitherto been known. In my paper on 'An Early
Reference to Domesday',[264] I quoted an even earlier mention of the
'Descriptio Angliæ', but here again the reference seems to make rather
to the Domesday Survey itself than to Domesday Book, the 'Liber de
Thesauro'.
As an appendix to this paper, I give the pedigree of the Domesday MSS.
according to the views I have expressed.[265]
Original Returns
________________________|_________________________
| | | |
Domesday Domesday 'Inquisitio 'Inquisitio[266]
Book, vol. II Book, vol. I Eliensis', Comitatus
| _quoad_ Camb. Cantabrigiensis'
| and Herts (Tib. A. VI.)
| |
| |
'Inquisitio ______|________
Eliensis', | |
_quoad_ Essex, C text B text
Norfolk, Suffolk |
______|______ A text
| | (printed by
C text B text Ellis)
|
A text
(printed by
Ellis)
[Footnote 1: _English Commonwealth_, II, ccccxliv.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 3: _Domesday Book_, p. 42.]
[Footnote 4: _Athenæum_, 1885, I, 472, 566-7; _Domesday Book_,
1887, p. 44.]
[Footnote 5: _Domesday Studies_ (1891), II, 488.]
[Footnote 6: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis._ Cura N.
E. S. A. Hamilton, 1876.]
[Footnote 7: _Notes on Domesday_ (1877), reprinted 1880, p.
15.]
[Footnote 8: The italics are his own, _Domesday Book_, p. 42.
Cf. _Domesday Studies_, II, 486-7.]
[Footnote 9: It is not even _proved_ that the I.C.C. is copied
from the original returns themselves. There is the possibility
of a MS. between the two. See _Addenda_.]
[Footnote 10: These extracts are _extended_ and _punctuated_
to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed
within square brackets.]
[Footnote 11: Curiously enough, the cases in which the I.C.C.
does really supplement the Domesday version, that is, in the
names of the holders T.R.E. and of the under-tenants T.R.W.,
were left unnoticed by Mr Hamilton.]
[Footnote 12: The references to pages are to those of Mr
Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets
are the passages omitted.]
[Footnote 13: In this instance the omission is so gross that
it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnote
that his MS. 'confounds two separate entries'. It would,
however, be more correct to say that the MS. here omits a
portion of each. It is easy to see how the scribe erroneously
'ran on' from the first portion of one entry to the second
portion of another. This entry has a further value, for while
D.B. convicts the I.C.C. of omitting the words 'de Widone',
it is itself convicted, by collation, of omitting the entry,
'Terra est i. bovi'.]
[Footnote 14: The I.C.C. here wholly omits one of the three
holdings T.R.E. 'The three hides and a virgate', at which the
estate was assessed, were thus composed: (1) three virgates
held by Huscarl, (2) a hide and a virgate held by Eadgyth,
(3) a hide and a virgate held by Wulfwine, her man. It is this
last holding which is omitted. Note here that the Domesday
'hide' is composed as ever (_pace_ Mr Pell) of four virgates.]
[Footnote 15: 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.']
[Footnote 16: 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p.
50).]
[Footnote 17: 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'--p.
62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).]
[Footnote 18: 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).]
[Footnote 19: 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).]
[Footnote 20: 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit
æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).]
[Footnote 21: The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the
right one because confirmed by I.E.]
[Footnote 22: This, like the similar cases where D.B. is
given as the authority for the second reading, is proved
arithmetically (_vide infra_).]
[Footnote 23: The I.C.C. enumerates only _three_, which is the
number given in D.B.]
[Footnote 24: The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just
before, and are here wrongly repeated.]
[Footnote 25: 'Inter totum valent et valuerunt xii. den.' This
was _exclusive_ of the value of the Manor, which by the way
the I.C.C. gives as sixteen pounds and D.B. at six pounds, one
of those cases of discrepancy which have to be left in doubt,
though D.B. is probably right.]
[Footnote 26: Mr Eyton, in his _Notes on Domesday_ (p. 16),
called attention to this. 'The result,' he wrote (of the
Lincolnshire Domesday), 'as to arrangement, is in certain
instances just what might have been expected from some haste
of process.... The hurried clerks were perpetually overlooking
entries which they ought to have seen.']
[Footnote 27: Mr Eyton (_ibid._, pp. 17, 18), while ignoring
this valuable and most important feature, notes the employment
of a similar device in Domesday Book itself in the case of
Yorkshire. 'Against such errors and redundancies a very simple
but effective precaution seems to have been adopted by some
clerk or clerks employed on the Yorkshire notes. Before
transcription was commenced an index was made of the loose
notes of that county. This index gave the contents of each
Wapentac or Liberty in abstract under the appropriate title;
then the measure in carucates and bovates of each item of
estate; and lastly (interlined) some hint or indication to
whose Honour or fief each item belonged. This most clerkly
device will have saved the subsequent transcribers much
trouble of roll-searching and a world of confusion in their
actual work.']
[Footnote 28: 'Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in
grantebrigga.']
[Footnote 29: To say that the sokeman 'non potuerunt recedere
_sed_ soca remanebat abbati', is nonsense, because if they
were not able 'recedere', the question of 'soca' could not
arise. The formula 'sed soca', etc., is only used in cases
where there _was_ a right 'recedere'.]
[Footnote 30: In this case the 'n[on]' has been added by
interlineation.]
[Footnote 31: The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly
expressed, 'alias' being, seemingly, put for 'illas'.]
[Footnote 32: This error arose thus: The original return
(_see_ I.C.C.) ran: 'De his v. hidis' (i.e. in 'Campes') tenet
Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam.' The Domesday scribe
read this hurriedly as implying that Norman's half hide was
part of Aubrey's estate here (two and a half hides), whereas
it was reckoned and entered as a _separate_ estate.]
[Footnote 33: Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which
agree with each other.]
[Footnote 34: _Notes on Domesday_, p. 16.]
[Footnote 35: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 227-363, 561-619.]
[Footnote 36: 'Domesday Measures of Land' (_Archæological
Review_, September 1889; iv, 130).]
[Footnote 37: _Domesday Studies_, 188, 354.]
[Footnote 38: 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See _Addenda_.]
[Footnote 39: Compare the equivalent tenure recognized in
William of Poitier's charter to Bayonne: 'Le _voisin_ qui
voulait abandonner la cité sans esprit de retour avait le
droit de vendre librement tout ce qu'il possédait maisons,
prairies, vergers, moulins.']
[Footnote 40: We have three separate statements (of which more
anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's
lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-7 of Mr Hamilton's
book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin,
all but one or two can be identified as the subject of
duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in
'Melrede', though not mentioned in this list, is also entered
in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de
Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of
those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in
duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance
of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a
virgate (D.B., i, 199, _b_, 2, gives it erroneously as half
a hide, but D.B., i, 190, _a_, 1, rightly as half a virgate),
which Picot, as sheriff had regained for the king against the
'invading' Aubrey.]