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 the 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 fulness 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" (281b). I have no hesitation in saying that the last words should be "de Regno." Indeed, the second formula is found on 289b, as "Terra Regis de Regno," while on 1196, under "Terra Regis," we read "hoc manerium fuit de regno." So also in the Exon Domesday "Terra Regis" figures as "Dominicatus regis ad regnum

250 The most erroneous date that has been suggested for Domesday is the year 1080. Ellis wrote, referring to Webb's "short account," that "the Red Book of the Exchequer seems to have been erroneously quoted as fixing the time of entrance upon it as 1080" (i. 3). Mr. Ewald,* following in his footsteps, has repeated his statement (under " Domesday Book"), in the Encyclopedia Britannica; and, lastly, Mr. de Gray Birch asserts on his authority that "this valuable manuscript" is not responsible for that date (Domesday Book, p. 71). All these writers are mistaken. The Dialogus de Scaccario, indeed, does not mention a year, but Swereford's famous Introduction, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, does give us, by an astounding blunder, the fourteenth year of the Conqueror (1079–1080) as the date of Domesday (see below, p. 264).

* Author of Our Public Records.

The Two Domesday Volumes

141

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 hypo-· thesis, 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, an 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

251 I am not sure that even "the pertin(ent) ad rege(m)" of the "first" volume (1006) is not a mistake for "regnum."

232 On fo. 17 is a curious deleted list of church fiefs in Essex, which has no business there.

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 recognised 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 now-a-days 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 "pseudoIngulf" (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

253 Introduction to Domesday, i. 354.

254 Vide infra, p. 188.

Domesday Book at Winchester

143

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 26th July, 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, IIII, to the summer of 1113.

The action of the Queen in presiding over this placitum illustrates a recognised practice, of which we have an instance in Domesday itself (i. 238b), where it is stated that Bishop Wulfstan, "terram deplacitasse coram regina Mathilde in presentia iiiior 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. Fór, passing now to the Dialogus de Scaccario (circ. 1177), we there read in reply to an enquiry 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 connexion of the

255 Henry, says Orderic, in 1100, "concito cursu ad arcem Cuentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur, festinavit."

We find William Rufus

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 1.250 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. 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." 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

256 This account of the Winchester placitum is taken from my second article on The Custody of Domesday Book" (Antiquary, xvi. 9–10). 257 Academy, 13 Nov., 1886; Domesday Studies, p. 537 note; and Mr. Hall's Antiquities of the Exchequer, chap. i.

258 Mon. Ang., iii. 86.

259 Hen. Hunt., 211; Richard of Hexham says of Henry I.'s charter of liberties that "in ærari suo apud Wintoniam [eam] conservari præcepit" (p. 142).

260 Domesday Studies, 546-7.

261 Supra, note 255.