"tenet pic' vicecomes quendam ortum de rege ii. hide." for "tenet pic' vicecomes de rege ii. hidas " 24 15 100 (a) I. 100 (#) 2. Folio 97 (b) 2. Errors in the Inq. Com. Cant. 'unam hidam," for "dimidiam hidam " (D.B.) Page 42 50 . 50 100 (b) 2. IOI (a) 2. "vii. sochemanni," for "iii. soch[emanni]” ”. 52 54 101 (b) 2. "ii. boves," for "ii. bord(arii)" 104 (b) 1. "iiii. hidas et i. virgam," for "iii. hidas et i. virgam bis "Rahamnes," for "Kahannes" "Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano iii. cottarios," 111 (a) 2. 110 (a) 1. liii. carrucis est ibi terra," for "iiii. car' est ibi "ely tenuit ii. h(idas), for "ely tenuit i. h(idam)" (I.E.). Besides these, Ralf "de bans" is often entered as Ralf "de scannis." Again, we find such blunders as this: I.C.C. Hugo de portu tenet sneileuuelle. Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. et modo facit de feudo episcopi baiocensis (p. 3). Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub abbate de eli. Et in morte ita quod non potuit dare neque separare ab ecclesia extra dominicam firmam monachorum T.R.E. (p. 63). D.B. Ipse Hugo tenet de feudo episcopi baiocensis snellewelle. Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat] semper. Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate. Non poterat separare ab æcclesia extra firmam monachorum T.R.E. nec in die mortis ejus. "The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the right one because confirmed by I.E. 22 This, like the similar cases where D.B. is given as the authority for the second reading, is proved arithmetically (vide infra). The I.C.C. enumerates only three, which is the number given in D. B. 24 The words "quendam ortum" had occurred just before, and are here wrongly repeated. Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimi Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. hidas et dimidiam virgam de ely T.R.E. (p. 65). diam virgatam] de soca S. Edeldride de Ely. In all these three cases the italicised words are misplaced, and in all three the explanation is the same, the scribe having first omitted them, and then inserted them later out of place. Having now criticised the text of the I.C.C., and shown that it presents no small traces of unintelligent clerkship, if not of actual ignorance of the terms and formula of Domesday, I turn to the text of Domesday Book, to test it by comparison with that of the I.C.C. II. CRITICISM OF THE DOMESDAY TEXT Among the omissions are, on i. 195 (b) 1, “Item et reddebat viii. den. vel aueram si rex in vicecomitatu venit" (p. 5). At Kirtling (p. 11), "et yta. caruca potest fieri [in dominio]" is omitted (i. 202 a). So is (p. 25) a potential demesne plough of John fitz Waleran (i. 201 b). The Countess Judith's sokemen at Carlton (pp. 20, 21) have their values omitted (i. 202, a, 2). "Habuerunt dimidiam hidam, et," is omitted (p. 28) in the entry of two sokemen of Godwine (201, b, 2). On i. 196 (a) 1, "Terra est i. bovi" is wanting (p. 79). More important, however, are the omissions of whole entries. These are by no means difficult to account for, the process of extracting from the original returns, the various entries relating to each particular fief being one which was almost certain to result in such omissions.28 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. 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." Omissions in Domesday 17 Moreover, two entries were occasionally thrown into one, a dangerous plan for the clerks themselves, and one which may sometimes lead us to think that an entry is omitted when it is duly to be found under another head. Lastly, the compilers of Domesday Book had no such invaluable check for their work as was afforded in the original by entering first the assessment of the whole township, and then that of each of its component Manors separately. But of this more below." The only wonder is that the omissions are, after all, so few. Perhaps even of these some may be only apparent. Hardwin's half-hide in Burwell (p. 6) is wanting; so is Aubrey's half-virgate in Badburgham, according to Mr. Hamilton (p. 36), but the oversight is his. A virgate held in Trumpington by a burgess of