assigns to the mill the value of three shillings and eightpence, but the I.E. of two shillings and eightpence. Collation with Domesday Book confirms the latter. Turning now to the variants, we may express them more clearly thus:

de his x. hidis tenet = in eadem villa habet.

These prove that verbal accuracy was not aimed at by the transcribers. The same freedom from its trammels is seen in the transposition of the "mill" and "meadow" passages, and, indeed, in the highly abbreviated form of the I.E. entries (in which a single letter, mostly, does duty for a word), which shows that the original version must have been either extended in the I.C.C., or (more probably) abbreviated in the I.E.

We are now in a position to advance to the criticism of the text of the Inq. Com. Cant., and to inquire how far it can be trusted as a reproduction of the original returns. In other words, are its contents more or less trustworthy than those of Domesday Book?

It might, no doubt, be fairly presumed that a simple transcript of the original returns was less likely to contain error than such a compilation as Domesday Book, in which their contents were (1) re-arranged on a different system, (2) epitomised and partly omitted, (3) altered in wording. Mr. Hamilton, indeed, who was naturally tempted to make the most of his MS., appears to have jumped at this conclusion; for he speaks in his preface (p. xii.) of its "superior exactness," and gives us no hint of omissions or of blunders. There are, however, plenty of both, as will be seen from the lists below, which do not profess to be exhaustive.

The Ing. Com. Cant. Criticised

II

But we will first examine the instances adduced by Mr. Hamilton. Out of ten examples in proof of its value, five are cases in which "the want of precision in Domesday' leaves the identity of the tenant-in-chief "undefined." It is difficult to comment on these statements, because in all five cases the name is as carefully recorded in Domesday as in the I.C.C. Mr. Hamilton's error can only, it will be found, have arisen from comparing the I.C.C. not with Domesday Book, but with the extracts therefrom printed in his work, which, being torn from their place, do not, of course, contain the tenant's full name, which in Domesday itself is given at the head of the list from which they are taken. Moreover, as it happens, this test demonstrates not the inferiority, but (in one instance at least) the superiority of Domesday, the I.C.C. (fo. 97, col. 2) reading "Hanc terram tenuit comes alanus" (sic), where Domesday has (rightly) "Hanc terram tenuit Algar comes." The former must have wrongly extended the abbreviated original entry.11

Another of Mr. Hamilton's examples is this:

"Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesia" (Domesday) is abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton MS. But, on referring to the passage in question, we find that the Domesday passage: "Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ," has nothing to do with that "long account," but corresponds to the simple formula in the I.C.C., "Hanc terram tenuerunt monache de cet'ero T.R.E. et modo tenent." The example which follows it is this:

At pp. 38, 39 we see a curious alteration in the value of the land, which had risen from xv. lib. "quando recepit" and T.R.E. to xvii. lib. at the time the return was made, and dropped again to xvi. lib. in the Domesday Survey.

"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.

clerical error. harlestone in the

This strange comment implies the supposition that the I.C.C. records an earlier survey than Domesday Book, whereas, of course, they are derived from the same returns, so that the discrepancy of xvi. and xvii. is merely a One more instance, the "curious reading" I.C.C., is shown below to be merely an error in that MS. Such are eight of the examples adduced by Mr. Hamilton. The remaining two merely illustrate not the superior accuracy, but the greater elaboration of the I.C.C. It has been absolutely necessary to dispose of these examples, in order to show that a critical estimate of the value of the I.C.C. has yet to be made.

Taking the omissions in the MS. first, we find some really bad ones. On fo. 79A (2), collation with Domesday gives this result:

I.C.C. (p. 12).12

II. hidas et dimidiam et x.

acras tenuerunt. [...........

D.B. (I. 196A).

Tenuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam et X. acras. Nec isti potuerunt recedere absque licentia abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni, homines regis E., tenuerunt ii.

......]. Non potuerunt recedere hidas. Non potuerunt recedere

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

13 In this instance the omission is so gross that it attracted Mr. Hamil

Omissions in the Inq. Com. Cant.

13

Another instance of "running on " occurs on fol. 105A (1), where "xviii. cotarii” (p. 67) is proved by Domesday to stand for "xviii. [bordarii x.] cotarii." have this:

Again on fo. 79(B) 2 we

D.B. (I. 195 B I).

Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i. virgatam et Wluui homo ejus i hidam et i. virgatam. Socam ejus habuit Eddeua.

D.B. (I. 190A).

XV. villani et xv. bordarii cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi, et i. molinus de xvi. denariis et alii duo molini de xxxii. denariis. Pratum xvi. carucis.

The importance of such an omission as this lies in the proof of unintelligent clerkship and want of revision which so unmeaning an entry as "xv. xvi. carrucis" supplies.

Omissions of another character are not infrequent. On fo. 95B (1) an entire holding of a virgate (held by a sokeman of Earl Alan) is omitted (p. 34). Another sokeman of Earl Alan (p. 32) has his holding (virgate) omitted on the same folio (95A, 1), so is an entire holding of Hardwin's (p. 36) on fo. 96A, (2). A demesne plough ("i. caruca") of

ton'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."

"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.

Hugh de Port (p. 8) is omitted (78A, 1), and so are the ploughs ("et iiii. villanis ") of Aubrey's villeins (p. 9) a few lines lower down. On fo. 90A (1) the words "ibi est terra" are wanting (p. 15),15 and so are "non potuit" on fo. 100 (A) 1.16 The word "recedere" is left out on fo. 103в (2),17 and "soca" just before (103 (B) 1).18 "Odo" is similarly wanting on fo. 90A (1).19 The note also on the Abbot of Ely's sokeman at Lollesworth (p. 95), is wholly omitted (fo. 113, B, 2), though found both in Domesday Book and in the Inquisitio Eliensis.2

20

Turning now to the clerical blunders, we find an abundant crop. We may express them conveniently in tabular form:

Folio

76 (a) 2.

“Auenam lvii. nummos," for "Aueram (ve)l viii.

denarios" (D.B.)

76 (b) 1. "Hominis" for "ho(mo)"

77 (a) 2.

"In dominio et iii. villani," for

dominio et iii. villanis"

Page

2

3

7

7

Ibid. "Mille de anguillis dimidium de piscina," for "i. millen' et dimidium anguill" (D.B.)

78 (6) 2.

66

"iiii. in dominio carucæ et iiii. hide in dominio,"
for "iiii. carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio".
"cuius honor erat," for "cuius ho(mo) erat "
iiiior. bobus," for "iiii. bord(arii)".

"xliii. car(ucis) ibi e(st) terra,” for "xl. acras terræ
"has v. h(idas) tenet," for "de his v. h(idis) tenet
"et pro iiii. virgis," for "et pro iii. virgis "

25

33

34

unam virgam minus,” for “dimi' virg' minus" (D.B.) 35

15 "i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca."

16 "Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere" (p. 50).

17 "Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt"-p. 62 (Mr. Hamilton

noticed this omission).

18 "Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue" (p. 61).

19 "Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano" (p. 15).

20❝Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ " "sine socha" (I.E.).

(D.B.);