Descent of Engaine Fief

155

King in capite. For, as our Leicestershire survey shows,16 the Domesday fief of Robert de Buci had passed to Basset, of whose heir, therefore, Engayne held, as his ancestor had held of Robert de Buci, in the days of William the Conqueror.

It is particularly instructive to follow out the Northamptonshire fief of William Engaine. In Domesday (i. 229) he is entered only as "Willelmus" holding 3 hides in Pytchley (Piteslea), and Laxton (Lastone), worth at that time, £3 10s. "Vitalis" Engaine was his heir in 1130, for the Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 82) records his discharge of a debt to the Crown "ut rehabeat terram suam de Laxetona." And this is confirmed by the survey of 1125 in the Liber Niger of Peterborough, where we read under "Pihtesle" (p. 162): “Et Vitalis reddit iii. solidos pro i. virga," this being the "i. virga" assigned to him in the list of Peterborough knights (ib., p. 169). The "Rotulus de Dominabus" (1185) shows us the "Piteslea " estate in the hands of Margaret Engaine, makes it worth £6, and mentions that her heir was Richard Engaine (p. 14). The "Testa de Nevill" (p. 37) enters Richard "de Angayne" as holding five carucates of land in "Pettesle" and "Laxeton" worth £6 a year. It tells us, further, that he held them by serjeanty" et est venator leporum, et facit "et servitium." From the nature of this return I assign it to the inquest of 1198, in which case it is of some value, as identifying five carucates under the new assessment with the 3 hides recorded in Domesday.17 Fulc de Lisures, on the other hand-the heir of the Richard Engaine of Domesday, returned himself in 1166, as the King's forester in fee, and attending the King's person, with his horn hanging from his neck.18

16 Infra, p. 212.

17 See my paper on "The great carucage of 1198" (Eng. Hist. Rev., iii. 501 et sq.).

18 "Et ego ipse custodio forestagium Regis de feodo meo; et debeo ire cum corpore Regis in servitio suo paratus equis et armis, cornu meo in collo meo pendente."-Lib. Rub., i. 333.

The association of Pytchley with hunting is carried back even further still. For Richard and William Engaine had for their predecessor in title, Elfwine the huntsman ("venator "), who owned their lands when King Edward sat upon the throne.

Among the lands deducted we observe in Spelho Hundred "fif and xx. hida byrigland." This represents the assessment in hides of the Borough of Northampton, and, so far as I know, is the only mention of that assessment to be found. In my paper on "Danegeld and the Finance of Domesday," I pointed out that Bridport and Malmesbury were assessed at five hides each, Dorchester, Wareham, and Hertford at ten hides, Worcester at fifteen, Bath and Shaftesbury at twenty, etc.19 Northampton (we now see) was assessed in the same manner, and Chester and Huntingdon at no less than fifty hides each. Thus they admirably illustrate assessment in terms of the five-hide unit. We find this primitive system obsolete in 1130, when a borough gave an "auxilium" where its county paid Danegeld. But our roll implies that, here at least, it was already obsolete in the early days of the Conquest; for the twenty-five hides of "byrigland" are, for the payment of "geld," deducted from the Hundred.

From the date I have assigned to this document (ante 1075), it may fairly claim to represent our earliest financial record. Its illustrative value for Danegeld and the Hundred, and consequently for Domesday Book, will be obvious to every student.

19 Domesday Studies, pp. 117-119.

Early Date of the List

157

THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH

THE

(Temp. HENRY I.)

HE interesting "Descriptio militum de Abbatia de Burgo" is found in the same MS. as the Northamptonshire Geld-roll.1 It was printed by Stapleton in the appendix to his Chronicon Petroburgense (pp. 168-175),* but no attempt was made to date it. The name of Eudo Dapifer proves that it cannot have been compiled later than 1120. On the other hand, it cannot well be earlier than 1100, for some of the Domesday tenants had been. succeeded by their sons-Robert (?) Marmion, for instance, by Roger, and Coleswegen by Picot-while the mention of "Gislebertus filius Ricardi," possibly the son of Richard of "Wodeford" (i. 2246), points in the same direction. As the majority of names, however, seem to be those of Domesday tenants, it is probable that the list is not later than the Lindsey survey itself, if, indeed, it is not earlier. The first entry it contains is a good specimen of its value:—

