By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Feudal England — Historical Studies On The Eleventh And Twelfth Centuries
Author: Round, J.H.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Feudal England — Historical Studies On The Eleventh And Twelfth Centuries" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

public domain works at McMaster University's Archive for
the History of Economic Thought.)






_Second impression 1909_

_Third impression 1909_


The present work is the outcome of a wish expressed to me from more
than one quarter that I would reprint in a collected form, for the
convenience of historical students, some more results of my researches
in the history of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But to these I
have added, especially on Domesday, so much which has not yet seen the
light, that the greater portion of the work is new, while the rest
has been in part re-written. The object I have set before myself
throughout is either to add to or correct our existing knowledge of
facts. And for this I have gone in the main to records, whether in
manuscript or in print. It is my hope that the papers in this volume
may further illustrate the value of such evidence as supplementing
and checking the chroniclers for what is still, in many respects, an
obscure period of our history.

As a foreign scholar has felicitously observed:

    Je lis avec plaisir le chroniqueur qui nous raconte les
    événements de son époque. Les détails anecdotiques, les traits
    piquants dont son [oe]uvre est parsémée font mes délices. Mais
    comment saurai-je s'il dit la vérité si les pages qu'il me
    présente ne sont pas un roman de pure imagination? Dans les
    chartes, au contraire, tout est authentique, certain, précis,
    indubitable. Leur témoignage est contradictoirement établi,
    sous le contrôle de la partie adverse, avec l'approbation et
    la reconaissance de l'autorité souveraine, en présence d'une
    imposante assemblée de notables qui apposent leur signature.
    C'est la plus pure de toutes les sources où il soit possible
    de puiser un renseignement historique.[1]

An instance in point will be found in the paper on 'Richard the
First's change of seal'.

A collective title for a series of studies covering the period
1050-1200, is not by any means easy to find. But dealing as they do so
largely with the origins of 'Feudal England', I have ventured to give
them this title, which may serve, I hope, to emphasize my point that
the feudal element introduced at the Conquest had a greater influence
on our national institutions than recent historians admit.[2] Even
Domesday Book has its place in the study of feudalism, rearranging, as
it does, the Hundred and the Vill under Fiefs and 'Manors'.

To those in search of new light on our early mediaeval history, I
commend the first portion of this work, as setting forth, for their
careful consideration, views as evolutionary on the Domesday hide and
the whole system of land assessment as on the actual introduction
of the feudal system into England. Although I have here brought into
conjunction my discovery that the assessment of knight-service was
based on a five-knights unit, irrespective of area or value, and my
theory that the original assessment of land was based on a five-hides
unit, not calculated on area or value, yet the two, one need hardly
add, are, of course, unconnected. The one was an Anglo-Saxon
system, and, as I maintain, of early date; the other was of Norman
introduction, and of independent origin. My theories were formed at
different times, as the result of wholly separate investigations. That
of the five-hides unit was arrived at several years ago, but was
kept back in the hope that I might light on some really satisfactory
explanation of the phenomena presented. The solution I now propound
can only be deemed tentative. I would hope, however, that the theories
I advance may stimulate others to approach the subject, and, above
all, that they may indicate to local students, in the future, the
lines on which they should work and the absolute need of their

Perhaps the most important conclusion to which my researches point
is that Domesday reveals the existence of two separate systems in
England, co-extensive with two nationalities, the original _five
hides_ of the 'Anglo-Saxon' in the south, and the later _six
carucates_ of the 'Danish' invaders in the north.[3]

No one, I may add, is better qualified to carry further these
inquiries than Prof Maitland, whose brilliant pen has illumined for us
the origins of English law. Himself engaged on the study of Domesday,
he kindly offered to withhold his conclusions until my work should
have appeared.[4]

Among the fresh points here discussed in connection with Domesday Book
will be found the composition of the juries by whom the returns were
made, the origin and true character of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, and
the marked difference of the two volumes compiled from the Domesday

Of the six early surveys dealt with in conjunction with Domesday, I
would call attention to that of Leicestershire as having, it would
seem, till now remained absolutely unknown. It has long been a wish of
mine to deal with these surveys,[5] not only as belonging to a period
for which we have no records, but also as illustrating Domesday Book.
In 'The Knights of Peterborough' will be found some facts relating
to Hereward 'the Wake', which seem to have eluded Mr Freeman's
investigations, and even those of Mr Tout.

In case it should suggest itself that these papers, and some in the
other portion of the work dwell at undue length on unimportant points,
I would observe that apart from the fact that even small points
acquire a relative importance from our scanty knowledge of the time,
there are cases in which their careful investigation may lead to
unforeseen results. At the last anniversary of the Royal Society, Lord
Kelvin quoted these words from his own presidential address in 1871:

    Accurate and minute measurement seems to the non-scientific
    imagination a less lofty and dignified work than looking for
    something new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of
    science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement
    and patient, long continued labour in the minute sifting of
    numerical results.

The same principle applies to the study of institutional history.
Whether we are dealing with military service, with the land, with
finance, or with the king's court, 'the minute sifting' of facts and
figures is the only sure method by which we can extend knowledge.

To those who know how few are the original authorities for the period,
and how diligently these have been explored and their information
exhausted, the wonder will be not so much that there is little, as
that there was anything at all yet left to discover.

       *       *       *       *       *

In a work dealing with the history of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, a writer must inevitably find himself at times dealing with
the same subjects as the late Professor Freeman. Without in any way
disparaging the genius of that eminent man, one may deem it a duty to
correct the errors into which he fell, and conscientiously to combat,
as an obstinate and mischievous superstition, the conviction of his
pre-eminent accuracy and authority on matters of fact. It would be far
pleasanter to dwell only on his merits; but when one finds that,
in spite of the proofs I have been producing for years, Mr Herbert
Fisher, representing the Oxford school of history, can still declare
Mr Freeman to have reached 'the highest standard of scholarly
exactitude',[6] it is evident that the works of the Regius Professor
are still surrounded by a false glamour, and that one must further
expose his grave liability to error. I cannot suppose that any
competent scholar who may carefully peruse this work will in future
venture to deny that, in spite of his many and his splendid gifts, Mr
Freeman was as liable as any of us to error, or that however laudable
his intentions, he was capable of precisely the same inaccuracy and
occasionally of the same confusion as he denounced so bitterly in

It is, indeed, my contention, as I have already explained,[7] that
to these denunciations of the errors of others is largely due the
conviction of Mr Freeman's supreme accuracy. The question raised may
seem to affect the whole method of history, for if, as has been said,
it is the argument of the scientific historian that we ought to prefer
accuracy of fact to charm of presentment and to literary style,
the proof that his method fails to save him from erring like any
'literary' historian strikes at the root of his whole contention.

Yet it is not the scientific method, but its prophet himself that was
at fault.

Although I am here only concerned with inaccuracy in matters of fact,
I would guard myself against the retort that, at least, Mr Freeman's
errors are of little consequence as compared with that obliquity of
vision which led Mr Froude, at all hazards, to vindicate Henry
the Eighth. Without insisting on an absolute parallel, I trace a
resemblance even here. Just as his bias against the Roman church led
Mr Froude to vindicate Henry in order to justify the breach with Rome,
so Mr Freeman's passion for democracy made him an advocate on
behalf of Harold, as 'one whose claim was not drawn only from the
winding-sheet of his fathers'. I have elsewhere maintained, as to
Harold's election 'by the free choice of a free people', that Mr
Freeman's undoubted perversion of the case at this 'the central point'
of his history, gravely impairs his narrative of the Conquest, because
its success, and even its undertaking, can actually be traced to that
election.[8] Unless we realize its disastrous effect on the situation
both at home and abroad, we cannot rightly understand the triumph of
the Duke's enterprise.

It had been my hope, in the present work, to have avoided acute
controversy, but the attitude adopted, unfortunately, by the late
Professor's champions has rendered that course impossible. One can
but rejoice that his accuracy should find strenuous defenders, as
it removes the reluctance one would otherwise feel in continuing to
criticize it now. A case is doubly proved when proved in the teeth of
opposition. But one expects that opposition to be fair, and the line
my opponents have taken throughout cannot, by any stretch of courtesy,
be so described. My difficulty, indeed, in dealing with their
arguments on the Battle of Hastings, is that they do not affect or
even touch my case. In spite of their persistent efforts to obscure a
plain issue, there is not, and there cannot be, any 'controversy' as
to Mr Freeman and the 'palisade'. For, while fully recognizing that
the _onus probandi_ lay on those who assert its existence, he failed,
on his own showing, to produce any proof of it whatever.[9] Mr Archer
has ended,[10] as he began,[11] by deliberately ignoring Mr Freeman's
words,[12] on which my case avowedly rests, and without suppressing
which he could not even enter the field. This, indeed, I have
explained so often, that I need not again have disposed of his
arguments had not Mr Gardiner, in the exercise of his editorial
discretion, allowed him to make certain statements,[13] and refused
me the right of exposing them. A typical example will be found on p.

It is not only demonstrable error that justifies critical treatment;
no less dangerous, if not more so, is that subtle commixture of
guess-work and fact, which leaves us in doubt as to what is proved and
what is merely hypothesis. In his lecture on 'The Nature of Historical
Evidence', the late Professor himself well brought out the point:

    Many people seem to think that a position is proved if it
    can not be disproved.... Very few see with Sir George
    Lewis--though Sir George Lewis perhaps carried his own
    doctrine a little too far--that in a great many cases we ought
    to be satisfied with a negative result, that we must often put
    up with knowing that a thing did not happen in a particular
    way, or did not happen at all, without being furnished with
    any counter-statement to put in the place of that which we

The question is whether a statement can be proved, not whether it can
be disproved. Cases in point will be found on pp. 291, 298, 331-3.

It may, in view of certain comments, be desirable, perhaps, to
explain that the study on the origin of knight-service appeared in Mr
Freeman's lifetime,[16] and that my open criticism of his work began
so far back as 1882. It will be seen, therefore, that I challenged its
accuracy when he was himself able to reply.

To those who may hold that in these studies excessive attention is
bestowed on Anglo-Norman genealogy, I commend the words, not of a
genealogist, but of the historian Kemble:

    It is indispensable to a clear view of the constitutional law
    and governmental institutions of this country, that we should
    not lose sight of the distribution of landed estates among
    the great families, and that the rise and fall of these houses
    should be carefully traced and steadily borne in mind....

    Amidst all the tumult and confusions of civil and foreign
    wars; throughout religious and political revolutions; from the
    days of Arminius to those of Harald; from the days of Harald
    to our own; the successions of the landowners and the
    relations arising out of these successions, are the running
    comment upon the events in our national history: they are at
    once the causes and the criteria of facts, and upon them has
    depended the development and settlement of principles, in laws
    which still survive, in institutions which we cling to with
    reverence, in feelings which make up the complex of our
    national character.[17]

The paper on 'Walter Tirel and his wife' may serve to show that in
this department there is still needed much labour before we can hope
for a perfect record of the great houses of the Conquest.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have to thank Mr Murray for his kind permission to make use of two
of the articles I have contributed to the _Quarterly Review_. Some
of the studies have previously appeared in the _English Historical
Review_, and these are now republished with Messrs Longmans' consent.
Lastly, I would take the opportunity afforded by this preface of
acknowledging the encouragement my researches have derived from the
approval not only of our supreme authority--I mean the Bishop of
Oxford--but also of that eminent scholar, Dr Liebermann, whose name
one is proud to associate with a work on mediaeval history.


[_Note_: I have not thought it needful to include in the index names
of persons or places only introduced incidentally in illustration of
arguments. The prefix 'Fitz', as in _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, has been
retained as a useful convention, whatever the actual name may have

    [Footnote 1: _Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes
    imprimés concernant l'histoire de la Belgique._ Par Alphonse
    Wauters, vol. i, p. xxxi.]

    [Footnote 2: See pp. 198, 208, 404-5.]

    [Footnote 3: See p. 430.]

    [Footnote 4: Prof Maitland informs me that since the
    appearance of his _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_, he has
    discovered the earlier occurrence of the word 'leet' (see p.

    [Footnote 5: See _Domesday Studies_.]

    [Footnote 6: _Fortnightly Review_, December 1894, pp. 804-5.]

    [Footnote 7: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892.]

    [Footnote 8: See _Quarterly Review_ as above. ]

    [Footnote 9: See pp. 263-9.]

    [Footnote 10: _English Historical Review_, July 1894.]

    [Footnote 11: _Contemporary Review_, March 1893, pp. 335-55.]

    [Footnote 12: _Norman Conquest_ (2nd Ed.), iii, 763-4.]

    [Footnote 13: _English Historical Review_, as above.]

    [Footnote 14: I have, therefore, been obliged to refer in some
    detail to these statements, while for those I have already
    disposed of I have given the references to the _Q.R._ and

    [Footnote 15: _Methods of Historical Study_, p. 141.]

    [Footnote 16: _English Historical Review_, July 1891-January 1892.]

    [Footnote 17: _The Names, Surnames, and Nicknames of the
    Anglo-Saxons._ Read at Winchester, September 11, 1845.]


  FOREWORD                                               _page_   7

  PREFACE                                                         9


  DOMESDAY BOOK                                                  17

  Nature of the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._, 19--Criticism
  of the Domesday text, 26--'Soca' and 'Theinland', 35--The
  Domesday 'caruca', 40--The Domesday hide, 41--The five-hide
  unit, 47--The six-carucate unit, 66--The Leicestershire
  'hida', 76--The Lancashire 'hida', 79--The Yorkshire unit,
  79--General conclusions, 82--The East Anglian 'Leet',
  88--The words _Solinum_ and _Solanda_, 91--The
  'Firma unius noctis', 96--'Wara', 100--The Domesday
  'juratores', 102--The _Inquisitio Eliensis_, 106--The
  Ely Return, 114--First mention of Domesday Book, 120

  THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE GELD-ROLL                                124

  THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH                                   131

  THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I)                            140

  THE LINDSEY SURVEY (1115-18)                                  149

  THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY (1124-29)                           160

  THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I-Hen. II)                  175

  ENGLAND                                                       182

  The _cartae_ of 1166, 189--The 'servitium debitum',
  197--Scutage, aid, and 'donum', 209--The total number of
  knights due, 228--The normal knight's fee, 231--The early
  evidence, 232--The Worcester Relief, 241


  NORMANS UNDER EDWARD THE CONFESSOR                            247

  MR FREEMAN AND THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS                         258

  The name of 'Senlac', 259--The palisade, 264--Mr Freeman's
  authorities for it, 265--My argument against it, 269--The
  shield-wall, 273--The disposition of the English, 277--The
  Norman advance, 284--The fosse disaster, 288--The great
  feigned flight, 292--The relief of Arques, 294--Summary,
  297--Conclusion, 302

  MASTER WACE                                                   306

  Wace's meaning, 306--Wace's authority, 309--Wace and his
  sources, 313

  NOTE ON THE PSEUDO-INGULF                                     321

  REGENBALD, PRIEST AND CHANCELLOR                              323

  THE CONQUEROR AT EXETER                                       330

  THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068)                   347

  ELY AND HER DESPOILERS (1072-75)                              349

  THE LORDS OF ARDRES                                           351


  WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE                                     355

  WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR                               364

  A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123)                                   366

  THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES                                    370

  THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147                       373

  THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163)                         377

  A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170)                    381

  THE FIRST KNOWN FINE (1175)                                   385

  THE MONTMORENCY IMPOSTURE                                     392

  THE OXFORD DEBATE ON FOREIGN SERVICE (1197)                   398

  RICHARD THE FIRST'S CHANGE OF SEAL (1198)                     406

  COMMUNAL HOUSE DEMOLITION                                     416

  THE CINQUE PORTS CHARTERS                                     424

  ADDENDA                                                       430

  INDEX                                                         434




The true key to the Domesday Survey, and to the system of land
assessment it records, is found in the _Inquisitio Comitatus
Cantabrigiensis_. Although the document so styled is one of cardinal
importance, it has, from accident, been known to few, and has
consequently never succeeded in obtaining the attention and scientific
treatment it deserved. The merit of its identification belongs to Mr
Philip Carteret Webb, who published in 1756 a paper originally read
before the Society of Antiquaries, entitled, _A Short Account of
Danegeld, with some further particulars relating to William the
Conqueror's Survey_. It is difficult to speak too highly of this
production, remembering the date at which it was composed. Many years
were yet to elapse before the printing of Domesday was even begun, and
historical evidences were largely inaccessible as compared with the
condition of things today. Yet the ability shown by Mr Webb in
this careful and conscientious piece of work is well seen in his
interesting discovery, which he announced in these words:

    In searching for the _Liber Eliensis_, I have had the good
    fortune to discover in the Cotton Library a MS. copy of the
    Inquisition of the jury, containing their survey for most of
    the hundreds in Cambridgeshire. This MS. is written on vellum
    in double columns and on both sides of the page. It is bound
    up with the _Liber Eliensis_, and begins at p. 76_a_ and ends
    at p. 113. It is written in a very fair but ancient character,
    not coeval with the Survey, but of about the time of Henry II.
    It was given by Mr Arthur Agard to Sir Robert Cotton, and is
    marked Tiberius A. VI 4. Your lordship and the Society will
    be of opinion that this is a discovery of importance, and what
    had escaped the observation of Sir H. Spelman, Mr Selden,
    and other antiquarians. A part of this valuable morsel of
    antiquity is already transcribed, and in a few weeks I hope to
    be able to communicate the whole of it to the Society (p. 26).

Mr Webb's discovery was known to Kelham, and duly referred to by him
in his _Domesday Book Illustrated_ (1788). It was also known to
Sir Francis Palgrave, strong in his acquaintance with manuscript
authorities, who alluded (1832) to the fact that 'fragments of the
original inquisitions have been preserved',[1] and described the MS.
Tib. A. VI, of which 'the first portion consists of the _Inquisitio
Eliensis_, extending, as above mentioned, into five counties; it
is followed by the inedited _Inquisitio_', etc.[2] It is, however,
undoubtedly ignored in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday Book_ (1833),
and 'even the indefatigable Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy', writes
Mr Birch,[3] 'has omitted all notice of this manuscript in his
_Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of Great
Britain and Ireland_, vol. ii. (1865)'. This, however, is not strictly
the case, for in his notice of the Domesday MSS. he observes in a

    The Cottonian MS. [Tib. A. VI] has also a second and unique
    portion of this survey, which was not printed in the edition
    published by the Record Commission in 1816. It commences 'in
    Grantebriggesira, in Staplehouhund', and ends imperfectly 'et
    vicecomiti regis v. auras'.

These words prove that Sir Thomas had inspected the MS., which duly
begins and ends with the words here given.

It is certain, however, that Mr Freeman, most ardent of Domesday
students, knew nothing of this precious evidence, and remained
therefore virtually unacquainted with the _modus operandi_ of the
Great Survey. The pages, we shall find, of the _Inquisitio_ afford
information that no one would have welcomed more eagerly than himself.
Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton,
when editing this document for the Royal Society of Literature (1876),
should have supposed that it had been overlooked till then, or that
he was 'the first to bring its importance to light' (p. vi). It
is, however, much to be regretted that Mr De Gray Birch should have
strenuously insisted that Webb (whose paper he actually names)
and Kelham 'appear to have been strangely ignorant of the true and
important nature of this manuscript',[4] and should have repeated this
assertion[5] after I had shown at the Domesday Commemoration (1886)
that the honour of the discovery really belonged to Mr P. C. Webb.
One may claim that Webb should have his due, while gladly expressing
gratitude to Mr Hamilton for his noble edition of the _Inquisitio_,
which has conferred on Domesday students an inestimable boon.[6]

The printing of the document in record type, the collation throughout
with Domesday Book, and the appending of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_,
edited from three different texts, represent an extraordinary amount
of minute and wearisome labour. The result is a volume as helpful as
it is indispensable to the scholar.

I propose in this paper to take up anew the subject, at the point
where Mr Hamilton has left it, to submit the text to scientific
criticism, to assign it its weight in the scale of authority, and to
explain its glossarial and its illustrative value for the construction
and the contents of Domesday Book.


Exact definition is needful at the outset in dealing with this
document. The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, which is entered
on fos. 76-113 of Tib. A. VI, must be carefully distinguished from the
_Inquisitio Eliensis_ on fos. 38-68. Mr Hamilton doubted whether any
one before him 'had distinguished between' the two, but this, we have
seen, was a mistake. The distinction however is all-important, the two
documents differing altogether in character. One would not think it
necessary to distinguish them also from the so-called _Liber Eliensis_
(which is not a survey at all) had not Mr Eyton inadvertently
stated that our document has been printed under the title of _Liber

The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_ (hereafter styled 'the
I.C.C.') deals with the county of Cambridge alone, but, in that
county, with the lands of all holders. The _Inquisitio Eliensis_
(which I propose to style 'the I.E.') deals with several counties,
but, in these counties, with the lands of the abbey alone. The latter
was duly printed, with Domesday Book, by the Record Commission; the
former remained in manuscript till printed by Mr Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton describes his record at the outset as 'the Original Return
made by the _Juratores_ of the county of Cambridge in obedience to the
Conqueror's mandate, from which the Exchequer Domesday for that
county was afterwards compiled by the King's secretaries', and as 'the
original source from which the Exchequer Domesday for that county was
derived'. Mr Birch here again repeats the words, insisting 'that we
have in this very precious Cottonian MS. _the original source_ from
which the Exchequer Domesday of Cambridgeshire was compiled'.[8]

Such a description is most unfortunate being not only inaccurate but
misleading. All that we are entitled to predicate of the document
is that it is _apparently a copy_ of the original returns from which
Domesday Book was compiled. For 'the original source' of both we must
look to the now missing returns of the jurors, the primary authority
from which Domesday Book and the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._ are
independently derived. This distinction is all-important, reducing, as
it does, the _Inquisitio_ from the rank of an 'original' to that of
a secondary authority on the same level with Domesday Book.[9] Mr
Hamilton, like Mr Webb before him, assigned the handwriting of the
_Inquisitio_ to about the close of the twelfth century. The copy of
the returns which it contains, therefore, was made about a century
later than the returns themselves.

The problem then that we have to solve is this: 'Is the I.C.C.
an actual transcript of these original returns, and if so, is it
faithful?' I will not, like Mr Hamilton, assume an affirmative, but
will attempt an impartial inquiry.

The two paths which we must follow in turn to arrive at a just
conclusion are (1) the construction of the I.C.C., (2) collation with
the _Inq. Eliensis_. For I hope to show that the latter record must
have been derived from the same source as the _Inq. Com. Cant._

Following the first of these paths, we note at once that while
_Domesday Book_ arranges the Manors according to fiefs, the _Inq. Com.
Cant._, on the contrary, arranges them by hundreds and townships. Its
system is regular and simple. For every hundred it first enumerates
the principal jurors who made the return, and then gives the return
itself, arranged according to townships (_villæ_). These townships
are thus the units of which the Manors they contain are merely the
component fractions. This is precisely what we should expect to find
in the original returns, but it only creates a presumption; it does
not afford a proof. For instance, it might be reasonably urged that
these copies may have omitted certain items in the returns, just as
Domesday Book omitted others.

To reply to this objection, we must turn to the second path; that is
to say, we must collate the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ with the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ I shall prove below that the latter cannot have been taken from
the former, which only covers a portion of its field, and that, on the
other hand, the former cannot have been taken from the latter, because
the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is accurate in places where the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ is in error. Consequently they must both have been derived
independently from some third document. This being so, if we should
find that their versions agree closely, we may fairly infer that
each is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the above 'third
document'. In other words, if neither version omits items which are
given in the other, we are entitled to assume that the copy is in each
case exhaustive, for two scribes working independently are not likely
to have systematically omitted the same items from the document before

What then was the 'third document' from which they both copied?
Obviously it was either the original returns of the Domesday jurors,
or a copy (exhaustive or not) of these returns. Now we cannot suppose
that two scribes, working, as I have said, independently, would both
have worked, not from the original returns themselves, but from a
copy, and that the same copy of these returns--a copy, moreover, of
the existence of which we have no evidence whatever. Moreover, in this
hypothetical copy, there would, we may safely assert, have been
some clerical errors. These would have duly re-appeared in both the
_Inquisitiones_, and collation with Domesday Book would enable us to
detect them. Yet in no single instance, though each of them contains
errors, have I found a clerical error common to both. We are thus
driven to the conclusion that in both these _Inquisitiones_ we have
copies of the actual returns made by the Domesday jurors.

One of the postulates in the above argument is that the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ and the _Inq. Eliensis_ 'agree closely' in their versions. Here
is an instance in illustration:[10]

  _I.C.C._                            _I.E._

  Meldeburna pro x. sol[idis] se      Meldeburne pro x. hidis se
  defendebat T.R.E. et modo pro       defendebat in tempore R. ÆD. et
  viii. Et de his x. hidis tenet      modo pro viii. Et de his x.
  predictus abbas ii. hidas et        hun[dredis] tenet abbas de eli
  I^{am.} virgam. v. carrucis est     ii. hidas et i. v[irgam].
  ibi terra. Una carruca et dimidia,  v. carucis ibi est terra. I.
  et una hida et una virga in         caruca et dimidia, et i. hida
  dominio, et dimidia carruca         et dimidia, in dominio, et
  potest fieri. iii. Carucæ           dimidia caruca potest fieri.
  villanis. vi. villani, ix.          iii. carucæ hominibus. vi.
  bordarii, iii. cotarii,             villani, ix. bordarii, iii.
  dimidium molendinum de iii.         cotarii. Pratum v. carucis.
  solidis, et viii. denariis.         i. molendinum de ii. solidis
  Pratum v. carrucis. Pastura ad      et viii. denariis. Pastura ad
  pecora villæ, ccc. oves iii.        pecora villæ. oves ccc., iii^{es.}
  minus, xxxiiii. porci. Inter        minus, et xxxiiii. porci. Inter
  totum valet c. sol., et quando      totum valet v. lib. Quando
  recepit totidem. T.R.E. vi. lib.    recepit v. lib. T.R.E. vi.
  Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in        lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit
  ecclesia sancte Ædel. de eli in     in ecclesia sancte Ædel'
  dominio.                            ely in dominio.

  Et de his x. hidis tenet Wido de    In eadem villa habet Guido de
  Reb' curt de rege, &ca., &ca.       Raimbecurt de rege, &ca., &ca.

These extracts are typical and instructive. They leave, in the first
place, no doubt upon the mind that both are versions of the same
original. This, which proves my postulate, will be shown below to
possess a further and important bearing. But while these versions
closely agree, we notice (1) independent blunders, (2) slight variants
in diction. As to blunders, we see that the I.C.C. has 'sol[idis]'
where the I.E. has the correct 'hidis', while, conversely, the I.E.
reads 'hun[dredis]' where the I.C.C. has, rightly, 'hidis'. Again the
I.C.C. allots to demesne an assessment of a hide and a virgate, but
I.E. a hide and a half (_i.e._ two virgates). Collation with Domesday
Book confirms the former version. Conversely, the I.C.C. 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:

        _I.C.C._               _I.E._

                 T.R.E.  =  in tempore R. ÆD.
        predictus abbas  =  abbas de eli.
               villanis  =  hominibus.
    dimidium molendinum  =  i. molendinum.
                c. sol.  =  v. lib.
                totidem  =  v. lib.
  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

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)
rearranged on a different system, (2) epitomized 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.

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 æcclesiæ' (Domesday) is
    abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus
    de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton

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.

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 clerical error. One more instance, the 'curious
reading' _Harlestone_ in the 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

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]                _D.B._ (I. 196A)

  II. hidas et dimidiam et x. acras   Tenuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
  tenuerunt. [.....................   et x. acras. Nec isti potuerunt
  .................................   recedere absque licentia
  .................................   abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni,
  .................................   homines regis E., tenuerunt
  ....]. Non potuerunt recedere       ii. hidas. Non potuerunt
  sine licentia.                      recedere absque licentia.

A similar 'run on' omission is found on fo. 109A (1):

  _I.C.C._ (p. 79)                    _D.B._ (I. 200A, 193A)

  Tenet Radulfus de bans de [Widone   Tenet Radulfus de Widone iii^{ciam.}
  de] rembercurt terciam partem       partem i. virgatæ [Terra est i.
  unius virge. I. bovi ibi est        bovi], et ibi est bos. Valet et
  terra, et est bos [..............   valuit ii. sol., et vendere potuit,
  .................................   et iiii^{tam.} partem unius Avere
  .................................   vicecomiti invenit.
  .................................   In Oreuuelle tenet eadem
  .................................   æcclesia iiii^{tam.} partem unius
  .......................] Valet et   virgatæ. Terra est dimidio bovi
  valuit semper xii. den.[13]         et valet xii. den.

Another instance of 'running on' occurs on fo. 105A (1), where 'xviii.
cotarii' (p. 67) is proved by Domesday to stand for 'xviii. [bordarii
x.] cotarii'. Again on fo. 79B (2) we have this:

  _I.C.C._ (p. 14)                    _D.B._ (I. 195B 1)

  Eadiua unam hidam habuit et         Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i.
  unam virgam [..................     virgatam et Wluui homo ejus
  ....] Socham huius habuit ædiua     i. hidam et i. virgatam. Socam
  T.R.E.[14]                          ejus habuit Eddeua.

So, too, on fo. 100B(1):

  _I.C.C._ (p. 52)                    _D.B._ (I. 190A)

  XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani,  XV. villani et xv. bordarii
  xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol'  cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi,
  de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol'  et i. molinus de xvi. denariis
  de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi.    et alii duo molini xxxii.
  carrucis.                           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
(1/4 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 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. 103B (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_.[20]

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

  Folio                                                              Page

   76 (_a_) 2. 'Auenam lvii. nummos,' _for_ 'Aueram (ve)l viii.
                   denarios' (D.B.)                                     2
   76 (_b_) 1. 'Hominis' _for_ 'ho(mo)'                                 3
   77 (_a_) 2. 'In dominio et iii. villani', _for_ 'una caruca in
                   dominio et iii. villanis'                            7
   _Ibid._     'Mille de anguillis dimidium de piscina', _for_
                   'i. millen' et dimidium anguill'' (D.B.)             7
   78 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. in dominio carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio',
                   _for_ 'iiii. carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio'       11
   79 (_a_) 1. 'cuius honor erat', _for_ 'cuius ho(mo) erat'           12
   79 (_b_) 2. 'iiii. bobus', _for_ 'iiii. bord(arii)'                 14
   91 (_b_) 2. 'valent iii.', _for_ 'valent iii. den.'                 21
   92 (_b_) 2. 'xliii. car(ucis) ibi e(st) terra', _for_ 'xl.
                   acras terræ'                                        25
   95 (_a_) 2. 'has v. h(idas) tenet', _for_ 'de his v. h(idis)
                   tenet'                                              33
   95 (_b_) 1. 'et pro iiii. virgis', _for_ 'et pro iii. virgis'       34
   95 (_b_) 2. 'unam virgam minus', _for_ 'dimi' virg' minus' (D.B.)   35
   96 (_b_) 1. 'dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'i. virg'' (D.B.)              38
   97 (_b_) 1. 'Clintona', _for_ 'Iclintona'                           41
   97 (_b_) 2. 'unam hidam', _for_ 'dimidiam hidam' (D.B.)             42
  100 (_a_) 1. 'Terra est vi. carucis', _for_ 'Terra est v.
                   carucis'[21]                                        50
  100 (_a_) 2. 'ii. h(idas) et dimidiam virgam', _for_ 'ii. hidas
                   et i. virgam et dimidiam'[22] (D.B.)                50
  100 (_b_) 2. 'vii. sochemanni', _for_ 'iii. soch[emanni]'[23]        52
  101 (_a_) 2. 'homities', _for_ 'homines'                             54
  101 (_b_) 2. 'tenet pic' vicecomes quendam ortum de rege ii. hide',
                   _for_ 'tenet pic' vicecomes de rege ii. hidas'[24]  55
  102 (_a_) 1. 'ii. boves', _for_ 'ii. bord(arii)'                     56
  104 (_b_) 1. 'iiii. hidas et i. virgam', _for_ 'iii. hidas et
                   i. virgam' (D.B.)                                   65
  105 (_b_) 2. _bis_ 'Rahamnes', _for_ 'Kahannes'                      60
  106 (_a_) 1. 'pro vi. hidis' (_bis_), _for_ 'pro vii. hidis'         70
  109 (_b_) 2. 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano iii. cottarios',
                   _for_ 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano. iii.
                   cottarii'                                           82
  110 (_a_) 1. 'ely tenuit ii. h(idas)', _for_ 'ely tenuit
                   i. h(idam)' (I.E.)                                  83
  110 (_b_) 1. 'viiii. h(idis)', _for_ 'viii. h(idis)'                 84
  111 (_a_) 2. 'liii. carrucis est ibi terra', _for_ 'iiii. car' est
                   ibi terra'                                          87

Besides these, Ralf 'de bans' is often entered as Ralf 'de scannis'.
Again, we find such blunders as this:

  _I.C.C._                            _D.B._

  Hugo de portu tenet sneileuuelle.   Ipse Hugo tenet _de feudo
  Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E.   episcopi baiocensis_ snellewelle.
  et modo facit _de feudo episcopi    Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat]
  baiocensis_ (p. 3).                 semper.

  Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub       Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate.
  abbate de eli. _Et in morte_ ita    Non poterat separare ab æcclesia
  quod non potuit dare neque          extra firmam monachorum T.R.E.
  separare ab ecclesia extra          _nec in die mortis ejus_.
  dominicam firmam monachorum
  T.R.E. (p. 63).

  Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii.       Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam
  hidas et dimidiam virgam _de ely_   vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride
  T.R.E. (p. 65).                     _de Ely_.

In all these three cases the italicized 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 criticized
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
_formulæ_ of Domesday, I turn to the text of Domesday Book, to test it
by comparison with that of the I.C.C.


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 v^{ta.} 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[25] (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.[26]

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.[27]
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.[28] 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 positively 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._   _Inq. Com. Cant._ _D.B._ i. 198      _D.B._ i. 198
                                       (_a_) 2.           (_a_) 2.

  i. hidam et dim.   Tenuerunt vii.    Tenuerunt vii.    Tenuerunt vii.
  et vi. acras quas  [_sic_]           [_sic_]           [_sic_]
  tenuerunt vi.      sochemanni        sochemanni        sochemanni
  sochemanni de      i. hidam et       i. hidam et       i. hidam et
  socha abbatis      dim. et vi.       dim. et vi.       dim. et vi.
  ely, de quibus     acras de soca     acras de soca     acras de soca
  non potuerunt      abbatis de ely.   abbatis. Non[30]  abbatis de ely.
  dare nec           Non potuerunt     potuerunt         Non potuerunt
  recedere nisi      recedere sed      recedere cum      recedere cum
  iii^{cs.} virgas   soca remanebat    terra, sed soca   terra, sed soca
  absque ejus        abbati.           remanebat         remanebat
  licentia.                            æcclesia de ely.  æcclesiæ Ely.
  Et si alias
  tres virgas,
  predictus abbas
  semper socham
  habuit T.R.E.

Here the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ version shows us that the estate had
two divisions held by different tenures. Three virgates the sokemen
were not free to sell; the other three they might sell, but if they
did, 'predictus abbas semper socham habuit'.[31] 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

This brings us to the _errors_ of Domesday. For comparison's sake, I
here tabulate them like those of the I.C.C.:

  Folio                                                             Page
  i. 189 (_b_) 2. 'mancipium', _for_ 'inuuardum' (I.C.C.)             4

  i. 195 (_b_) 1. 'Terra est ii. carucis et ibi est', _for_
                'Terra est i. carucæ et ibi est'                     15

  i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'xxx. acras', _for_ 'xx. acras' (I.C.C.)           15

  i. 196 (_a_) 2. 'iiii. villani ... habent iii. carucas',
                _for_ 'iiii. villani ... habent iiii. carucas'       21

  i. 199 (_b_) 1. 'De hac terra tenet', _for_ 'adhuc in eadem
                villa tenet' (?)[32]                                 29

  i. 198 (_a_) 1. 'tenet Harduuinus i. virgatam' _for_ 'tenet
                Hardeuuinus dim. virgatam' (I.C.C.)                  38

  i. 194 (_b_) 1. 'ii. hidas et i. virg. terræ', _for_ 'ii. hidas
                et una virg. et dimidiam' (I.C.C.)                   64

  i. 199 (_b_) 2. 'xvi. sochemanni', _for_ 'xv sochemanni'           65

  i. 198 (_b_) 1. 'tenet Durand ... i. hidam et i. virg.',
                _for_ 'tenet Durand i. hidam et dim. virg.'           67

  i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'In dominio ii. hidæ et dim', _for_ 'In
                dominio ii. hidæ et dim. virg.'[33]                  67

  i. 200 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Radulf de Picot iii. virg.', _for_
                'tenet Radulf de Picot i. virg.'                     80

  i. 196 (_b_) 2. 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et ii. virg. et
                dim.', _for_ 'tenet Robertus vii. hidas et
                i. virg. et dim.'                                    74

  i. 200 (_a_) 1. 'vii. homines Algari comitis', _for_ 'vi.
                homines Algari comitis'                              84

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 realize the extreme
difficulty of avoiding occasional error. The abbreviations and the
_formulæ_ 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 inferences from a
single entry in Domesday. All conclusions as to the interpretation
of its _formulae_ 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.

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 criticizing these theories,[36] 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',[38] 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:

  _I.C.C._     _I.E._         _D.B._       _D.B._      _D.B._
  (p. 46)      (p. 106)       (I. 200,     (_ibid._,   (I. 191,
                              _a_, 2)      in margin)  _a_, 2)

  Et potuit    Potuit         Recedere     Vendere     Potuit
  recedere     recedere       cum terra    potuit,     recedere sine
  quo voluit   cum terra sua  sua potuit,  sed soca    licentia ejus,
  sed soca     absque ejus    sed soca     Abbati      sed soca
  remanebat    licentia,      remansit     remansit.   remansit
  Harlestone.  sed semper     æcclesiæ.                Abbati.
               socha ejus
               in ecclesia
               sancte Ædel'
               ut hund

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.[39]

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 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:

  _I.C.C._                             _D.B._

  fo. 79 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus  {I. 190 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
  descalariis'.[41]                  {       _sub abbate_'.
                                     {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

  fo. 90 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus  {I. 190 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus
  _de abbate_'.                      {       de Escalers _de abbate_'.
                                     {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

  fo. 92 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus  {I. 199 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus
  _de rege_'.                        {       _de abbate_'.
                                     {I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.

