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. in point.

Here are some instances

I.E.

In Erningetone fuit quidam sochemannus, Edwardus, et habuit i. hidam. Homo abbatis Eli fuit in obitu regis Edwardi, sed terram suam vendere potuit; sed soca semper S. Ædeldrede remansit (p. 110).

In Ouro fuit quidam sochemannus nomine Standardus, qui dimidiam hidam habuit sub abbate ely. Non potuit ire ab eo nec separare ab ecclesia et valet viginti solidos. Et modo habet Hardwinus. Et alii ii. sochemanni iii. virgatas habuerunt. Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine soca cui voluerunt et modo tenet Hardwinus. Et valet xv. solidos (p. 112).

Rectius "I. hidam."

Special Information in “Inq. Eliensis" 131

Et xus [sochemannus] homo abbatis de ely fuit. i. hidam et dim. habuit. Et omnes isti recedere potuerunt; et vendere terram suam cui voluerunt (p. 95).

Quidam

sochemannus sub abbate eli i. hidam et dim. tenuit T.R.E. potuit dare sine licentiam (sic) eius, sine socha. Et modo Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub 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.

V. istorum (sochemannorum) homines abbatis de Ely fuerunt. Et unus istorum i. virg. et dim. habuit. Non potuit recedere. Et alii iiii. habuerunt v. hidas et i. virg. Potuerunt recedere sine soca (p. 95).

I.E.

fuerunt quinque sochemani T.R.E. unus istorum sugga nomine habuit una virg. et dim. sub abbate ely. Non potuit recedere. Et valet x. sol. Et alii iiiior 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.

In Tudenham Geroldus i. lib' hominem . . . comend' Saxæ de abbate T.R.E. xii. ac' pro man', iii. bord' Semp' i. car. ii. ac' prati . . val. iii. sol. ; et in eadem ii. liberi homines comend' i. sancte E. et alter comend' heroldi x. ac', et dim. car. et val. ii. sol. Hoc tenet Geroldus de R. [de Raimes] (ii. 4236).

I.E.

In Tudenhami. li. homo Elfric' commend' S. Ædel' xii. ac' et iii. b. et i. c. et iii. ac' prati et val. viginti iii. s.

In eadem i. 1. ho' hedric' 986 commend' S. Ædel' viii. ac' et val' xx. den. Hoc tenet R. de Raimes (p. 151).

One knows not, truly, which blunder is the worst, that of the Domesday scribe, who has converted a probable "S. æ," 287 ie., 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:

236 C text.

237 Commend' "S. æ." is found on 386b, ad pedem.

The "

Inq. Eliensis" ordered by Writ

133

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, 288 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,289 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.

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

339 This is usually quoted "inquirunt," which is the wrong reading.

quot hide, quot carruce240 in dominio, quot hominum, quot villani, quot cotarii, quot servi, quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni, quantum silve, quantum prati, quot 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 Eduardi, 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

210 The right reading.

241 Quantum in C text.

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