Asketillus de Sancto Medardo tenet de abbatia de Burch in Hamtonascira x. hidas et iii. partes i. virgæ, et in Lincolnescira iii. carrucatas et inde servit se vi. milite. Et de feudo hujus militis dedit rex Willelmus senior Eudoni Dapifero in Estona i. hidam et dimidiam et mandavit de Normannia in Angliam Episcopo Constantiarum et R. de Oilli per breves suos ut inde darent ei excambium ad valens in quocumque vellet de iii. vicinis comitatibus;

sed abbas noluit.

1 Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60.
Ed. Camden Society.

We duly find "Anschitillus" "Anschitillus" in Domesday, in Domesday, holding "Witheringham," Northants, and "Osgodeby," Linc., of the Abbot (i. 221b, 345b). In the same way we are enabled to identify the "Rogerius Infans" of our list with "Rogerius" who held "Pilchetone," according to Domesday (i. 221b), of the Abbot, "Ascelinus de Waltervilla" with the "Azelinus" of Domesday (ib.), "Gosfridus nepos Abbatis," with "Goisfridus" who held in 'Sudtorp' (ib.), and "Rogerius Malfed" with that "Rogerius" who held of the Abbot at Woodford (i. 222). "Rogerus," on the other hand, who held in Domesday two hides at Milton, Northants (i. 221b), and seven bovates at Cleatham, Linc. (i. 346), is represented in our list by the entry :

Turoldus de Meletona ii. hidas in Hamtonascira, et in Lindeseia vi. bovatas, et inde servit se altero milite (p. 171).

The chief lesson taught us here is the rashness of assuming the identity of tenants happening to bear the same name. For even among the few who are named as holding of the Abbot of Peterborough, we have found three Rogers quite distinct from one another.

The entries which follow are of value as absolute proofs of succession:

This second entry not only records a peculiarly interesting enfeoffment, but identifies 'Colsuan,' the Abbot's under

The List illustrates Domesday

.

159

an

tenant at Riseholme, with no less a person than the conqueror's "English favourite Coleswegen, Englishman who, by whatever means, contrived to hold up his head among the conquerors of England."

As sons, in such cases as these, have succeeded their fathers, it need not surprise us that our list comprises some names that are found in the Liber Niger survey of 1125.4 Vivian, whom, it tells us, Abbot Turold had enfeoffed at Oundle (p. 175) occurs there in that survey (p. 158), as does Robert d'Oilli at Cottingham (pp. 159-173).5 Vitalis ("Viel") Engaine had succeeded William (Engaine) at Pytchley both in our list and in the survey of 1125 (cf. ante, P. 155).

One of the most interesting and important points in this list of knights is the gleam of new light it throws on Hereward" the Wake." In it we read:

Hugo de Euremou iii. hidas in dominio et vii. bovatas in Lincolneshira, et servit pro ii. militibus.

Ansford iii. carucatas et servit pro dimidia hida (sic).

Now Hugh de Euremou is the name of the man who, according to the pseudo-Ingulf, married Hereward's daughter. Here we have proof of his real existence, and are enabled moreover to detect him, I claim, in that Hugh who, as a "miles" of the Abbot, held three hides at "Edintone" [Etton, Northants] in Domesday (i. 222). Mr. Freeman, speaking of the vacancy at Bayeux in 1098, wrote:

William at once bestowed the staff on Turold, the brother of

3 Norman Conquest, iv. 219. We know aliunde that "Picot filius Colsuani" was the son of Colswegen of Lincoln. It would seem to be of this estate that we read in the "Clamores " :-" Abbas de Burg clamat iiii. bov. terræ in Risun terra Colsuani, et Wap' testatur quod T.R.E. jacuerunt in æcclesia Omnium Sanctorum in Lincolia."

4

Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60. Printed by Stapleton ut supra.

5 But possibly the Robert d'Oilli of our list may be the first Robert (who, as "Robertus" in Domesday, held Cranford of the Abbot), while the tenant of that name in 1125 may be the second Robert, entered in the Pipe Roll of 11 30, and living temp Stephen.