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 (_A_) 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]

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

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

  _I.C.C._           _I.E._            _D.B._           _D.B._
  (fo. 92,           (p. 107)          (I. 190,         (I. 199,
  _b_, 2)                              _b_, 2)          _a_, 2)

  Hanc terram        Hanc terram       Hanc terram      Hanc terram
  tenuerunt iii.     tenuerunt iii.    tenuerunt iii.   tenuerunt iii.
  sochemanni         sochemanni        sochemanni       sochemanni.
  homines            sub predicto      homines          _Vendere_
  abbatis de ely.    abbate ely.       abbatis de ely.  non potuerunt.
  Non potuerunt      Non potuerunt     Non potuerunt
  _recedere absque   _vendere terram   _dare nec
  licentia ejus_.    suam sine         vendere absque
                     eius licentia_.   ejus licentia
                                       terram suam_.

  _I.C.C._           _I.E._            _D.B._           _D.B._
  (fo. 79,           (p. 102)          (I. 190,         (I. 199,
  _b_, 1)                              _b_, 2)          _a_, 2)

  iiii. sochemanni   Hanc terram       Hanc terram      Hanc terram
  tenuerunt hanc     tenuerunt iiii.   tenuerunt iiii.  tenuerunt iiii.
  terram T.R.E. Et   sochemanni        sochemanni,      sochemanni
  non potuerunt      T.R.E. de         nec potuerunt    abbatis de ely.
  _recedere sine     abbate ely.       _recedere sine   Non potuerunt
  licentia           Non potuerunt     licentia         _vendere_.
  abbatis de ely_.   _recedere vel     abbatis_.
                     vendere sine
                     abbatis ely_.

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

  _I.C.C._               _D.B._                _I.E._

  (76, _a_, 1)           (I. 196, _b_, 1)
  Potuit dare sine       Terram suam tamen
  licentia domini sui    dare et vendere
  terram suam.           potuit.

  (76, _b_, 2)           (I. 199, _a_, 2)      (p. 101)
  Absque eius licentia   Sine ejus licentia    Potuerunt dare vel
  dare terram suam       poterant recedere     vendere terram suam.
  potuerunt, sed socham  et terram suam dare   Saca remansit abbati.
  eorum habuit           vel vendere, sed
  archiepiscopus.        soca remansit

  (76, _b_, 2)           (I. 196, _b_, 1)
  Potuit dare cui        Potuit absque[43]
  voluit.                ejus licentia

  (77, _b_, 2)           (I. 195, _b_, 1)
  Potuerunt recedere     Potuerunt recedere
  cum terra ad quem      sine licentia
  dominum voluerunt.     eorum.

  (78, _a_, 1)           (I. 190, _b_, 1)
  Potuerunt recedere     Dare et vendere
  cum terra sua absque   potuerunt.
  licentia domini sui.

  (90, _a_, 2)           (I. 190, _b_, 2)\     (p. 102)
  Non potuerunt          Non potuerunt   |     Non potuerunt recedere
  recedere sine          recedere sine   |     vel vendere absque
  licentia abbatis.      ejus licentia.   |    eius licentia.
                         (I. 200, _a_, 2) |
                         Non potuerunt   |
                         vendere sine    |
                         ejus licentia.  /

  (105, _a_, 2)          (I. 200, _a_, 1)      (p. 109)
  Potuerunt dare et      Terras suas vendere   Potuerunt dare vel
  vendere sine soca.     potuerunt. Soca de    vendere cui voluerunt,
                         viii. sochemannis     sed saca eorum remansit
                         remansit in abbatia   eidem abbati.
                         de ely.

  (113, _b_, 1)          (201, _a_, 1)         (p. 112)
  Potuerunt recedere     Terram suam vendere   Potuerunt dare preter
  sine soca.             potuerunt. Soca       licentiam abbatis
                         vero remansit         et sine soca.

No one can glance at these passages without perceiving that _dare_,
_vendere_, and _recedere_ are all interchangeably used, and that
even any two of them (whether they have the conjunction 'et' or the
disjunction 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would
be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point.
Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque')
'ejus licentia' is immaterial, it being understood where not
expressed. So too with the words 'cui voluit'. In short, like the
translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday
scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and
paraphrase.[44] Our own conceptions of the sacredness of a text and of
the need for verbal accuracy were evidently foreign to their minds.

Glancing for a moment at another county, we have in the Survey of
Leicestershire a remarkable instance of a whole fief being entered
twice over. It is that of Robert Hostiarius:

  Robertus hostiarius tenet de        Robertus filus W. hostiari,
  rege ii. car. terræ in Howes.       tenet de rege in Howes ii.
  Terra est iii. carucis. In          cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car.
  dominio est i. caruca et iii.       in dominio et iii. serv[os] et
  servi, et viii. villani cum         viii. villani cum i. bordario
  i. bordario habent ii. car....      habentes ii. car....

  Idem [Turstinus] tenet de R.        Idem Turstinus tenet de Roberto
  iiij. car. terræ in                 in Clachestone iiii. car. terræ
  Clachestone. Terra est ii.          et Tetbald[us] ii. car. terræ.
  caruca. Has habent ibi iii.         Ibi est in dominio i. caruca et
  sochemanni cum ii. villanis         iii. sochemanni et v. villani
  et ii. bordariis. Ibi viii.         et iiii. [_sic_] bordarii cum
  acræ prati. Valuit et valet         iii. carucis et i. servo. Ibi
  x. solidos.                         xiii. acræ prati. Valuit et
                                      valet totum xx. solidos. Has
  Tetbald[us] tenet de Roberto        terras tenuerunt T.R.E. Outi et
  ii. car. terræ in Clachestone.      Arnui cum saca et soca.
  In dominio est i. caruca cum
  i. servo et iii. villani cum
  i. bordario habent i. car.
  Ibi vi. acræ prati. Valuit et
  valet x. solidos.

Here the last two entries (both relating to Claxton) have been boldly
thrown into one in the second version, which also (though omitting
the number of ploughlands) gives additional information in the name of
Robert's father, and in those of his predecessors T.R.E. This is thus
an excellent illustration of the liberty allowed themselves by the
compilers of Domesday.

An instance on a smaller scale is found in the Survey of
Cambridgeshire, where we read on opposite pages:

  In Witelesfeld hund'.         In Witelesf' h'd.
  In histetone jacet Wara       In histetune jac' Wara
  de i. hida et dimidia de      de hida et dimidia de
  M. Cestreforde et est in      Cestres' man. et est
  Exsesse appreciata, hanc      appreciata in Exexe.
  terram tenuit Algarus         Algar comes tenuit
  comes (i. 189 _b_).           (i. 190).

The second entry has been deleted as a duplicate, but it serves to
show us that the scribes, even when free from error, were no mere


The extracts I have given above establish beyond a doubt the existence
among the 'sochemanni' of two kinds of tenure. We have (1) those who
were free to part with (_vendere_) and leave (_recedere_) their land,
(2) those who were not, i.e. who could not do so without the abbot's
licence. This distinction is reproduced in two terms which I will now

In the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ and the documents connected with it there
is much mention of the 'thegnlands' of the Abbey. These lands are
specially distinguished from 'sokeland' (_terra de soca_). Both,
of course, are distinct from the 'dominium'. Thus in one of the
Conqueror's writs we read:

    Restituantur ecclesiæ terræ que in _dominio_ suo erant die
    obitus Æduardi.... Qui autem tenent _theinlandes_ que procul
    dubio debent teneri de ecclesia faciant concordiam cum abbate
    quam meliorem poterint,... Hoc quoque de tenentibus _socam_
    et _sacam_ fiat.[46]

Now this distinction between 'thegnland' and 'sokeland' will be found
to fit in exactly with the difference in tenure we have examined
above. Here is an instance from the 'breve abbatis' in the record of
Guy de Raimbercurt's aggressions:

    In melreda ii. hidas et dim. virg.

    In meldeburne ii. hidas et dim.[47] et dim. virg.

    Hoc est iiii. hidas et iii. virg. Ex his sunt i. virg. et dim.
    _thainlande_ et iiii. hidas et dim.[48] _de soca_.

On reference to the two Manors in question, there is, at first sight,
nothing in the I.C.C., the I.E., or Domesday to distinguish the
'thegnland' from the 'sokeland'. Of the first holding we read that it
had been held T.R.E. by 10 _sochemanni_ 'de soca S. Edelride'; of the
second, that it was held by 'viii. _sochemanni_ ... homines abbatis
de Ely'. But closer examination of the I.C.C. reveals, in the former
case, this distinction:

    De his ii. hidis et dimidia virga tenuit i. istorum _unam
    virgam et dimidiam_. Non potuit dare nec vendere absque
    licentia abbatis. Sed alii novem potuerunt recedere et vendere
    cui voluerunt.[49]

Here then we identify the virgate and a half of 'theinland'--though
held by a _sochemannus_--and this same distinction of tenure proves
to be the key throughout. Thus, for instance, in the same document
'Herchenger pistor' is recorded to have seized 'in Hardwic i. hidam
_thainlande_ et dim. hidam et vi. acras _de soca_' (p. 177). Reference
to the I.C.C., D.B., and the I.E. reveals that the former holding had
belonged to 'v. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely', and that 'isti
non potuerunt dare neque vendere alicui extra ecclesiam S. Edeldride
ely'.[50] But the latter holding had belonged to a _sochemannus_, of
whom it is said--'homo abbatis de ely fuit: potuit recedere, sed socam
ejus abbas habuit'.[51]

This enables us to understand the distinctions found in the summaries
appended to the Cambridgeshire portion of the I.E., and recorded in
the _Breve Abbatis_. Indeed they confirm the above distinction, for
the formula they apply to holders 'de soca abbatie ely' is: 'Illi qui
hanc terram tenuerunt de soca T.R.E. vendere potuerunt, sed saca et
soca et commendatio et servitium semper remanebat ecclesia de ely.'

These terms are valuable for their definition of rights. Over
the holder of land 'de soco' the lord had (1) 'saca et soca', (2)
'commendatio et (3) servitium'. If the land was thegnland then the
Abbot received 'omnem consuetudinem' as well.[52] We will first
deal with the latter class, those from whom the Abbot received
'consuetudo', and then those who held 'de soca'.

For contemporary (indeed, slightly earlier) evidence, we must turn
to the Ely _placitum_ of 1072-75.[53] The special value which this
_placitum_ possesses is found in its record of the services due from
_sochemanni_, and even from freemen. It thus helps to interpret the
bald figures of Domesday, to which it is actually anterior. The first
two instances it affords are these:

    In breuessan tenet isdem W. terram Elfrici supradicte
    consuetudinis. In brucge tenet ipse W. terram etfled ejusdem

The _consuetudo_ referred to was this:

    Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque preceperit
    prepositus monasterii ire et omnem rei emendationem
    persolvere. Et si quid de suo voluerint venundare, a preposito
    prius licentiam debent accipere.

The corresponding entries in the I.E. run thus:

    'In Brugge una libera femina commend' S. Ædel. de lxxx. ac.
    pro manerio.

    In Beuresham ten[uit] Ælfricus i. liber homo commed' S.
    Ædel.[54] lx. acras pro manerio' (p. 165).

Thus we obtain direct evidence of the services due from commended
freemen owing 'consuetudines'. Turning now to those of _sochemanni_,
we have this important passage:

    Willelmus de Warena tenet quadraginta quinque socamans in
    predicta felteuuella qui quotiens abbas preceperit in anno
    arabunt suam terram, colligent et purgabunt segetes,
    adducent et mittent in horrea, portabunt victum monachorum ad
    monasterium, et quotiens eorum equos voluerit, et ubicunque
    sibi placuerit, totiens habebit, et ubicunque forsfecerint
    abbas forsfacturam habebit, et de illis similiter qui in eorum
    terram forsfecerint.

    Item Willelmus de uuarenna tenet triginta tres socamans,
    istius consuetudinis in Nortuuolda.

    Item W. tenet quinque socamans istius modi in Muddaforda.

    Supradictus Walterus et cum eo Durandus, homines hugonis de
    monte forti, tenent xxvi. socamans supradicte consuetudinis in

Collating as before from the I.E. the relative entries, we find they
run thus:

    Felteuuelle ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxxiiii.
    homines cum omni consuetudine, et alii vii. erant liberi
    homines,[55] qui poterant vendere terras, sed soca et
    commendatio remansit S. Ædel. (p. 132).

    In felteuuella tenet W. de uuarenna xli. sochemannos ... Super
    hos omnes habebat S. Ædel. socam et commendationem et omnem
    consuetudinem. Illorum vii. liberi erant cum terris suis, sed
    soca et commendatio remanebat S. Ædel. (p. 139).

    IIII. sochemanni adjacent [_sic_] huic manerio [felteuuella]
    T.R.E. Et modo habet eos W. de Warenna (p. 138).

    Nortuualde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxx. sochemanni
    cum omni consuetudine. Et alii iiii. liberi homines qui
    poterant vendere terras, sed saca et commendatio remanebat S.
    Ædel. (p. 132).

    In Nortuualde S. Ædel. xxxiiii. sochem [annos] ... S.
    Ædel. [habuit] socam et commendationem et omnem consuetudinem
    de illis xxx. tantum; et iiii. erant liberi homines, socam et
    sacam et commendationem [super hos] S. Ædel. habebat[56] (p.

    Mundeforde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. septem
    sochemanni cum omni consuetudine (p. 132).

    In Mundeforde S. Ædel. vii. sochemannos cum omni consuetudine
    (p. 139).

    Huic manerio [Mareham] T.R.E. adjacebant viginti vii.
    sochemanni cum omni consuetudine, sed postquam Rex W. advenit,
    habuit eos hugo de Munfort preter unum (p. 130).

    [Terre hugo de Munford.] In mareham xxvi. sochemanni
    quos tenet [_sic_] S. Ædel. T.R.E.[57] ... hanc terram
    receperunt[58] pro escangio, et mensurata est in brevi S.
    Ædel. (p. 137).

Here then we identify these four cases: Feltwell, with its 41
_sochemanni_ (more accurately described as 34 s. and 7 _liberi
homines_) attached to one Manor and four to another--45 in all;
Northwold, with its 33 or 34;[59] Muddiford with 5 or 7;[60] and
Marham with its 26.

The three former Manors lay in the Hundred of Grimeshoe, the fourth
northwards, towards the Wash. Just to the south of the three Manors,
over the borders of Suffolk, lay Brandon, where Lisois de Moustiers
had usurped the rights of Ely over six _sochemanni_.

    In Lakincgeheda et in Brandona vi. sochemanni S. Ædel. ita
    quod non potuerunt vendere terras liberati liseie antecessori
    eudo[nis] dapif[eri] ... Post eum tenuit eos eudo et tenet cum
    saca et soca (p. 142).

The record of the _placitum_, drawn up during the tenure of Lisois,
shows us their limited services: 'Isti solummodo arabant et c'terent
[_sic_] messes ejusdem loci quotienscunque abbas præceperit.' The
difference between these services and the others we have seen recorded
is considerable.

Yet another group of sokemen on Suffolk Manors rendered these

    Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque ipse præceperit
    in anno arabunt suam terram, purgabunt et colligent segetes,
    portabunt victum monachorum ad monasterium, equos eorum in
    suis necessitatibus habebit [abbas], et ubicunque deliquerint
    emendationem habebit semper et de omnibus illis qui in terris
    eorum deliquerint.

This is practically the same definition as we had for the other group,
and suggests that it was of wide prevalence. A notable contrast is
afforded by the entry: 'In villa que vocatur Blot tenet ipse R. iiii.
homines qui tantum debent servire abbati cum propriis equis in omnibus
necessitatibus suis.'

We have now examined the _consuetudines_ due from those 'qui vendere
non potuerunt', and may turn to the rights exercised over the other
class. Excluding 'servitium' (which is usually omitted as subordinate
or comprised in the others), these are: (1) 'commendatio' (2) 'saca et
soca'. The distinction between the two meets us throughout the survey
of the eastern counties. A man might be 'commended' to one lord while
another held his _soca_. Thus we read of Eadwine, a 'man' of the Abbot
of Ely: 'Potuit dare absque eius licentia, sed socam comes Algarus
habuit.'[61] That is to say, he was 'commended to the Abbot of Ely',
but Earl Ælfgar had the right of 'sac and soc' over him.[62]

So too in the case of three 'liberi homines', commended to the Abbot
in Norfolk. He had no right over them, but such as commendation
conferred 'non habebat nisi commendationem', while their 'soca'
belonged to the King's Manor of Keninghall.[63] Conversely, the Abbot
of Ely had the 'soca' of a 'man' of Earl Waltheof,[64] and a 'man' of
John, Waleran's nephew.[65] 'Commendatio', of course, took precedence
as a right. Thus we read of the above three 'liberi homines'--'Hos
liberos homines tenet [tenuit] Ratfridus, postea W. de Scodies, et
abbas saisivit eos propter commendationem suam' (p. 133).

In the above extracts we saw 'liberi homines qui vendere poterant'
distinguished from 'Sochemanni', who could not sell. But we also saw
that the two classes were not always carefully distinguished. We find,
moreover, that the 'liberi homines' were themselves, sometimes, 'not
free to sell'. Thus 'tenuit anant unus liber homo sub S. Ædel. T.R.E.
pro manerio ii. carucatas terræ sed non potuit vendere' (p. 142). Some
light may be thrown on this by the case of the estate held by Godmund,
an abbot's brother:

    Totam terram quam tenebat Gudmundus in dominio, id est
    Nectuna, sic tenebat T.R.E. de S. Ædel. quod nullo modo
    poterat vendere, nec dare; sed post mortem suam debebat
    manerium redire in dominio ecclesiæ; quia tali pacto tenuit
    Gudmundus de Abbate (p. 144).

With this we may compare these entries:

    In Cloptuna ... Ædmundus commendatus S. Ædel. unam carucatam
    ... quam non potuit vendere nec dare (p. 150).

    In Brandestuna Ædmundus presbyter terram quam accepit
    cum femina sua dedit S. Ædel. concedente femina T.R.E. ea
    conventione quod non posset eam dare nec vendere. Similiter de
    Clopetona' (p. 152).

In these cases the holder had only a life interest. Exactly parallel
with the second is the case of 'Eadward', citizen of London, who gave
lands to St. Paul's, reserving a life interest for himself and his
wife--'et mortua illa Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit'.[66]

The above commendation of Edmund the priest ought to be compared with
that of 'unus liber homo S. Ædel. commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat
vendere terram suam sine licentia abbatis', and of 'i. liber homo S.
Ædel. Commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat vendere terram suam extra
ecclesiam (sed sacam et socam habuit stigandus in hersham)'.[67] Thus
both those who were free to sell and those who were not, might belong
to the class of 'liberi homines'. The essential distinction was one,
not of status, but of tenure.


Yet more definite and striking, however, is the information on
the Domesday _caruca_ afforded by collating D.B. with the I.C.C. I
referred at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) to the problem raised by
the _caruca_,[68] and recorded my belief that in _Domesday_ the word
must always mean a plough team of _eight_ oxen. The eight oxen, as Mr
Seebohm has shown, are the key to the whole system of the carucate and
the bovate. In Domesday, as I argued, the _formula_ employed involves
of necessity the conclusion that the _caruca_ was a fixed quantity.
Such entries, moreover, as 'terra i. bovi', 'terra ad iii. boves',
etc., can only be explained on the hypothesis that the relation of
the _bos_ to the _caruca_ was constant. But as the question is one
of undoubted perplexity, and as some, like Mr Pell, have strenuously
denied that the number of oxen in the Domesday _caruca_ was fixed,[69]
the evidence given below is as welcome as it is conclusive:

  _I.C.C._                             _D.B._

  fo.  96 (_a_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce   I.  202 (_a_) 2: 'Terra est.
                est ibi terra.'                    iiii. bobus.'
  fo. 103 (_a_) 2: 'iiii. bobus      I.  190 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est
                est terra ibi.'                    dimidiæ carucæ.'
  fo. 103 (_b_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce   I.  196 (_b_) 2: 'Terra est
                est ibi [terra].'                  iiii. bobus.'
  fo. 112 (_b_) 1: 'iiii. bobus      I.  201 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est
                est ibi terra.'                    dimidiæ caruce.'
  fo. 112 (_b_) 2: 'iiii. bobus      I.  202 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est
                est ibi terra.                     iiii. bobus, et
                Et ibi sunt. Pratum                ibi sunt, et
                dimidiae caruce.'                  pratum ipsis bobus.'

It is absolutely certain from these entries that the scribes must
have deemed it quite immaterial whether they wrote 'dimidia caruca'
or 'iiii. boves'; as immaterial as it would be to us whether we
wrote 'half a sovereign' or 'ten shillings'. It is, consequently, as
absolutely certain that the Domesday _caruca_ was composed of eight
oxen as that our own sovereign is composed of twenty shillings. And
from this conclusion there is no escape.[70]

Another point in connection with the _caruca_ on which the I.C.C.
gives us the light we need is this:

  _I.C.C._                            _D.B._

  fo. 102 (_a_) 2: 'ii. carrucis      I. 200 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est iii.
  ibi est terra. Non sunt carruce     carucis. Sed non sunt ibi nisi
  nisi sex boves.'                    boves.

Here the Domesday text is utterly misleading as it stands. But the
I.C.C., by supplying the omitted 'sex', gives us at once the right


Similar to its evidence on the Domesday 'plough' is that which the
I.C.C. affords as to the hide and virgate. In my criticism of Mr
Pell's learned paper, I strenuously opposed his view that the _hida_
of Domesday was composed of a variable number of virgates, and I
insisted on the fact that the Domesday 'virgate' was essentially
and always the _quarter_ of the geldable 'hide'.[71] The following
parallel passages will amply prove the fact:

  _I.C.C._                          _D.B._

  fo. 102 (_a_) 1: i. hidam et      i. hidam et iii. virgatas terræ.--
  dimidiam et unam virgam.          i. 194 (_a_) 2.
  fo. 102 (_a_) 1: dimidiam         ii. virg' et dimidiam--i. 194
  hidam et dimidiam virg'.          (_a_) 2.
  fo. 103 (_a_) 1: dimidiam         ii.^{as} virg' et dimidiam--i. 198
  hidam et dimidiam virg'.          (_a_) 2.
  fo. 103 (_b_) 1: i. hida et       i. hida et ii. virg' et dimidiam--
  dimidia et dimidia virg'.         i. 190 (_a_) 2.
  fo. 103 (_b_) 2: i. hida et       i. hida et iii. virg'--i. 198
  dimidia et i. virg'.              (_b_) 1.
  fo. 106 (_b_) 2: iiii. hidæ       iv. hidæ et iii. virg'--i. 200
  et dimidia et una virg'.          (_b_) 1.
  fo. 112 (_a_) 2: xi. hidæ i.      x. hidæ et iii. virg--i. 192
  virg' minus.                      (_b_) 1.

These are only some of the passages of _direct_ glossarial value.[72]
Indirectly, that is to say by analysis of the township assessments,
we obtain the same result throughout the survey _passim_.[73] Here,
again, we are able to assert that two virgates must have been to the
scribes as obviously equivalent to half a hide as ten shillings with
us are equivalent to half a sovereign. For here, again, the point is
that these scribes had no knowledge of the varying circumstances of
each locality. They had nothing to guide them but the return itself,
so that the rule, in Domesday, of 'four virgates to a hide' must have
been of universal application.

But not only were there thus, in Domesday, four virgates to a hide;
there were also in the Domesday virgate thirty Domesday acres. Mr
Eyton, though perhaps unrivalled in the study he has bestowed on the
subject, believed that there were only twelve such acres, of which,
therefore, forty-eight composed the Domesday hide.[74] It is, perhaps,
the most important information to be derived from the I.C.C. that _a
hundred and twenty_ Domesday acres composed the Domesday hide.[75]

We have the following direct statements:

  _I.C.C._                       _D.B._

  fo. 105 (_b_) 2: 'una virg'    i. 202 (_b_) 1: 'In dominio
  et x. acre in dominio'.        dimidia hida xx. acras minus.'
  fo. iii. (_a_) 1: 'tenet       i. 193 (_b_) 1: 'tenet comes
  Rogerus comes xx. acras.'      ii. partes unius virg'.'

If 20 acres were identical with two-thirds of a virgate, there must,
in a whole virgate, have been 30 acres; and if a virgate, _plus_ 10
acres, was equivalent to half a hide minus 20 acres, we have again
a virgate of thirty, and a hide of 120 acres. But the conclusion I
uphold will be found to rest on no isolated facts. It is based on
a careful analysis of the _Inquisitio_ throughout. Here are some
striking examples:

fo. 92 (_b_) 1. 'Belesham pro x. hidis se defendit.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Abbot of Ely            9          0          0
    Hardwin                                      80
    'Almar'                                      40
                           --         --         --
                           10          0          0

fo. 99 (_b_) 1: 'tenet hardeuuinus de scal' vi. hidas et i. virgam et
vii. acras de rege.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Ely Abbey               2-1/2      0          9 \
    7 Sokemen               1-1/2      0          6  }
    3 Sokemen                 1/2      0          0   } T.R.E.
    'Alsi'                    1/2      0          0  }
    2 Sokemen                          1          7  }
    5 Sokemen                          3-1/2      0 /
                            -----     -----    ----
                            6          1          7

fo. 79 (a) 2: 'Suafham pro x. hidis se defendit.'

                           _H._       _V._      _ A._

    Hugh de Bolebec         7-1/2      0         10
    Geoffrey                1          3          0
    Aubrey de Ver             1/2      0         20
                           -----      --         --
                           10          0          0

fo. 90 (_a_) 'choeie et stoua pro x. hidis se defenderunt.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Odo                     1          0          0
    Reginald                  1/2      0         20[76]
    Picot (1)               3          3          0
    Picot (2)               4-1/2      0         10
                           -----      --         -----
                           10          0          0

fo. 96 (_a_) 2: 'Pampeswrda pro v. hidis et xxii. acris se defendit.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Abbot of Ely            2          3-1/2      0
    Two Knights             1          0         22
    Ralf 'de scannis'                  3          0
    Hardwin                                      10
    Picot                                         5
    Hardwin                              1/2[77]  0
    A priest                             1/2      0
                           -----       -----     -----
                            5          0         22

fo. 107 (_a_) 2: 'Barentona pro x. hidis se defendit.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Robert Gernon           7          1-1/2[78]  0
    Chatteris Abbey         2          0          0
    Ralf                                         20
    Walter fitz Aubrey                           40
    Picot                                1/2      0
                           -----      -----     ----
                           10          0          0

fo. 108 (_a_) 2: 'Oreuuella pro iiii. hidis se defendit.'

                           _H._       _V._       _A._

    Earl Roger              1          1-1/3      0
    Durand                             3-1/3      0
    'Sigar'                            1-1/3      0
    Picot                              3-1/4      5
    Walter fitz Aubrey                 1          0
    Robert                             1          0
    Ralf 'de bans'                       1/3      0[79]
    Chatteris Abbey                      1/4      0[79]
                           ---         ------     ---
                            4          0          0

This last example is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all, in the
accuracy with which the virgates and their fractions, by the help of
the five acres, combine to give us the required total.

But, it may be asked, how far does the _Inquisitio_, as a whole,
confirm this conclusion? In order to reply to this inquiry, I have
analysed every one of the Manors it contains. The result of that
analysis has been that of the ninety-four townships which the
fragment includes (not counting 'Matingeleia', of which the account is
imperfect) there are only fifteen cases in which my calculation does
not hold good, that is to say, in which the constituents as given
do not equal the total assessment when we add them up on the above
hypothesis of thirty acres to the virgate, and four virgates to the
hide. This number, however, would be considerably larger if we had to
work only from D.B., or only from the I.C.C. But as each of these, in
several cases, corrects the errors of the other, the total of apparent
exceptions is thus reduced. Hence I contend that if we could only
get a really perfect return, the remaining apparent exceptions would
largely disappear.

In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus,
at Triplow, we have 2 acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment--a
discrepancy of 1/480. At 'Burch and Weslai' we have a deficit of 5
acres on 10 hides, that is 1/240. At 'Scelforda' the figures of
D.B. give us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is
7/2400. The I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.

Another class of exceptions is accounted for by the tendency of both
texts, as we have seen, to enter a virgate too much or too little, and
to confuse virgates with their fractions. Thus at 'Litlingetona'
our figures give us a virgate in excess of the assessment, while at
'Bercheham'[80] and again at 'Witlesforde' we have a virgate short
of the amount. At 'Herlestona' we have, similarly, half a virgate too
much, and 'Kingestona' half a virgate (15 acres) too little. Lastly,
at 'Wicheham', the aggregate of the figures is a quarter of a virgate
short of the amount.

A third class of these exceptions is due to the frequent omission
in the I.C.C. of estates belonging to the king. Thus at Wilbraham it
records an assessment of 10 hides represented only by two estates of
four hides apiece. But on turning to Domesday (i. 189 _b_) we read:
'Wilborham dominica villa regis est. Ibi ii. hidæ.' The missing factor
is thus supplied, and the apparent discrepancy disposed of. So, too,
at 'Haslingefelda' (Haslingfield), where the I.C.C. accounts only for
twelve hides and three virgates out of an assessment of twenty hides.
Domesday here, again, supplies the missing factor in a royal Manor of
seven hides and a virgate. We thus obtain, instead of an exception, a
fresh illustration of our rule.


                           _H._      _V._       _A._

    Rex                     7         1
    Picot                   4         3
    Count Alan              1           1/2
    The same                  1/2
    Geoffrey de Mandeville  5
    Guy de Raimberccurt     1         1          3
    Count Alan                                  12
                           ----      -----     ----
                           20         0          0

Domesday omits altogether, so far as I can find, the holding of Guy,
an omission which would upset the whole calculation. But, in the
case of Isleham, the apparent exception is due to the I.C.C., not to
Domesday Book. Its assessment, in that document, is given as four
hides. But the aggregate of its Manors, as there recorded, gives us
an assessment of three hides _plus_ eighty acres. Here any one who was
rash enough to argue from a single instance (as Mr Eyton and Mr Pell
were too apt to do) might jump at the conclusion that the hide must
here have been of eighty acres. Yet Domesday enables us to collect
all the constituents of the 'Vill', among them the king's estate, here
again omitted. The real figures, therefore, were these:

                         _H._     _V._    _A._     _D.B._

    The King              6        0      40        i. 189 _b._
    Bishop of Rochester   1-1/2    0      20        i. 190 _b._
    Hugh de Port          1-1/2    0      20        i. 199 _a._
    Earl Alan                             40        i. 195 _b._
                         -----    ---    ----
                         10        0       0

Isleham, then, was a normal ten-hide township, and confirms, instead
of rebutting, the rule that the geldable hide contained 120 acres.[81]

The remaining exceptions are 'Somm[er]tona' partly explained by the
omission of _terra Regis_, 'Bathburgeham' (Babraham) with 21 acres
short of an assessment of 7 hides, and Carlton, which fitly closes the
list of these exceptions. For here, on an assessment of 10 hides, we
have, according to the I.C.C., 27 acres short, but, according to D.B.,
53-1/2 (27 + 20 + 6-1/2). A demonstrable blunder in Domesday Book and a
discrepancy between it and the I.C.C. are responsible, together, for
the difference.[82] Thus we see how wide a margin should be allowed,
in these calculations, for textual error.

It is necessary to remember that there were three processes, in each
one of which error might arise:

I. In the actual survey and its returns, 'by reason of the
insignificance of some estates, or by reason of forgetfulness, or
inaccuracy, or confusion, or doubt on the part of local jurors and
witnesses, or of the clerks who indited their statements'.[83]

II. In the collection and transmission of the returns, by the loss of
a 'leaflet or rotulet of the commissioners' work'.[84]

III. In the transcription of the returns into D.B., or into the
I.C.C., _plus_, in the case of the former, the rearrangement and
abridgment of the materials.

We may now quit this part of our subject, claiming to have settled,
by the aid of the I.C.C., a problem which has puzzled generations of
antiquaries, namely: 'What was the Domesday hide?'[85] We have shown
that it denoted a measure of assessment composed of four (geld)
virgates or a hundred and twenty (geld) acres. What relation, if any,
it bore to _area_ and to _value_ is a question wholly distinct, on
which the next portion of this essay may throw quite a new light.


It is one of the distinctive and valuable features of the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ that it gives us the total assessment for each Vill of which
it treats before recording the several Manors of which that Vill is
composed, the aggregate assessments of which Manors make up the total
assessment for the Vill. In this feature we have something which
Domesday does not contain, and which (independently of its checking
value),[86] gives us at once those Vill assessments which we could
only extract from the Domesday entries by great labour and with much
uncertainty. Let us see then if these Vill assessments lead us to any
new conclusions on the whole assessment system.

The first point that we notice is this. The _five-hide unit_ is
brought into startling prominence. No careful student, one would
suppose, of Domesday, can have failed to be struck by the singular
number of Manors in the hidated portion of the realm, which are
assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, that is to say, which are
entered as of five hides or some multiple of five hides. This is
specially the case with towns, and some years ago, in one of my
earliest essays, I called attention to the fact, and explained its
bearing in connection with the unit of military service.[87] Yet no
one, it would seem, has been struck by the fact, or has seen that
there must be some significance in this singular preponderance of
five-hide Manors. Now what the _Inquisitio_ here does for us is to
show us that this preponderance is infinitely greater than we should
gather from the pages of Domesday, and that when the scattered Manors
are pieced together in their Vills, the aggregate of their assessments
generally amounts either to five hides or to a multiple of the
five-hide unit. Thus the rural townships are brought into line with
towns, and we learn that in both the assessment was based on the
_five-hide unit_.

Let us now take a typical Hundred and test this theory in practice:


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 11-17)

    _Vill._        _Hides_   _Ploughlands_    _Valets_


    Bottisham        10         20           £16    0   0
    Swaffham (1)     10         16            11   10   0
    Swaffham (2)     10         13-1/4        12   10   0
    Wilbraham        10         17            20    0   0
    Stow-cum-Quy     10         11            14   10   0
                     --         ------       ------------
                     50         77-1/4       £74   10   0

Here we have five Vills varying in area from eleven ploughlands to
twenty, and in value T.R.E., from £11 10s to £20, all assessed alike
at ten hides each. What is the meaning of it? Simply that ASSESSMENT
BORE NO RATIO TO AREA OR TO VALUE in a Vill, and still less in a

Assessment was not objective, but subjective; it was not fixed
relatively to area or to value, but to the five-hide unit. The aim of
the assessors was clearly to arrange the assessment in sums of five
hides, ten hides, etc.

Take now the next Hundred in the _Inq. Com. Cant._:


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 17-25)

                   _Hides_   _Ploughlands_   _Valets_


    Dullingham       10         16           £19    5   0
    Stetchworth      10         13-1/4        12   15   0
    Borough Green
      and Westley    10         17            17    1   4
    Carlton          10         19-1/2        18   10   0
    Weston           10         19-1/4        13   15   0
    Wratting         10         15-3/4         8    8   0
    Balsham          10         20            12   13   4
                     --        -------      -------------
                     70        120-3/4      £102    7   8

Here again we have seven Vills varying in area from thirteen and a
quarter ploughlands to twenty, and in value from £8 8s to £19 5s, all
uniformly assessed at ten hides each. The thing speaks for itself. Had
the hidation in these two Hundreds been dependent on area or value,
the assessments would have varied infinitely. As it is, there is for
each Vill but one and the same assessment.

Note further that the I.C.C. enables us to localize holdings the
locality of which is unnamed in Domesday: also, that it shows us
how certain Vills were combined for the purpose of assessment. Thus
Borough Green and Westley are treated in Domesday as distinct, but
here we find that they were assessed together as a ten-hide block.
By this means we are enabled to see how the five-hide system could be
traced further still if we had in other districts the same means of
learning how two or three Vills were thus grouped together.

We may now take a step in advance, and pass to the Hundred of


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 38-43)

                  _Hides_        _Ploughlands_           _Valets_


    Whittlesford   12 } 20      11 } 20   £15  2 0 }     £34  2 0
    Sawston         8 }          9 }       19  0 0 }
    Hinxton        20           16                        20 10 0
    Icklington     20           24-1/2                    24  5 0
    Duxford        20           20-1/4                    27  5 0
                   --           ------                  ---------
                   80           80-3/4                  £106  2 0

Here we are left to discover for ourselves that Whittlesford and
Sawston were grouped together to form a twenty-hide block. And on
turning from the above figures to the map we find the discovery
verified, these two Vills jointly occupying the northern portion of
the hundred. Thus, this hundred, instead of being divided like its
two predecessors into ten-hide blocks, was assessed in four blocks of
twenty hides each, each of them representing one of those quarters so
dear to the Anglo-Saxon mind (_virgata_, etc.), and lying respectively
in the north, south, east and west of the district. Proceeding on the
lines of this discovery, we come to the Hundred of Wetherley, which
carries us a step further.


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 68-83)

                     _Hides_                  _Ploughlands_

    Comberton          6}                      7     }
    Barton             7} 20                  12     } 32
    Grantchester       7}                     13     }

    Haslingfield          20                           22[88]

    Harlton            5}                      7     }
    Barrington        10} 20                  15-3/8 } 27-7/8
    Shepreth           5}                      5-1/2 }

    Ordwell            4}                      5-5/16}
    Wratworth          4}                      5-3/8 }
    Whitwell           4} 20                   5     } 29-3/16
    Wimpole            4}                      5     }
    Arrington          4}                      8-1/2 }
                          --                          --------
                          80                          111-1/16

It is important to observe that, though the grouping is my own, the
_order_ of the Vills is exactly that which is given in the _Inq. Com.
Cant._, and by that order the grouping is confirmed. Note also how,
without such grouping, we should have but a chaos of Vills, whereas,
by its aid, from this chaos is evolved perfect symmetry. Lastly,
glance at the four 'quarters' and see how variously they are

Advancing still on the same lines, we approach the very remarkable
case of the adjoining Hundred of Long Stow.

Now it is necessary to explain at the outset that, the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ being here imperfect, it only gives us the first two of the
above 'quarters', its evidence ending with Bourne. But, by good
fortune, it is possible to reconstruct from Domesday alone the
remaining half of the Hundred, and thus to obtain the most valuable
example of the system we are engaged in tracing that we have yet met
with. The grouping I have adopted is based on the figures, but in some
cases it is obvious from the map: Eltisley and Croxton, for instance,
which form a ten-hide block, occupy a projecting portion of the county
all to themselves, while Caxton adjoins them.


