Folio

i. 200 (a) 1. ii. hidæ

i. 200 (6) 2.

"In dominio ii. hidæ et dim." for "In dominio et dim. virg." 33

"tenet Radulf de Picot iii. virg.," for "tenet Radulf de Picot i. virg."

Page

67

80

74

84

i. 196 (b) 2. "tenet Robertus vii. hidas et ii. virg. et dim.," for tenet Robertus vii. hidas et i. virg. et dim."

i. 200 (a) 1. "vii. homines Algari comitis," for "vi. homines Algari comitis"

Comparing the omissions and errors, as a whole, in these two versions of the original returns, it may be said that the comparison is in favour of the Domesday Book text, although, from the process of its compilation, it was far the most exposed to error. No one who has not analysed and collated such texts for himself can realise the extreme difficulty of avoiding occasional error. The abbreviations and the formule employed in these surveys are so many pitfalls for the transcriber, and the use of Roman numerals is almost fatal to accuracy. The insertion or omission of an "x" or an "i" was probably the cause of half the errors of which the Domesday scribes were guilty. Remembering that they had, in Mr. Eyton's words,34 to perform "a task, not of mere manual labour and imitative accuracy, but a task requiring intellect-intellect, clear, well-balanced, apprehensive, comprehensive, and trained withal," we can really only wonder that they performed it so well as they did.

Still, the fact remains that on a few pages of Domesday we have been able to detect a considerable number of inaccuracies and omissions. The sacrosanct status of the Great Survey is thus gravely modified. I desire to lay stress on this fact, which is worthy of the labour it has cost to establish. For two important conclusions follow. Firstly, it is neither safe nor legitimate to make general

33 Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which agree with each other.

34 Notes on Domesday, p. 16.

The Need for Caution

21

inferences from a single entry in Domesday. All conclusions as to the interpretation of its formulæ should be based on data sufficiently numerous to exclude the influence of error. Secondly, if we find that a rule of interpretation can be established in an overwhelming majority of the cases examined, we are justified, conversely, in claiming that the apparent exceptions may be due to errors in the

text.

36

"938

The first of these conclusions has a special bearing on the theories propounded by Mr. Pell with so much ingenuity and learning.35 I have shown, in an essay criticising these theories, $6 that the case of Clifton, to which Mr. Pell attached so much importance,37 is nothing, in all probability, but one of Domesday's blunders, of which I gave, in that essay, other instances. So, too, in the case of his own Manor of Wilburton, Mr. Pell accepted without question the reading, "six ploughlands," as representing the "primary return," although that reading is only found in the most corrupt of the three versions of the Inquisitio Eliensis, while the two better versions (B and C texts) agree with Domesday Book, and with the abbreviated return at the end of the A text itself (Tib. A. VI. fo. 67, b, 1), in giving the ploughlands as seven. Really it is nothing but waste of time to argue from a reading which is only found in one out of five MSS., and that one the most corrupt.

This brings me to the existence and the value of duplicate entries in Domesday. Mr. Hamilton describes as "a curious reading" the words in the I.C.C., "sed soca remanebat Harlestone." Now it so happens that in this case we have five separate versions of the original entry: one in the I.C.C., one in the I.E., and three in Domesday Book. Here they are side by side:

:

$5 Domesday Studies, pp. 227-363, 561-619.

* "Domesday Measures of Land" (Archæological Review, Sept., 1889; iv. 130).

Domesday Studies, 188, 354

38 "vi. carucis ibi est terra." See Addenda.

The value of such collation as this ought to be self-evident. It is not only that we thus find four out of five MSS. to be against the reading "Harlestone" (which, indeed, to any one familiar with the survey is obviously a clerical error), but that here and elsewhere we are thus afforded what might almost be termed a bilingual inscription. We learn, for instance, that the Domesday scribe deemed it quite immaterial whether he wrote "recedere cum terra ejus," or "vendere" or "recedere sine licentia." Consequently, these phrases were all identical in meaning."

Considerable light is thrown by the I.C.C. on the origin of these little known duplicate entries in Domesday. In every instance of their occurrence within the limits of its province they are due to a conflict of title recorded in the original return. They appear further to be confined to the estates of two landowners, Picot, the sheriff, and Hardwin d'Eschalers, the titles of both being frequently contested by the injured Abbot of Ely. Why the third local offender, Guy de Raimbercurt, does not similarly appear, it is difficult to say. He was the smallest offender of the three, and Picot the worst; but it is Hardwin's name which occurs

39 Compare the equivalent tenure recognised in William of Poitiers' charter to Bayonne :-"Le voisin qui voulait abandonner la cité sans esprit de retour avait le droit de vendre librement tout ce qu'il possédait maisons, prairies, vergers, moulins."

Duplicate Entries in Domesday

23

most frequently in these duplicate entries.40 The principle which guided the Domesday scribes cannot be certainly decided, for they duplicated entries in the original return which (according to the I.C.C.) varied greatly in their statements of tenure. Thus, to take the first three :

Here, whether the original return states Hardwin to hold (1) of the abbot, (2) of the king, or (3) of neither, the scribes, in each of the three cases, enter the estates (4) under the Abbot's land, as held of the Abbot, (B) under Hardwin's land, as held in capite. And it is singular that in all these three cases the entry of the estate under the Abbot's land is the fuller of the two.42

"We have three separate statements (of which more anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-177 of Mr. Hamilton's book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin, all but one or two can be identified as the subject of duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in "Melrede," though not mentioned in this list, is also entered in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a virgate (D.B., i. 199, b, 2, gives it erroneously as half a hide, but D.B., i. 190, a, 1, rightly as half a virgate), which Picot, as sheriff, had regained for the king against the "invading" Aubrey.

"The I.E. adds "sub abbate ely" in each case, but is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.

42 This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for instance, the entry

On the whole it would appear that the Domesday scribes did not consistently carry out a system of duplicate entry, though, on the other hand, these entries were by no means due to mere clerical inadvertence, but were prompted by a doubt as to the title, which led to the precaution of entering them under the names of both the claimants.

But the chief point of interest in these same entries is that they give us, when we add the versions of the I.C.C. and the I.E., four parallel texts. At some of the results of their collation we will now glance.

These extracts illustrate the use of the terms dare, vendere, recedere, etc. They are supplemented by those given below:

under Hardwin's land is the fuller. It is noteworthy also that in this case the later entry (i. 198, b, 1) is referred to ("Hæc terra appreciata est cum terra Hardwini") in the earlier one (i. 191, a, 2).