Cambridge (p. 51) would seem to be not forthcoming, but its position was somewhat anomalous. Guy de Rembercurt held a hide and a virgate in Haslingefield (p. 73), though we cannot find it in Domesday; and in Witewelle (Outwell) two hides which were held by Robert, a tenant of Hardwin (p. 81), are similarly omitted, according to Mr. Hamilton but will be found under " Wateuuelle" (198 b, 2). There are cases in which the I.C.C. corrects D.B., cases in which D.B. corrects the I.C.C., and cases in which the I.C.C. corrects itself. There are also several cases of discrepancy between the two, in which we cannot posi Mr. Eyton (ibid., pp. 17, 18), while ignoring this valuable and most mportant 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." 29 "Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in grantebrigga." B. I. с tively pronounce which, if either, is right. A singular instance of both being wrong is found in the case of Soham. The assessment of this township was actually eleven hides, its four component holdings being severally assessed at nine and a half hides less six acres, half a hide, one hide, and six acres. The I.C.C. at first gives the total assessment as eleven hides and a half, while D.B. erroneously assesses the first of the four holdings at six hides and forty acres in one place, and nine hides and a half in the other, both figures being wrong. A most remarkable case of yet another kind is found in Scelford (Shelford). Here the entry in I.C.C. agrees exactly with the duplicate entries found in D.B. Yet they both make nonsense.29 But on turning to the Inquisitio Eliensis we obtain the correct version. As this is a very important and probably unique instance, the entries are here given in parallel columns : Inq. Eliensis. i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras quas tenuerunt vi. sochemanni de socha abbatis ley, de quibus non potuerunt dare nec recedere nisi iiies. virgas absque ejus licentia. Et si alias vendidissent tres virgas, predictus abbas semper socham habuit T.R.E. Inq. Com. Cant. D.B. 80 D.B. i. 198 (a) 2. Tenuerunt vii. (sic) sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis de ely. Non po tuerunt recedere cum terra, sed soca remanebat æcclesiæ Ely. 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." "In this case the "n[on]” has been added by interlineation. Errors in Domesday 19 Here the Inquisitio Eliensis version shows us that the estate had two divisions held by different tenures. Thrce virgates the sokemen were not free to sell; the other three they might sell, but if they did, "predictus abbas semper socham habuit." " The two divisions of the estate are confused in the other versions. But all three of these correspond so exactly that we are driven to assign the error to the original returns themselves. In that case the compiler (or compilers) of the I.E. will have corrected the original return from his own knowledge of the facts, which knowledge, I shall show, he certainly possessed. This brings us to the errors of Domesday. For comparison's sake, I here tabulate them like those of the I.C.C.: Folio i. 189 (b) 2. "mancipium," for "inuuardum" (I.C.C.) i. 195 (b) 1. "Terra est ii. carucis et ibi est," for " Terra est i. carucæ et ibi est" 66 i. 199 (b) 1. xxx. acras," for "xx. acras" I.C.C.) i. 196 (a) 2. "iiii. villani Page 4 15 habent iii. carucas," for habent iiii. carucas " • 21 i. 199 (b) 1. "De hac terra tenet," for "adhuc in eadem villa tenet" (?) 32 i. 198 (a) 1. "tenet Harduuinus i. virgatam" for "tenet Hardeuuinus dim. virgatam " (I.C..C) i. 194 (b) 1. “ii. hidas et i. virg. terræ," for "ii. hidas et una virg. et dimidiam" (I.C.C.) 64 65 67 i. 199 (b) 2. "xvi. sochemanni," for "xv. sochemanni" "tenet Durand i. 198 (b) 1. "tenet Durand i. hidam et dim. virg." 3. The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly expressed, "alias" being, seemingly, put for "illas.” "De This error arose thus: The original return (see I.C.C.) ran: his v. hidis" (i.e. in "Campes ") tenet Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam." The Domesday scribe read this hurriedly as implying tha 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. |