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 83-89)

                               _Hides_           _Ploughlands_

    Eversden              8-1/3}                13-3/8  }
    Kingston              8-1/3}         25      8-9/16 }  38-1/16
    Toft and Hardwick     8-1/3}                16-1/8  }

    Grandsen                5  }         25         9   }
    Bourne                 20  }                  [23   }  32-1/2

    Gamlingay                      20}
    Hatley                4-1/4}    5}   25
    [Unnamed]               3/4}     }

    Croxton                 7  }     }
    Eltisley                3  }   10}
    Caxton                         10}   25
    Caldecot              1-3/4}     }
    Long Stow             3-1/4}    5}

Several points are here noticeable. Observe, in the first place, how
the twenty-five hide 'quarter' which heads the list is divided
into three _equal_ blocks of 8-1/3 hides each, just as we found in
Wetherley Hundred that one of the twenty-hide 'quarters' was divided
into five _equal_ blocks of four hides each. In these cases the same
principle of simple equal division was applied to the quarter hundred
as we saw applied to the whole hundred in the first two cases we
studied--the Hundreds of Staines and of Radfield. Notice next how
the two Vills of Toft and Hardwick, which are separately surveyed in
Domesday under their respective names, are found from the _Inq. Com.
Cant._ to have combined (under the name of 'Toft') in a block of
8-1/3 hides. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the 3/4 hide not
localized in Domesday fits in exactly with Hatley to complete its five

The chase now becomes exciting: it can no longer be doubted that we
are well on the track of a vast system of artificial hidation, of
which the very existence has been hitherto unsuspected. Let us see
what further light can be thrown by research on its nature.

On looking back at the evidence I have collected, one is struck,
surely, by the thought that the system of assessment seems to work,
not as is supposed, _up from_, but _down to_ the Manor. Can it be
possible that what was really assessed was not the Manor, nor even the
Vill, but the Hundred as a whole? This view is so revolutionary, so
subversive of all that has ever been written on the subject, that it
cannot be answered off-hand. We will therefore begin by examining the
case of the Hundred of Erningford, which introduces us to a further
phenomenon, the _reduction_ of assessment.


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 51-68)

                            _Hides_         _Ploughlands_

                        T.R.E.     T.R.W.

    Morden (1)           10          8        20
    Tadlow                5          4        10-1/2
    Morden (2)            5          4        10-3/4
    Clopton               5          4         7
    Hatley                5          4         7
    Croydon              10          8        11-1/2
    Wendy                 5          4         6-3/4
    Shingay               5          4         6
    Litlington            5          4        11
    Abington              5          4         3-3/4
    Bassingburne         10          8        22
    Whaddon              10          8        14-3/4
    Meldreth             10          8        20-1/2
    Melbourne            10          8        19-1/2
                        ---         --       -------
                        100         80       171

Here we have, as in the last instance, a Hundred of exactly a hundred
hides (assessment). But we are confronted with a new problem, that of
reduction. Before we form any conclusions, it is important to explain
that this problem can only be studied by the aid of the _Inq. Com.
Cant._, for the evidence both of Domesday and of the _Inq. El._ is
distinctly misleading. Reduction of assessment is only recorded in
these two documents when the Manor is identical with the Vill. In
cases where the Vill contains two or more Manors, the Vill is not
entered as a whole, and consequently the reduction on the assessment
of that Vill as a whole is not entered at all.

After this explanation I pass to the case of the above Hundred, in
which the evidence on the reduction is fortunately perfect. The first
point to be noticed is that in four out of the five Hundreds that we
have as yet examined, there is not a single instance of reduction,
whereas here, on the contrary, the assessment is reduced in every Vill
throughout the Hundred. That is to say, the reduction is _conterminous
with the Hundred_. Cross its border into the Hundred of Wetherley,
or of Triplow, and in neither district will you find a trace of
reduction. Observe next that the reduction is _uniform_ throughout the
whole, being 20 per cent in every instance. Now what is the inevitable
conclusion from the _data_ thus afforded? Obviously that the reduction
was made on the assessment of the Hundred _as a whole_, and that this
reduction was distributed among its several Vills _pro rata_.[89]
Further research confirms the conclusion that these reductions were
systematically made on _Hundreds_, not on Vills. There is a well
defined belt, or rather crescent, of Hundreds, in all of which the
assessment is reduced. They follow one another on the map in this
order: Erningford, Long Stow, Papworth, North Stow, Staplehow, and
Cheveley. Within this crescent there lies a compact block of Hundreds,
in no one of which has a single assessment been reduced. They are
Triplow, Wetherley (? Cambridge[90]), Flendish, Staines, Radfield,
Chilford and Whittlesford. Beyond the crescent there lie 'the two
Hundreds of Ely', in which, so far as our evidence goes, there would
seem to have been similarly no reduction. As the two horns of the
crescent, so to speak, are the Hundreds of Erningford and Cheveley, we
will now glance at the latter, and compare the evidence of the two.


    (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 9-11)


                     T.R.E.         T.R.W.       _Ploughlands_

    Silverley        6-1/2}         4}              8}
    Ashley           3-1/2} 10      2}  6           4} 12
    Saxon Street     5              3               7[93]
    Ditton           5              3[92] (or 4)    10
    Ditton          10              1               16
    Kirtling        10              6               21
    Cheveley        10[91]

As a preliminary point, attention may be called to the fact that
the grouping of Ashley and Silverley, although they are surveyed
separately in the _Inq. Com. Cant._, is justified by their forming,
as 'Ashley-cum-Silverley' a single parish. So too, Saxon Street may be
safely combined with Ditton, in which it is actually situate. We thus
have a Hundred of fifty hides divided into five blocks of ten hides
each, and thus presenting a precise parallel to the Hundred of
Staines, the first that we examined.

And now for the reductions. As the Vill of Cheveley, unluckily, is
nowhere surveyed as a whole, we have in its case no evidence. But of
the five remaining Vills above (counting Ashley-cum-Silverley as one),
four we see had had their assessments reduced on a _uniform_
scale, just as in the Hundred of Long Stow. Now this is a singular
circumstance, and it leads me to this conclusion. I believe that,
precisely as in the latter case, the assessment of the Hundred _as
a whole_ was reduced by twenty hides. This was equivalent to 40 per
cent, which was accordingly knocked off from the assessment of each
of its constituent Vills. One of the Dittons is clearly an exception,
having nine hides, not four, thus knocked off. I would suggest, as the
reason for this exception, that Ditton having now become a 'dominica
villa regis' (_Inq. Com. Cant._, p. 10), was specially favoured by
having a five-hide unit further knocked off its assessment, just as in
the case of Chippenham (_Ibid._, p. 2).[94]

It has been my object in the above argument to recall attention to the
corporate character, the _solidarité_ of the Hundred. This character,
of which the traces are preserved in its collective responsibility,
even now, for damages caused by riot, strongly favours the view which
I am here bringing forward, that it was the Hundred itself which was
assessed for geld, and which was held responsible for its payment.
Although this view is absolutely novel, and indeed destructive of the
accepted belief, it is in complete harmony with the general principle
enunciated by Dr Stubbs, and is a further proof of the confirmation
which his views often obtain from research and discovery. Treating of
'the Hundred as an area for rating', he writes thus:

    There can be no doubt that the organization of the Hundred had
    a fiscal importance, not merely as furnishing the profits of
    fines and the produce of demesne or folkland, but as forming a
    rateable division of the county.[95]

Now there are several circumstances which undoubtedly point to my
own conclusion. We know from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, that the Domesday
Commissioners held their inquiry in the Court of each Hundred, and had
for jurors the men of that Hundred. Now if the Hundred, as I suggest,
was assessed for geld as a whole, its representatives would be clearly
the parties most interested in seeing that each Vill or Manor was
debited with its correct share of the general liability. Again we
know from the _Inquisitio Geldi_ that the geld was collected and
paid through the machinery of the Hundred; and its collectors, in
Devonshire, are 'Hundremanni'. The Hundred, in fact, was the unit for
the purpose.[96] Further, we have testimony to the same effect in the
survey of East Anglia. But as that survey stands by itself, it must
have separate treatment.[97]

I need not further discuss the collective liability of the Hundred,
having already shown in my 'Danegeld' paper how many allusions to it
are to be found in Domesday in the case of urban 'Hundreds'.[98] It
is only necessary here to add, as a corollary of this conclusion, that
the assessment of a single Manor could not be reduced by the Crown
without the amount of that reduction falling upon the rest of
the Hundred. Either therefore, that amount must have been allowed
('computatum') to the local collector as were _terræ datæ_ to the
sheriff, or (which came to the same thing) the assessment on the
Hundred must have been reduced _pro tanto_.

I now proceed to apply my theory that the Hundreds themselves were
first assessed, and that such assessments were multiples of the
five-hide unit.

We are enabled from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, to determine the
assessments of eleven Hundreds.[99] Nine out of these eleven Hundreds
prove to have been assessed as follows:

    Erningford                            100
    Long Stow                             100
    Triplow                                90
    Staplehow                              90[100]
    Whittlesford                           80
    Wetherley                              80
    Radfield                               70
    Cheveley                               50
    Staines                                50

This list speaks for itself, but it may be as well to point out how
convenient for the Treasury was this system. At the normal Danegeld
rate of two shillings on the hide, an assessment of fifty hides would
represent £5, one hundred hides £10, and so on.

Can we discover in other counties traces of this same system? Let us
first take the adjacent county of Bedfordshire.

I am anxious to explain that for the means of utilizing the
Bedfordshire evidence I am entirely indebted to the _Digest of the
Domesday of Bedfordshire_ by the late Rev. William Airy (edited by his
son, the Rev. B. R. Airy[101]). It was, most happily, pointed out
to the author by the Rev. Joseph Hunter 'that what we want is not
translations but analyses of the surveys of the several counties' (p.
viii). To this most true remark we owe it that Mr Airy resolved to
give us a 'digest' instead of that usual 'extension and translation',
which is perfectly useless to the Domesday student. It is easy to
take from the record itself such an instance as these Beauchamp
Manors entered in succession (213): Willington 10 hides, Stotford 15;
'Houstone' 5, Hawnes 5, 'Salchou' 5, Aspley 10, Salford 5; but it is
only Mr Airy's work that enables us to reconstruct the townships, and
to show how fractions--apparently meaningless--fit in, exactly as in
Cambridgeshire, with one another. His work is all the more valuable
from the fact that he had no theory to prove, and did not even add
together the factors he had ascertained. His figures therefore are
absolutely free from the suspicion that always attaches to those
adduced to prove a case.

    _Risely_              _Tempsford_             _Wymington_

    _H._      _V._        _H._     _ V._        _H._      _V._

     7         0           1         1-3/4       0         3
     1         0           1         1           3         0
       1/2     0           4         1           4         0
       1/2     0           2         0             1/2     0
     1         0           1           1/4       0         3
                                                 1         0
    ------------          ------------          ------------
    10         0          10         0          10         0

    _Cople_               _Eversholt_           _Clophill_

    _H._      _V._        _H._      _V._        _H._      _V._

     4         0           2         0           5         0
     5         3           7-1/2     0           4         0
     0         1             1/2     0           1         0
    ------------          ------------          ------------
    10         0          10         0          10         0

    _Northill_             _Portsgrove_          _Chicksand_

    _H._      _V._         _H._     _V._        _H._      _V._

     1-1/2     0            1        0             1/2     0
     1-1/2     0            7-1/2    0           3-1/2     0
       1/2     0            1        0           3         0
     6-1/2     0            1/2      0           1         0
    ------------           ------------         ------------
    10         0           10        0          10         0

    _Eyeworth_             _Holwell_            _Odell_

    _H._      _V._         _H._     _V._        _H._     _ V._

     9         0            3-1/2    0           4-1/2       1/3
     1         0            6-1/2    0           5         1-2/3
    ------------           ------------         ------------
    10         0           10        0          10         0

    _Pavenham_         _Houghton Conquest_         _Dean_

    _H._      _V._       _H._       _V._       _H._       _V._

     2-1/2     0          5          0          4          0
     5         0            1/2      0          2            1/2
     2-1/2     0          4-1/2      0          2          7-1/4
                                                0            1/2
   -------------         -------------         -------------
    10         0         10          0         10          0-1/4

Of these fifteen ten-hide townships, the last is selected as an
instance of those slight discrepancies which creep in so easily and
which account for many apparent exceptions to the rule. Passing to
other multiples of the five-hide unit we have:

    _Oakley_             _Thurleigh_            _Blunham_

    _H._      _V._       _H._       _V._       _H._       _V._

     4         0          0          1          4          1
     1         0            1/2      0          0          1
                            1/2      0            1/2      0
                          0          1         10          0
                          3          0
                            1/2      0
    -------------        -------------         -------------
     5         0          5          0         15          0

    _Marston_            _Roxton_             _Dunton_

    _H._      _V._       _H._       _V._       _H._       _V._

    { 2 (less 1/2 virg.)  1          1        { 8          1
  10{ 8 (plus 1/2 virg.)  0          4      10{ 1          3

    { 1                   1          1        { 5          0
    {   1/2               7-1/2      1      10{ 4-1/2      0
   5{ 3                   8          3        {   1/2      0
    {   1/2
   -------------         -------------       ---------------
     15        0         20          0         20          0

I now give three illustrations of slight discrepancies:

    _Streatley_            _Sutton_            _Eaton Socon_

    _H._      _V._       _H._       _V._       _H._       _V._

     1         0        { 0          3         20          0
     4         1        { 1          0          6          3
     4-1/3     0       5{ 1-1/2      0          0          1-1/2
     0           2/3    {   1/2      0          0            1/2
     0           2/3    { 0          3-1/2      9          1
                        { 0          1-1/2      0          5-1/2
                          2          0          2            1/2
                          0          3          0          1
                            1/2      0
                          0          1-1/2
                          1          0
   -------------         -------------         -------------
    9          3-2/3      9          0-1/2     40          1

In the first case there is a deficiency of 1/120, and in the second of
7/80, while in the third we find an excess of 1/160. No one can doubt
that these were really ten-hide, ten-hide, and forty-hide townships.
We have to allow, in the first place, for trivial slips, and in the
second for possible errors in the baffling work of identification
at the present day. One can hardly doubt that if a student with the
requisite local knowledge set himself to reconstruct, according
to Hundreds, the Bedfordshire Domesday, he would find, as in
Cambridgeshire, that even where a township was not assessed in terms
of the five-hide unit, it was combined in an adjacent one in such an

We will now cross the border into Huntingdonshire, and enter the great
Hundred of Hurstingston. This, which may be described as a _double_
Hundred, was assessed, Domesday implies, at 200 hides. Quartering this
total, on the Cambridgeshire system, we obtain fifty hides, and this
quarter was the assessment allotted to the borough of Huntingdon.[102]
The total assessment of the Hundred was thus accounted for:

    Huntingdon                  50
    St. Ives (Slepe)            20
    Hartford                    15
    Spaldwick                   15
    Stukeley                    10
    Abbots Ripton               10
    Upwood                      10
    Warboys                     10
    Calne       6      }
    Bluntisham  6-1/2   }       20-1/2[103]
    Somersham    8     }
    Wistow[104]                  9
    Holywell                     9
    Houghton                     7
    Wyton                        7
    Broughton                    4
    Catworth                     4[105]

Passing on into Northamptonshire, we come to that most curious
document, which I shall discuss below (_see_ p. 124), and which was
printed by Ellis (_Introduction to Domesday_, i. 187 _et seq._).
Ellis, however, can scarcely have read his own document, for he
speaks of it as a list 'in which every Hundred is made to consist of
a _hundred hides_'.[106] This extraordinary assertion has completely
misled Dr Stubbs, who writes:

    The document given by Ellis as showing that the Hundreds of
    Northampton each contained a hundred hides seems to be a mere
    attempt of an early scribe to force them into symmetry.[107]

It is greatly to be wished that some one with the requisite local
knowledge should take this list in hand and work out its details
thoroughly. In capable hands it should prove a record of the highest
interest. For the present I will only point out that its contents are
in complete harmony with the results that I obtained on the Hundred in
Cambridgeshire; for it gives us Hundreds assessed at 150 (four), 100
(nine), 90 (two), 80 (four), 60 (one), and 40 (one) hides, with a
small minority of odd numbers. This list throws further light on the
institution of the Hundred by its recognition of 'double' and 'half'
Hundreds. Note also in this connection the preference for 100-hide
and fifty-hide assessments, which here amount to thirteen out of the
twenty instances above, and in Cambridgeshire to four out of nine.
These signs of an endeavour to force such assessments into terms of a
fifty-hide unit will be dealt with below.[108]

In Hertfordshire, as indeed in other counties, there is great need for
that local research which alone can identify and group the Domesday
holdings. So far as single Vills are concerned, Bengeo affords a
good illustration of the way in which scattered fractions work out in

                                  _H._     _V._
    Count Alan                     0        1
    Hugh de Beauchamp              6        0
    Geoffrey de Mandeville         3        1
                                 { 5        1
                                 { 6-1/2    0
    Geoffrey de Bech             { 1        1-1/2
                                 { 0        5-1/2
                                 { 0        3-1/2
    Peter de Valognes              0          1/2
                                  25        0

If we now push on to Worcestershire, we find a striking case in
the Hundred (or rather the triple Hundred[109]) of Oswaldslow. Its
assessment was 300 hides;[110] and I am able to assert that of these
we can account for 299, and that it contained Manors of 50, 40, 35,
25 (two), and 15 hides.[111] We have also, in this county, the case of
the Hundred of Fishborough, made up to 100 hides, and remarkable for
including in this total the fifteen hides at which Worcester itself
was assessed. The special value of this and of the Huntingdon
instances lies in its placing the assessments of a borough on all
fours with the assessment of a rural Manor, as a mere factor in the
assessment of a rural Hundred. By thus combining town and country it
shows us that the assessments of both were part of the same general
system. This is a point of great importance.

This case of the Hundred of Fishborough is, however, peculiar. The
entry, which was prominently quoted by Ellis (who failed to see its
true significance), is this:

    In Fisseberge hundred habet æcclesia de Euesham lxv. hidæ. Ex
    his xii. hidæ sunt liberæ. In illo Hundredo jacent xx. hidæ de
    dodentreu. et xv. hidæ de Wircecestre perficiunt hundred.[112]

Now this entry is purely incidental, and its real meaning is this.
In the true Hundred of Fishborough (adjoining Evesham on the east),
Evesham Abbey held sixty-five hides (assessed value), of which
twelve were exempted from payment of geld, a statement which can be
absolutely verified from the details given. To this aggregate was
added the fifteen hides of Worcester (though in another part of
the county), together with twenty hides of the distant _Hundred_ of
Doddentree. A total of 100 hides was that arrived at. Now the Hundred
of Doddentree had itself made up to about 120 hides,[113] by
the addition of eighteen hides, which belonged to Hertford as to
'firma'.[114] A reduction, therefore, of twenty hides suggests a
complicated process of levelling the local Hundreds, which may remind
us how large a margin must be allowed for these arrangements.

Before leaving Worcestershire, attention should be called to the great
Manor of Pershore, which Westminster Abbey held for 200 hides, and
to the 100 hides connected therewith under the heading 'Terra sanctæ
Mariæ de Persore'.

In Somerset we find some good instances, with the help of Mr Eyton's


    Merriott (5 + 7)                                  12}
    Seaborough (1-1/2 + 1-1/2)                         3}  15
    Hinton St. George                                 13}
    In Crewkerne                                      12}  25


    East Pennard (19 + 1)                                  20
    Baltonsborough                                          5
    Doulting (14 + 3-1/4 + 2-3/4)                          20
    Batcombe (10-1/4 + 2 + 7-3/4)                          20
    Ditcheat (5 + 5-1/2 + 6-1/2 + 5-1/2 + 1 + 7)           30-1/2
    Pilton (6-1/2 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 2)                         21-1/2
    Stoke St. Michael                                       3

There are also abundant cases of _Manors_ which work out similarly
such as Walton and its group (4-1/2 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2-1/2 = 20),
Butleigh (7-1/2 + 8 + 2 + 1/2 + 2 = 20). Again, in the Hundred of
Frome we find eight Manors (Camerton, Englishcombe, Charterhouse
Hinton, Norton St Philip, Corston, Beckington, Cloford, and Laverton),
assessed at ten hides each, in addition to divided Manors, such as
Road (9 + 1), and Tiverton (7-1/2 + 2-1/2).[115]

We will now pass to Devon and examine the assessments of its Hundreds.
Of these thirty-one are entered in the _Inquisitio Geldi_. Now, as
four virgates went to the hide, such assessments as 25-3/4, 9-1/4
hides, show us that the simple doctrine of probability is in favour of
only one Hundred in every twenty proving to be assessed in multiples
of the five-hide unit. Yet we find that those so assessed form an
absolute majority of the whole. When classified, they run thus--50
(four), 40 (one), 30 (two), 25 (four), 20 (five): total, 16 Hundreds.

It will at once be observed that these assessments are, as nearly as
possible, on one half the scale of those we met with in Cambridgeshire
and Northamptonshire. But this must be taken in conjunction with the
fact that the Devon and Cornwall assessments are altogether peculiar.
'In Devon and Cornwall, where the scope of the gheld-hide was
enormous, it was necessary to introduce another quantity, intermediate
between the virgate and the acre. This was the Ferndel or Ferdingdel,
to wit, the fourth part of the next superior denomination, the fourth
part of the virgate.'[116] One might at first sight be tempted to
suggest that the hide was in these two counties a term of higher
denomination when we find Manor after Manor assessed at a fraction
of a hide, while in Cornwall the 'acra terræ' was clearly a peculiar
measure.[117] Yet in some Manors adjacent to Exeter or to the
neighbouring coast the assessment is much less abnormally low, though
even there moderate. There is much scope, here also, for intelligent
local research, although we may conclude, from the evidence of the
Pipe Rolls, that the hide represented the same unit here as elsewhere,
as it would seem did the Devonshire Hundred, in spite of its
singularly low average assessment. Indeed, it represented a larger,
not a smaller, area than usual. I shall deal with this phenomenon
below, and endeavour to explain its significance. For the present it
is only necessary to insist on the evidence that the Hundreds afford
of assessment on the five-hide system.

Indeed, though I definitely advance the suggestion that the assessment
was, in the first instance, laid upon the Hundred itself, and that
the subsequent assessment of its Vills and Manors was arrived at by
division and subdivision, the truth or falsehood of this theory in no
way affects the indisputable phenomenon of the five-hide unit. On the
prominence of that unit I take my stand as absolute proof that the
hide assessment was fixed _independently of area or value_, and that,
consequently, all the attempts that have been made by ingenious men
to discover and establish the relation which that assessment bore to
area, whether in Vill or Manor, have proved not only contradictory
among themselves, but, as was inevitable, vain.

The late Mr Eyton did much to destroy the old belief held by Kemble
and other well-known writers that the Domesday hide was an areal
measure and to substitute the sounder view that it was used as a
term of assessment, and Mr Chester Waters, in his _Survey of Lindsey_
(1883), claimed that the 'key to the puzzle' had been thus finally
discovered. Canon Taylor, on the other hand, at the Domesday
Commemoration (1886), claimed that if his own most ingenious theory
of the relation of the geld-carucate to area could be more generally
extended, 'many volumes of Domesday exposition, including, among
others, Mr Eyton's _Key to Domesday_, may be finally consigned _al
limbo dei bambini_'.[118] Mr Pell's theories--the inclusion of which
at enormous length in _Domesday Studies_[119] cannot be too deeply
regretted--require a passing notice. According to him, the Domesday
hide was virtually an areal term; but the interests of truth and of
historical research require, as to his confident calculations, very
plain speaking. Although I devoted to the investigation of Mr Pell's
theories a deplorable amount of time and labour,[120] I would rather
state the inevitable conclusion in the words of that sound scholar, Mr
W. H. Stevenson:

    All the fanciful calculations that Mr Pell has based upon this
    assumption, including his delicious 'Ready Reckoner', may be
    safely left to slumber in oblivion by the Domesday student who
    does not wish to waste his time.

    The only abiding principle underlying Mr Pell's calculations
    is that the figures in Domesday, or wherever found, have to
    produce a certain total that Mr Pell has already fixed upon.
    To do this, virgates may mean hides, carucates may mean
    virgates, and, in short, anything may mean anything else.[121]

Although Mr Eyton also indulged in 'fanciful calculations', and
committed the fatal error of combining facts and fancies, he was at
least on the right track in discarding the notion that the Domesday
hide denoted a fixed area, and in treating it as a term of assessment.
At the same time, the acceptance of my theory that this assessment
was not determined by the real value of the Manor or Vill, but was
unconnected with it, would be, of course, destructive of all his

The five-hide unit which lies at the root of my theory is found ever
to the front, turn where we will. In Oxon[122] we find entered in
succession the Bishop of Lincoln's Manors 90, 60, 40, 50, 50 hides,
while if we work through the southern extremity of the county (lying
south of Ewelme), following the bend of the Thames, we find the
assessments are as follows: Preston Crowmarsh, 5; Crowmarsh Gifford,
10; Newnham Murren, 10; Mongewell, 10; Ipsden, 5; North and South
Stoke, 20-1/4; Checkenden, 5; Goring, 20; Gethampton, 6-1/2;
Whitchurch, 10; Mapledurham, 10; Caversham, 20; Dunsden, 20; Bolney
(8) and Lashbrook (12) 20; Harpsden, 5; Rotherfield, 10; Badgemoor, 5;
Bix 5. So too on the western border we have in succession Churchill,
20; Kingham, 10; Foxcote (1) and Tilbury (14), 15; Lyneham, 10;
Fyfield, 5; Tainton, 10; Upton, 5; Burford (8) and Widford (2), 10;
Westwell, 5.[123]

Berkshire undoubtedly offers a fruitful sphere of study. On the one
hand, we have so large a proportion of Manors assessed at 5, 10, 15,
20 hides, and so forth as to strike the reader at once without special
research; on the other, we find these archaic assessments reduced
under the Conqueror in the most sweeping manner, and the old system
thus effaced. Fortunately for us in this case its existence is
recorded in the Domesday entries of the previous assessments. What is
here, as elsewhere, wanted is a thorough local analysis of the hidage,
Hundred by Hundred. For no county is such an analysis more urgently

In Bucks the Primate's three Manors are of 40, 5, 30 hides, while nine
Manors of Walter Giffard follow one another with these assessments:
20, 10, 10, 20, 3-1/2, 10, 5, 5, 10; and in Gloucestershire we are met
on every side by Manors of 5, 10, 15, 20 hides, and so on. In Surrey,
the Primate's six Manors are assessed at 30, 20, 80, 5, 20, 14 hides.
As a proof that this feature is in no way of my own creation, I will
take the Wiltshire Manors selected by Mr Pell for his tables. Seven
out of the eleven selected by him are five-hide assessments, being 5,
10, 20, 40, 20, 5, 10. The marvel is that any one can have failed to
observe the general occurrence of the fact.

In Middlesex the five-hide unit is peculiarly prominent. We have only
to glance at the pages of Domesday to be struck by such assessments
as Harrow (100 hides), Fulham (50 hides[124]), Isleworth (70 hides),
Harmondsworth (30 hides), while on folios 129B-130, we have seven
Manors in succession of which the assessments are 15, 35, 30, 30,
7-1/2, 15, 10, representing 3, 7, 6, 6, 1-1/2, 3, 2, multiples of the
five-hide unit. But, here again, conspicuous as is this unit even in
the case of Manors, its prevalence would be still more apparent, if
we could reconstruct the Vills. Thus, for instance, in the Hundred of
Spelthorne we find these assessments:

                                    _Hides_        _Folio_
    Staines                           19             128
    'In Speletorne Hundred'            1             128_b_
    'Hatone'                           1-1/2         129
    Haneworde                          5             129
    'Leleham'                          2             129
    'Exeforde'                         1             129
    'Bedefunt'                         2             129
    Felteham                          12             129
    Stanwelle                         15             130
    'Bedefunde'                       10             130
    'West Bedefunde'                   8             130
    'Haitone'                          1-5/6[125]    130
    'Leleham'                          8             130_b_
    'In Hundredo de Spelethorne'         2/3[126]    130_b_
    'Cerdentone'                       5             130_b_

'Exeforde' is Ashford, which 'appears from a very early period till
after the dissolution of the monasteries to have been an appendage
of Stains'.[127] Thus we obtain an assessment of 20 hides for Staines
_cum_ Ashford. So too we have at once for Laleham an assessment of ten
hides, while that of East and West Bedfont was, we see, twenty hides.
The most striking case, however, is that of Hatton; for, if we add to
its two named Manors the nameless estates in the above list, the four
fit in like a puzzle, giving us an aggregate assessment of exactly
five hides.

The hundred, therefore, was assessed thus:

    Stains with Ashford          20
    Stanwell                     15
    West Bedfont                 10
    East Bedfont                 10
    Laleham                      10
    Feltham                      12
    Hanworth                      5
    Charlton                      5
    Hatton, etc.                  5

Let us now connect the territorial with the institutional unit.
Dealing in my 'Danegeld' essay with the evident assessment of towns in
terms of the five-hide unit, I traced it to the fact that 'five hides
were the unit of assessment for the purpose of military service'.[128]
The evidence I have adduced in the present paper carries further
its significance; but we must not allow its financial to obscure its
military importance. I appealed, at that time, to the Exeter instance:

    Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare serviebat hæc
    civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ;

and to the service of Malmesbury:

    Quando rex ibat in expeditione vel terra vel mari habebat de
    hoc burgo aut xx. solidos ad pascendos suos buzecarlos aut
    unum hominem ducebat secum pro honore v. hidarum.[129]

Of course this brings us to the notoriously difficult question of the
thegn and his qualification. With this I am only concerned here so far
as it illustrates the prevalence of a five-hide unit. Mr Little, who
holds that Maurer, followed by Dr Stubbs, has gone too far, and that
'there is no proof of any general law or widely prevalent custom
which conferred on the owner of five hides pure and simple the title,
duties, and rights of a thegn',[130] sets forth his view thus:

    What then is the meaning of the frequent recurrence in the
    laws of possession of five hides of land as the distinctive
    mark of a particular rank?

    An explanation may be hazarded: at the end of the seventh
    century it was the normal and traditional holding of a royal
    _thegn_.... It is not too much to infer from the parallelism
    of the two wergelds, that five hides formed also the regular
    endowment of a Saxon king's thegn.[131]

Dr Stubbs' views will be found in his _Constitutional History_ (1874),
i. 155-6, 190-2, and those of Gneist in his _Constitutional History_
(1886), i. 13, 90, 94. The latter writer follows Schmidt rather than
Maurer, but sums up his position in the words: 'Since under Ælfred and
his successors every estate of five hides is reckoned in the militia
system as one heavy-armed man, the rank of a thane becomes the right
(as such) of a possessor of five hides.'

Lastly, it is an interesting and curious fact that we owe to the
five-hide unit such place-names as Fivehead, Somerset; Fifehead,
Dorset; Fifield, Oxon; Fifield and Fyfield, Wilts; Fyfield, Hants; and
Fyfield, Essex--all of them in Domesday 'Fifhide' or 'Fifehide'--as
well as Fyfield, Berks, which occurs in Domesday as 'Fivehide'.
Philologists will note the corruption and its bearing on the original

To the probable antiquity and origin of the five-hide system I must
recur, after glancing at the evidence for the northern and eastern
districts of England.


The subject that I now approach is one of the highest interest. I
propose to adduce for my theory convincing corroborative evidence
by showing that the part which is played in the hidated district of
England by the five-hide unit is played in the Danish districts by a
unit of six carucates. In other words, where we look in the former
for 'v. hidæ', we must learn to look in the latter for 'vi. carucatæ

One must dissociate at the outset this six-carucate unit from the
'long hundred', or _Angelicus numerus_, with which Mr Pell confused
it. In Mr Stevenson's instructive article on 'The Long Hundred and
its use in England',[132] he has clearly explained that this reckoning
only applied to a whole hundred, which, if a 'long' hundred, was
really 120. Any lesser number was reckoned in our usual manner. This
is seen at once in the test passage at Lincoln (D.B., i. 336_a_),
where 1,150 houses are reckoned as 'novies centum et lxx.', because
'hic numerus Anglice computatur, id est centum pro cxx'.[133] The
persistence, in Lincolnshire, of the long hundred is well shown in
the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ on Robert de Ros, 1311, among those
printed by Mr Vincent.[134] We there read of 'c. acre terra arrabilis
per majorem centenam que valent per annum lx. s. prec' acre vj. den.',
at Wyville and Hungerton (on the border of Leicestershire); while at
Claxby and Normanby (in the north of the county) we have 'cc. acras
per minorem centenam et valent c. s. prec' acre vj. d.' Again, at
Gedney (in the south-east), we have 'cc. acre terre arrabilis per
majus centum et valent per annum xxiiij. li'. prec' acre ij. s. et
iiij^{xx.} acre prati et valet per annum viij. li., prec' acre ij. s.
Et cxiij. acre pasture per majus centum et valent per annum ix. li.
xix. s. vi. d. prec' acre xviij. d.' On the same property there were
due 'ccciiij^{xx.} opera autumpnalia cum falcis, et valent xxxvj. s.
viij. d., prec' operis j. den.', so that these also were reckoned by
the long hundred.

Mr Stevenson was not aware of this evidence, but admitted that as the
Domesday passage refers to 'such a Danish stronghold as Lincolnshire,
it is not free from the suspicion of Danish influence'. His own
evidence from a sixteenth-century rental[135] is subject to a similar
criticism. For the general use, therefore, of the 'long hundred' in
England he is compelled to rely on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_
and Howden's description of the new survey of 1198, the 'hide or
ploughland' being described in both cases as of a hundred acres, where
the 'hundred' must have meant 120. But I venture to think that the
use of this reckoning for the ploughland, or archaic 'hide', does not
establish its general employment. In Domesday, certainly, it is only
at Lincoln that we find it actually recognized, houses being reckoned
everywhere else on the usual system.

I think, therefore, that we fairly may hold the _Anglicus numerus_, or
long hundred, to have specially prevailed in the 'Danish' districts,
which were also assessed, we shall find, in sums of six and twelve.
But what was the boundary of this Danish district? It was not the
border between Mercia and Wessex, for Mercia was itself divided
between the 'six' and the 'five' systems.[136] Of the two adjacent
Mercian shires, for instance, of Leicester and Warwick (afterwards
united under one sheriff), we find the latter decimal and the former
duodecimal. The military service of Warwick and Leicester was arranged
on the same method, yet Leicester sent _twelve_ 'burgesses' to the
fyrd where Warwick sent _ten_. But, it may be urged, the two shires
were divided by the Watling Street, the boundary (under the peace of
Wedmore) of Danelaw. Was then the Danelaw the district within which
the systems prevailed? No, for the Danelaw, under this treaty,
included all Cambridgeshire and other hidated districts. The answer,
therefore, which I propound is this: The district in which men
measured by carucates, and counted by twelves and sixes, was not the
district which the Danes _conquered_, but the district which the Danes
_settled_, the district of 'the Five Boroughs'.

Dependent on these 'Five Boroughs' were the four shires of Leicester,
Derby, Nottingham, and Lincoln. For two of the Boroughs, Lincoln and
Stamford, both belonged to this last shire, which was, indeed, the
stronghold of the system.[137] Between Stamford and Cambridge we
have the same contrast as between Warwick and Leicester, for while
Cambridge was divided into _ten_ wards ('custodiæ'), Stamford was
divided into _six_. Lincolnshire, as I have said, was the stronghold
of the system, and it is in Lincoln itself that we find Domesday
alluding _eo nomine_ to the _Anglicus numerus_, the practice of
counting 120 as 100.

Now in the peculiar district of which I am treating there occurs an
important formula which covers Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire,
and Notts. Domesday has nothing like it for the other parts of
England. Here are the three passages in which we find it recorded:


  Pax manu regis vel    Pax data manu regis    In Snotingehamscyre
  sigillo ejus data,    vel sigillo ejus,      et in Derbin scyre
  si fuerit infracta,   si fuerit infracta,    pax regis manu vel
  emendatur per         regi solummodo         sigillo data, si
  xviii. hundrez.       emendatur per xii.     fuerit infracta,
  Unumquidque hundret   hundrez, unumquidque   emendatur per xviii.
  solvit viii. libras.  hundret viii. libras.  hundrez, unumquidque
  Duodecim hundrez      Pax a comite data et   hundret viii. libras.
  emendant regi et vi.  infracta a quolibet    Hujus emendationis
  comiti.--i. 336_b._   ipsi comiti per vi.    habet rex ii. partes,
                        hundrez emendatur,     comes terciam. Id est
                        unumquidque viii.      xii. hundred emendant
                        libras--i. 298_b._     regi et vi. comiti--i.

For comparison with these three passages we may turn to the charter of
immunities confirmed to York Cathedral by Henry I, Stephen, and Henry
II. We there read:

    Si quis enim quemlibet cujuscumque facinoris aut flagitii
    reum et convictum infra atrium ecclesiæ caperet et retineret,
    universali judicio vi. _hundreth_ emendabit; si vero infra
    ecclesiam xii. _hundreth_ infra chorum xviii. ... _In
    hundreth_ viii. _libræ continentur_.[138]

As there were _twelve_ carucates in the 'Hundred', so it paid _twelve_
marcs, which, if we can trust the above explanation, themselves came
to be termed a 'Hundred'. Moreover, the 'Hundreds' themselves were
grouped in multiples of _six_. So too the Yorkshire thegn who held
_six_ Manors or less paid three marcs to the sheriff; if he held more
than six, _twelve_ marcs to the king (_Domesday_, i. 289_b_).

It is a special feature of the 'Danish' district that each
territorial 'Hundred' contained twelve 'carucatæ terræ'. This point
is all-important. Just as a 'Hundred' to an Anglo-Saxon suggested one
hundred 'hides', so to the Danes of this district it suggested twelve
'carucates'. Nay, to the men of Lincolnshire there could be no more
question that twelve carucates made a 'Hundred' than there could be
now, among ourselves that twelve pence make a shilling. If we turn to
the Lindsey Survey,[139] a generation later than Domesday, we obtain
proof to that effect. We find that Survey, in three instances, adding
up all the estates of a tenant within a Wapentake, and giving us the
result in 'Hundreds' and 'carucates'. Here are the actual figures:

       _Car._ _Bov._        _Car._  _Bov._         _Car._  _Bov._

         2      4            12       0             12       0
         2      0            10       0             11       4
         2      4            10       6              3       0
        11      0             8       0              1       0
         5      0             6       0              2       0
        11      0             1       4              3       0
         8      6             0       4              3       4
                                                     1       0
                                                     0       6
                                                     2       0
                                                     1       6
         --------             --------               ----------
  H. 3   6      6[140]  H. 4  0      6[141]  H. 3    5       4[142]

Now we must observe that these 'Hundreds' are not _districts_ with 'a
local habitation and a name'; they are merely sums of twelve carucates
produced by compound addition. We further find, at the head of the
survey of each Wapentake, a note that it is reckoned to contain so
many 'Hundreds', with the explanation, in some instances that in each
'Hundred' were 'xii. carucatæ terræ'.[143] But even here the real unit
is shown to be 'six carucates', for several Wapentakes contain an odd
'half-hundred', while in that of Horncastle this is actually entered
as 'six carucates'.

Here are the nineteen Wapentakes, with the number of Hundreds assigned
to each, and the number of 'carucatæ terræ' that such Hundreds would

                          West Trithing

    _Wapentake_          _Hundreds_             _Car. terr._

    Manley                []-1/2
    Aslacoe               7-1/2                    90
    Lawress              12                       144
    Corringham            5                        60
    Axholme               4                        48
    Well                  7                        84

                          North Trithing

    Walshcroft           8                         96
    Haverstoe            7-1/2                     90
    Bradley              3-1/2[144] [and 3 bov.]   42-3/8
    Ludborough           3                         36
    Yarborough          14                        168
    Bolingbroke          8                         96
    Gartree              6                         72

                         South Trithing

    Candleshoe         10                         120
    Calceworth         10                         120
    Wraghoe             9                         108
    Hill                6                          72
    Lothesk            10                         120
    Horncastle          6-1/2                      78

All the above, it will be seen, are multiples of the six-carucate
unit. That the aggregate of recorded 'carucatæ terræ' appears to
differ, though slightly, from the totals here given only shows how
vain is the argument that, because the recorded aggregates of Hundreds
may often be uneven figures, there could therefore have been no
system at work such as I contend there was. Clerical error and special
alterations have both to be allowed for.

It has never, so far as I know, been pointed out that these Lindsey
Trithings were so arranged as to contain an approximately equal number
of 'Hundreds'. So far as it is possible now to reckon them, the South
Trithing contained 51-1/2, the North Trithing 51-1/2, and the West
Trithing 49-1/2. Fifty 'Hundreds' would represent 600 _carucatæ_; and
it is, to say the least, a singular coincidence that, in the archaic
territorial list that has hitherto baffled investigation, the North
Gyrwa, South Gyrwa, and Spalda are reckoned each at 600 hides.[145]

I shall now give some instances of Lindsey townships assessed on the
basis of the six-carucate unit:

                       _Car._     _Bov._

    Willoughton          3          5-1/2
        "                2          2-1/2
                         6          0

    Faldingworth         2          4
        "                1          0
        "                2          4
                         6          0

    Reepham              0          4
        "                0          6
        "                4          6
                         6          0

    Thoresway            0          2
        "                5          6
                         6          0

    Benniworth           2          4
        "                3          4
                         6          0

    Thorganby            1          7
        "                0          5
        "                1          6
        "                0          6
        "                1          0
                         6          0

    Beelsby              4          4
        "                1          0
        "                0          4
                         6          0

    Riby                 1          4
       "                 4          4
                         6          0

    Rigsby               3          6
       "                 2          2
                         6          0

    South Kelsey         4          4
    Thornton le Moor     1          4
                         6          0

These instances will illustrate the value of the Lindsey Survey
in enabling us to group the fractional assessments which appear in
Domesday Book. Here are some other varieties:

                       _Car._     _Bov._

    Dunholm              5          3
       "                 2          5
       "                 2          0
       "                 2          0
                        12          0

    Glentham             3          0
       "                 0         10
    Glentham and Caenby  7          6
                        12          0

    Scotton              0          4
       "                 0          4
       "                 2          0
       "                 6          0
                         9          0

    Irby-on-Humber       1          4
       "                 1          0
       "                 0          4
                         3          0

    Somerby              2          4
       "                 0          6
                         3          0

    Barrow-on-Humber    11          0
       "                 1          0
                        12          0

    South Elkington      4          0
       "                 8          0
                        12          0

    Winteringham        11          0
       "                 1          0
                        12          0

    Nun Ormsby           2          2
       "                 4          4
       "                 2          2
                         9          0

    Croxby               0          3
       "                 0          5
       "                 1          0
       "                 1          0
                         3          0

    Worlaby              2          2
       "                 0          6
                         3          0

Lastly, to complete the parallel with the Leicestershire Hundreds
_infra_, we may take this case (_cf._ p. 65, note 122):

    Claxby and Well             14
    Claxby                      10

Precisely the same system prevailed in Holland as in Lindsey, for
the 'Testa de Nevill' preserves for us the constituents of a Holland
Wapentake, that of 'Elhou':

    Pinchbeck                  12
    Spalding                   12
    Weston                      6
    Moulton                     6
    Whaplode and Holbeach      18
    Fleet                       6
    Gedney      8}             12
    Lutton      4}
    Sutton  9-3/4}             12
    Tydd    2-1/4}

The Lindsey Survey would describe such a Wapentake as containing
'Seven Hundreds'.

Crossing the border from Lincolnshire into Rutland (_i.e._ the Rutland
of Domesday), we find the same system at work that meets us in the
Lindsey Survey. We read:

    In Alfnodestou Wapent' sunt ii. Hundrez. In unoquoque [sunt]
    xii. carucatæ ad geldum.... In Martinesleie Wap' est i.
    hundret, in quo xii. carucatæ ad geldum.--_D.B._, i. 293_b._

On analysing the contents of these Wapentakes, we find this statement
fully borne out, the former containing twenty-four, and the latter
twelve, 'carucatæ terræ'. These are carefully contrasted throughout
with the 'terra carucæ' or areal measure.[146]

In Yorkshire, Notts and Derby, we have less direct evidence. Sawley,
in Derbyshire, has indeed been alleged to be entered in Domesday as
a Hundred of twelve carucates, but Domesday does not justify this
assertion being made.[147] I would rather trust to the notable
formula, which, as I explained at the outset, is common to these
counties for proof that they also were arranged in 'Hundreds' of
twelve carucates.

The prevalence, however, of assessment by sixes, threes, and twelves,
meets us on every side, as does, in hidated districts, the assessments
by fives and tens. At the outset, for instance, of the survey of
Yorkshire we have the district 'gelding' with the city assessed at
eighty-four (12×7) carucates (which would be described in Lincolnshire
as seven 'Hundreds'). We have two lists of the details, which are
given here.[148]

               _Car. terræ_           _Car. terræ_

    Archbishop     6      Archbishop      6
    Osboldeuuic    6      Osboldeuuic     6
    Stocthun       6      Stochetun       6
    Sa'bura        3      Sa'bure         3
    Heuuarde       6      Heuuorde        6
    Ditto          3
    Fuleford      10      Fuleforde      10
    Round the City 3      Round the City  3
    Cliftune      18      Cliftune       18
    Roudclif       3      Roudeclif       3
    Ouertun        5      Ouertune        5
    Sceltun        9      Scheltune       9
    Mortun         3      Mortune         3
    Wichistun      1      Wichintun       3
                 ----                   ----
                 '84'                   '84'

These lists have a value independent of their illustration of the
arrangement in threes and sixes. They show how Domesday breaks down,
when it supplies a check upon its own evidence, by failing to make its
details agree with its total; and they further show by the discrepancy
between them how easily error may arise, and how rash it must be to
argue from a single case.[149]

Yorkshire presents other traces, in its Hundreds, of the same system.
Thus the townships in the Hundred of 'Toreshou' follow one another
in this order: 18, 18, 20, 6, 18, 8, 12, 12 (8+4), 6, 18, 8, 18, etc.
(_infra_, p. 80).

But my strong evidence is found in an invaluable survey of
Leicestershire, unknown till now to historians,[150] which does for
the carucated districts just what the _Inq. Com. Cant._ does for the
hidated ones. Here we find the townships grouped in small blocks
of from six to twenty-four 'carucatæ terræ', as a rule with almost
monotonous regularity. And these blocks are further combined in small
local Hundreds, of which the very existence is unknown to historians
and antiquaries,[151] and which are usually multiples, like the
Lincolnshire Wapentake, of the six-carucate unit.

It will be remembered that in the case of Cambridgeshire, I selected
for my first two examples a Hundred of 50 hides, composed of 5 Vills
assessed at 10 hides each, and a Hundred of 70 hides, composed of 7
Vills, assessed at 10 hides each. In Leicestershire, precisely in the
same manner, I shall begin with the simplest forms and select Hundreds
of 36 and 48 carucates, composed of Vills uniformly assessed at 12
carucates each.


    Scalford              12 (11-1/2 + 1/2)
    Goadby                12 (6 + 6)
    Knipton               12 (8-3/4 + 3-1/4)


    Kibworth (Beauchamp)  12
    Kibworth (Harcourt)   12
    'Bocton'              12
    Carlton               12 (10 + 1-1/4 + 3/4)

From these we may advance to other combinations:


    Harby and Plungar    18
    Stathern             18


    Tong                 12
    Kegworth             15}  18
    Worthington           3}
    'Dominicum'          12


    Langton (1)        }        { 14-1/2 (11-1/4 + 3-1/4)
    Thorp (Langton)    } 24     { 3-3/4
    Langton (2)        }        { 5-3/4

    Tur Langton        }        { 12
    Shangton           } 24     { 12 (10 + 2)

With these types as clues we are in a position to assert that where
the total assessment of a Hundred varies but slightly from a multiple
of six, there must have been some slight error in one of the figures.
Thus Hundreds of 35-1/2, 34-13/16 carucates, etc., may be safely
assumed to have been Hundreds of 36 carucates; those of 41, 43-7/8,
etc., would be of 42 carucates; those of 48-7/8, 50, etc., would be
of 48 carucates. These slight discrepancies, precisely as in
Lincolnshire, are accounted for by Vills of 6 or 12 carucates, being
entered as of 5-7/8, 5-13/16, 6-3/4, or 11-7/8, 13, etc. Thus:


    _Vills_               _Carucates_
    Eastwell            12 (2 + 6 + 4)
    Eaton               12-1/4 (3-1/4 + 9/16 + 8-7/16)
    Branston            12 (7-1/2 + 4-1/2)

The most usual Leicestershire Hundreds are those of 36, 42, and 48
carucates, which, be it observed, would be described in the language
of the Lindsey Survey as 'Wapentakes' of 3, 3-1/2, and 4 'Hundreds'
respectively. The name may be different: the thing is the same.[152]

It will have been seen by this Survey that the 'Vills', single or
grouped, were assessed precisely as in Cambridgeshire, save that there
the assessment was reckoned in fives and tens, while here it was in
sixes and twelves.


The case of Leicestershire introduces us to a very curious point.
Leicestershire is not one of those counties to which the singular
formula that I discussed above refers. This suggests that it was not
arranged in 'Hundreds' of twelve carucates. The above Survey confirms
this, for it shows us Hundreds resembling in character those found in
the hidated districts. But although the twelve-carucate unit of
the 'Hundred' is not found in Leicestershire, we do find in it a
group-unit, and that unit is the _hida_. Just as we have seen the
Hundred used in two wholly different senses, so also was the 'hida'.
The quite peculiar way in which 'hida' occurs in Leicestershire (which
was not a hidated but carucated district) completely baffled Mr Eyton,
and was misunderstood by Mr Pell.[153] Both writers failed to observe
not only that the use of 'hida' is here of a peculiar character, but
also that the normal 'hida' of Domesday (from which they could not
emancipate themselves) would be quite out of place in this carucated

The first point to grasp is that this Leicestershire 'hida' was a term
which, locally I mean, explained itself. It is used at least a dozen
times in the Survey of Leicestershire without any mention of its
contents. Those contents must have been, therefore, familiar and
fixed. But what were those contents? Three incidental notices enable
us to determine them:

    231 (_a_), 2: 'Ibi est i. hida et iiii^{ta.} pars i. hidæ. Ibi
    sunt xxii. car' terræ et dimidia.'

    236 (_a_), 1: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'

    237 (_a_), 2: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'

Just as the 'Hundred' of Lincolnshire was a sum of twelve
carucates, so the 'Hide' of Leicestershire was a sum of _eighteen
carucates_.[154] Working in the light of this discovery (for as such
I claim it), we find that the other 'hides', thus interpreted, give
us an aggregate of 'carucates' obviously suitable to the recorded
ploughlands.[155] It may, however, be fairly asked why Domesday
should speak in one place of half a 'hide', and in another of nine
'carucates'; in one place of a hide and a third, and in another of
twenty-four carucates. The answer is that the singular love of variety
which distinguishes Domesday in Cambridgeshire (as we saw) is at
work here also. For instance, two equal estates are thus described:
'Willelmus iiii. car' terræ et dimidiam et iii. bovatas, et Rogerus
iiii. car' terræ et vii. bovatas' (fo. 234_a_). The same instinct
which led the scribe to enter these seven bovates as half a carucate
_plus_ three bovates, led him also to enter ten and a half carucates
as half a hide _plus_ a carucate and a half (fo. 237_a_).

But to the rule I have established there is a single exception. We
read of 'Medeltone' in this shire: 'Ibi sunt vii. hidæ et una carucata
terræ et una bovata. In unaquaque hida sunt xiiii. carucatæ terræ et
dimidia' (fo. 235_b_). The actual formula employed is unique for the
shire, and the figures are specially given as an exception. But, with
singular perversity, Domesday students have always been inclined to
pitch upon the exceptions as representing the rule, forgetting that
it was precisely in exceptional cases that figures had to be given. In
normal cases they would have been superfluous.

Several years have elapsed since I wrote the above explanation, but
I have decided to publish it exactly as it originally stood. In the
meanwhile, however, Mr Stevenson has dealt with the subject in
an article on 'The Hundreds of Domesday: the Hundred of Land'
(1890).[156] He has advanced the ingenious theory that the
Leicestershire 'hida' was only a clerical error for H[undred], and
that it was really that 'Hundred' of _twelve_ carucates which we
meet with in the Lindsey Survey. To prove this, he reads an entry on
236_a_, 1, as 'Ogerus Brito tenet in Cilebe de rege ii. partes unius
hidæ, id est xii. car[ucatæ] terræ', and claims that this gloss
defines the 'hida' as a 'hundred' of twelve carucates. I confess that
to me such a rendering is in the highest degree non-natural. If we
speak of 'two-thirds of a yard, that is twenty-four inches', we
should clearly imply that the yard itself was thirty-six inches, not
twenty-four. Similarly, I claim to render the 'gloss' as implying that
the 'hida' itself contained eighteen carucatæ, not twelve.[157] If
I am right, Mr Stevenson's suggestion that this 'hida' was really a
'Hundred' also falls to the ground.

After careful study of the Domesday Survey of Leicestershire,
I definitely hold that in that county 'carucata terræ' was the
geld-carucate and 'terra _x_ car[ucis]' the actual ploughlands.[158]
Now there are only three instances in which the Survey records the
assessment both in terms of the 'hida' and in 'carucatæ terræ', and in
all three the figures support my own theory. The Abbot of Coventry's
Burbage estate (231_a_, 2), where a 'hide' and a quarter equates
22-1/2 'carucatæ terræ', is a test-case, and Mr Stevenson there takes
refuge in a suggested 'beneficial hidation'. The exact formula, no
doubt, is peculiar, but reference to the text shows that 's[un]t' has
been interpolated between 'ibi' and 'xxii.' I suspect that the scribe
had written 'ibi' (from the force of habit) when he ought to have
written 'id est'.

I close this portion of my essay by applying my own theory to the case
of 'Erendesbi' (Arnesby). The relative entries are:

    'Episcopus Constantiensis tenet in Erendesber iii^{as.}
    car[ucatas] terræ et dim. et unam bovatam (231).'

    'W[illelmus] Pevrel tenet dim. hidam et iii. bovatas terræ in
    Erendesbi (235).'

Put into figures they work out:

                              _Car._  _Bov._

    Bishop of Coutances         2-1/2   1
    William Peverel             9       3
                               12       0

So that Arnesby was a typical Vill assessed at twelve carucates.[159]


There is one other case of a peculiar 'hide' in Domesday. This is that
which is found in the land 'between Ribble and Mersey', that district
of which the description offers so many peculiarities. We find it
divided into six hundreds, and of the 'hides' in the first, that of
(West) Derby, we read: 'In unaquaque hida sunt vi. carucatæ terræ' (i.
269_b_). Whether or not that explanation applies, as is believed, to
the whole district, we have here again a 'Danish' place-name brought
into direct relation with the six-carucate unit. On the opposite
bank of the Mersey lay the Wirral peninsula, in which this system of
assessment cannot be traced.

Mr Green alluded to the Danish 'byes' as found, by exception, 'about
Wirral in Cheshire',[160] and held that Norsemen from the Isle of Man
had founded 'the little group of northern villages which we find in
the Cheshire peninsula of the Wirral'.[161] I cannot find them myself.
In his 'Notes on the Domesday Survey, so far as it relates to the
Hundred of Wirral'[162] (1893), Mr Fergusson Irvine, in a paper
which shows, though somewhat discursive, how much can only be done
by intelligent local research, has collated all the Domesday entries.
'Raby' is the one place I can there find in the peninsula with the
'bye' termination; while out of fifty-one entries twenty refer to
places with the English termination 'tone', and the Anglo-Saxon
test-words 'ham' and 'ford' are found in four others. There were,
doubtless, Norse elements in the peninsula, but they were not strong
enough to change the place-names or divide the land on their own
system. In the same way, Chester had its 'lawmen', though it was not
one of the Five Boroughs, nor is what I have termed the Scandinavian
formula applied to Cheshire in Domesday. So, too, there were lawmen at
Cambridge, and their heriot included eight pounds,[163] which occur in
the above formula as the twelve marcs of the Danish 'Hundred'. Yet the
whole system of Cambridgeshire was non-Danish. It was only, in short,
where the northern invaders had settled down as a people that they
were strong enough to divide the land anew and organize the whole
assessment on their own system.


We have seen that the unit of assessment for the carucated districts
of England was 'vi. carucatæ terræ', just as five hides was the
old unit in the south. We have also seen that the former reckoning
extended over those districts which the Danish immigrants had settled.
There remains the question whether the Danes had merely substituted
six for five in the pre-existing arrangement, or had made a wholly new
one for themselves based on actual area.

It is _primâ facie_ not probable that they can have adopted the latter
course, for the uniformity of their assessment proves its artificial
character. Yet, in his remarkable paper on 'The Ploughland and the
Plough',[164] Canon Taylor has arrived at the conclusion that:

    The geldable carucate of Domesday does not signify what the
    carucate usually signifies in other early documents. The
    'carucata ad geldum' is not as commonly stated by Domesday
    commentators, the quantity of land ploughed in each year by
    one plough, but it is the quantity tilled in one year _in one
    arable field_ by one plough.[165]

This 'novel and important proposition', as its author truly described
it, was probably the most notable contribution to our knowledge that
the Domesday Commemoration produced. The Canon's theory, which (so
far as his own East Riding is concerned) he certainly seems to have
established, is, at first sight, fatal to mine. But, on the other
hand, my own theory can be proved no less clearly for Leicestershire,
where the 'carucata terræ' and the ploughs are often connected in
about the same ratio as in Yorkshire.[166] This leads us to inquire
whether, even in the East Riding (where his theory works best), we may
not find traces of that assessment by the six-carucate unit which I
advocate myself. Such traces in Yorkshire we have already seen,[167]
but there is other and stronger evidence.

If we take the modern Wapentake of Dickering (the first on Canon
Taylor's list) and examine its three Domesday Hundreds of Turbar,
Hunton, and Burton, we obtain these results:[168]


    Hundemanebi                               24
    Ricstorp, Mustone, Scloftone, and Neuton  18
    Flotemanebi                                6
    Muston and Neuton                          6
    Fordun and Ledemare                        6
    Burton, Fulcheton, and Chelc              30
    Chelc (2), Ergone, Bringeham, Estolf,
    Fodstone, and Chemelinge                  19
    Nadfartone                                23-3/4
    Pochetorp                                  6
    Helmeswelle and Gartune                   44


    Flaneburg and Siwardbi                    24-1/2
    Marton                                     9
    Bredinton                                 18
    Hilgertorp                                 6
    Wivlestorp and Basingebi                  12
    Frestintorp                                9    }
    Eleburne                                     1/2 } 29-1/2
    Eston                                      6    }
    Bovintorp                                 14   }
    Gerendele                                 12
    Ricton, Benton and Spetton                24
    Bocheton                                  12
    Fleuston                                  14   }
    Stactone                                   6   } 27
    Foxhole                                    7   }


    Burton                                    12
    Grenzmore (4+2)                            6
    Arpen (4+8)                               12
    Chillon (30+11+7)                         48
    Roreston (9+3)                            12
    Logetorp (1-1/2+5-1/2)                     7  }
    Thirnon                                    7  }
    Ascheltorp (4+2)                           6  } 36
    Torp                                       3  }
    Cherendebi                                13  }
    Caretorp (5+4+3)                          12
    Rodestain (8+8+8)                         24
    Twenc                                     17-1/4
    Suauetorp                                  9
    Fornetorp (4+14)                          18
    Butruid                                   12
    Langetou (9+6)                            15  }
    Buitorp                                    5  }
    Bruneton                                   3  } 42
    Galmeton                                   8  }
    Binneton                                   6  }
    Widlaueston                                5

The evidence of this last Hundred is so overwhelming that it cannot be

I claim, therefore, that my theory holds good even in Canon Taylor's
stronghold, but I do so without venturing to dispute the accuracy of
his own. How far they can be reconciled I leave to others to decide.

There are certain difficulties, however, which his brilliant
suggestion must raise. It is the essence of his theory that in a
two-field Manor the ploughland of 160 acres (half fallow) was
assessed at _one_ 'carucata terræ', while in the three-field Manor the
ploughland of 180 acres (a third fallow) was assessed at _two_. This
would be an obvious and gross injustice. Again, remembering that,
according to the Canon, the proportion of 'carucatæ' to ploughlands
should be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1, what are we to make of such figures
as these, taken at a venture from a page of the Leicestershire Survey
(232_a_, 1):

    _Carucatæ_  _Ploughlands_  _Carucata_   _Ploughlands_

       1           2         12            8
       1             1/2     11-1/8        7
       2           1          9            4
       5-5/8       4          7            6
       2           1          6            5
       2-5/8       4          2            4
       1           1         10            7
       6           4          9            6
       8-7/8       6          5/8            1/2
         1/2         1/2      6            4 (thrice)
      28           22         4-7/8        3

It is certainly difficult to discover any regular or consistent
assessment in a system where the ploughland was represented by
anything from 1/2 _carucata_ to 2-1/4 _carucatæ_. There is, however,
in so many cases an approximation to an assessment of three _carucatæ_
for two ploughlands, that there seems to have been some underlying
idea, if we could only trace it out. But for this there is needed a
special investigation of all the carucated counties, a work of great
labour and requiring local co-operation. If we could have tables for
each county, arranged Hundred by Hundred and Vill by Vill, showing in
parallel columns the ploughland and the _carucatæ ad geldum_, we
could then, and only then, venture to speak positively. Till that
is accomplished we are not in a position to explain how a system
of assessment, based on actual area, could result in aggregate
assessments uniformly expressed in terms of the six-carucate unit.


In seeking a clue to the origin of that artificial assessment, of
which the traces, whether more or less apparent, linger on the pages
of Domesday, I propose to exclude the carucated district, because
we require, as I have said, more complete evidence as to the system
pursued within it, and because, being associated with the settlement
of the Danes it represents a later introduction, while the very name
'carucate', as I observed in _Domesday Studies_, has, unlike the
mysterious 'hide', an obvious connection with the ploughland.
Confining ourselves to the district assessed in terms of the 'hide',
we seek to learn the origin of the system by which, as I contend, it
was divided for the purpose of taxation into blocks, each of which was
expressed in terms of the five-hide unit.

Now if we follow the clue afforded by the Cambridgeshire evidence,
and hold that the assessment was originally laid not on the Manor,
nor even on the Vill, but on the Hundred as a whole,[170] it might
be suggested that the Hundred itself subdivided the amount among its
constituent elements. In practice, indeed, from the nature of the
case, this principle must have prevailed in every _town_ assessed at a
Hundred or Half-Hundred, for where an urban community was assessed
in 'hides' the burgesses must, as in later days, have settled among
themselves the proportion to be borne by individuals or individual
properties. If, then, they were able to do this, and if, as I hold,
town and country were assessed on the same principle, as part of the
same system, what was to prevent their neighbours, in the court of
the rural Hundred, similarly distributing among its constituents their
respective shares of the common burden?

We might even be tempted to go far further than this, and to carry
our discoveries to a logical conclusion. If, as is asserted, direct
taxation ('geld') began in England with the need for raising money to
buy off the Danes, let us ask ourselves how the Witan would proceed
when confronted with a demand, let us say, for £10,000. As there had
been hitherto, _ex hypothesi_, no direct taxation, there would be no
statistical information at their disposal, enabling them to raise by
a direct levy the sum required. Their only possible resource, we might
hold, would be to apportionate it in round sums among the contributory
shires. Proceeding on precisely the same lines, the county court,
in its turn, would distribute the _quota_ of the shire among its
constituent Hundreds, and the Hundred court would then assign to each
Vill its share. As the Vills were represented in the Hundred court,
and the Hundreds in the Shire court, the just apportionment of the
Shire's _quota_ would be thus practically secured. The arrangement
would, moreover, be as satisfactory to the Witan as it was fair to the
contributors _inter se_; for, by this gradation of responsibility, the
payment of the whole was absolutely secured. This explanation is very
tempting, and, indeed, such a system of apportioning liability is to
be traced from time immemorial in the Indian village community.[171]
Moreover, if the ratio of 'hides' to ploughlands were found to vary to
any marked extent, according to county, the hypothesis that the quota,
in the first instance, was laid upon each county would duly explain
the ratio assessment being higher or lower in one county than in

But such an hypothesis would imply that this assessment dated only
from the days of Æthelred, or _circ._ 1000. Now the five-hide unit,
on the contrary, was undoubtedly an old institution. Church lordships,
the easiest to trace, appear to have retained their hidation unchanged
from early times, and the 'possessio decem familiarum' of Bede seems
to carry the decimal system back to very early days. Mr Seebohm,
indeed--though, like others, he had failed to discover the existence
of the five-hide system--saw in this 'possessio' of Bede a connecting
link with the Roman _decuria_, just as he saw in the Roman _jugatio_
the possible origin of English hidation. And we must, of course, trace
its artificial arrangement (1) either to the Romans, (2) or to the
Britons--assuming them to have had the same system as existed in Wales
for the food-rents, (3) or to the English invaders.

Arrested at this point by the difficulty of assigning to the system I
have described its real origin, I dropped these studies for some years
in the hope that there might come from some quarter fresh light upon
the problem. As I cannot, however, for lack of evidence, propound a
solution capable of proof, I will content myself with indicating the
line of research that offers, I venture to think, the most likelihood
of success.

The proportionate sums contributed by the several counties to the
Danegeld present a fruitful field of inquiry, but one, it would seem,
as yet unworked. Mr Eyton, it is true, observed that 'in Devon and
Cornwall the scope of the gheld-hide was enormous',[172] that is, in
other words, the assessment was strangely low, but it did not occur
to him to seek the cause of the phenomenon he observed. If, as was
the case, West Wales was assessed on quite a different scale to the
counties adjoining it on the east, it may suggest a conclusion no less
important than that, when the latter were originally assessed,
West Wales was not yet a portion of the English realm. But, before
concluding that the hide assessment is proved to be as ancient as
this, we must see whether it is possible to detect any principle at
work in the total assessments of the several counties, any relation
between their area and the sums they contributed to the geld as
entered in the Pipe Roll of 1130, our first evidence on the subject.

For such an enquiry it is especially needful to insist on breadth of
treatment. In the first place, the modern area of the counties may
vary more or less from the original extent;[173] in the second we
have no proof that the assessment had always been the same, though the
tendency in early days, no doubt, was to stereotype such figures. We
must not, therefore attempt close or detailed investigation but if,
on a review of the whole evidence, we detect certain broad features,
uneffaced by the hand of time, we may fairly claim that we have in
these the traces of a principle at work, the witness to a state of
things prevailing in the distant past.

On comparing the contributions to a 'geld' at two shillings on the
hide with the (modern) area of counties, we find that a rate of about
a pound for every seven square miles prevailed widely enough to be
almost described as normal.

The three eastern counties work out thus:

                Square Miles   (At 1/7)      Actual Sum

                               £             £     s  d

    Norfolk     2,119          302-5/7       330   3  2
    Suffolk     1,475          210-5/7       235   0  8
    Essex       1,542          220-2/7       236   8  0

In all three cases the proportion to the square mile is between a
sixth and a seventh of a pound. In Cambridgeshire it is just under, in
Sussex, just over, a seventh:

             Square Miles     (At 1/7)       Actual Sum

                              £              £     s  d

    Cambridgeshire    820     117-1/7        114  15  0
    Sussex          1,458     208-2/7        209  18  6

Most remarkable, however, is this Midland group:

            Square Miles     (At 1/7)        Actual Sum

                              £              £     s  d

    Leicestershire    700    100             100   0  0
    Warwickshire      885    126-3/7         128  12  6
    Worcestershire    738    105-3/7         101   5  7
    Gloucestershire 1,224    174-6/7         179  11  8
    Somerset        1,640    234-2/7         227  10  4

It is remarkable, not only for this agreement _inter se_, but also
for the sharp contrast it presents to the groups of counties, lying
respectively to the south-east and the north-west of it. The former
approximates a rate twice as high, namely, _two_-sevenths of a pound
to the square mile:

            Square Miles     (At 2/7)        Actual Sum

                               £             £    s   d

    Buckinghamshire   745    212-3/7         204  14  7
    Oxfordshire       756    216             239   9  3
    Berkshire         722    206-2/7         200   1  3
    Wiltshire       1,354    386-6/7         388  13  0

Taking this group as a whole, it paid £1,032 18s 1d, a curiously close
approximation to the £1,021-4/7 which my suggested rate of 2/7 would
give. Middlesex was so exceptional a county, that one hardly likes to
include it, but there also the rate was a little over two-sevenths.

On the other hand, the counties to the north-west of what I have
termed the Midland group are assessed at a rate singularly low.
Nottingham and Derby, with a joint area of 1,855 miles, contributed
only £108 8s 6d, representing one-seventeenth;[174] while
Staffordshire, with its 1,169 miles, is found paying £44 0s 11d, a
rate scarcely more than one twenty-seventh. Passing to the opposite
corner of the realm, we have Kent, always a wealthy county, assessed
at the phenomenally low rate of about one-fifteenth (£105 2s 10d,
as against 1,555 miles), rather less than half that of Essex to its
north, and Sussex to its west.

It would seem impossible to resist the conclusion that in these widely
differing rates we have traces of a polity as yet divided, of those
independent kingdoms from which had been formed the realm. Kent, for
instance, which had so steadily maintained, first, its independent
existence, and then its local institutions, had succeeded in
preserving an assessment that its neighbours had cause to envy. In the
west, Cornwall similarly enjoyed a low, indeed a nominal assessment
while that of Devon, though higher than this, was so significantly
lower than those of Somerset and Dorset[175] as to remind us that
here, in part at least, the 'Welsh' long held their own. If the
incidence of geld were shown by shading a map of England, on the plan
so successfully adopted in Mr Seebohm's great work, it would show that
the heavily assessed counties were those which formed the nucleus of
the old West-Saxon realm.[176] All round this nucleus the map would
shade off sharply, another sudden change marking the Danish counties
on the north, the Jutish kingdom on the east, and the British district
in the south-west. It is, perhaps, worthy of remark that Shropshire
was assessed twice as heavily as the adjoining county of Stafford,
possibly because part of it was added, at a very early period, to the
kingdom of the West Saxons. If Mr Eyton was right in his reckoning
that Kesteven was assessed twice as heavily as Lindsey, and Lindsey,
in turn, twice as heavily as Holland, it would illustrate the survival
of local distinctions even within the compass of a modern county, as
well as the 'shading off' tendency of which I have already spoken.

The point I have here endeavoured to bring out is that if the system
of artificial assessment were of Roman or British origin, we should
expect to find it fairly uniform over the whole country, whereas we
find, on the contrary, the very widest discrepancies. It might be
urged, perhaps, that these were due to the differing conditions of
particular counties, to their more or less partial reclamation, for
instance, of the date when they were assessed. But this would not
account for the grouping I have traced, and would imply that each
county ought to differ indefinitely. Nor would it explain the case of
Kent, where a county that must have been foremost in early development
and prosperity enjoyed a phenomenally low assessment.

Another objection that may be raised to my hypothesis is that the
Hundred, as an area for police and rating, was a comparatively late
institution, and that if the artificial system of assessment were
as ancient as I suggest, it could not have operated, as we saw, in
Cambridgeshire, it did operate, through the 'Hundred'. It is, however,
admitted that the _thing_ represented by the 'Hundred' was, whatever
its original name, of immemorial antiquity, as the intermediate
division between the Vill and the Shire or kingdom. Approaching the
subject from the legal standpoint, Professor Maitland has pointed out
that the Hundred having a proper court, which the Vill had not, was
the older institution of the two, and has skilfully seized on the
differentiation of villages originally possessing one name in common
as a hint that some such subdivision may have been going on more
widely than is known. It seems to me to be at least possible that
the district originally representing a Hundred, and named, as we
are learning, in most cases from the primitive meeting-place of its
settlers, was reckoned as so many multiples of five or ten hides,
and that this aggregate was subsequently distributed by its community
among themselves.[177]

If it be not presumption to touch on the controversies as to the
Hundred,[178] I would suggest that while agreeing with Dr Stubbs,
that the name of 'Hundred' may be traced to the ordinance of
Edgar[179]--which did not, however, create the district itself--I
cannot reconcile it with the view to which he leans in his
_Constitutional History_, that 'under the name of geographical
hundreds we have the variously sized _pagi_ or districts in which the
hundred warriors settled'; and that we should 'recognize in the name
the vestige of the primitive settlement, and in the district itself
an earlier or a later subdivision of the kingdom to which it
belonged'.[180] For my part, I have never been able to understand the
anxiety to identify the district known, in later days, as a 'Hundred'
with an original hundred warriors, families, or hides. The significant
remark on the 'centeni' by Tacitus, that 'quod primo numerus fuit, jam
nomen et honor est', would surely lead us to expect that by the
time of the migration the 'Hundred' had become, like the 'hide' of
Domesday, a term even more at variance with fact. Indeed, in his
masterly 'Introductory sketch', Dr Stubbs observed that the 'superior
divisions' made by the 'new-comers' would 'have that indefiniteness
which even in the days of Tacitus belonged to the Hundreds,
the _centeni_ of the Germans', and that their 'system' would be
'transported whole, at the point of development which it has reached at

The suggestion I have made as to the origin of the five-hide system is
tentative only, and must remain so until we have at our disposal for
the whole hidated region that complete and trustworthy analysis
of assessment, on the need of which I again insist, at the risk of
wearisome iteration.


In Norfolk and Suffolk we find Domesday recording assessed values not,
as everywhere else, at the outset of an entry, but at its close; not
in terms of hides and carucates, but in terms of shillings and pence.
Instead of saying that a Manor paid on so many 'hidæ' or 'carucatæ
terræ', Domesday, in the case of these counties, normally employs the
phrase: '_x_ denarii de gelto'. Its meaning is that to every _pound_
paid by the Hundred as geld the Manor contributed _x_ pence.[182]
Thus, in the case of a Hundred assessed at a hundred hides, the
formula for a five-hide Manor would be here 'xii. denarii de gelto',
instead of the usual 'defendit se pro v. hidis', or some such phrase
as that. There is an exact parallel to this method of recording
assessed values in the case of fractions of knights' fees where
portions of land are entered as paying so much 'when the scutage is
forty shillings', instead of being assessed in terms of the knight's
fee.[183] This system would seem, however, to have been understood
imperfectly if at all. I may, therefore, point out that its nature is
clear from the case of the Suffolk Hundred of Thingoe.

The case of this Hundred is singularly instructive. We find its
twenty 'Vills' grouped in _blocks_, precisely as in the Cambridgeshire
Hundreds, and these blocks are all _equal units of assessment_, like
the ten-hide groups of the hidated districts. But in this case we
can go further still, for we are not dependent on Domesday alone. The
portion of a special Survey executed about a century later (_circ._
1185) for Abbot Sampson of St Edmund's, which relates to its Hundred,
is fortunately preserved, and gives us the name of the twelve 'leets'
into which this Hundred was divided.[184]

Here are the divisions recorded in it, with the Domesday assessment
(in pence) of each Vill placed against its name.

                                           £   s   d

               { Barrow           7
             I.{ Flemington       6
               { Lackford         6
                                 19        0   1   7

            II.  Risby           20        0   1   8

               { Saxham (_A_)     7
           III.{ Saxham(_B_)      7
               { Westley          6-1/2
                                 20-1/2    0   1   8-1/2

            IV.{ Hengrave        10
               { Fornham         10
                                 20        0   1   8

               { Ickworth         7-1/2
             V.{ Chevington       6-1/2
               { Hargrave         7
                                 21        0   1   9

               { Brockley         7
            VI.{ Rede             7
               { Manston          6
                                 20        0   1   8

           VII.  Whepstead       20        0   1   8

          VIII.{ Hawstead        13-1/2
               { Newton           6-1/2
                                 20        0   1   8

            IX.  Horningsheath   20        0   1   8

  X., XI., XII.  Sudbury         60        0   5   0
                                          £1   0   0-1/2

The two records--Domesday and the Inquest--thus confirm one another,
and their concurrent testimony establishes the fact not only that the
Suffolk Hundred was divided into blocks of equal assessment, but that
these blocks were known by the name of 'leets'.

Now Professor Maitland, in his Dissertation on the 'History of the
Word Leet',[185] pronounces this 'the earliest occurrence of the word'
that he has seen. But I can carry it back to Domesday itself. Though
not entered in the _Index Rerum_, we find it in such instances as

    'H[undredum] de Grenehou de xiv. letis' (ii. 119_b_).

    'Hund[redum] et dim[idium] de Clakelosa de x. leitis' (ii.

I think it probable that in these cases the entry happened to stand
first on the original return for the Hundred, and so--as in the I.E.,
where it is derived from the original returns--the general heading
crept in. Though Professor Maitland has to leave the origin of the
word unexplained, it seems to me impossible to overlook the analogy
between the Danish _lægd_, described by Dr Skeat as a division of
the country (in Denmark) for military conscription,[186] and the
East Anglian _leet_, a division of the country (as we have seen) for
purposes of taxation.

Sudbury, it will be observed, was _a quarter_ of the Hundred of
Thingoe,[187] just as Huntingdon was a quarter of a Hundred,[188] and
Wisbech a quarter of a Hundred.[189]

Having thus obtained from the Hundred of Thingoe the clue to this
peculiar system, we can advance to more difficult types. The Hundred
of Thedwastre, for instance, was divided not into twelve blocks, each
paying twenty pence in the pound, but into nine blocks, each paying
twenty-seven. This assessment allowed a margin of 3d for every pound
(i.e. £1 0s 3d); but in the case of Thedwastre the total excess
was only 1-1/2d on the pound (i.e. £1 0s 1-1/2d). I group the Vills
_tentatively_, thus:


     I.  Barton                         27

    II. {Fornham               6-1/2}   26-1/2
        {Rougham              20    }

        {Peckenham            13-1/2}
   III. {Bradfield             5    }   26-1/2
        {Fornham St Genevieve  8    }

    IV. {Thurston             16    }   27
        {Woolpit              11    }

     V. {Rushbrook             7    }   27
        {Ratlesden            20    }

        {Hessett              18    }
    VI. {Felsham               5    }   28
        {Bradfield             5    }

        {Gedding               5    }
   VII. {Whelnetham           10    }   26
        {Drinkston            11    }

        {Ampton                7    }
  VIII. {Tostock              10-1/2}   27-1/2
        {Staningfield         10    }

    IX. {Tinworth             14    }   26
        {Livermere            12    }
                             241-1/2  (£1 0s 1-1/2d)

The same unit of 27 (x9)--or, which comes to the same thing, 13-1/2
(x18)--was adopted in Risbridge Hundred. In this case no less than
five Manors are assessed at the same unit--13-1/2d. So, again, in the
Hundred of Blackbourn the units are 34-1/2d and 17-1/4d, one Manor
being assessed at the former, and five at the latter sum. Such is the
key to the peculiar system of East Anglian assessment.

It is to be noted that 'twenty shillings'[190] represents ten hides
at two shillings on the hide (the normal Danegeld rate), and thus
suggests that in Norfolk, as in Cambridgeshire, the Hundreds were
normally assessed in multiples of ten hides. The point, however, that
I want to bring out is that the Hundred, not the Manor, nor even
the Vill, is here treated as 'the fiscal unit for the collection of


Several years ago I arrived at the conclusion that the identity of
these two words was an unsupported conjecture. So long as it remained
a conjecture only, its correction was not urgent; but since then, as
is so often the case, the result of leaving it unassailed has been
that arguments are based upon it. There appeared in the _English
Historical Review_ for July 1892 a paper by Mr Seebohm, in which that
distinguished scholar took the identity for granted, as his no
less distinguished opponent, Professor Vinogradoff, has done in his
masterly work on _Villainage in England_.

I believe the alleged identity was first asserted by Archdeacon Hale,
who wrote in his _Domesday of St. Paul's_ (1858), p. xiv:

    The word _solanda_, or, as it is written at p. 142,
    _scolanda_, is so evidently a Latinized form of the
    Anglo-Saxon _sulung_, or ploughland, and approaches so near
    to the Kentish _solinus_, that we need scarcely hesitate to
    consider them identical.

Let us start from the facts. In the Domesday of Kent we find the
form _solin_, or its Latin equivalent _solinum_, used for the unit of
assessment, like the hide and the carucate in other counties. In the
Kent monastic surveys it is found as _sullung_ or _suolinga_. But when
we turn to the Domesday of St. Paul's, we find--first, that instead of
being universal, as in Kent, it occurs only in three cases; secondly,
that the form is _solande_, _solanda_, _scholanda_, _scolanda_, or
even (we shall see) _Scotlande_; thirdly, that it is not employed as a
unit of assessment at all.

The three places where the term occurs in the Domesday of St. Paul's
are Drayton and Sutton in Middlesex, and Tillingham in Essex. Hale
would seem to have arrived at no clear idea of what the word meant. At
p. xiv he wrote that 'a _solanda_ consisted of two hides, but probably
in this case the hide was not of the ordinary dimension'. At p.
lxxviii he inferred, from a reference to 'la Scoland' in a survey of
Drayton, that '"ploughed land" would seem to be opposed to "Scoland"'.
At p. cx he was led by the important passage--'De hydis hiis decem,
due fuerunt in dominio, una in scolanda, et vii. assisæ'--to suggest
that it 'appears to denote some difference in the tenure'. This last
conjecture seems the most probable. If we take the case of Sutton and
Chiswick, we read in the survey of 1222:

    Juratores dicunt quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem
    pro tribus hidis preter solandam de Chesewich que per se habet
    duas hidas, et sunt geldabiles cum hidis de Sutton.

Hale (p. 119) believed that this _Solande de Chesewich_ was no other
than the _Scotlande thesaurarii_ of 1181, namely the prebend of
Chiswick. The above passage should further be compared with the survey
of Caddington (1222):

    Dicunt juratores quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem
    pro x. hidis ... preter duas prebendas quæ sunt in eadem

The formula is the same in both cases, and a _solanda_ was clearly
land held on some special terms, and was not a measure or unit of
assessment at all. Indeed Hale himself admitted that it could not be
identified with one or with two hides.

Fortunately I have discovered an occurrence of the word _solanda_
which conclusively proves that it meant an estate, such as a prebend,
and was not a unit of measurement. We have, in 1183, a 'grant by
William de Belmes, canon of St. Paul's, to the chapter of that church,
of the Church of St. Pancras, situate in his _solanda_ near London'
(i.e. his prebend of St. Pancras), etc.[193] This solves the mystery.
The three _solandæ_ at Tillingham were no other than the three
prebends--Ealdland, Weldland, and Reculverland--which that parish
actually contained.[194]

Hale, however, misled Mr Seebohm, who in his great work on the
_English Village Community_ (p. 54), wrote of Tillingham:

    There was further in this Manor a _double hide_, called a
    _solanda_, presumably of 240 acres. This double hide, called a
    _solanda_, is also mentioned in a Manor in Middlesex [Sutton],
    and in another in Surrey [Drayton][195]; and the term
    _solanda_ is probably the same as the well-known '_Sollung_'
    or '_solin_' of Kent, meaning a 'ploughland'.

Proceeding further (p. 395), Mr Seebohm wrote:

    Generally in Kent, and sometimes in Sussex, Berks and Essex,
    we found, in addition to, or instead of, the hide or carucate,
    or 'terra unius aratri', _solins_, _sullungs_, or _swullungs_,
    the land pertaining to a '_suhl_', the Anglo-Saxon word for

Unfortunately no reference is given for the cases of Sussex and Berks,
and I know of none myself.

Turning now to the learned work of Professor Vinogradoff, we find him
equally misled:

    Of the _sulung_ I have spoken already. It is a full
    ploughland, and 200 acres are commonly reckoned to belong
    to it. The name is sometimes found out of Kent, in Essex for
    instance. In Tillingham, a Manor of St. Paul's, of London, we
    come across six hides 'trium solandarum'. The most probable
    explanation seems to be that the hide or unit of assessment is
    contrasted with the _solanda_ or _sulland_[196] (sulung), that
    is with the actual ploughland, and two hides are reckoned as a
    single _solanda_ (p. 255).

Lastly, we come to Mr Seebohm's reply to Professor Vinogradoff
(_ante_, pp. 444-465). Here the identity is again assumed:

    Along with parts of Essex, the Kentish records differ
    in phraseology from those of the rest of England. Their
    _sullungs_ of 240 acres occur also in the Manors of Essex
    belonging to St. Paul's, and the custom of gavelkind and
    succession of the youngest child mark it off as exceptional.
    Mr Vinogradoff ... shows that in the Kentish district, and
    in Essex, where the _sullung_ or _solanda_ takes the place of the
    hide, and where gavelkind prevailed, the unity of the hides
    and virgates was preserved only for the purposes of taxation
    and the services; whilst in reality the holdings clustered
    under the nominal unit were many and irregular.

I yield to no one in admiration for Mr Seebohm's work, but the
question raised is so important that accuracy as to the fact is
here essential. (1) _Sullung_ is nowhere found in Essex, but only
_solanda_; (2) _Solanda_ does not occur 'in the Manors' referred to,
but at Tillingham alone; (3) In Essex it nowhere 'takes the places
of the hide', as it does in Kent; (4) The Essex instance adduced by
Professor Vinogradoff is taken from a Manor where _solanda_ does not

Two issues--quite distinct--are involved. In the first place, Mr
Seebohm contends that Professor Vinogradoff must not argue from 'the
custom of Kent' to the rest of England, because (_inter alia_) Kent,
unlike the rest of England, was divided into _sulungs_, which points
to some difference in its organization.[197] This contention is sound,
and is actually strengthened if we reject the identity of _sulung_ and
_solanda_. But, in the second place, he endeavours to explain away
the Essex case of subdivision at Eadwulfsness, to which the Professor
appeals, by connecting it with the Kentish system through the term
_solanda_. This, as I have shown above, is based on a misreading of
the evidence, and is contrary to the facts of the case.

Let us then look more closely at the Essex instance of subdivision.
It is taken from one Manor alone, the great 'soke' of Eadwulfsness,
in the north-east corner of the county. This 'soke' comprised the
townships of Thorpe 'le soken', Kirby 'le soken', and Walton 'le
soken' (better known as Walton-on-the-Naze). Such names proclaim
the Danish origin of the community, and it is noteworthy that the
'hidarii', on whom the argument turns, are found only at Thorpe
and Kirby, the very two townships which bear Danish names. This
circumstance points to quite another track. That the system in this
little corner of Essex was wholly peculiar had been pointed out by
Hale, and it might perhaps have originated in the superimposition of
hides on a previous system, instead of in the breaking up of the hide
and virgate system. But this is only a conjecture. The two facts on
which I would lay stress are that at Thorpe, according to Hale,
'the holders of the nine hides (in 1279) possessed also among them
seventy-two messuages', which, by its proportion of eight to the hide,
favours Mr Seebohm's views; and that the holdings of the 'hidarii'
were rigidly formed on the decimal system (such as 60, 30, 15, 7-1/2
acres, or 40, 20, 10, 5 acres),[198] unlike the holdings of an odd
number of acres on the Kentish Manors of St. Augustine's. The reason
for the Essex system was clearly the necessity of keeping the holdings
in a fixed relation to the hide, that their proportion of the hide's
service might be easily determined. These two points have, perhaps,
I think, been overlooked by both of the eminent scholars in their

Before leaving the subject of the _sulung_, one should mention perhaps
that it was divided (as Mr Seebohm has explained) into four quarters
known as _juga_, just as the hide was divided into four virgates. Mr
Seebohm bases this statement on Anglo-Saxon evidence,[199] but it is
abundantly confirmed by Domesday, where we read of Eastwell (in Kent):
'pro uno solin se defendit. Tria juga sunt infra divisionem Hugonis,
et quartum jugum est extra' (i. 13). So far all is clear; but
Professor Vinogradoff, on the contrary, asserts that 'the yokes
(_juga_) of Battle Abbey (in Kent) are not virgates, but carucates,
full ploughlands' (p. 225). This assertion is based on a very natural
misapprehension. In the Battle Manor of Wye (Kent) we find that the
_jugum_ itself was divided into four quarters, called 'virgates'
which were each, consequently, the sixteenth, not, as in the hidated
district, the fourth of a ploughland. Professor Vinogradoff, naturally
assuming that the 'virgate' meant the same here as elsewhere, inferred
that four 'virgates' (that is, a _jugum_) must constitute a full
ploughland. But this change of denotation goes further still. The
Battle Cartulary records yet another 'virgate', namely, the
fourth (not of a ploughland, but) of an acre! This led me, on its
publication, to wonder whether we have here the clue to the origin
of the somewhat mysterious term 'virgate'. Starting from the acre, we
should have in the _virgata_ (rood) its quarter, with a name derived
from the _virga_ (rod) which formed its base in mensuration. The sense
of 'quarter' once established, it might be transferred to the quarter
of a _jugum_, or the quarter of a hide. This is a suggestion which,
of course, I advance with all diffidence, but which would solve
an otherwise insoluble problem. The relation of the bovate to the
carucate, and of the _jugum_ to the _sulung_, are both so obviously
based upon the unit of the plough-team that they raise no difficulty.
But the term 'virgate' does not, like them, speak for itself. If
we might take it to denote merely a 'quarter' of the hide, it would
become a term of relation only, leaving the 'hide' as the original
unit. Should this suggestion meet with acceptance, it might obviously
lead to rather important results.

Mr Elton, in his well-known _Tenures of Kent_, attaches considerable
importance to a list, 'De Suylingis Comitatus Kanciæ et qui eas
tenent', in the Cottonian MS., Claud. C. IV, which he placed little
subsequent to Domesday. Having transcribed it for collation with
the Survey, I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently
trustworthy for publication, for the names, in my opinion, involve
some anachronism. The feature of the list is that it shows us as
tenants-in-chief, the leading tenants of Bishop Odo; and the change
of most interest to genealogists is the succession of Patrick 'de
Caurcio' to the holding of Ernulf de Hesdin.


The curious and evidently archaic institution of the _firma unius
noctis_ was clearly connected with the problem of hidation. In
Somerset the formula for a Manor contributing to this _firma_ was:

    Nunquam geldavit nec scitur quot hidæ sint ibi (i. 85).

In Dorset it ran:

    Nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi quia non geldabat T.R.E. (i. 75).

In Wiltshire we read:

    Nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit, _or_ nunquam geldavit: ideo
    nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi.[200]

In all these entries the 'hide' is recognized as merely a measure of
assessment quite independent of area.

Hampshire affords us, in a group of Manors, a peculiarly good instance
in point. Of Basingstoke, Kingsclere, and 'Esseborne', we read:

    Rex tenet in dominio _Basingestoches_. Regale manerium fuit
    semper. Numquam geldum dedit, nec hida ibi distributa fuit....

    _Clere_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit,
    et pertinet ad firmam diei de Basingestoches. Numerum hidarum

    _Esseborne_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit.
    Numerum hidarum non habent....

    Hæc tria maneria, Basingestoches, Clere, Esseborne, reddunt
    firmam unius diei (39).

Other Manors are found about the county displaying the same

    Ipse rex tenet _Bertune_. De firmâ Regis E. fuit, et dimidiam
    diem firmæ reddidit in omnibus rebus.... Nunquam in hid(is)
    numeratum fuit.... Numerum hidarum non dixerunt.

    Ipse rex tenet _Edlinges_ in dominio. Hoc manerium reddidit
    dimidiam diem firmæ tempore Regis E. Numerum hidarum nesciunt

Manors, such as Andover, not hidated, clearly belonged to the same
system, though neither their value nor their render is given.

Thus, then, within the limits of Wessex, in the four adjacent counties
of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hants, we find surviving, at the
time of the Conquest, an archaic but uniform system of provision for
the needs of the Crown by the assignment of certain estates or groups
of estates, the render of which was expressed in terms of the 'firma
noctis' or 'firma diei', and which, unlike the country around them,
had never been assessed in 'hides'.

Mr Seebohm hints slightly at this _firma_ system,[201] but only speaks
of it as existing in Dorset. Nor does he allude to the significant
fact of such Manors having never been hidated. It would lead us far
afield to speculate on the origin of this system, or to trace its
possible connection with the Welsh _gwestva_.[202] Nor can we here
concern ourselves with the few scattered traces of it that we meet
with elsewhere in Domesday. Its existence in four adjacent counties,
with non-hidation as a common feature, is the point I wish to

The system of grouping townships in the west for the payment of a
food-rent (_firma unius noctis_) was exactly parallel to the grouping
in the east for the payment, not of rent but of 'geld'. We can best
trace this parallel in Somerset, because the _firma unius noctis_
of the days before the Conquest had been there commuted for a money
payment at the time of Domesday. Turning to the Cambridgeshire hundred
of Long Stow, we find one of its 'blocks' (of twenty-five hides)
divided into three equal parts, while another is divided into three
parts, of which one is half the size of the two others. And so in
Somerset we have Frome and Bedminster combined in one group for the
payment of this _firma_, and the two Perrotts similarly combined with
Curry. Frome and Bedminster are each assigned the same payment, but
in the other group the contribution of one is half that of the two

Here are the Somerset groups of demesne, each charged with the render
of a _firma unius noctis_.

                                        _Commutation_   £     s   d

    Somerton (with Borough of Langport)  79 10 7    }
    Chedder (with borough of Axbridge)   21  0 2-1/2}   100  10   9-1/2

    North Petherton                      42  8 4    }
    South Petherton                      42  8 4    }   106   0  10
    Curry Rivell                         21  4 2    }

    Williton                                        }
    Carhampton                                      }   105  17   4-1/2
    Cannington                                      }

    Frome                                53 0 5     }
    Bruton                               53 0 5     }   106   0  10

    Milborne Port (with Ilchester)                       79  10   7
    [Bedminster[203]                                     21   0   2-1/2]

Of these two last, Milborne Port is entered as having paid
three-quarters of a _firma noctis_ under the Confessor, while
Bedminster--though in the midst of this group of _firma_ Manors--is
alone in having no render T.R.E. assigned to it. One is tempted to
look on the two as originally combined in one _firma_ (like Somerton
and Chedder), save that the whole width of the county divides them,
while in the other cases the constituents are grouped geographically.

The Wiltshire Manors, each of which rendered a _firma unius noctis_,

                      _Ploughlands_   _Valets_

    Calne                 29
    Bedwin                79
    Amesbury              40
    Warminster            40
    Chippenham           100           £110
    'Theodulveshide'      40           £100

From the figures given for Somerset and Wilts, it may fairly be
concluded that, in this district, the value of the 'firma' was about
£105. In Somerset, however, there was clearly a special sum, £106 0s
10d, on which calculations were based.

An examination of Mr Eyton's statements on the _firma unius noctis_
in Somerset and Dorset would prove a peculiarly conclusive test of his
whole system.

In the case of Somerset one need not dwell on his giving its amount
for the Williton group as £105 16s 6-1/2d, when the sum named is
£105 17s 4-1/2d, although absolute accuracy is, in these matters,
essential. We will pass at once to the bottom of the page (ii. 2), and
collate his rendering of Domesday with the original:

  'T.R.E. reddebat dimidiam     'Reddebat T.R.E. dimidiam
  firmam noctis et quadrantem'  noctis firmam et unum quadrantem'
  (Domesday).                   (Eyton).

Domesday gives the payment (in a characteristic phrase), as
_three-quarters_ [a half and a quarter] of a _firma noctis_. Mr Eyton
first interpolates a 'unum', and then overlooks the 'quadrantem',
with the result that he represents the due T.R.E. as a _firma dimidiæ
noctis_ (i. 77). So far, this is only a matter of error _per se_. But
Domesday records the commutation of the due T.R.W. at £79 10s 7d. This
proves to be _three-quarters_ of the commutation, in two other cases,
for a whole _firma noctis_ (£106 0s 10d). Mr Eyton, however, imagining
the due to have been only _half a firma_ set himself to account
for its commutation at so high a figure (i. 77-8). This he found
no difficulty in doing. He explained that 'this was not a
mere commutation', but 'was doubtless a change which took into
consideration the extra means and enhanced value of Meleborne'.

    The probability is, then, that what we have called the
    _enhanced ferm_, was enhanced by something less than the
    gross profits we have instanced; that is, that a part of
    those profits, say the Burgage rents, or some of them,
    had contributed to the _dimidia firma noctis_ before the

All these ready assumptions, we must remember, are introduced to
account for a discrepancy which does not exist.

Great masses of Mr Eyton's work consist of similar guesses and
assumptions. Now, if these were kept scrupulously apart from the
facts, they would not much matter; but they are so inextricably
confused with the real facts of Domesday that, virtually, one can
never be sure if one is dealing with facts or fancies.

And far more startling than the case of Somerset is that of Dorset,
the 'Key to Domesday'. Mr Eyton here held that Dorchester, Bridport,
and Wareham paid a full _firma unius noctis_ each, the total amount
being reckoned by him at the astounding figure of £312 (p. 70)!
Exeter, which affords a good comparison, paid only £18 (as render),
though the king had 285 houses there: the three Dorset towns in which,
says Mr Eyton, the Crown had 323 houses, paid in all, according to
him, £312. The mere comparison of these figures is sufficient.
But further, Mr Eyton observes (p. 93), that in 1156 'Fordington,
Dorchester, and Bridport' were granted by Henry II to his uncle, 'as
representing Royal Demesne to the annual value of £60'. This is an
instructive commentary on his view that Dorchester and Bridport alone
rendered £208 per annum. Our doubts being thus aroused, we turn to
Domesday and find that it does not speak of any of these towns as
paying that preposterous _firma_. The right formula for that would be
'reddit firmam unius noctis' (p. 84). Instead of that, we only have
'exceptis consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad firmam unius noctis' (p.
70). The explanation is quite simple. Just as in Somerset, Mr Eyton
admits, Langport and Ilchester, although boroughs, were 'interned' in
groups of Royal demesne, paying the _firma unius noctis_, so in Dorset
the boroughs were 'interned' in groups of Royal demesne. Indeed one of
these groups was headed by Dorchester, and is styled by Mr Eyton the
'Dorchester group'. But he boldly assumed that 'Dorchester' must have
two different meanings:

    [A] We assume about 100 acres to have belonged to the Domesday
    Burgh, and perhaps 882 acres to represent land, subinfeuded
    at Domesday, and annexed to Dorchester Hundred. [B] It follows
    that we assume about 429 acres, [to be that] ... which here
    figures [fo. 75] under the name Dorchester.

It is not too much to say that any one, who refers to pp. 70-3, 78-101
of the _Key to Domesday_, will find that the singular misconception as
to the Dorset Boroughs makes havoc of the whole calculation. But here
again the point to be insisted on is not the mere mistake _per se_,
but the elaborate assumptions based upon it and permeating the whole

Apart from the Manors grouped for a _firma unius noctis_, if we take
the comital Manors (_mansiones de comitatu_) of Somerset, which were
in the King's hands in 1086, we find their rentals given on quite a
different principle to those of the Manors in private hands.

(1) They are entered as renders ('reddit'), not as values ('valet').

(2) The sums rendered are 'de albo argento'.

(3) In at least ten out of the fifteen cases, they are multiples of
the strange unit £1 3s.

As this fact seems to have escaped Mr Eyton's notice, I append a list
of these Manors, showing the multiples of this unit that their renders

                            _£_        _s_         _d_

    Crewkerne               46          0           0        40
    Congresbury             28         15           0        25
    Old Cleeve              23          0           0        20
    North Curry             23          0           0        20
    Henstridge              23          0           0        20
    Camel                   23          0           0        20
    Dulverton               11         10           0        10
    Creech St Michael       9           4           0        8
    Langford                4          12           0        4
    Capton[205]             2           6           0        2

Whatever this strange unit represented, it formed the basis in these
Manors of a reckoning wholly independent of the 'hides' or ploughlands
of the Manor, and as clearly artificial as the system of hidation I
have made it my business to explain.


The meaning of 'Wara' is made indisputable by the I.C.C. When land was
an appurtenance, _quoad_ ownership, of a Manor in one township, but
was assessed in another in which it actually lay, the land was said to
be in the former, but its 'wara' in the latter. As this 'wara' was an
integral part of the total assessment of the township, it had to
be recorded, under its township, in the I.C.C. Here are the three
examples in point:

    [HISTON.] De his xx. hidis jacet Warra de una hida et dimidia
    in hestitone de manerio cestreford. Hanc terram tenuit comes
    alanus [_sic_] et est appretiata in essexia (p. 40).

    [SHELFORD.] De his xx. hidis tenet petrus valonensis iii.
    hidas de firma regis in neueport.... Hæc terra est berewica in
    neueport, sed Wara jacet in grantebrigge syra (p. 49).

    [TRUMPINGTON.] De his vii. hidis [tenet] unus burgensis de
    grenteburga i. virgam. Et Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra
    in grantebrigga (p. 51).

To these I may add a fourth instance, although in this case the name
_wara_ does not occur:

    [BATHBURGAM.] De his vii. hidis tenet Picotus in manu
    regis dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virgam. Hæc terra jacet in
    cestreforda et ibi est appretiata xxx. sol. in essexia (p.

The lands at Histon and 'Bathburgam' were mere outlying portions of
the royal Manor of Chesterford in Essex, and those at Shelford were a
'berewick' of the royal Manor of Newport, also in Essex. But they were
all _assessed_ in Cambridgeshire, where they actually lay.

So also we read under Berkshire (61_b_): 'Hæc terra jacet et
appreciata est in Gratentun quod est in Oxenefordscire, et tamen dat
scotum in Berchesire'. Again (203_b_) we read under Pertenhall: 'Hec
terra sita est in Bedefordsire, set geldum et servitium reddit in
Hontedunscyre'. A good instance of the same arrangement in another
part of England is found in those Worcestershire Manors which were
annexed as estates to Hereford, but which were assessed in those
Worcestershire Hundreds where they actually lay (see p. 61).

A similar expression is applied to the possession of 'soca'. Thus
under Shelford we read:

    De hac terra adhuc tenuerunt iii. sochemanni dimidiam hidam
    sub gurdo comite. Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia comitis
    gurdi. Et soca jacebat in Witlesforda (p. 48).

Here the land was in Shelford, but the jurisdiction (soca) was
attached to Earl Gyrth's Manor of Whittlesford.

Prof Vinogradoff has dealt with 'the word _wara_' in his _Villainage
in England_ (i. 241-4), and asserts that the 'origin and use of the
term is of considerable importance'. But he does not allude to the
above evidence, and I cannot follow him in his argument. While rightly
disregarding Mr Pell's fanciful derivation from 'warectum', he asserts

    We often find the expression 'ad inwaram' in Domesday, and it
    corresponds to the plain 'ad gildam [_sic_] regis'. If a Manor
    is said to contain seven hides _ad inwaram_, it is meant that
    it pays to the king for seven hides.... The Burton cartulary,
    the earliest survey after Domesday, employed the word 'wara'
    in the same sense.

One cannot disprove the first proposition without reading through all
Domesday for this purpose. I can only say that I do not remember
ever meeting in Domesday Book with such an expression. The
solitary instance of its use known to me is in the _Liber Niger_ of
Peterborough (p. 159), where we read: 'in Estona sunt iii. hidæ ad
in Waram'; and there the relevant entry in Domesday has no such
expression. Of the statement as to the Burton cartulary, one can
positively say it is an error. Its 'waræ' have quite another meaning
and are spoken of as virgates would elsewhere be.

Collation with what I have termed the Northamptonshire geld-roll
renders it clear that 'wara', in Domesday, represents the old English
word for 'defence', in the sense of assessment, the 'defendit se'
formula of the great Survey leading even to the phrase of 'Defensio
x. acrarum', for assessment to Danegeld, which is found in the first
volume of Fines published by the Pipe-Roll Society.


I now approach the subject of the Domesday _juratores_.

The lists of these in the I.E. and in the I.C.C. afford priceless
information. The latter gives us the names for all but three of
the Cambridgeshire Hundreds, the former for all Cambridgeshire (one
Hundred excepted) and for three Hertfordshire Hundreds as well.
The opening paragraph of the I.E. tells us 'quomodo barones regis
inquisierunt, videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis scire et omnium
baronum et eorum francigenarum et tocius centuriatus presbyteri
prepositi vi. villani [_sic_] uniuscuiusque ville'.[206] Careful
reading of this phrase will show that the 'barones regis' must have
been the Domesday Commissioners. The difficulty is caused by the
statement as to the oaths of the sheriff, the tenants-in-chief
(_barones_), and their foreign (? military) under-tenants
(_francigenæ_). The lists of _juratores_ contain the names of many
_francigenæ_ in their respective hundreds, but, so far as I can find,
of no tenants-in-chief. The sheriff, of course, stands apart. His name
indeed in the I.C.C. is appended to the list of jurors for the first
Hundred on the list, but is not found in the I.E. Moreover, it should
be noted that the above formula speaks of all the tenants-in-chief,
but only of a single Hundred court. Two hypotheses suggest themselves.
The one, that the sheriff and _barones_ of the county made a
circuit of the Hundreds, and then handed in, on their oaths, to the
commissioners a return for the whole county; the other, that the
circuit was made by the commissioners themselves, attended by the
sheriff and _barones_. In the former case it is obvious that the
commissioners would fail to obtain at first hand that direct local
information which it was their object to elicit: and further, when we
find the sheriff and _barones_ charged with wrongdoing in these very
returns, it is, to say the least, improbable that they were their own
accusers, especially in the case of such a sheriff as Picot, at once
dreaded and unscrupulous.

It seems, therefore, the best conclusion that the Domesday
commissioners themselves attended every Hundred court, and heard the
evidence, sometimes conflicting, of 'French' and 'English'.[207]

The _order_ in which the Hundreds occur must not be passed over,
because their sequence distinctly suggests a regular circuit of the
country. Here is the sequence given in our three authorities: the
I.C.C., the I.E., and the list of jurors prefixed to the latter:

    Staplehow           Staplehow              Staplehow
    Cheveley            Cheveley               Cheveley
    Staines             Staines                Staines
    Radfield            Flammenditch           Erningford
    Flammenditch        Childeford             Triplow
    Childerford         Radfield               Radfield
    Whittlesford        ([208])                Flammenditch
    Triplow             Triplow                Whittlesford
    Erningford          Erningford             Weatherley
    Weatherley          Weatherley             Stow
    Stow                Stow                   Papworth
    Papworth            Papworth               Northstow
    Northstow           Northstow              Chesterton
                        Chesterton             Ely

On comparing the first two of these lists it will be found that
(except in the case of three contiguous Hundreds, which does not
affect the argument) the Hundreds are taken in a certain sequence,
which is seen, on reference to the valuable map prefixed to Mr
Hamilton's book, to represent a circuit of the southern portion of the
county from north-east to north-west, followed by an inquest on the
district to its north, the 'two Hundreds' of Ely.

The third list, on the other hand, misplaces the Hundreds of Triplow
and Erningford altogether, and wholly omits that of Childeford. The
transposition and omission are both notable evidence that the B and C
texts, as I shall urge, were derived from some common original which
contained these defects.

The essential point, however, is that a circuit was made of the county
whether merely by the sheriff, or, as seems most probable, by
the Domesday Commissioners themselves--the 'barones regis' of
the record--who must have attended the several Hundred-courts in

But when we speak of the Hundred-court it is necessary to explain at
once that the body which gave evidence for the Domesday Inquest was
of a special and most interesting character. It combined the old
_centuriatus_--deputations of the priest, reeve, and six villeins from
each township (_villa_)--with the new settlers in the Hundred, the
_francigenæ_. A careful investigation of the lists will prove that
half the _juratores_ were selected from the former and half from the
latter. This fact, which would seem to have been hitherto overlooked,
throws a flood of light on the compilation of the Survey, and
admirably illustrates the King's policy of combining the old with the
new, and fusing his subjects, their rights and institutions, into one
harmonious whole. Conquerors and conquered were alike bound by their
common sworn verdicts.[209]

We have the lists, in all, for eighteen Hundreds, fifteen in
Cambridgeshire and three in Herts, of which two were 'double'. There
were, practically, for each Hundred exactly eight _juratores_, half
of them 'French' and half 'English'. But the two 'double' Hundreds had
sixteen each, half of them 'French' and half 'English'. Although it is
recorded that 'alii omnes franci et angli de hoc hundredo juraverunt',
it is obvious that the eight men always specially mentioned were, in
a special degree, responsible for the verdict. Their position is
illustrated, I think, by the record of a Cambridgeshire _placitum_
found in the Rochester chronicles. This is the famous suit of
Bishop Gundulf against Picot the sheriff in the County Court of
Cambridgeshire,[210] which affords a valuable instance of a jury being
elected to confirm by their oaths the (unsworn) verdict of the whole

    Cum illis (i.e. omnes illius comitatus homines) Baiocensis
    episcopus, qui placito præerat, non bene crederet; præcepit
    ut, si verum esse quod dicebant scirent, ex seipsis duodecim
    eligerent, qui quod omnes dixerant jure jurando confirmarent.

Now we read of this jury:

    Hi autem fuerunt Edwardus de Cipenham, Heruldus et Leofwine
    saca de Exninge, Eadric de Giselham, Wlfwine de Landwade,
    Ordmer de Berlincham, et alii sex de melioribus comitatus.

Investigation shows that the names mentioned are local. The land in
dispute was a holding in Isleham in the Hundred of Staplehoe. One
juror, Eadric, came from Isleham itself, two from Exning, one from
Chippenham, one from Landwade, while the sixth, Ordmer, was an
under-tenant of Count Alan, in the Manor from which he took his name
(Badlingham), and was a Domesday juror for the Hundred. These six,
then, were clearly natives chosen for their local knowledge. The
other six, chosen 'de melioribus comitatus', were probably, as at the
Domesday inquest, Normans (_Franci_). Thus the double character of the
jury would be here too preserved, and the principle of testimony from
personal knowledge upheld.

So again in the Dorset suit of St. Stephen's, Caen (1122),[211] the
men of seven Hundreds are convened, but the suit is to be decided
'in affirmatione virorum de quatuor partibus vicinitatis illius
villæ'.[212] Accordingly, 'sexdecim homines, tres videlicet de
Brideport, et tres de Bridetona, et decem de vicinis, juraverunt se
veram affirmationem facturos de inquisitione terræ illius'. The
names of the jurors are carefully given: 'Nomina vero illorum qui
juraverunt, hæc sunt'. Again in the same Abbey's suit for lands in
London, 'per commune consilium de Hustingo, secundum præceptum
regis, elegerunt quatuordecim viros de civibus civitatis Londoniæ qui
juraverunt'. And in this case also we read: 'Hæc sunt nomina illorum
qui juraverunt.... Et hæc sunt nomina eorum in quorum præsentia

This corresponds, it will be seen, exactly with the writ to which the
_Inquisitio Eliensis_ was, I hold, the return: 'Inquire ... qui eas
(terras) juraverunt et qui jurationem audierunt' (_infra_, p. 114).

Enough has now been said to show that the names of the Domesday jurors
recorded for each Hundred represent a jury of eight, elected to swear
on behalf of the whole Hundred, and composed of four foreigners and
four Englishmen, in accordance with the principle that the conflicting
interests ought to be equally represented.[214]

We may take, as a typical set of _juratores_, those for the Hundred of
Erningford, the survey of which, in Mr Hamilton's book, occupies pp.
51-68. I give them in their order:

  [_Francigenæ_]           [_Angli_]

  Walterus Monachus        Colsuenus
  Hunfridus de anseuilla   Ailmarus eius filius
  Hugo petuuolt            Turolfus
  Ricardus de Morduna      Alfuuinus odesune

All four _francigenæ_ can be identified in the Hundred. Walter held
a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai' from the wife of Ralf Tailbois;
Humfrey, a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai', from Eudo dapifer;[215]
Hugh, a hide and a half in 'Melrede', from Hardwin de Scalers; and
Richard, three virgates in 'Mordune', from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Of
the _Angli_, Colsuenus was clearly Count Alan's under-tenant at three
townships within the Hundred, holding in all two hides; 'Ailmarus',
his son, was, just possibly, the 'Almarus de Bronna', who was a
tenant of Count Alan in two adjacent townships, holding two hides and
three-eighths; 'Turolfus' and 'Alfuuinus' cannot be identified, and
were probably lower in the social scale.

It will be observed that Colsweyn belongs to a special class,
the English under-tenants. He is thus distinct at once from the
_Francigenæ_, and from the villeins of the township. He and his peers,
however, are classed with the latter as jurors, because they are both
of English nationality. In the great majority of cases the English
_juratores_ cannot be identified as under-tenants, and may therefore
be presumed to have belonged to the township deputations.


The record known by this name has long been familiar to Domesday
students, but no one, so far as I know, has ever approached the
questions: Why was it compiled? When was it compiled? From what
sources was it compiled? These three questions I shall now endeavour
to answer.

First printed by the Record Commission in their 'Additamenta' volume
of Domesday (1816), its editor, Sir Henry Ellis, selected for his
text the most familiar, but, as I shall show, the worst of its three
transcripts (Cott. MS., Tib. A. VI), though he knew of what I believe
to be the best, the Trin. Coll. MS., O. 2, 1, which seems to be the
one styled by him 68 B 2.[216] In his introduction he thus described

    The _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is a document of the same kind with
    the Exeter Domesday; relating to the property of the Monastery
    of Ely recorded afterwards in the two volumes of the Domesday
    Survey (p. xiv).

From this it would seem that Ellis believed the _Inquisitio_, at any
rate, to be previous to Domesday Book, but he practically left its
origin altogether in doubt.

Sixty years later (1876) the _Inquisitio_ was published anew,
but without any further solution of the points in question being
offered.[217] For this edition three MSS. were collated, with
praiseworthy and infinite pains, by Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton. Taking
for his text, like Ellis, the Cottonian MS. Tib. A. VI, which he
distinguished as A, he gave in footnotes the variants found in the
MSS. at Trinity College, Cambridge, viz.: O. 2, 41 (which he termed
B), and O. 2, 1 (which he distinguished as C). In Mr Hamilton's
opinion (p. xiv) the 'C' text 'appears to have been derived from the
"B" MS. rather than the Cottonian' ('A'). From this opinion, it will
be seen, I differ wholly.

A careful analysis of the three texts has satisfied me beyond question
that while C is the most accurate in detail, it is marred by a
peculiar tendency to omission on the part of its scribe. This, indeed,
is its distinctive feature. Now B cannot be derived from C, because
it supplies the latter's omissions. On the other hand, C cannot be
derived from B, because it corrects, throughout, B's inaccuracies.
Consequently they are independent. More difficult to determine is
the genesis of A, the worst of the three texts; but as it virtually
reproduces all the inaccuracies found in B (besides containing many
fresh ones), without correcting any, it can only be inferred that B
was its source. Thus we have on the one hand C, and, on the other B
(with its offspring A), derived independently from some common source.
And this conclusion agrees well with the fact that a long catalogue of
lands abstracted from the House of Ely is found in C, but not in A
or B,[218] and with the circumstance that the famous rubric ('Hic
subscribitur inquisitio'), which heads the inquisition in A and B, is
placed by C at the end of the lists of jurors.[219]

Starting from this conclusion, let us now proceed to ask, what was the
document from which B and C copied independently? Clearly, it was
not Domesday Book, for outside the eastern counties they record the
returns in full, like the _Inq. Com. Cant._ itself. Were they then
taken from the original returns, or at least from the copy of those
returns in the _Inq. Com. Cant._? This point can only be determined
by close analysis of the variants; if we find B and C containing
occasionally the same errors and peculiarities, although copied
independently, it follows that the document from which they both
copied must have contained those same errors and peculiarities. Let
us take the case of Papworth. The right reading, as given both in
Domesday and the _Inq. Com. Cant._, I have placed on the left, and the
wrong reading, in B and C, on the right:

  [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et iii.   [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et dim.
  virgas et dim. [virgam].          virgam et[220] iii. virgas.
  I.  hida et i. virga et dimidia   I. hida et dimidia virga et una
  [virga] in dominio.               virga[221] in dominio.

Here are some further illustrations of errors in the I.E.:

  _D.B. and I.C.C._                 _I.E._

  VIII. hidas et dimidiam et        VIII. hidis et dimidia et dimidia
  dimidiam virgam.... In dominio    virga ... iii. hidæ et dimidia
  iii. hidæ et dimidia (p. 18).     _et dimidia virga_ in  dominio
                                    (p. 104).
  II. carruce in dominio. Et        IIII^{or.} carruce ... in
  tercia potest fieri (p. 21).      dominio.
  I. hida _et dimidia_ et xii.      I. hida et xii. acræ in dominio
  acræ in dominio (p. 87).          (p. 110).
  tenet Radulfus de Picot (p. 85).  Rod[bertus] tenet de vicecomite
                                    (p. 110).
  Johannes filius _Waleranni_       Johannem filium
  (p. 27).                          _Walteri_ (p. 103).

Again, the clause 'Tost[222] pro viii. hidis et xl. acris', which
ought to head the Hardwick entries, is wrongly appended in the I.E.
(p. 110) to a Kingston entry with which it had nothing to do. So too,
'hoc manerium pro x. hidis se defendit [_sic_] T.R.E. et modo pro
viii. hidis', which belongs to Whaddon, is erroneously thrown back by
the I.E. (p. 107), into Trumpington, a Manor in another Hundred. It
is singular also that all the MSS. of the I.E. read 'iii. cotarii' (p.
101), where D.B. and the I.C.C. have 'iii. bordarii' (p. 3), and 'x.
cotarii' (p. 101), where they have 'x. bordarii' (p. 6): conversely,
the former, in one place, read 'xv. bordarii' (p. 107), where the
latter have 'xv. cotarii' (p. 63).

In comparing the text of the I.E. with that of the I.C.C., we
shall find most striking and instructive variants in the lists of
_juratores_ for the several Hundreds. Take, for instance, the lists
for the Hundreds of Cheveley and Staines, which follow one another in
both MSS.

  _I.C.C._                              _I.E._

  CAUELEIE                           CAUELAI[223]

  Ric[ardus]                         Ric[ardus] _prefectus huius
  Euerard[us] filius Brientii        Æduuard[us] _homo Alb[er]ici de
  Radulfus de hotot                  Radulfus de hotot
  Will[elmu]s de mara                Will[elmu]s de mara
  Stanhardus de seuerlei             Standard[224] de seuerlaio
  Frauuin[us] de Curtelinga          Frawinus[225] de quetelinge[226]
  Carolus de cauelei _Brunesune_     Carlo de cauelaio[227]
  Vlmar[us] homo Wigoni _et          Wlmar' homo Wighen[228]
      o[mne]s alii franci et
      angli juraverunt_

The second name on these lists can be conclusively tested. For the
relative entry in the I.C.C. is 'Esselei tenet euerard[us][229] filius
brientii de Alberico'. This proves that the I.C.C. is right in reading
'Euerard[us]', while the I.E. is right in adding 'homo Alb[er]ici de

These are the lists for Staines Hundred.

  _I.C.C._                             _I.E._

  STANE                              STANAS

  Harold[us]                         Alerann[us]
  Roger[us]                          Rogger[us] _homo Walt[er]i
  Aleranus _francigena_
  Ric[ardus] fareman                 Ric[ardus] _p[ræ]fectus hui[us]
                                         hundreti_ Farmannus
  Huscarl de suafham[231]            Huscarlo de suafham[231]
  Leofuuin[us] _de bodischesham_     Leofuuin[us]
                                     Harald _homo Hard[uuini] de
  Alric[us] de Wilburgeham _et_      Aluric[us] de Wiburgeham _et
      _omnes franci et angli_.           alii omnes franci et angli
                                         de hoc hundreto_.

In these two lists the points to strike us are that Harold is placed
first on one list and seventh on another; Aleran third on one list and
first on another; and 'Fareman' distinguished more clearly in the I.E.
than in the I.C.C. as a separate individual.

If we now collect from the other Hundreds some instances of
instructive variants, we shall obtain important evidence.

  _I.C.C._                      _I.E._

  Rob[ertus] de Fordham         Rob[er]tus _angli[cus]_ de Fordham
  Picotus vicecomes             [Omitted][232]
  Walterus Monac[us]            Walt[erus][233]
  Gerardus Lotaringus _de       Girardus lotherensis _Herveus de
      salsintona_                   salsitona_
  Pagan[us] homo hardeuuini     Paganus _dapifer_ Hard'
  Rad[ulfus] de _scannis_       Radulfus de _bans_[234]
  Fulco _Waruhel_               Fulcheus _homo vicecomitis_
  Rumold[us] _de cotis_         Rumold _homo comitis Eustachio_
  Will[elmu]s                   Will[elmus] _homo picoti vice
  Wlwi _de doesse_              Wlwi de _etelaie_
  Godlid de _stantona_          Godliue

  _I.C.C._                      _I.E._


  Robert[us] de Hintona         Rodb[er]t[us] de Histona
  Fulcard[us] _de Dittona_      Osmundus parvus
  Osmund[us] parvulus           Fulcold _homo abbatis de
  Baldeuuinus _cum barba_       Baldeuuinus _cocus_
  Æduuin[us] presbyter          Æduuinus presbyter
  Ulfric[us] de teuersham       Wlfuric de teuersham
  Silac[us] _eiusdem villæ_     Syla
  Godwun[us] _nabesone_         Goduuine _de fulburne_

It is impossible to examine the italicized variations in these
parallel texts without coming to the conclusion that they must have
been independently derived from some common original, an original
containing more detail than either of them. On the other hand, the
comparatively close agreement between the texts of the actual returns
in the I.C.C. and the I.E. leads one to infer that these were copied
with far more exactitude than the comparatively unimportant surnames
of the jurors. For us the value of these variations in the jurors'
lists lies in the evidence afforded to the origin of the existing MSS.

The object of this careful scrutiny has been to prove that as certain
errors and peculiarities are found in two independent MSS., they must
have existed in the original document from which both were copied,
and which was neither the I.C.C. transcripts nor the original Domesday
returns. What then was this document? It was, and can only have been,
the true _Inquisitio Eliensis_, the date and origin of which I
shall discuss below. Further, I should imagine this document to
have probably been a roll or rolls, which--on its contents being
subsequently transcribed into a book for convenience--was allowed,
precisely as happened to the Domesday rolls themselves, to disappear.
In perfect accordance with this view we find the whole contents of the
_Inquisitio_ arranged for a special purpose, and no mere transcript of
the Domesday returns. Thus, after abstracting all the entries relating
to the Cambridgeshire estates, and subjoining a list of houses held in
Cambridge itself, it proceeds to add up all the items independently,
and record their total values to the Abbey. This analysis is carried
out for several counties (pp. 121-4), and is, of course, peculiar
to the _Inquisitio_, although inserted between the abstracts of the
Domesday returns for Cambridgeshire and Herts. So too the breviate
or short abstract of the estates (pp. 168-173), which was part of the
original document--for it is found in all the derived MSS.--must have
been specially compiled for it, and so also was the _Nomina Villarum_
(pp. 174-83).

Another peculiarity of the _Inquisitio_ is the care with which it
records the names of sokemen on the Abbey estates when omitted in the
I.C.C. and D.B. This may lead us to ask whether its compilers supplied
these names from their personal knowledge. We might think not, for in
some cases they are recorded by the D.B. and the I.C.C., while in
one (p. 106) the I.E. actually omits the name, reading only 'quidam
sochemanus', where the other two documents (p. 46) supply his name
('Fridebertus'). From this we might infer that the names were probably
recorded in the original returns, but deemed of too slight importance
to be always copied by the transcriber. Yet the balance of evidence
leads me to believe that the I.E. did supply names from independent
knowledge. With the values, however, the case is clearer. The
I.E. contains special and exclusive information on the value of
socman-holdings, and must, I think, have derived it from some other
source than the original Domesday returns. Here are some instances in

  _I.C.C._                                  _I.E._

  III. sochemanni fuerunt ...        In Erningetone fuit quidam
  secundus homo abbatis de Ely       sochemannus, _Ædwardus_, et
  tenuit ii.[235] hidas ...          habuit i. hidam. Homo abbatis
  Potuerunt                          Eli fuit in obitu regis Ædwardi,
  recedere (p. 83).                  sed terram suam vendere potuit;
                                     sed soca semper S. Ædeldrede
                                     remansit (p. 110).

  X. sochemanni ... et i. istorum    In Ouro fuit quidam sochemannus
  homo abbatis de Ely fuit.          _nomine Standardus_, qui dimidiam
  Dimidiam hidam habuit. Non         hidam habuit sub abbate ely. Non
  potuit dare neque vendere, et      potuit ire ab eo nec separare ab
  ii. istorum, homines predicti      ecclesia _et valet viginti
  abbatis, iii. virgas habuerunt,    solidos_. Et modo habet
  vendere potuerunt; soca remansit   Hardwinus. Et alii ii. sochemanni
  abbati (p. 91).                    iii. virgatas habuerunt.
                                     Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine
                                     soca cui voluerunt et modo tenet
                                     Hardwinus. _Et valet_ xv.
                                     _solidos_ (p. 112).

  Et x^{us} [sochemannus] homo       Quidam sochemannus sub abbate
  abbatis de ely fuit. i. hidam et   eli i. hidam et dim. tenuit
  dim. habuit. Et omnes isti         T.R.E. potuit dare sine licentiam
  recedere potuerunt; et vendere     [_sic_] eius, sine socha. Et modo
  terram suam cui voluerunt          Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub
  (p. 95).                           abbate ely. _Valet_ x. _sol_.
                                     (p. 113).

This last passage, of itself, is full of instruction. Firstly,
the I.E. alone gives the value of the holding. Secondly, the I.E.
preserves the 'sine socha' which qualifies the holder's right. Now
D.B. gives the last clause as:

    Hi omnes terras suas vendere potuerunt. Soca tantum hominis
    abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ.

This qualification corresponds with the 'sine socha' of the I.E., and
is, we should observe, wholly omitted in the I.C.C. Thirdly, the
three versions of the original return employ three different words
to express the same one--'recedere', 'vendere', 'dare'. Fourthly, the
superiority of the C text of the I.E. over B (which makes two blunders
in this passage) and of B over its offspring A (which adds a third) is
here well illustrated. Fifthly, the phrase 'Picot vicecomes tenet
eam sub abbate ely' differs notably from Domesday, which assigns the
estate to Picot unreservedly, and still more from the I.C.C. which
reads 'tenet Robertus de Picoto vicecomite in feudo regis'.

The next example is taken from the township immediately preceding.

  _I.C.C._                                 _I.E._

  V. istorum (sochemannorum)             Fuerunt quinque sochemani
  homines abbatis de Ely fuerunt. Et     T.R.E. unus istorum _sugga
  unus istorum i. virg. et dim. habuit.  nomine_ habuit una virg. et
  Non potuit recedere. Et alii iiii.     dim. sub abbate ely.
  habuerunt v. hidas et i. virg.         Non potuit recedere.
  Potuerunt recedere sine soca (p. 95).  _Et valet_ x. _sol._
                                         Et alii iiii^{or}
                                         sochemani v. hidas
                                         et i. virg. tenuerunt de
                                         abbate eli. Potuerunt
                                         dare preter licentiam
                                         abbatis et sine socha et modo
                                         tenet eam Picot vicecomes
                                         de abbate ely _et valet_
                                         iii. _lib._ (p. 112).

I have said that in all these cases it might perhaps be held that
the additional details found in the I.E. were not due to special
information possessed by its compilers, but were derived from the
original returns, though omitted by their other transcribers. It is
possible, however, to put the matter to the test. If, anticipating for
a moment, we find that we have, for the eastern counties, in Domesday
the actual materials from which the compilers of the I.E. worked, we
can assert that any additional details must have been supplied from
their own knowledge. An excellent instance in point is afforded by
Tuddenham, in Suffolk:

  _D.B._                              _I.E._

  In Tudenham Geroldus i. lib'        In Tudenham i. li. homo Ælfric'
  hominem ... comend' Saxæ de         commend' S. Ædel' xii. ac' et iii.
  abbate T.R.E. xii. ac' pro man',    b. et i. c. et iii. ac' prati et
  iii. bord' Semp' i. car. ii. ac'    val. viginti iii. s.
  prati ... val. iii. sol.; et in
  eadem ii. liberi homines comend'    In eadem i. l. ho' hedric'[236]
  i. sancte Æ. et alter comend'       commend' S. Ædel' viii. ac' et val'
  heroldi x. ac', et dim. car. et     xx. den. Hoc tenet R. de Raimes
  val. ii. sol. Hoc tenet Geroldus    (p. 151).
  de R. [de Raimes] (ii. 423_b_).

One knows not, truly, which blunder is the worst, that of the Domesday
scribe, who has converted a probable 'S. æ',[237] i.e. Ely Abbey, into
'Saxæ', or that of the compiler of the I.E., who, by interpolating the
word 'viginti', has converted three shillings into three-and-twenty.
But the point is that the latter could name the Abbot's sokeman
(nameless in Domesday) and could supply his acreage and the value of
his holding. The actual details seem to have been:

                       Acres   Pence

    Abbot's sokeman       8       20
    Harold's sokeman      2        4
                         10       24

Domesday records the totals only.

Enough has now been said of the twelfth century transcripts in which
alone are preserved to us the contents of the _Inquisitio_. We have
seen that they point to the existence of some common original, which,
while closely parallel with Domesday, as a record of the Abbey's
possessions, contained certain special features and additional
information. Why, when, and from what sources that original was
compiled, I shall now endeavour to explain.


The theory I propound for the origin of the so-called _Inquisitio
Eliensis_ is that it was the actual return ordered by that writ of the
Conqueror,[238] of which a copy is given in all three MSS. (A, B, C)
and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book, on p. xxi (No. VIII).
I give the wording of the writ, followed by the heading to the
_Inquisitio_ with which it should be closely compared.

    Willelmus Rex Anglorum Lanfranco archiepiscopo salutem....
    Inquire per episcopum Constantiensem et per episcopum
    Walchelinum et per ceteros qui terras sanctæ Ædeldrede
    scribi et jurari fecerunt, quomodo jurate fuerunt et qui eas
    juraverunt, et qui jurationem audierunt, et qui sunt terre,
    et quante, et quot, et quomodo vocate [et] qui eas tenent. His
    distincte notatis et scriptis fac ut cite inde rei veritatem
    per tuum breve sciam. Et cum eo veniat legatus abbatis.


    Hic subscribitur inquisicio terrarum, quomodo barones regis
    inquisierunt,[239] videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis
    scire et omnium baronum et eorum francigenarum, et tocius
    centuriatus, presbiteri, prepositi, vi. villani [_sic_]
    uniuscujusque ville; deinde quomodo vocatur mansio, quis
    tenuit eam tempore R.E., quis modo tenet, quot hide, quot
    carruce[240] in dominio, quot hominum, quot villani, quot
    cotarii, quot servi, quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni,
    quantum silve, quantum prati, quot[241] pascuorum, quot
    molendina, quot piscine, quantum est additum vel ablatum,
    quantum valebat totum simul,[242] et quantum modo, quantum
    quisque liber homo vel sochemannus habuit vel habet. Hoc totum
    tripliciter, scilicet tempore regis Æduardi, et quando Rex
    Willelmus dedit et qualiter modo sit, et si potest plus haberi
    quam habeatur.

    Isti homines juraverunt, etc., etc.

Especially important is the fact that the return contains the jurors'
names, in accordance with the express injunction to that effect in the
Conqueror's writ.

Now if this theory meet with acceptance, and the writ be taken to
refer, as I suggest, to the Domesday Inquest itself, it follows that
the Bishop of Coutances and Bishop Walchelin were the heads of the
Domesday Commission for this district. This, of course, has been
hitherto unknown; but it adds to the presumption in favour of the
facts that Bishop Walchelin is not mentioned in any of the Ely writs
as taking part in the _placita_ concerning the Abbey's lands,
and that, therefore, the only Inquest in which he could have been
concerned was the Domesday Inquest itself. It should be added,
however, that these two Bishops may have been, respectively, the heads
of two distinct commissions for adjoining groups of counties.

The heading to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is so well known, and has
been so often quoted by historians, that it is a gain to fix its
_status_, the more so as it has been loosely described as the
'official' instructions for the Survey itself. We may also determine
the date of the writ as the very close of the Conqueror's reign. For
it must have been issued between William's departure from England,
_circ._ September 1086, and his death (September 1087).

And now, how was the return compiled? It deals, we find, with six
counties, arranged in this order: Cambridgeshire, Herts, Essex,
Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hunts. For _Cambridgeshire_ it copies, clearly,
from the original returns. For Herts it must have done so also,
because it gives full details, which are not found in Domesday Book.
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, for these two counties,
it gives the jurors' names (for the hundreds dealt with), which it
could only have obtained from those original returns. For _Essex_,
_Norfolk_, and _Suffolk_, on the contrary, it simply gives the same
version as the second volume of Domesday Book, and omits accordingly
the jurors' names. The case of the four Manors in _Hunts_ I leave in
doubt, because the version in the _Inquisitio_ (pp. 166-7) has more
details than that of Domesday, though the latter is here exceptionally
full, and because it places first the Manor which comes fourth in
Domesday (i. 204). The additional details (as to live-stock) are such
as we might expect to be derived from the additional returns; but the
names of the witnesses for the Hundred are not recorded, a fact to be
taken in conjunction with the belated entry of these Huntingdonshire
Manors not following, as they should, those in Cambridgeshire and

In addition to the _Inquisitio_ itself, as printed by the Record
Commission, there is a record, or collection of records, which follows
it in all three MSS., and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book (pp.
168-89). Although its character is not there described, it can be
determined. For in the _Inquisitio_ there are three references to
the 'breve abbatis de ely' (pp. 123-4), all three of which can be
identified in the above record (pp. 175-7). It is noteworthy that the
record in question is only complete in C, which confirms my view that
B and its offspring A were independent of C.

Though the word _Breve_ in Domesday Book normally means the king's
writ, there are passages which seem to have been overlooked, and in
which it bears another and very suggestive meaning. One of them is
found at the end of the Survey of Worcestershire and was foolishly
supposed by the compilers of the index volume (pp. 250, 315) to relate
to lands held by 'Eddeva' and entered immediately before it. The
passage is an independent note, running thus:

    In ESCH Hund' jacent x. hidæ in Fecheham et iii. hidæ in
    Holewei et scriptæ sunt in _brevi de Hereford_.

    In DODINTRET Hund' jacent xiii. hidæ de Mertelai et v. hidæ de
    Suchelei quæ hic placitant et geldant, et ad Hereford reddunt
    firmam suam, et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178).

All four places are found on fo. 180_b_, 'Feccheham' and 'Haloede'
[_sic_][243] together (under 'Naisse' Hundred[244]) as paying a
joint ferm--'Merlie' (Martley) under 'Dodintret' Hundred and Suchelie
(Suckley), now in Herefordshire, as 'in Wirecestrescire' (cf. i. 172).

It is clear then that Domesday here uses 'breve' of a return, not of
a writ, and I venture to think the word may refer to the abbreviated
entries made in Domesday Book itself as distinct from those _in
extenso_ found in the original returns.[245]

This usage is found in both volumes. We read of land at Marham,
Norfolk, held by Hugh de Montfort; 'est mensurata in brevi Sanctæ
Adeldret' (ii. 238), where the reference is to the 'Terra Sanctæ
Adeldredræ' (ii. 212), and of Hurstington Hundred, Hunts, 'Villani
et sochemanni geldant secundum hidas in brevi scriptas' (i. 203). The
reference, in both cases, is to the text itself.

The former of these two phrases is repeated in the _Inquisitio
Eliensis_,[246] a fact of some importance if, as I venture to think,
it is there meaningless. The point is worth labouring. We see that
the phrase cannot have occurred in the original returns, where all
the entries relating to Marham would have come together. But if it
was only applicable to Domesday Book itself--where the fiefs were
separated--then must the I.E. have copied from Domesday Book.

This, indeed, is the point to which I am working. For Essex, Norfolk,
and Suffolk, I believe, the compilers of the _Inquisitio_ (1086-7)
must have worked from the second volume of Domesday as we have it now.
We see it _firstly_, in the order of the counties; _secondly_, in the
absence of the jurors' names; _thirdly_, in the system of entering the
lands. With a fourth and minute test I have dealt just above.

But to make this clearer, we must briefly analyse the return. The
Cambridgeshire portion extends from p. 101 to p. 120. It extracts
from the original returns, Hundred by Hundred, all that relates to
the Abbey of Ely. Following this is a note of its possessions in
the Borough of Cambridge[247] (pp. 120-1), and then summaries of the
Abbey's estates, in _dominium_ and _thainland_ and _socha_, in all
six counties, and of the lands held by Picot the Sheriff, Hardwin
d'Eschalers and Guy de Raimbercurt, to which it laid claim as its own
(pp. 121-4). Then we resume with Hertfordshire, the extracts from
the original returns (pp. 124, 125). Both the Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire portions close with the words, 'De toto quod habemus',
etc., referring to the totals worked out by the Abbey from the entries
in the original returns.

With Essex, we enter at once on a different system. This portion,
which extends from p. 125 to p. 130 (line 8), is arranged not by
Hundreds but by fiefs. It first gives the lands actually held by the
Abbey (as coming first in Domesday), and then those of which laymen
were in possession. To the latter section are prefixed the words: 'Has
terras calumpniatur abbas de ely secundum breve regis'. From Essex we
pass to Norfolk, the entries for which, commencing on p. 130 with
the words 'In Teodforda', end on p. 141 at 'Rogerus filius Rainardi'.
These again are divided into two portions, namely, the lands credited
to the Abbey in Domesday (pp. 130-6), and those which it claimed but
which Domesday enters under other owners (pp. 137-41). Between the two
comes the total value of the former portion and a list of the Norfolk
churches held by the Abbey. Last of the Eastern counties is Suffolk,
which begins on p. 141 at 'In Tedeuuartstreu hund.', and ends on p.
166. This also is in two portions, but the order seems to be reversed,
the alleged aggressions on the Abbey's lands coming first and its
uncontested possessions last. The latter portion begins on p. 153,
where the B text inserts the word 'Sudfulc'.

The following parallel passages are of interest as showing how closely
the I.E. followed D.B. even when recording a judicial decision.

  _D.B._                               _I.E._

  In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv.       In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv.
  liberi homines I car. terræ ex       lib. homines I car. terre ex
  quibus habuit sca. Al. commend.      quibus habuit S. Ædel. sacam et
  et socam T.R.E. Tunc vi. car.        socam et commend. T.R.E. Tunc
  modo ii., et iii. acre prati,        vi. car. modo ii., et iii. acre
  et val. xx. sol.                     prati, et val. xx.
  Rogerus bigot[us] tenet de abbate,   sol. R. bigot tenet de Abbate
  quia abbas eam derationavit super    quia Abbas eam dirationavit
  eum coram episcopo de sancto         super eum coram episcopo
  Laudo, sed prius tamen tenebat de    constantiensi. Sed prius
  rege (ii. 383).                      tamen tenuit de rege (p. 157).

The one variation, the Bishop's style, has a curious parallel in
Domesday Book (i. 165), where under the rubric 'Terra Episcopi
Constantiensis' we read 'Episcopus de Sancto Laudo tenet', etc.

We may take it then that the compilers of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_
worked for Cambridge and Herts from the original returns, but, for
the eastern counties, from the second volume of Domesday. What are the
corollaries of this conclusion? They used, for some reason or other,
the second volume of Domesday, but not the first--if, indeed, it then
existed. Speaking for myself, I have always felt not a little uneasy
as to the accepted date for the completion of Domesday Book.[248] Mr
Eyton went so far as to write:

    Imperial orders have gone forth that the coming Codex, the
    Domesday that is to outlive centuries, is to be completed
    before Easter (April 5th, in that year [1086]), when King
    William himself expects to receive it in his Court and Palace
    of Winchester (_Notes on Domesday_, 15).

And he explicitly stated that:

    On any hypothesis as to the time taken by the different
    processes which resulted in Domesday Book, the whole, that
    is the survey, the transcription, and the codification, were
    completed in less than eight months, and three of the eight
    were winter months. No such miracle of clerkly and executive
    capacity has been worked in England since.[249]

But was it worked then? All that the chronicle says of the King is
that the '_gewrita_ wæran gebroht to him', a phrase which does not
imply more than the original returns themselves.

Of course, the chief authority quoted is the colophon to the second

    Anno millesimo octogesimo sexto ab incarnatione Domini
    vicesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ipsa descriptio non
    solum per hos tres comitatus sed etiam per alios.

It seems to have been somewhat hastily concluded that because the
Survey ('Descriptio Angliæ') took place in 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 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 fullness 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' (281_b_). I have no hesitation
in saying that the last words should be 'de _Regno_'. Indeed, the
second formula is found on 289_b_, as 'Terra Regis de Regno', while on
119_b_ under 'Terra Regis', we read 'hoc manerium fuit de regno'. So
also in the Exon Domesday 'Terra Regis' figures as 'Dominicatus regis
ad regnum 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 hypothesis,
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, a 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 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 recognized official records, were the
so-called 'second' volume of Domesday, and (for the rest) the original


No one nowadays 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 'pseudo-Ingulf' (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 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 July
26, 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 1111 to the summer of 1113.

The action of the Queen in presiding over this _placitum_ illustrates
a recognized practice, of which we have an instance in Domesday
itself (i. 238_b_), where it is stated that Bishop Wulfstan,
'terram deplacitasse coram regina Mathilde in presentia iiii^{or.}
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. For, passing now to the
_Dialogus de Scaccario_ (_circa_ 1177), we there read in reply to an
inquiry 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 connection of the 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 I.[256] 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. We find William
Rufus 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'.[260] 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 years later: 'vasa diversi generis
aurea et argentea'. Lastly, there is a piece of evidence which has not
yet been adduced, namely, that in his _Expugnatio Hibernica_ (1188),
Giraldus, speaking of that ring and letters which John of Salisbury
declared had been brought by him from the Pope, and were 'still stored
in the Royal Treasury', writes of

    Annulum aureum in investituræ signum ... qui statim simul cum
    privilegio _in archivis Wintoniae_ repositus fuerat.

Giraldus certainly must have looked on the Royal Treasury at
Winchester as the only recognized repository for all such objects as

Mr Hall, indeed, has gradually modified his original position
that 'Ingulphus saw the Domesday register, as it now exists, at
Westminster', and that it was sent there for good from Winchester
'early in the reign of Henry I',[262] but he still places the
establishment of 'the' Treasury at Westminster, in my opinion, too
early. It is the gradual decay of Winchester as the capital and seat
of administration that makes it difficult to say positively when or
how the national records, Domesday Books among them, were transferred
to Westminster. We have seen at least that, in its early days, the
'Liber de Wintonia', as it styles itself, had its home within the
walls of the Royal castle of Winchester; and I cannot but think,
now as at first, that it began by visiting Westminster for Exchequer
sessions only.[263]

In any case, we have seen its witness appealed to on a far earlier
occasion than had hitherto been known. In my paper on 'An Early
Reference to Domesday',[264] I quoted an even earlier mention of the
'Descriptio Angliæ', but here again the reference seems to make rather
to the Domesday Survey itself than to Domesday Book, the 'Liber de

As an appendix to this paper, I give the pedigree of the Domesday MSS.
according to the views I have expressed.[265]

                           Original Returns
      |             |                |                 |
  Domesday       Domesday       'Inquisitio      'Inquisitio[266]
  Book, vol. II  Book, vol. I   Eliensis',       Comitatus
      |                         _quoad_ Camb.      Cantabrigiensis'
      |                         and Herts        (Tib. A. VI.)
      |                             |
      |                             |
  'Inquisitio                 ______|________
  Eliensis',                  |             |
  _quoad_ Essex,               C text       B text
  Norfolk, Suffolk                          |
   ______|______                           A text
   |           |                         (printed by
  C text     B text                         Ellis)
             A text
             (printed by

    [Footnote 1: _English Commonwealth_, II, ccccxliv.]

    [Footnote 2: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 3: _Domesday Book_, p. 42.]

    [Footnote 4: _Athenæum_, 1885, I, 472, 566-7; _Domesday Book_,
    1887, p. 44.]

    [Footnote 5: _Domesday Studies_ (1891), II, 488.]

    [Footnote 6: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis._ Cura N.
    E. S. A. Hamilton, 1876.]

    [Footnote 7: _Notes on Domesday_ (1877), reprinted 1880, p.

    [Footnote 8: The italics are his own, _Domesday Book_, p. 42.
    Cf. _Domesday Studies_, II, 486-7.]

    [Footnote 9: It is not even _proved_ that the I.C.C. is copied
    from the original returns themselves. There is the possibility
    of a MS. between the two. See _Addenda_.]

    [Footnote 10: These extracts are _extended_ and _punctuated_
    to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed
    within square brackets.]

    [Footnote 11: 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.]

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

    [Footnote 13: In this instance the omission is so gross that
    it attracted Mr Hamilton'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'.]

    [Footnote 14: 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.]

    [Footnote 15: 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.']

    [Footnote 16: 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p.

    [Footnote 17: 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'--p.
    62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).]

    [Footnote 18: 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).]

    [Footnote 19: 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).]

    [Footnote 20: 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit
    æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).]

    [Footnote 21: The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the
    right one because confirmed by I.E.]

    [Footnote 22: This, like the similar cases where D.B. is
    given as the authority for the second reading, is proved
    arithmetically (_vide infra_).]

    [Footnote 23: The I.C.C. enumerates only _three_, which is the
    number given in D.B.]

    [Footnote 24: The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just
    before, and are here wrongly repeated.]

    [Footnote 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.]

    [Footnote 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.']

    [Footnote 27: Mr Eyton (_ibid._, pp. 17, 18), while ignoring
    this valuable and most important 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.']

    [Footnote 28: 'Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in

    [Footnote 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'.]

    [Footnote 30: In this case the 'n[on]' has been added by

    [Footnote 31: The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly
    expressed, 'alias' being, seemingly, put for 'illas'.]

    [Footnote 32: This error arose thus: The original return
    (_see_ I.C.C.) ran: 'De his v. hidis' (i.e. in 'Campes') tenet
    Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam.' The Domesday scribe
    read this hurriedly as implying that 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.]

    [Footnote 33: Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which
    agree with each other.]

    [Footnote 34: _Notes on Domesday_, p. 16.]

    [Footnote 35: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 227-363, 561-619.]

    [Footnote 36: 'Domesday Measures of Land' (_Archæological
    Review_, September 1889; iv, 130).]

    [Footnote 37: _Domesday Studies_, 188, 354.]

    [Footnote 38: 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See _Addenda_.]

    [Footnote 39: Compare the equivalent tenure recognized in
    William of Poitier's 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.']

    [Footnote 40: 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. 175-7 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.]

    [Footnote 41: The I.E. adds 'sub abbate ely' in each case, but
    is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.]

    [Footnote 42: This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for
    instance, the entry 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).]

    [Footnote 43: This same change of phrase is repeated four
    times on two pages (pp. 4, 5).]

    [Footnote 44: So, for instance:
      'de appulatione navis' (I.C.C.) = 'de theloneo retis' (D.B.).
      'ferarum siluaticarum' (I.C.C.) = 'bestiarum siluaticarum' (D.B.).
      'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' (D.B.).]

    [Footnote 45: Compare the I.C.C. version on p. 100, _infra._]

    [Footnote 46: _Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. xviii, xix.]

    [Footnote 47: 'Et dimidiam' [hidam] is omitted in B, and
    (oddly enough) in Domesday itself.]

    [Footnote 48: All three MSS. err here, as the reading should
    clearly be 'dim. _virg._']

    [Footnote 49: b. 65. This distinction between the one and the
    nine, but not the size of the holding, is preserved in D.B.;
    while the I.E., though preserving it, gives the numbers as two
    and eight.]

    [Footnote 50: This is the I.E. and D.B. version. For 'extra
    ecclesiam', the I.C.C. substitutes 'sine ejus [abbatis]

    [Footnote 51: 'Soca _remansit abbati_' is the D.B. and I.E.
    version. It should be noted that the I.E. and _Breve Abbatis_
    give 'herchenger pistor' as the despoiler, while the I.C.C.
    and D.B. record him only as a 'miles' of Picot the sheriff.
    This is a case which certainly suggests special local
    knowledge in the compiler of the former documents, who also
    gives the sokeman's name--Siward.]

    [Footnote 52: Thus 'In Branmmeswelle ... lxx. liberi homines
    unde abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendatio _et omnes
    consuetudines_ ... In eadem villa iiii. liberi homines[*] unde
    abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendationem' (p. 161).]

        [Footnote *: 'Commend' abbati' (D.B., ii 387 _b_).]

    [Footnote 53: _Inq. Com. Cant._, 192-5. see paper on it,

    [Footnote 54: 'In soca et commendatione abbatis de eli'
    (D.B., ii. 441).]

    [Footnote 55: 'Soca et commendatione tantum' (D.B.).]

    [Footnote 56: 'iiii. liberi homines soca et commendatione
    tantum' (D.B.).]

    [Footnote 57: 'T.R.E. ad socham' (D.B.).]

    [Footnote 58: 'Recep'' (D.B., ii. 238).]

    [Footnote 59: The _Breve Abbatis_ records 34.]

    [Footnote 60: _Ibid._, 7.]

    [Footnote 61: I.C.C., fo. 110 (_b_) 1. Cf. D.B., I. 199 (_a_)
    2, and I.E., p. 110.]

    [Footnote 62: 'Socam comes Algarus habuit' = 'soca remansit
    comiti Algaro'. See, for instance, the similar case in which
    a 'man' of Earl Waltheof 'terram suam dare vel vendere potuit,
    sed abbas de Rameseia socam habuit' (I.C.C., fo. 122, _b_,
    2), where D.B. has: 'dare potuit, sed soca remansit abbati de
    Ramesy' (i. 202, _b_, 1).]

    [Footnote 63: 'Et in eadem villa iii. liberi homines ...
    de quibus abbas non habebat nisi commendationem: soca in
    kanincghala regis.']

    [Footnote 64: 'Hanc terram tenuit godmundus homo comitis
    Waltevi; soca vero remansit abbati ely' (p. 115).]

    [Footnote 65: 'Unum liberum hominem unde abbas habet sacam et
    socam tantum' (p. 140).]

    [Footnote 66: _Domesday Studies_, p. 556.]

    [Footnote 67: _Inq. El._, pp. 140, 141.]

    [Footnote 68: _Domesday Studies_, p. 209.]

    [Footnote 69: _Domesday Studies_, p. 187.]

    [Footnote 70: It is essential to bear in mind that the
    Domesday scribes had nothing to guide them but the bare words
    of the return, so that if they thus equated these expressions,
    they can only have done so because the rule was of universal

    [Footnote 71: _Archæological Review_, vol. i, p. 286.]

    [Footnote 72: Compare also the Exon. Domesday, where
    'Stoches', which is entered 'pro. ii. virgatis et dim.'
    appears in D.B. as 'dim. hida et dim. virga'.]

    [Footnote 73: See below, and _ante_, p. 17, note.]

    [Footnote 74: _Key to Domesday_, p. 14.]

    [Footnote 75: It is to this evidence that I made allusion
    in _Domesday Studies_ (p. 225). Similar evidence as to the
    Domesday carucate is found in the _Inq. El._ (Ed. Hamilton,
    pp. 156, 178) where 'lx. acre' equate 'dim. c[arucata]'.]

    [Footnote 76: D.B. erroneously reads 'xxx.' (30) by the
    insertion of an 'x' too many. The I.C.C. correctly reads 'xx.'
    (20), its accuracy here being proved by the above arithmetic.
    Thus the I.C.C. corrects a reading which (1) would, but for
    it, appear fatal to the belief that 30 acres = a virgate; (2)
    would upset the above arithmetic. This ought to be clearly
    grasped, because it well illustrates the element of clerical
    error, and shows how apparent discrepancies in our rule may be
    due to a faulty text alone.]

    [Footnote 77: Here, as in the preceding instance, Domesday is
    in error, reading 'one virgate' ('I virgata') where the I.C.C.
    correctly gives us half a virgate ('dimidiam virgam'). The
    remarks in the preceding note apply equally here.]

    [Footnote 78: Here, again, Domesday is in error, reading _two_
    and a half virgates, where the I.C.C. has _one_ and a half.]

    [Footnote 79: These two entries are by a blunder in the
    I.C.C. (see above, p. 23) erroneously rolled into one (of 1/3
    virgate). In this case it is Domesday Book which corrects the
    I.C.C, and preserves for us the right version.]

    [Footnote 80: The I.C.C, which is very corrupt in its account
    of this township, gives us a deficiency of 1 hide 0-1/2

    [Footnote 81: The apparent exception was caused by the _Inq.
    Com. Cant._ reading 'pro iiii. hidis', and omitting the words
    'xl. acras minus', the true assessment of the Manor, when the
    king's estate was excluded, being 'three hides _less forty

    [Footnote 82: The _blunder_ consists in treating 6-1/2 (geld)
    acres as part of the Countess Judith's estate, whereas they
    had been reckoned separately; the _discrepancy_ is due to D.B.
    reading 'ii. acras', where the I.C.C. has 'xxii. acras'.]

    [Footnote 83: Eyton's _Notes on Domesday_, p. 12.]

    [Footnote 84: _Ibid._, p. 13.]

    [Footnote 85: Dr Stubbs' remarks 'on the vexed question of
    the extent of the hide' will be found in a note to his _Const.
    Hist._, vol. i (1874), p. 74. Mr Eyton (_Key to Domesday_, p.
    14) asserted that the _Domesday_ hide contained 48 geld-acres.
    Prof Earle in his _Land Charters and Saxonic Documents_ (1888)
    reviews the question of the hide, but leaves it undetermined
    (pp. lii-liii, 457-461).]

    [Footnote 86: See above, p. 27.]

    [Footnote 87: _Antiquary_, June 1882, p. 242. See also
    _Domesday Studies_, vol. i, p. 119.]

    [Footnote 88: The I.C.C. _omits_ the king's Manor (7-1/4
    hides, 8 ploughlands).]

    [Footnote 89: I do not here discuss the cause of the
    reduction. Indeed, this would be hard to discover; for the
    original assessment was distinctly low, whether we compare it
    with the aggregate of ploughlands or of valuation. It is true
    that the total of _valets_ which had been £235 0s 4d T.R.E.,
    and was £203 8s 4d at the time of the survey, had fallen so
    low as £161 18s 4d, when the grantees received their lands,
    but, even at the lowest figure, the assessment was still

    [Footnote 90: 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se
    defendebat.'--_D.B._, i. 189.]

    [Footnote 91: This figure is arrived at by adding to the 'hida
    et dimidia et xx. acræ' of Domesday, and the _Inq. Com. Cant._
    the 'viii. hidæ et xl. acræ', which the latter omits, but
    which Domesday records. The sum is exactly ten hides.]

    [Footnote 92: Domesday reads 'iii.', and _Inq. Com. Cant._

    [Footnote 93: I.C.C. reads 'x.']

    [Footnote 94: 'Per concessionem ejusdem regis' (Domesday).
    Compare also the five hides knocked off the assessment of
    Alveston by Henry I, and another ten hides off that of Hampton
    (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 99, 103).]

    [Footnote 95: _Const. Hist._, i, 105.]

    [Footnote 96: See below, p. 87.]

    [Footnote 97: See also _Domesday Studies_, i, 117.]

    [Footnote 98: _Domesday Studies_, i, 122-30.]

    [Footnote 99: The fragments of the Hundred of Papworth and
    North Stow, which it contains, are too small to enable us to
    speak with certainty.]

    [Footnote 100: Correcting the _Inq. Com. Cant._ by adding from
    Domesday the royal Manors in Isleham and Fordham.]

    [Footnote 101: Bedford, 1881.]

    [Footnote 102: 'Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum
    regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L.
    hidis.'--_Domesday_, i, 203.]

    [Footnote 103: Adjoining Manors held by the Abbot of Ely.]

    [Footnote 104: I have not attempted to group these six Manors,
    as we have not sufficient information to warrant it. They
    would, however, form two groups of twenty hides each, or one
    of twenty-five and another of fifteen.]

    [Footnote 105: There are five entries relating to Catworth
    (fos. 205_b_, 206, 206_b_, 217_b_), which, by the addition
    of 11 hides (1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1), would bring up its
    assessment to 15; but as they are all credited in Domesday to
    other Hundreds, and as there are _two_ Catworths surveyed, I
    have adhered to the above figure.]

    [Footnote 106: _Introduction to Domesday_, i, 134. The italics
    are his own.]

    [Footnote 107: _Const. Hist._, i, 99.]

    [Footnote 108: This point brings further into line the towns
    and the rural Hundreds, through the 100-hide and the 50-hide
    assessments of the former. (_See_ my 'Danegeld' Essay in
    _Domesday Studies_.)]

    [Footnote 109: Edgar spoke of it as three Hundreds.]

    [Footnote 110: 'Unum hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslaw in quo
    jacent ccc. hidæ.'--_D.B._, i., 172_b._]

    [Footnote 111: It also contained one 23-hide and two 24-hide
    Manors, which were once perhaps, of 25 hides. The Church
    of Worcester, also possessed, outside this Hundred, Manors
    (_inter alia_) of 20, 15, 10, and 5 hides. (_See_ below, p.

    [Footnote 112: D.B., i. 175_b._]

    [Footnote 113: I make the aggregate 118-1/2 hides.]

    [Footnote 114: 'Quæ hic [Dodintret hundred] placitant et
    geldant et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam.' It would
    have been said in Cambridgeshire that their 'wara' was in
    Doddentree Hundred.]

    [Footnote 115: Eyton's _Somerset Survey_, ii, 25.]

    [Footnote 116: Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, p. 14.]

    [Footnote 117: I drew attention in the _Archæological Review_
    (vol. 1) to a Cornish survey of 21 Ed. I. (_Testa de Nevill_,
    p. 204), in which every Cornish acre contains a Cornish

    [Footnote 118: _Domesday Studies_, p. 172.]

    [Footnote 119: 'A New View of the Geldable Unit of Assessment
    of Domesday.' _Ibid_., pp. 227-363, 561-619.]

    [Footnote 120: _Archæological Review_, i, 285-95; iv, 130-40,

    [Footnote 121: _Ibid._, iv, 325.]

    [Footnote 122: A curious hint of the grouping of Vills is
    afforded in Oxfordshire by Adderbury and Bloxham. Domesday
    first gives us an assessment of 34-1/2 hides in the two, and
    then 15-1/2 hides in Adderbury, making in all, for the two, 50
    hides, the same as Banbury.]

    [Footnote 123: This evidence is rendered available by the
    useful _Notes on the Oxfordshire Domesday_, published by the
    Clarendon Press in 1892.]

    [Footnote 124: 40 + 5 + 5.]

    [Footnote 125: 'Unam hidam et iii^{es.} virgatas et iii^{ciam.}
    partem de i. virgata.']

    [Footnote 126: 'Dimidiam hidam et iii^{ciam.} partem dimidiæ

    [Footnote 127: Lysons. So also Domesday: '_soco vero jacebat
    in Stains_'.]

    [Footnote 128: _Domesday Studies_, i. 120. See also _supra_,
    p. 45, and the case of Northampton, _infra_.]

    [Footnote 129: _Domesday_, i. 64_b._]

    [Footnote 130: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 729.]

    [Footnote 131: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 728-9.]

    [Footnote 132: _Archæological Review_, iv. 313-27.]

    [Footnote 133: Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe
    on Canon Taylor's 'Carucate' remarks in the _New English
    Dictionary_. Strictly, no doubt, the Canon was mistaken, with
    Mr Pell, in reckoning 120 as 144 'by the English number'; but
    the evidence in his paper on 'the plough and the ploughland'
    seems to establish a practice of counting by twelve instead of

    [Footnote 134: _Genealogist_, N.S., vi. 160-1.]

    [Footnote 135: _Archæological Review_, iv. 322.]

    [Footnote 136: On this point one may compare with profit
    'the making of the Danelaw' (858-78), by the late Mr Green
    (_Conquest of England_, pp. 114-29), who had devoted to this
    subject much attention. He discusses the limits of Eastern
    Mercia, the district of the Five Boroughs, in the light of
    local nomenclature (_ibid._, pp. 121-2), and includes within
    it, on this ground, Northamptonshire, while observing that the
    country about Buckingham, which formed the southern border of
    the 'Five Boroughs', has no 'byes'. My own evidence is wholly
    distinct from that of local nomenclature, and defines more
    sharply the district settled and reorganized by the Danes.
    The hidation of Northamptonshire is peculiar, a unit of
    four (reminding one of the Mercian shilling) coming into
    prominence. Still, it was not carucated, but retained its
    assessment in hides.]

    [Footnote 137: Stamford is assigned to Lincolnshire by
    Domesday, but is now in Rutland. The 'Rutland' of Domesday
    (the northern portion of the county as at present constituted)
    was included, we shall find, in the carucated district by
    which it was surrounded on the north.]

    [Footnote 138: Reg. Mag. Alb. at York, pars. ii. 1. Quoted
    by Canon Raine, in his edition of John of Hexham (who applies
    these _formulæ_ to Hexham itself), p. 61.]

    [Footnote 139: _Vide infra_, p. 149, _et seq._]

    [Footnote 140: 'Suma iii. hundr' et vi. car. et vi. bov.']

    [Footnote 141: 'Suma iiii. hundr' et x. car.' (a wrong

    [Footnote 142: 'Summa iii. hundr' et v. car. et iiii. bov.']

    [Footnote 143: See also on these Hundreds Mr Stevenson's
    remarks in _English Historical Review_, v. 96, which have
    appeared since I made these researches.]

    [Footnote 144: This appears to be a clerical error. The actual
    figures represent 'Hundreds'.]

    [Footnote 145: The Northern division by threes and sixes is
    responsible, of course, for the six 'sheaddings' of the Isle
    of Man. On their connection with the 'scypfylleth' of three
    Hundreds see Vigfusson in _English Historical Review_, ii.

    [Footnote 146: The aggregate of these _areal_ measures does
    not bear out the statement of Domesday regarding them, the
    former Wapentake containing eighty-four ploughlands, where
    Domesday allows it only forty-eight.]

    [Footnote 147: The entry is far more suggestive of the
    'Hundreds' (_vide infra_) in Leicestershire, on the border of
    which Sawley stood. This remark applies also to the entry (i.
    291_b_) that Leake (Notts) 'jacet in Pluntree Hund'.]

    [Footnote 148: See D.B., i. fos. 298, 298_b_, and fo. 379.]

    [Footnote 149: As Mr Pell did in the case of Clifton.]

    [Footnote 150: _Vide infra_, p. 160.]

    [Footnote 151: 'There is no trace of any,' writes Canon Taylor
    (_Domesday Studies_, i. 74).]

    [Footnote 152: As with _maenols_ and _trevs_ in North and
    South Wales.]

    [Footnote 153: Mr Pell tried to explain it by assuming that
    the Leicestershire _carucates_ were really small virgates of
    the _hida_ in question!]

    [Footnote 154: This at once shows the absurdity of taking
    these eighteen carucates to be eighteen 'virgates' of a normal
    hide, and of all the reasoning based thereupon.]

    [Footnote 155: See more below on this point.]

    [Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, v. 95.]

    [Footnote 157: Mr Stevenson, moreover, should surely,
    to obtain the meaning he wants, have extended _car_ as

    [Footnote 158: I also hold the formula 'T.R.E. erant ibi _x_
    car[ucæ]' to refer to ploughs, not ploughlands.]

    [Footnote 159: Note that the assessment of 2-5/8 carucates
    represented 2-1/2 ploughlands, and that of 9-3/8 carucates
    only 7 ploughlands. No relation, therefore, can be traced

    [Footnote 160: _Conquest of England_, p. 121 note.]

    [Footnote 161: _Ibid._, p. 276.]

    [Footnote 162: _Chester Archæological Journal_, vol. v.]

    [Footnote 163: 'De harieta Lagemanorum habuit isdem picot
    viii. lib,' etc. (i. 189).]

    [Footnote 164: _Domesday Studies_, i. 143-86.]

    [Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 157.]

    [Footnote 166: According to Canon Taylor's ingenious theory,
    the ratio should be 1 to 1 (for two-field Manors), or 2 to
    1 for three-field Manors. But in Leicestershire there is a
    remarkable prevalence of the 3 to 2 ratio, which his theory
    can, at best, only explain as exceptional.]

    [Footnote 167: _Supra_, p. 74.]

    [Footnote 168: The figures are taken from the 'Index' to the
    Hundreds at the close of the first volume of Domesday Book,
    and the names are arranged in the same order as they are there

    [Footnote 169: There is plenty of similar evidence elsewhere
    in the shire. Thus we find the Craven Manors assessed at 6,
    6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 6, 10, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3,
    3 carucates. These assessments would give us
    24 (6 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 3) + 24 (4 + 6 + 10 + 2 + 2) + 18
    (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) + 11 (2 + 3 + 3 + 3).]

    [Footnote 170: _Supra_, pp. 51, 62.]

    [Footnote 171: Compare the 'Reparto de la contribucion',
    found in the Spanish village communities, the members of which
    apportioned the assessment among themselves.]

    [Footnote 172: _Key to Domesday_: Dorset, p. 14.]

    [Footnote 173: The anomalous position of Rutland also was, of
    course, a disturbing element.]

    [Footnote 174: This low assessment is equally obvious in that
    of the several Manors.]

    [Footnote 175: Probably 1/27, as against about 1/6 for
    Somerset and Dorset jointly.]

    [Footnote 176: See Mr Green's maps in his work, _The Making of
    England_, and Mr Freeman's map of 'Britain in 597', in vol.
    i. of his _Norman Conquest_. The figures for Hampshire,
    unfortunately, are wanting in the roll of 1156, as in that of

    [Footnote 177: Even if such assessment were not required, at
    first, for financial reasons, it might be necessary for such
    obligations as eventually formed the 'trinoda necessitas'.]

    [Footnote 178: See Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 67-9, and
    _Const. Hist._, i. 96-9.]

    [Footnote 179: Select Charters, p. 67.]

    [Footnote 180: Vol. i., pp. 98, 99. Cf. _Select Charters_, p.
    67: 'It is sometimes stated that the Hundred is a primitive
    subdivision consisting of a hundred hides of land, or
    apportioned to a hundred families, the great objection
    to which theory is the impossibility of reconciling the
    historical Hundreds with any such computation.']

    [Footnote 181: _Select Charters_, p. 6.]

    [Footnote 182: Thus, the first entry for East Anglia (ii.
    109_b_) has 'de xx. solidis reddit xvi. d. in gelto.']

    [Footnote 183: Compare also the very curious system of
    'purses' adopted by the Cinque Ports. The 'purse' was £4
    7s, and to every 'purse' Sandwich, for instance, paid twenty
    shillings, while, whenever it paid twenty such shillings, its
    four 'members' were assessed to pay three and fourpence apiece
    towards it.]

    [Footnote 184: 'In hundredo de Tinghowe sunt xx. villæ ex
    quibus constituuntur ix. lete, quas sic distinguimus.' Gage's
    _Suffolk_, p. xii.]

    [Footnote 185: _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_ (Selden
    Society), I., lxiii.--lxxvi.]

    [Footnote 186: _Ibid._, p. lxxvi.]

    [Footnote 187: 'De gelto v. sol'' (D.B., ii. 286_b_). Sudbury
    was an outlying portion of the Hundred of Thingoe, in which
    is situated Bury St Edmunds, of which we read (D.B., ii. 372):
    'quando in hundredo solvitur ad geldum i. libra, tunc inde
    exeunt lx. d. _ad victum monachorum_.' This substitution,
    apparently, of Sudbury (as three leets) for Bury St
    Edmunds (of which the monks received the geld) deserves

    [Footnote 188: See p. 58.]

    [Footnote 189: 'Wisbeche, quæ est quarta pars centuriatus
    insulæ' (_Liber Eliensis_ p. 192).]

    [Footnote 190: 'In Sparle et in Pagrave, xviii. d. quando
    hundret scotabat xx. solidos et in Acra vi. d. et in pichensam
    xii. d. quicunque ibi teneat' (ii. 119_b_). See also note

    [Footnote 191: See _Domesday Studies_, p. 117.]

    [Footnote 192: Reprinted from the _English Historical Review_,
    October 1892.]

    [Footnote 193: Ninth Report on Historical MSS., App. I, 38.]

    [Footnote 194: _Domesday of St. Paul's_, p. iv.]

    [Footnote 195: This is a slip. Drayton was in Middlesex, and
    the words (which Mr Seebohm quotes) are 'cum _una_ hida de

    [Footnote 196: I know of no authority for this form.]

    [Footnote 197: The '_Lathes_' of Kent of course point in the
    same direction.]

    [Footnote 198: Professor Vinogradoff states, on the contrary,
    that 'all are irregular in their formation'.]

    [Footnote 199: _English Village Community_, pp. 54, 139, 396.]

    [Footnote 200: The phrase 'quot hidæ _sint_ ibi' is of
    importance because such _formulae_ as 'T.R.E. geldabat pro ii.
    hidis, sed tamen _sunt_ ibi xii. hidæ', have sometimes been
    understood to imply two geldable, but twelve arable hides,
    whereas both figures refer to assessment only.]

    [Footnote 201: _English Village Community_, 212 note.]

    [Footnote 202: We might also compare the _droit de gîte_ on
    the other side of the Channel.]

    [Footnote 203: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr
    Eyton's work.]

    [Footnote 204: It is a further and fundamental error that
    Mr Eyton speaks of the _firma unius noctis_ as 'borough
    taxation', whereas it was essentially of the nature of rent,
    not taxes.]

    [Footnote 205: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr
    Eyton's work.]

    [Footnote 206: We should perhaps read this as explaining
    the composition of the centuriatus, viz.: 'the priests, the
    reeves, and six villeins from each Vill'.]

    [Footnote 207: Of this conflict there is a good instance,
    almost at the outset of the Cambridgeshire survey (p. 3):
    'Hanc terram posuit Orgarus in vadimonio ... ut homines
    Goisfridi dicunt. Sed homines de hundredo neque breve
    aliquid neque legat' R.E. inde viderunt, neque testimonium

    [Footnote 208: Whittlesford omitted, because in this Hundred
    no lands were held or claimed by the Abbey.]

    [Footnote 209: Compare Wilkins, 125 (quoted by Palgrave,
    _English Commonwealth_, i. 464) on English and 'Welsh' in
    Devon: 'Disputes arising between the plaintiffs and defendants
    of the two nations were to be decided by a court of twelve
    "lawmen"--six English and six Welsh--the representatives of
    the respective communities. And it may be observed that
    the principle which suggested this dimidiated tribunal was
    generally adopted in our border law.']

    [Footnote 210: Wharton's _Anglia Sacra_, i. 339.]

    [Footnote 211: Palgrave's _Commonwealth_, ii. 183.]

    [Footnote 212: This seems of great importance as a very early
    instance of the _quatuor villatæ_ system, on which see Gross's
    'The Early History and Influence of the Office of Coroner'
    (_Political Science Quarterly_, vol. vii, No. 4), where the
    researches of Prof Maitland and others are summarized.]

    [Footnote 213: Only four, however, of the fourteen actually
    swore: 'reliquos vero decem quietavit Willelmus abbas, qui
    parati erant jurare'.]

    [Footnote 214: The number eight perhaps, is unusual for
    the jury of a Hundred but we have an instance in 1222, of a
    'jurata per octo legales cives Lincolniæ et præterea per octo
    legales homines de visneto Lincolnie' (_Bracton's Note-book_,
    ii. 121); and see Addenda.]

    [Footnote 215: His surname is there omitted, but his identity
    is proved by Humphrey 'de Anslevilla' occurring elsewhere as
    an under-tenant of Eudo.]

    [Footnote 216: So I conclude from his _Introduction to
    Domesday_, i. 22, note 2.]

    [Footnote 217: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, pp. 97
    _et seq._]

    [Footnote 218: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 184-9.]

    [Footnote 219: _Ibid._, pp. 97, 101.]

    [Footnote 220: C omits 'et'.]

    [Footnote 221: Here the scribe of C, puzzled by the
    evident corruption of the text from which he copied, read

    [Footnote 222: 'Toft' (rightly) in C.]

    [Footnote 223: Chauelæi, C.]

    [Footnote 224: Stanhard[us], B, C.]

    [Footnote 225: Frauuis, C.]

    [Footnote 226: Chertelinge, C.]

    [Footnote 227: Cheleia, C.]

    [Footnote 228: Wigeni, C. This was 'Wigonus de mara' (I.C.C.)
    or 'Wighen' (D.B.) Count Alan's under-tenant at Ditton.]

    [Footnote 229: Eurard[us] in D.B.]

    [Footnote 230: 'Juraverunt homines scilicet Alerann[us],
    Rogger[us] homo Walteri Giffardi' omitted in C.]

    [Footnote 231: A sokeman of the Abbot of Ely at Suafham.]

    [Footnote 232: Staplehoe Hundred.]

    [Footnote 233: This is a noticeable case because 'mo' has
    been interlined in B text of I.E., and because this man can
    be identified in I.C.C. and D.B. as an under-tenant in the

    [Footnote 234: The I.E. version ('bans') is the right one.]

    [Footnote 235: Rectius 'I. hidam'.]

    [Footnote 236: C text.]

    [Footnote 237: Commend' 'S. ae.' is found on 386_b_, _ad

    [Footnote 238: From internal evidence I hold this writ to have
    been sent from over sea. It cannot have been issued by William
    Rufus, for the Bishop of Coutances rebelled against him in
    1088, and William Rufus did not go abroad till later in his

    [Footnote 239: This is usually quoted 'inquirunt', which is
    the wrong reading.]

    [Footnote 240: The right reading.]

    [Footnote 241: Quantum in C text.]

    [Footnote 242: The text here seems to be corrupt, C reading
    'tunc' for 'simul'. As the 'tunc' and 'modo' formula is
    represented in the next clause, it seems more probable that
    'simul' is the right reading, and refers to the totals entered
    in the _Inquisitio_. In that case the words 'et quantum modo'
    are an interpolation.]

    [Footnote 243: Hallow near Worcester.]

    [Footnote 244: Note, Ash--'Esch'--'Naisse'.]

    [Footnote 245: Compare the heading of the 'breve abbatis':
    'Hic imbreviatur quot carucas', etc., etc. The returns of the
    Norman barons in 1172 were styled 'breves'.]

    [Footnote 246: Ed. Hamilton, p. 137.]

    [Footnote 247: This also seems to have been taken from the
    detailed original returns.]

    [Footnote 248: So far back as 1887 I raised this question,
    writing: 'Indeed, heretical though the view may be, I see no
    _proof_ whatever that Domesday Book was itself compiled in
    1086' (_Antiquary_, xvi. 8).]

    [Footnote 249: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 526, 626.]

    [Footnote 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 _Encyclopædia 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 _Diologus 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 (1079-80) as the date of Domesday (see below, p.

        [Footnote *: Author of _Our Public Records_.]

    [Footnote 251: I am not sure that even the 'pertin[ent] ad
    rege[m]' of the 'first' volume (100_b_) is not a mistake for

    [Footnote 252: On fo. 17 is a curious deleted list of church
    fiefs in Essex, which has no business there.]

    [Footnote 253: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 354.]

    [Footnote 254: _Vide infra_, p. 154.]

    [Footnote 255: Henry, says Orderic, in 1100, 'concito cursu
    ad _arcem Guentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur_,

    [Footnote 256: This account of the Winchester placitum is
    taken from my second article on 'The Custody of Domesday Book'
    (_Antiquary_, xvi. 9-10).]

    [Footnote 257: _Academy_, November 13, 1886; _Domesday
    Studies_, p. 537 note; and Mr Hall's _Antiquities of the
    Exchequer_, chap. i.]

    [Footnote 258: _Mon. Ang._, iii. 86.]

    [Footnote 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).]

    [Footnote 260: _Domesday Studies_, 546-7.]

    [Footnote 261: _Supra_, note 255.]

    [Footnote 262: _Athenæum_, November 27, 1886.]

    [Footnote 263: See also _Domesday Studies_, 547 note^{2}.]

    [Footnote 264: _Domesday Studies_, 539 _et seq._]

    [Footnote 265: It will be observed that I do not touch the
    _Liber Exoniensis_.]

    [Footnote 266: Possibly at second-hand, see p. 20 note
    (Footnote 9, above), and Addenda.]


This remarkable document was printed by Sir Henry Ellis (1833) in
his _General Introduction to Domesday_ (i. 184-7) from the fine
Peterborough Cartulary belonging to the Society of Antiquaries (MS.
60). I shall not, therefore, reprint it here, but will give the
opening entry as a specimen of its style:

    This is unto Suttunes (Sutton) hundred, that is an hundred
    hides. So it was in King Edward's day. And thereof is
    'gewered' one and twenty hides and two-thirds of a hide, and
    [there are] forty hides inland and ten hides [of] the King's
    ferm land, and eight and twenty hides and the third of a hide

We have seen (_supra_, p. 59) that Ellis not only erred, but even led
Dr Stubbs into error, as to the character of the 'hundreds' enumerated
in this document. Except for that, I cannot find any real notice taken
of it, although it has been in print over sixty years. It appears to
be not even mentioned in Mr Stuart Moore's volume on _Northamptonshire
in Domesday_; and no one, it seems, has cared to inquire to what date
it belongs, or what it really is.[1]

Now, although written in old English, it is well subsequent to the
Conquest, for it mentions _inter alia_ 'Rodbertes wif heorles',
who, we shall find, was Maud, wife of the Count of Mortain. It also
mentions William and Richard Engaine, Northamptonshire tenants in
Domesday. On the other hand, it cannot be later than 1075, for it
speaks of lands held by 'the lady, the King's wife'; and this was
Edith, Edward's widow, whose Northamptonshire lands passed to King
William at her death in 1075. Of the very few names mentioned, one
may surprise and the other puzzle us. The former is that of 'the Scot
King', holding land even then in a shire where his successors were to
hold it so largely: the other is 'Osmund, the King's writer', in whom
one is grievously tempted to detect the future Chancellor, Saint and
Bishop. But, apart from his identity, his peculiar style, exactly
equating, as it does, the Latin 'clericus regis', emboldens me to make
the hazardous suggestion that we possibly have in this document an
English rendering of a Latin original, executed in the Peterborough

For what was the purpose of the document? It may be pronounced without
hesitation to be no other than a geld-roll, recording, it would seem,
a levy of Danegeld hitherto unknown.[2] There are three features which
it has in common with the rolls of 1084: it is drawn up hundred by
hundred; it records the exemption of demesne; and it specifies those
lands that had failed to pay their quota.[3]

Its salient feature is one that, at first sight, might seem to impugn
its authenticity. This is the almost incredible amount of land lying
'waste'. If we confine our attention to the land liable to geld
represented by the first and fourth columns in my analysis below, we
see that by far the larger proportion of it is entered as 'waste':
yet this witness to a terrible devastation is the best proof of its
authenticity; for it sets before us the fruits of those ravages in the
autumn of 1065, which are thus described by Mr Freeman, paraphrasing
the English chronicle:

    Morkere's Northern followers dealt with the country about
    Northampton as if it had been the country of an enemy. They
    slew men, burned corn and houses, carried off cattle, and
    at last led captive several hundred prisoners, seemingly as
    slaves. The blow was so severe that it was remembered even
    when one would have thought that that and all other lesser
    wrongs would have been forgotten in the general overthrow of
    England. Northamptonshire and the shires near to it were for
    many winters the worse.

Mr Freeman, had he read it, would have eagerly welcomed our record's
striking testimony to the truth of the Chronicle's words.

The devastation that our roll records had been well repaired at the
time of Domesday; but we obtain a glimpse of it in the Rockingham
entry: 'Wasta erat quando rex W. jussit ibi castellum fieri. Modo
valet xxvi. sol.' (i. 220).

But it is not only that the entries of 'waste' on our roll are thus
explained: they further prove it to be, as I have urged, a 'Danegeld'
roll. For, when we compare it with the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II (1156),
we find the latter similarly allowing for the non-receipt of geld from
land 'in waste'; and it is specially noteworthy that the portion thus
'waste' is in every case, as on our roll, entered after the others.
The fact that the geld was remitted on land that had been made 'waste'
is now established by collation of these two records.

Incidentally, it may be pointed out that as our document bears witness
to the devastation of Northamptonshire in 1065, so the first surviving
roll of Henry II illustrates the local range of devastation under
Stephen. In Kent, which had been throughout under the royal rule,
the waste was infinitesimal; in Yorkshire it was slight; but in
the Midlands, which had long been the battle-ground of rival feudal
magnates, it was so extensive that, as here in Northamptonshire after
the Conquest, there was more land exempted as 'waste' than there was
capable of paying.

Before leaving this subject I briefly compare the cases of
Northamptonshire and of East Sussex. In the former, we have seen, it
is only our document that preserves for us evidence of the ravages in
1065; Domesday does not record them, because they had then (1086)
been repaired. But in East Sussex, the entries are fuller; and as was
observed by Mr Hayley, an intelligent local antiquary:

    It is the method of Domesday Book, after reciting the
    particulars relating to each Manor, to set down the valuation
    thereof, at three several periods, to wit, the time of King
    Edward the Confessor, afterwards _when the new tenant entered
    upon it_, and again at the time when the survey was made. Now
    it is to be observed in perusing the account of the Rape of
    Hastings in that book, that in several of the Manors therein
    _at the second of these periods_, it is recorded of them that
    they were waste, and from this circumstance it may upon good
    ground be concluded what parts of that Rape were marched over
    by, and suffered from the ravages of the two armies of the
    Conqueror and King Harold; and indeed, the situations of those
    Manors is such as evidently shows their _then_ devastated
    state to be owing to that cause.[4]

Mr Freeman's treatment of this theory was highly characteristic. In
the Appendix he devoted to the subject[5] he first contemptuously
observed of the allusion to Harold's army:

    This notion would hardly have needed any answer except from
    the sort of sanction given to it by the two writers who quote
    Mr Hayley. I do not believe that any army of any age ever
    passed through a district without doing some damage, but to
    suppose that Harold systematically harried his own kingdom
    does seem to me the height of absurdity.

And he, further, indignantly denied that such a King as Harold was
'likely to mark his course by systematic harrying'. Now, Mr Hayley
had never charged him with 'systematic harrying'; he had merely traced
with much ingenuity, the approach of his army to Senlac by the damage,
Mr Freeman admits, its passage, when assembled, must have caused.

The fact is that Mr Hayley had, and Mr Freeman had not, read his
Domesday 'with common care'.[6] The latter started from the hasty
assertion that:

    the lasting nature of the destruction wrought at this time is
    shown by the large number of places round about Hastings which
    _are returned in Domesday_ as 'waste'.

Hence he argued, Harold, even had he been 'Swegen himself'--

    could not have done the sort of lasting damage which is
    implied in the lands being returned as 'waste' _twenty years
    after_. The ravaging must have been something thorough and
    systematic, like the ravaging of Northumberland a few years

The whole argument rests on a careless reading of Domesday. It was on
passages such as these that Mr Hayley had relied:

    Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xx. lib. Et _post vasta fuit_.
    Modo xviii. lib. et x. sol.

    Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xiiii. lib. _Postea vastatum
    fuit._ Modo xxii. lib.

    Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat cxiiii. sol. Modo vii. lib.
    _Vastatum fuit._[7]

Thus, so far from being returned in 1086 as 'waste', these Manors, we
see, had already recovered from their devastation at the Conquest, and
had even, in some cases, increased their value. And so Mr Freeman's
argument falls to the ground.

But as he was eager to vindicate Harold from a quite imaginary charge,
I will try to clear William from Mr Freeman's very real one. Having
wrongly concluded that the ravages were 'lasting', and must therefore
have been 'systematic', Mr Freeman wrote:

    There can be little doubt but that William's ravages were
    not only done systematically, but were done with a fixed and
    politic purpose (p. 413) ... there can be little doubt that
    they were systematic ravages done with the settled object of
    bringing Harold to a battle (p. 741).

Possibly the writer had in his mind the harrying of the lands of the
Athenians, as described in the pages of Thucydides: but how can it
have been politic for William, not only to provoke Harold, but to
outrage the English people? It was Harold with whom his quarrel lay;
and as to those he hoped to make his future subjects, to ravage their
lands wilfully and wantonly was scarcely the way to commend himself
to their favour: it would rather impel them, in dread of his ways, to
resist his dominion to the death.

But if William's policy be matter of question, Domesday at least is
matter of fact; and Mr Freeman's followers cannot be surprised at the
opposition he provoked, when we find him thus ridiculing a student
for a charge he never made, and proved to have himself erred from his
careless reading of Domesday.

I now append an analysis of the roll, showing the proportion of land
'gewered',[8] of 'inland', of _terra regis_, of land which had not
paid (in square brackets), and of 'waste'. The totals in square
brackets are those given in the document; the others are those
actually accounted for.

                           Inland   Terra       Waste        Total

  Sutton          21-2/3     40      10           28-1/3     100     [100]
  Warden          17-3/4     40                   41-1/4      99     [100]
  Cleyley         18         40                   42         100     [100]
  Gravesend       18-1/2     35       5           41-1/2     100     [100]
  'Eadbolds Stow' 23-1/2     45       5           26-1/2     100     [100]
  'Ailwardsley'   16-1/2     40           [6-1/2] 37         100     [100]
  Foxley          16         30      21           33         100     [100]
  Wyceste         19[9]      40      20           21         100     [100]
  Huxlow           8         15                   39          62      [62]
  Willybrook       7         11      31           13          62      [62]
  Upton Green     50         27            [3-1/2]29-1/2[10] 110     [109]
  Neuesland     [80-1/2][11] 59               [8] 12-1/2             [160]
  Navisford       15         14                   33          62      [62]
  Polebrook       10         20                   32          62      [62]
  Newbottlegrove  44-7/8     72                   33-1/8     150     [150]
  Gilsborough     16         68                   66         150     [150]
  Spelho          20-1/2        [Borough 25] [16] 28-1/2      90      [90]
  Wiceslea W.     10         40                   30          80      [80]
  Wiceslea E.     15         34                   31          80      [80]
  'Stotfald'       9-1/8     40                   50-1/8      99-1/4 [100]
  Stoke           18       [10]                   12                  [40]
  Higham          49-1/2     44                   56         149-1/2 [150]
  'Malesley'      12         30       8           30          80      [80]
  Corby            8-1/2     12-1/4  12-1/4  [?4] 10-3/4      47-3/4  [47]
  Rothwell        10         20       7-1/2    [7-1/2]        45[12]  [60]
  'Andwertheshoe' [?26][13]  25                   39                  [90]
  Ordlingbury     29-1/2     24-1/2               21          80      [80]
  'Wimersley'     41         60                   49         150     [150]

The persons mentioned as not having paid can in most cases be
identified. Thus 'Robert the Earl's wife' is one of those in Rothwell
Hundred, whose land was 'unwered'. This was clearly Maud, wife of
Count Robert of Mortain, who had been given lands by her father, Roger
of Montgomery, at Harrington in this Hundred. Domesday, it is true,
where it figures as 'Arintone', knows it only as 'Terra æcclesiæ de
Grestain' (222 _b_); but a charter of Richard I (_per Inspeximus_)
confirms to the Abbey 'ex dono Matildis Comitisse Moreton ... xxxii.
hidas terre quas dederat ei pater suus Rogerus de Montegomerico,
scilicet apud Haxintonam [_sic_] viii. hidas, etc.'[14] As the lands
had first been given to Roger, then by him to his daughter, and,
finally, by her to the Abbey, I cannot think our document earlier, at
any rate, than 1068. Edith, whose name proves it not to be later than
1075, is entered as 'the lady, the King's wife', holding eight hides
in Neuesland Hundred, and again as a holder in Rothwell Hundred, under
the name of 'the King's wife'. Both entries, doubtless, refer to her
wide-spreading Manor of 'Tingdene' (I. 222), parts of which lay in
both the above Hundreds. Of the other holders we may notice 'Urs' (?
Urse d'Abetot), and 'Witeget the priest'; but these are quite eclipsed
by Richard and William Engaine, of whom the former occurs twice and
the latter thrice on the roll. In Spelho Hundred 'Richard' seems to
be credited with ten hides at 'Habintune' on which 'nan peni' had been
paid. In Domesday his holding at Abintone is given as _four_ hides (i.
229). In the same Hundred, William's land at 'Multune' is in default.
Moulton is not entered under his fief in Domesday, but under that of
Robert de Buci we find a 'William' holding of him a hide and a virgate
and a half in Moulton. This was William Engaine, as was the 'William'
of our roll; and in the Hen. I-Hen. II survey,[15] we find land in
Moulton entered as of Engaine's fee. Still more interesting is it to
note that so late as 25 Ed. I. more than two centuries after Domesday,
John Engayne is found holding half a fee in Moulton of Ralf Basset,
and Basset of the 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 3-1/2 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 (_ibid._, 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
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 3-1/2 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]

The association of Pytchley with hunting is carried back even further
still. For Richard and William Engaine had for their predecessor in
title, Ælfwine 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.

    [Footnote 1: I have found, since this was written, that it was
    printed by Mr T. O. Cockayne in his little-known _Shrine_ (pp.
    205-8), and pronounced by him (in error) to be 'evidently' of
    the date 1109-18.]

    [Footnote 2: I opposed in 1886 (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 86,
    87) the accepted view that no Danegeld was levied by the
    Conqueror till the winter of 1083-4 and discussed (_ibid._,
    88-92) the _Inquisitio Geldi_, which, as Mr Eyton showed (_Key
    to Domesday_), belongs to that date. It has been persistently
    confused with the Exon Domesday (being bound up with it), as
    by Mr Jones, in his Wiltshire Domesday (pp. xxxvii., 153 _et
    seq._), and Professor Freeman (_Quart. Review_, July 1892, p.

    [Footnote 3: It was connected, I find, by Mr Cockayne with
    military service, not with _Danegeld_.]

    [Footnote 4: Quoted in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday_, i.

    [Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii, 741-2.]

    [Footnote 6: The phrase employed by Mr Freeman in criticizing
    Professor Pearson.]

    [Footnote 7: See Ellis, _ut supra_.]

    [Footnote 8: 'Wered', like 'Wara' (_supra_, p. 100), refers
    to assessment and corresponds with the 'defendit se' phrase
    in Domesday. It seems here to represent the land which had
    actually paid.]

    [Footnote 9: Wrongly given by Ellis and Cockayne as 'xviii'.]

    [Footnote 10: Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx'.]

    [Footnote 11: The MS. reads, 'thus micel is gewered ... viiii.
    and xx. hida and i. hida and viiii. and fifti hida inland'.
    The text is clearly corrupt.]

    [Footnote 12: There is no entry for 'waste' in this hundred,
    so that possibly the words 'xv. hida westa' are omitted.]

    [Footnote 13: There are clearly some words omitted here in
    the Peterborough transcript. We must read: 'and thereof is
    "gewered" [? 26 hide and] five and twenty hides inland'.]

    [Footnote 14: _Monasticon_, vi. 1090.]

    [Footnote 15: _Infra_, p. 175.]

    [Footnote 16: _Infra_, p. 173.]

    [Footnote 17: See my paper on 'The great carucage of 1198'
    (_English Historical Review_, iii, 501 _et seq._).]

    [Footnote 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.]

    [Footnote 19: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 117-9.]


(_Temp._ HENRY I)

The 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.
168-75),[2] 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. 224_b_), 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 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.

We duly find 'Anschitillus' in Domesday, holding 'Witheringham',
Northants and 'Osgodeby', Linc., of the Abbot (i. 221_b_, 345_b_). In
the same way we are enabled to identify the 'Rogerius Infans' of our
list with 'Rogerius' who held 'Pilchetone', according to Domesday (i.
221_b_), of the Abbot, 'Ascelinus de Waltervilla' with the 'Azelinus'
of Domesday (_ibid._), 'Gosfridus nepos Abbatis', with 'Goisfridus'
who held in 'Sudtorp' (_ibid._), 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. 221_b_), 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.

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

        DOMESDAY                    DESCRIPTIO MILITUM

  In Dailintone tenet Ricardus de   Rodbertus filius Ricardi iiii.
  abbate iiii^{or.} hidas (i. 222). hidas in Hamtonascira, et inde
                                    servit se altero milite (p. 175).

  In Risun habuit Elnod iiii.       Picotus filius Colsuaini habet
  bovatas terre ad geldum ... Nunc  dimidiam carrucatam in Rison,
  habet Colsuan de abbate Turoldo   quam abbas dedit patri suo tali
  (i. 345_b_).                      servicio quod esset ad placita
                                    abbatis et manuteneret res suas
                                    et homines suos in scira et in
                                    aliis locis (p. 175).

This second entry not only records a peculiarly interesting
enfeoffment, but identifies 'Colsuan', the Abbot's under-tenant
at Riseholme, with no less a person than the conqueror's 'English
favourite Coleswegen, ... an Englishman who, by whatever means,
contrived to hold up his head among the conquerors of England'.[3]

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. 159-73).[5]
Vitalis ('Viel') Engaine had succeeded William (Engaine) at Pytchley
both in our list and in the survey of 1125 (cf. _ante_, p. 129).

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 1908, wrote:

    William at once bestowed the staff on Turold, the brother of
    Hugh of Evermont [_sic_], seemingly the same Hugh who figures
    in the legend of Hereward as his son-in-law and successor.[6]

But the French editors of Ordericus, in a note to the passage from
which this statement was taken (iv. 18), speak of our man as 'Hugue
d'Envermeu, donateur du prieuré de St. Laurent d'Envermeu à l'Abbaye
de Bec'.[7]

Turning for a moment from Hugh to Ansford, we read in the Lincolnshire

    Terram Asford in Bercham hund' dicit Wapentac non habuisse
    Herewardum die quo aufugiit (D.B., i. 376_b_).

About this entry, as Mr Freeman observed, 'there can be no doubt'.
But as the result of his careful inquiry,[8] he limited 'our positive
knowledge', from Domesday, to this entry and to two in the text of the
Lincolnshire survey (364_b_-377). It is strange that he did not follow
up the clue the 'Clamores' gave him. The relevant entry in the text of
the Survey is duly found under the Peterborough fief:

    In Witham et Mannetorp et Toftlund habuit _Hereward_ xii.
    bovatas terræ ad geldum.... Ibi Asuert [_sic_] homo abbatis
    Turoldi habet, etc....

    Berew[ita] hujus M. in Bercaham et Estou i. carucata terræ ad
    geldum. ... Ibi Asford habet, etc....

    In Estov Soca in Witham iiii. bovatæ terræ et dimidia ad
    geldum.... Ibi Asfort de abbate habet, etc.... (i. 346).

This is the 'terra Asford' referred to in the 'Clamores', and, as
amounting to 3-1/16 carucates, it is clearly the 'iii. carucatas'
assigned in our list to 'Ansford'. Thus, through his successor
Ansford, we have at last run down our man; Hereward was, exactly as is
stated by Hugh 'Candidus', a 'man' of the Abbot of Peterborough;
and his holding was situated at Witham on the Hill,[9] not far from
Bourne, and, at Barholme-with-Stow a few miles off, all in the extreme
south-west of the county. This is the fact for which Mr Freeman sought
in vain, and which has eluded Professor Tout, in his careful life of
the outlaw for the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

We are now in a position to examine the gloss of Hugh 'Candidus',
showing how 'Baldwin Wake' possessed the holdings both of Hugh and of

    Primus Hugo de Euremu. Baldwinus Wake tenet in Depinge,
    Plumtre, et Stove feoda duorum militum.... Et præterea dictus
    Baldewinus tenet feodum unius militis in Wytham et Bergham
    de terra Affordi. Et prædictus Baldewinus de predictis feodis
    abbati de Burgo debet plenarie respondere de omni forensi

Here we see how the legendary name and legendary position of Hereward
were evolved. The Wakes, Lords of Bourne, held among their lands some,
not far from Bourne, which had once been held by Hereward. Thus arose
the story that Hereward had been Lord of Bourne; and it was but a
step further to connect him directly with the Wakes, by giving him
a daughter and heir married to Hugh de Evermou, whose lands had
similarly passed to the Lords of Bourne. The pedigree-maker's crowning
stroke was to make Hereward himself a Wake,[11] just as Baldwin fitz
Gilbert (de Clare) is in one place transformed into a Wake.[12] The
climax was reached when the modern Wakes revived the name of Hereward,
just as 'Sir Brian Newcome of Newcome' set the seal to his family
legend by giving his children 'names out of the Saxon calendar'.

Returning to Hereward himself, we find Mr Freeman writing (of the
spring of 1070):

    At this moment we hear for the first time of one whose
    mythical fame outshines all the names of his generation, and
    of whom the few historical notices make us wish that details
    could be filled in from some other source than legend.... Both
    the voice of legend and the witness of the great Survey agree
    in connecting Hereward with Lincolnshire, but they differ
    as to the particular spot in the shire in which he is to be
    quartered. Legend also has forgotten a fact which the document
    has preserved, namely, that the hero of the fenland did
    not belong wholly to Lincolnshire, but that he was also a
    landholder in the distant shire of Warwick. But the Survey has
    preserved another fact with which the legendary versions of
    his life have been specially busy. Hereward, at some time it
    would seem, before the period of his exploits, had fled from
    his country.[13]

Let us first dismiss from our minds the alleged fact as to
Warwickshire. There is absolutely nothing to connect the Count of
Meulan's tenant there with the Lincolnshire hero; indeed Mr Freeman
admits in his appendix 'that the Hereward of these entries may be some
other person' (p. 805). Legend had an excellent reason for ignoring
this alleged 'fact' as had 'romances' for having 'perversely
forgotten' to mention the deeds or the fate of William Malet in the
Isle (_ibid._, p. 473). We must also dismiss the 'fact'--'undoubted
history' though it be (_ibid._, p. 805)--of Hereward's 'banishment'
at some time between 1062 and 1070. For the Survey gives no date; it
merely speaks of 'die quâ aufugiit' (i. 376_b_), which phrase, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, must be referred to his escape
from the 'Isle',[14] when (1071) in the words of Florence, 'cum paucis
evasit'. This at once explains the Domesday entry (_ante_, p. 160),
for he would, of course, have forfeited his holding before that date.

'But leaving fables and guesses aside,' in Mr Freeman's words, 'we
know enough of Hereward to make us earnestly long to know more' (p.
456). My proof that the English hero was a 'man' of the Abbot of
Peterborough explains why 'Hereward and his gang', as they are termed
in the Peterborough Chronicle, 'seem', Mr Freeman is forced to admit,
'to be specially the rebellious tenants of the Abbey', as distinct
from the Danes and the outlaws (p. 459). And the vindication, on this
point, of Hugh Candidus' accuracy makes one regret that Mr Freeman,
though eager for information as to Hereward, ignored so completely
that writer's narrative. It is in absolute agreement with the
Peterborough Chronicle, Mr Freeman's own authority, but records
some interesting details which the Chronicle omits.[15] These place
Hereward's conduct in a somewhat different light, and suggest that he
may really have been loyal to the Abbey whose 'man' he was. His plea
for bringing the Danes to Peterborough was that he honestly believed
that they would overthrow the Normans, and that the treasures of the
church would, therefore, be safer in their hands. He may perfectly
well have been hostile to the Normans, and yet faithful to the Abbey
so long as Brand held it; but the news that Turold and his knights
were coming to make the Abbey a centre of Norman rule against him[16]
would drive him to extreme courses. Professor Tout has made some use
of Hugh, but says, strangely, that 'the stern rule of the new Abbot
Turold drove into revolt the tenants', when his rule had not yet

Again, there is now no doubt where Hereward ought 'to be quartered'.
Two other places with which the Domesday survey connects him are
Rippingale and, possibly, Laughton to the north of Bourne. Living thus
on the edge of the fenland, he may well have been a leader among
'that English folk of the fenlands' who rose, says the Peterborough
Chronicle, in the spring of 1070, to join the Danish fleet and
throw off the Norman yoke. And the prospect of being ousted from his
Peterborough lands by a follower of the new French abbot would have
added a personal zest to his patriotic zeal.

Mr Freeman, followed by Professor Tout,[17] holds that the story in
the false Ingulf is not to be wholly cast aside, as it may contain
some genuine Crowland tradition;[18] but he has not accurately given
that story. It might hastily be gathered, as it was by him, that it
was Hereward's mother-in-law who 'very considerately takes the veil
at the hands of Abbot Ulfcytel', whereas it was, according to the
_Gesta_, his wife who did this. The _Gesta_ version, he writes, 'of
Turfrida going into a monastery to make way for Ælfthryth is plainly
another form of the story in Ingulf, which makes not herself but her
mother do so'. But if the _Historia Ingulphi_ (pp. 67-8) be read with
care, it will be seen that 'mater Turfrid_æ_' should clearly be 'mater
Turfrid_a_', the reading that the sense requires. So there is here no
opposition, and Ingulf merely follows the _Gesta_ version.

As for the honour of Bourne, it can be shown from the _carta_ of Hugh
Wac in 1166, from our list of knights, and from the Pipe-Roll of 1130,
to have been formed from separate holdings and to have descended as

       |                            |
    William                      Richard
    de Rullos,                   de Rullos
    Lord of Bourne               (see p. 161)
    _temp._ Hen. I.                    |
       Baldwin fitz Gilbert,    = Adelina
       Lord of Bourne,          |
       _jure uxoris_,           |
       Founder of               |
       Bourne Priory,           |
       1138[19] (see p. 359)    |
       |                               |
      Roger                          Emma = Hugh Wac,
                                         |  Lord of
                                   -------  Bourne,
                                   |        _jure uxoris_
                                 Baldwin    in 1166
                                 Lord of Bourne

The Psuedo-Ingulf's version runs:

              Leofric,           = Edith
            Lord of Bourne,      |
            1062                 |
                Hereward,        = Turfrida
              Lord of Bourne     |
              a daughter,        = Hugh de Evermou
              heiress of Bourne  | Lord of Depyng (p. 67)
                    a daughter,  = Richard de Rullos.
                    heiress of     living _temp._ Will. I.
                    Bourne and     (pp. 77-8;
                    Depyng         pp. 95, 99, 118)

It will be seen how skilfully the author of this famous forgery brings
in the names of real people while confusing their connection and their
dates. Richard de Rullos, for instance, was living shortly before
1130, yet is here described as living under the Conqueror, though
represented as marrying the great granddaughter of a man who was
himself in the prime of life in 1062. The whole account of him as an
ardent agriculturist, devoted to the improvement of live-stock and the
reclamation of waste, is quaintly anachronistic; but the fact of his
being a friend and benefactor to Crowland is one for which the writer
had probably some ground. For my part, I attach most importance to
his incidental statement that the daring deeds of Hereward the outlaw,
'adhuc in triviis canuntur', an allusion, perhaps unnoticed, to a
ballad history surviving, it may be, so late as the days when the
forgery was compiled.

But, leaving Hereward, no entries in this list are more deserving of
notice than those which bring before us the famous name of Nevile:

    Gislebertus de Nevila [tenet] ii. carrucatas in Lincolnescira,
    et servit Abbatiæ pro ii. hidis et inde inventi i. militem (p.

    Radulfus de Nevila [tenet] x. carrucatas in Lincolnescira
    et i. hidam et dimidiam in Hamtonascira et servit se tercio
    milite (p. 175).

Hugh Candidus wrote of the former:

    Heres Galfridi de Nevile tenet in Lincolnescire, scilicet in
    Waletone [_sic_] justa Folkingham, et Yoltorpe duas carrucatas
    terra et inde facit plenum servitium unius militis (p. 59).

With this clue we are enabled to detect Gilbert de Nevile in that
'Gislebertus homo Abbatis', who held of the Abbot (D.B., i. 345_b_) at
'Walecote' (Walcot near Folkingham). So also Hugh 'Candidus' writes of
the other Nevile fee:

    Heres Radulfi de Nevile tenet decem carrucatas terræ
    in Lincolnshire, scilicet in Scottone Malmetone; et in
    Norhamtonscire unam hidam et dimidiam, scilicet in Holme,
    Rayniltorp, et inde facit plenum servitium trium militum (p.

It is, then, Ralf de Nevile that we have in that 'Radulfus homo
Abbatis', who held of him at 'Mameltune', and 'Rageneltorp' with
'Holm' in Domesday (i. 345_b_, 346)--Manton, with Raventhorpe and
Holme (near Bottesford, co. Linc.)--for Hugh, of course, has blundered
in placing the two latter places in Northamptonshire.[20] The _Testa_,
more exact, enables us to add Ashby to Holme and Raventhorpe as part
of one estate, held as a single knight's fee. Scotton, in the same
neighbourhood, was held by 'Ricardus' in Domesday, but, in the hands
of Nevile's heirs, represented a fee and a third.

Between Ralf and Gilbert de Nevile on fo. 346 we find 'Gislebertus
homo Abbatis' holding ten bovates at Hibaldstow. This was the
'Gislebertus Falvel' of our return, not Gilbert de Nevile.

The last Domesday name I shall identify is that of the Abbot's
under-tenant 'Eustacius', who held of him at Polebrook, Clapton
(Northants), and Catworth (Hunts). He was, I believe, the same as that
Eustace who held land, as a tenant-in-chief, at Polebrook, Northants,
and with that Eustace the sheriff ('Vice-comes') who held (at
Catworth, Hunts) also _in capite_. Indeed the abbot's tenant
is identified with the latter in the story of the foundation of
Huntingdon Priory (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 78), where, as in our list, we
find that his two knights' fees soon passed to Lovetot.[21]

We may learn from this identification that two different
tenants-in-chief and at least one under-tenant may prove to be all one
man, just as, on the other hand, we found three distinct Rogers among
the Domesday under-tenants of the Abbot. An additional conclusion
is suggested by the name 'Eustachius de Huntendune', given to this
sheriff in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[22] For we find Picot, the
Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, similarly styled in Domesday (i. 200),
'Picot de Grentebrige'. 'Ilbert de Hertford', I think, was the Sheriff
of Hertfordshire,[23] and Hamo, a contemporary sheriff of Kent,
attests a charter as 'Hamo de Cantuaria'. Turold, sheriff of
Lincolnshire, is found as Turold 'of Lincoln' (see p. 255), and Hugh,
sheriff of Dorset, as Hugh of 'Wareham', while Walter and Miles 'of
Gloucester', Edward and Walter 'of Salisbury', are also cases in
point. Hugh 'of Leicester' was sheriff of Leicestershire _temp._ Henry
I, while Turchil 'de Warwic' (D.B., i. 240_b_) may possibly have owed
that appellation to the fact that his father Ælfwine was sheriff of
Warwickshire. Enough, in any case, has been said to show that it was
a regular practice for sheriffs to derive, as often did earls, their
styles from the capital town of their shire.

    [Footnote 1: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60.]

    [Footnote 2: Ed. Camden Society.]

    [Footnote 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.']

    [Footnote 4: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60. Printed by
    Stapleton _ut supra_.]

    [Footnote 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 1130,
    and living _temp._ Stephen.]

    [Footnote 6: _William Rufus_, i. 571. He makes it 'Evermouth'
    in the _Norman Conquest_.]

    [Footnote 7: Envermeu lay on the coast some 19 miles to the
    east of Dieppe.]

    [Footnote 8: 'The legend of Hereward' (_Norman Conquest_, iv.
    [1st Ed.], 805).]

    [Footnote 9: With its hamlet of Manthorpe and Toft with

    [Footnote 10: Ed. Sparke _Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores_

    [Footnote 11: Professor Tout throws out the unlucky
    suggestion: 'the _Wake_, i.e. apparently the watchful one'.]

    [Footnote 12: See the new _Monasticon_ on Deeping Priory, and
    the rubric to Baldwin's charter. The true parentage of Baldwin
    fitz Gilbert will be shown _infra_ in the paper on 'Walter
    Tirel and his wife'.]

    [Footnote 13: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 455-6.]

    [Footnote 14: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 484. Professor
    Tout, however, follows Mr Freeman, and accepts an earlier
    'flight from England' as a fact. One must therefore insist
    that 'the whole story has no historical basis'.]

    [Footnote 15: I am tempted, indeed, to suggest that Hugh may
    have had before him that lost local 'account of Hereward's
    doings', which was inserted (but, according to my own view, in
    an abbreviated form) into the earlier chronicle, according
    to Professor Earle (see _Norm. Conq._, iv. 461, note 3). This
    solution would explain everything, and would, if accepted,
    greatly increase the importance of Hugh's chronicle.]

    [Footnote 16: Cf. William of Malmesbury _in loco_.]

    [Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_.]

    [Footnote 18: Appendix on 'the Legend of Hereward', _ut

    [Footnote 19: The names of the churches he bestowed on the
    Priory illustrate the constituents of the Honour of Bourne.]

    [Footnote 20: The name of Ralf de Nevilla occurs in full in
    the Lincolnshire 'Clamores' (i. 376_b_), annihilating the
    old assertion that this famous surname is nowhere found in
    Domesday. (See my letter in _Academy_, xxxvii. 373.)]

    [Footnote 21: It is specially interesting to trace his holding
    at Winwick, Hunts, which then lay partly in Northants. As
    'Eustachius' he held _in capite_ at 'Winewincle' (i. 228),
    as 'Eustachius Vicecomes' at 'Winewiche' (i. 206), and as
    'Eustacius', a tenant of the Abbot, at 'Winewiche' (i.
    221). In the first two cases his under-tenants are given as
    'Widelard[us]' and 'Oilard[us]', doubtless the same man. For
    'Winewincle' we should probably read 'Winewicke'. See also p.
    222, _infra_.]

    [Footnote 22: _Inq. Com. Cant._, Ed. Hamilton, p. 111.]

    [Footnote 23: _Ibid._, 56, 192.]


(_Temp._ HENRY I)

We have, in the case of the see of Worcester, the means of testing
some of the changes which took place among its tenants within a
generation of Domesday. This is a survey of that portion of its lands
which lay within the county of Worcester. Although printed by Hearne
in his edition of Heming's Cartulary (fos. 141, 141_d_), it escaped
notice, I believe, till I identified it myself in _Domesday Studies_
(p. 546). As it follows immediately on the transcript of the Domesday
Survey of the fief, the fact that it represents a later and distinct
record might, at first sight, be overlooked.

In spite of the importance of Heming's Cartulary in its bearing on the
Domesday Survey, the documents of which it contains the transcripts
have been hopelessly confused and misunderstood. Professor Freeman,
dealing with them, came to utter grief,[1] and as for Mr De Gray
Birch, he not only took this Survey _temp._ Henry I to be a portion
of Domesday itself, which 'should be collated with the original MS. at
the Record Office',[2] but even repeated Ellis's blunder,[3] that the
names in a document _temp._ Bishop John [1151-7][4] represent 'the
list of jurors for the Hundred of Oswaldeslaw' at the Domesday

From a writ entered on fo. 136 we may infer that there had been some
dispute between the Sheriff and the Church of Worcester as to the
number of hides in the county for which the latter should be rated.[6]
This Inquest or Survey was the consequence of that dispute, and
resulted in the issue of the writ. Its date is roughly determined
by the facts that Urse d'Abetot was dead when it was made, while the
Count of Meulan is entered as a tenant, so that we may probably date
it as later (at the earliest) than 1108, and previous to the death of
the Count of Meulan in July 1118.[7]

Let us now compare, Manor by Manor, the earlier with the later Survey:

        DOMESDAY                          SURVEY _temp._ HENRY I

        _Chemesege_                             _Kemesige_

  Bishop                    [13]       Bishop                    13
  Urso                        7        Walter de Beauchamp        9
  Roger de Laci               2
  Walter Ponther              2        Hugh Puiher                2
                           ----                                 ----
                             24                                  24

        _Wiche_                                    _Wike_

  Bishop                      3-3/4    Bishop                     3
  Urso                        9-3/4    Walter de Beauchamp       10-1/2
  Robert Despenser              1/2    Nicholas (de Beauchamp?)     1/2
  Osbern fitz Richard         1        Hugh fitz Osbern           1
                             ------                             ------
                             15                                  15

        _Fledebirie_                             _Fledebyri_

  Bishop                      7        Bishop                     3
  Bishop of Hereford          5        Bishop of Hereford         5
  Urso                       12
  Robert Despenser            5        Walter de Beauchamp       22
  Alricus archid[iaconus]     1
  Roger de Laci              10        Hugh de Laci              10
                           ----                                 ----
                             40                                  40

        _Breodun_                                 _Bredune_

  Bishop                     10        Bishop                    13
  Monks                       4        Monks                      4
  Ælricus Archd.              2
  Urso                       16        Walter de Beauchamp       16
  Durand                      2        Gile (? bertus)            1
  Brictric fil' Algar                  King                       1
    (in king's hands)         1
                           ----                                 ----
                             35                                  35

        _Rippel et Uptun_                    _Rippel et Uptun_

  Bishop                     13        Bishop                    14
  Ordric                      1
  Siward                      5
  Roger de Laci               3        Hugh de Laci               3
  Urso                        1
  Ralph de Bernai
    (in king's hands)         1        Walter de Beauchamp        6
  Brictric fil' Algar
    (in king's hands)         1        King                       2
                           ----                                 ----
                             25                                  25

        _Blochelei_                            _Bloccelea_

  Bishop                     25-1/2    Bishop                    22
  Richard                     2        Bishop                     2
  Ansgot                      1-1/2    Walter de Beauchamp        5
  Stephen fil' Fulcred        3        'Dæilesford'               3
  Hereward                    5        'Eunilade'                 5
  Monks                       1        Monks                      1
                            ------                              ----
                             38                                  38

        _Tredingtun_                           _Tredintun_

  [Bishop                   17]        Bishop                    17
  Monks                      2         Monks                      2
  Gilbert fil' Thorold       4         'Langedun'                 4
                           ---                                   ---
                            23                                   23

        _Norwiche_                             _Northewike_

  Bishop                     3-1/2     Bishop                     6-1/2
  Urso                       7-3/4     Walter de Beauchamp       10
  Ordric                     4-1/4
  Alric Arch'                1
  Walter Ponther             7-1/2     Hugh Puiher                7-1/2
  Herlebaldus                1         King                       1
                           ---                                   ---
                            25                                   25

      _Ovreberie cum Penedoc_              _Werebyri et Penedoc_

  The Church of Worcester    6                                    6

        _Seggesbarne_                          _Segesberewe_

  The Church of Worcester    3                                    3

        _Scepwestun_                           _Scepwestune_

  The Church of Worcester    2                                    2

  _Herferthun cum Wiburgestoke_    _Herfortune cum Wiburga Stoke_

  The Church of Worcester    3                                    3

        _Grimanleh_                            _Grimeleage_

  The Church of Worcester    2                                    2
  Robert Despencer           1         Walter de Beauchamp        1
                           ---                                   ---
                             3                                    3

  _Halhegan cum Bradewesham_           _Hallhagan cum Bradewasse_

  The Church of Worcester    1         [The Church of Worcester   1]
  Duo Radmanni               2         Walter de Beauchamp        1-1/2
  Roger de Laci              3-1/2     Roger de Laci              3-1/2
  Walter de Burh               1/2     Count of Meulan            1
  Hugh de Grentmesnil          1/2
                           -------                              -------
                             7-1/2                                7

  _Cropetorn cum Neothetune_               _Croppethorne_

  Church of Worcester       14          Monks                    15
  Robert Despencer          11          Walter de Beauchamp       9
  Urso                       6          Robert Marmion            7
  Abbot of Evesham           9          Abbot of Evesham          9
  [_Ibid._                  10]         _Ibid._ 'quiete a geldo' 10
                            ---                                  ---
                            50                                   50

                    _Total for Oswaldslaw Hundred_

    HIDES       TENANTS                HEMING'S TOTAL

  (_ut supra_)  (_ut supra_)                'He sunt ccc. hide ad
   24  Bishop                       93-1/2  Osuualdes lauues hundret.'
   40  Monks                        39
   35  Walter de Beauchamp          90      'Episcopus habet in
   25  King                          4        dominio'           xciiii.
   38  Hugh Puher                    9-1/2  'Monachi'                xl.
   23  Hugh de Laci        13     }         'Walterus de Bealcamp'   xx.[8]
   25  Roger de Laci        3-1/2 }
   24  Robert Marmion       7     }         'Alii barones'        lxiii.
   50  Bishop of Hereford   5     }         'Rex'                   iii.
   --  Abbot of Evesham    19     }
  299  Hugh fitz Osbern     1     } 72-1/2
       Count of Meulan      1     }
       Gile (?bertus)       1     }
       Alii                12     }
       Nicholas (? de             }         'Quiete apud Hamtun
       Beauchamp)             1/2              a geldo'               x.
                                   -------                          ----
                                   299                              230

        _Huerteberie_                              _Heortlabyri_

  Church of Worcester        20         Bishop                    15
                                        Walter de Beauchamp        5

        _Vlwardelei_                               _Wlfwardile_

  Church of Worcester         5         Monks                      5

        _Stoche_                                   _Stoka_

  Church of Worcester        10         Monks                     10

        _Alvievecherche_                       _Ælfithe cyrce_

  Church of Worcester        13         Bishop                    13

        _Clive cum Lenc_                       _Clive cum Leng_

  Church of Worcester        10-1/2     Monks                     10

        _Fepsetenatun_                         _Fepsintune_

  Church of Worcester         5         Monks                      1
  Walter Ponther              1[9]      Hugh Puiher                1[9]
  Roger de Laci               5         Hugh de Laci               5
                            ---                                  ---
                             11                                    7

        _Hambyrie_                              _Heanbyri_

  Church of Worcester        14         Bishop                    13-1/2
                                        Walter de Beauchamp          1/2

  _Ardolvestone et Cnistetone_          _Eardulfestun et Cnihtetun_

  Church of Worcester ('de              Monks                     15
    victu monachorum')       15

         _Total_                           _'Summa in Kinefolka'_

  Bishop                     41-1/2     'Episcopus in dominio   xli.'
  Monks                      41         'Monachi                xli.'
  Walter de Beauchamp         5-1/2     'Walterus de Bealcamp    vi.'
  Hugh de Laci                5         'Hugo de Laci             v.'
  Hugh Puiher                 1         'Hugo Puiher              i.'
                            -------                            -----
                             94                                  94

         In Oswaldeslaw                     299
         Outside ditto                       94

    Summa hidarum, quas episcopus habet in toto vicecomitatu est
    ccc. et quater xx. et xvii. cum his quas Abbas de Evesham
    tenet de OSWALDES LAUUE.[10]

It will be seen that of these 397 hides only 393 are accounted for
above. The explanation is this. Of the five hides held in 'Fepsintune'
by the Church of Worcester in Domesday, only one is entered in the
above list, the other four being wholly omitted, both in the list
itself and in the total. These four omitted hides bring up the 393 to
397, the exact sum that we have to account for.

If the Manors in the above Survey are examined with care _seriatim_,
it will be found that they bear manifest witness to the aggressions of
Urse d'Abetot, who, we may gather from this Cartulary, was the _bête
noire_ of the Church of Worcester. The various extensions of his
Domesday holdings, as at 'Fledebyrie', where twelve hides had been
increased to twenty-two, were partly due to the accession of the lands
he inherited from his brother, but partly also to his absorption of
the lands of other tenants and of portions of the episcopal demesne.
All the benefit of these accessions passed to his son-in-law and
successor, Walter de Beauchamp.

But perhaps the most important information that this Survey gives
us is to be found in the light it throws on the succession to Robert
'Dispensator'. That he was brother to Urse d'Abetot is, of course,
generally known. His relationship to the Marmions is the _crux_.
I deal with it under the Lindsey Survey,[11] which shows us his
Lincolnshire fief in the hands of Roger Marmion. In the present
Survey we find that of the seventeen hides and a half which Robert
Dispensator had held, at the time of Domesday, from the Bishop, only
seven were held by Robert (not Roger) Marmion when this document was
compiled, the rest being held by Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn
that here, as in Leicestershire, the fief had been divided between the

But this Survey further tells us--if we may trust the text--that, in
this succession, Roger Marmion had been preceded by Robert. One may
throw it out as a possible suggestion that, in addition to the wife of
Walter de Beauchamp, Urse d'Abetot may have had a daughter who
married Robert Marmion.[13] On the forfeiture of his son Roger, such a
daughter would have pressed her claim, and, though the inheritance of
Urse himself may, by special favour, have been regranted to Walter,
she may have obtained a share of the fief of her uncle, Robert
'Dispensator'. But this can only be conjecture.

Of the other points of family history on which this Survey throws
light, one may mention that Hugh 'Puher' had succeeded Walter
'Ponther', that Osbern fitz Richard (of Richard's Castle) had been
succeeded by his son, Hugh fitz Osbern; and that though, as in
1095,[14] the name of Hugh de Laci supplants that of his brother
Roger, yet that, if we can trust the text, Roger had in one Manor been
allowed to retain his holding, in accordance with a policy which
is believed to have been practised, namely, that of keeping a hold,
however small, on the forfeited. The name of the Count of Meulan
also, the supplanter of Grentmesnil, will be noticed, and that of
a 'Nicholas', whom, as the successor in a small holding of Robert
Despencer, one might perhaps be tempted to identify with the
mysterious Sheriff of Staffordshire, Nicolas de Beauchamp.

There are fragments of two other early surveys relating to
Worcestershire, which, as they contain the names of Walter and of
William de Beauchamp respectively, may be roughly assigned to the
reigns of Henry I and of Stephen. The first, which is found in an
Evesham Cartulary,[15] is mainly an abstract of Domesday, but
contains a later and valuable analysis of Droitwich, with an important
reference to the Exchequer. The other[16] begins in the middle of a
survey of what seems to be the Church of Worcester's fief, records the
lands held, as under-tenant, by William de Beauchamp, and shows us the
Domesday fief of Ralf de 'Todeni' in the hands of his heir, Roger de


    Hee sunt x. hidæ in Wich'. De Witton' petri corbezun ii.
    hidas. De feodo sancti Dionysii Ricardus corvus et Willelmus
    filius Oueclini tenent i. hidam. De sancto Guthlaco Willelmus
    filius Ricardi tenet i. hidam. De Johanne de Suthlega
    Ricardus filius Roberti tenet i. hidam. De Pagano filio
    Johannis Godwi tenet dimidiam hidam. De Waltero de bello campo
    Theobaldus et petrus tenent dimidiam hidam. De la Berton' de
    Gloucestra [see Glouc. Cartu.] Randulf filius Ringulfi tenet
    dimidiam hidam. De monachis Gloucestrie Baldwinus et Lithulfus
    dimidiam hidam. De Comite Warewice Randulfus et Essulf filii
    Ringulf tenent iii. virgatas. De Waltero del Burc Randulf
    et Essulf dimidiam hidam. De Westmonasterio Theobaldus et
    Walterus fil' Thorald i. hidam. De Almega fil' Aiulfi et mater
    ejus i. hidam. De Battona Aiulfus presbyter i. virgatam. De
    Wichebold Rogerus de Bolles i. virgatam. De monachis fil' Grim
    tenet i. virgatam. De Kinefare et Douerdale i. virgatam. Alewi
    caure et socii ejus dimidiam virgatam.[15]

    H[oc] debet computari ad Scacarium Regis vicecomiti
    Wirecestrie. Habes x. hidas ad Danegeld et Wasto forestæ ii.

    Et in Ederesfeld vi hid[æ]. Et in happeworda i. hid[a]. Et in
    Biselega i. hid[a]. Et in Burlega i. hyda.

    _circa_ 1150

    (_Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.)

     ... manerio de hambyry. Estona Ric' dimidiam hidam. In hundredo de
    Camele. In Waresleia v. hidæ de manerio de hertlebery. Summa
    quater xx. et xiii. hidæ.

    In hundredo de persora habet ecclesia de Westmustier has
    terras quas tenet Willelmus de bello campo. Hekintona iii.
    hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Chaddesleia ii. hidæ. Langeduna Osmundi
    i. hida et dimidia. Colleduma iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ.
    Graftona Ebrandi i. hida et iii. virgatæ. Flavel et pidelet
    v. hidæ. Newentona x. hidæ. Broctona Inardi iii. hidæ. Pidelet
    radulfi iii. hidæ. Berford v. hidæ. Branefford i. hida.
    Wicha Inardi iii. hidæ. Burlingeham ii. hidæ et i. virgata.
    Cumbrintona ii. hidæ. Poiwica Willelmi de bello campo i. hida.
    Newebolt i. hida. Medeleffeld i. hida de poiwica. Ad bergam i.
    hida. Olendene i. hida. Arleia i. virgata. Poiwica Inardi i.
    hida. Summa lx. hidæ et dimidia.

    In predicto hundredo de persora feudum Abbatis persore. Belega
    xxi. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. Wadberga iii. hidæ et dimidia.
    Cumbrintona i. hida et dimidia. Lega Ricardi dimidia hida.
    Walecote et torendune i. hida et dimidia.

    In hundredo de Leisse tenet idem Willelmus Chirchlench iiii.
    hidas de abbatia de Evesham. Croulega v. hidas de feudo
    Osberti filii hugonis.

    In hundredo de Clent. Belua viii. hidæ de feudo folwi
    paganelli. Salawarpa v. hidæ de feudo Rogeri Comitis. Item
    Salawarpa i. hida de feudo episcopi Cestrie. Chaluestona i.
    hida de feudo Roberti filii Archembaldi. Apud Wich dimidiam
    hidam Gunfrei. Item apud Wich i. hidam de terra Sancti
    Guthlaci quam Rodbertus filius Willelmi tenet. Item ibidem
    dimidiam hidam de Cormell' quam Gilebertus tenet. Cokehulla
    ii. hidæ et dimidiam de feudo regis. Hactona iii. hidæ de
    feudo episcopi baiocensis. Escreueleia i. hida. Summa tocius
    cclxiiii. hidæ et dimidia et dimidia virgata.

    Terra rogeri de toeney. Esla iii. hidæ. Bertona iii. hidæ et
    iii. virgatæ. Alcrintona ii. hidæ. Linda ii. hidæ et ad halac
    i. hida. Mora hugonis i. hida et dimidia. Werueslega ii. hidæ
    et dimidia. Alboldeslega ii. hidæ et dimidia. Rudmerlega i.
    hida et dimidia. Estlega i. hida Geldans et una hida quieta.
    Sceldeslega i. hida. Almelega Ricardi de portes xi. hidæ.

In the former of these two fragments we recognize in John of Sudeley
the younger son of Harold, son of Earl Ralf. It would be of interest
if we might identify his tenant, Richard fitz Robert, with the younger
son of his brother, Robert. The succession in the tenancy of the
Crowland hide (St Guthlac's) needs explanation. In Domesday (176)
Urse held Dunclent of Nigel the physician, who held both here and
at Droitwich under Crowland Abbey. It must have been through him at
Droitwich also that William fitz Richard became tenant, for Robert
fitz William (who was clearly the latter's son) held here of Walter de
Beauchamp in the second fragment.

It is in tracing William de Beauchamp's succession, as under-tenant
to his grandfather Urse, that we find the chief interest of the second
fragment. He has succeeded him, for instance, as tenant to the Abbeys
of Westminster, Pershore, and Coventry (the fief of the last having
now become that of 'the Bishop of Chester'). At Wadborough, however,
it was Robert 'Dispensator' whom he had succeeded as tenant of
Pershore. In one case we find him holding of Robert fitz Erchembald,
whose Domesday predecessor we thus learn was William Goizenboded
(177_b_). We may also note his tenure of Madresfield (now Lord
Beauchamp's seat)--the earliest mention, I think, of the place--as a
limb of Powick. Fulk Paynell, of whom William held at Beoley, had now
succeeded to the Domesday fief of William fitz Ansculf, whose tenant
'Robert' may have been Robert 'Dispensator'. Osbern fitz Hugh had
similarly succeeded to the Richard's Castle fief held, in Domesday, by
his grandfather.

I append a partial comparison of Domesday with the Henry I survey so
far as concerns Droitwich, where property, owing to its value, was
divided among many owners.


      DOMESDAY                          _Temp._ Henry I

                                H.                                  H.

  Willelmus filius Corbucion           Petrus Corbezun (de Witton)  2
   (Witone)                     2
  Church of St Denis            1      'De feodo sancti Dionysii
                                         Ricardus corvus et
                                         Willelmus filius Oueclini' 1
  De Sancto Guthlaco Nigellus          De Sancto Guthlaco Willelmus
    Medicus                     1        filius Ricardi             1
  Heraldus filius Radulfi              De Johanne de Suthlega
    Comitis                     1        Ricardus filius Roberti    1
                                       De Pagano filio Johannis
                                         Godwi                       1/2
  Urso tenet Witune in Wich et      }  De Waltero de Bello Campo
    Gunfrid de eo                1/2}    Theobaldus et Petrus        1/2
  Æcclesia sancti Petri de          }  De la Berton de Gloucestra
    Glou.                        1/2}    Randulf filius Ringulfi     1/2
  In Wich est dimidia hida             De monachis Gloucestrie
     quæ pertinet ad aulam de            Baldwinus et Lithulfus      1/2
     Glou.                       1/2
                                       De Comite Warewice
                                         Randulfus et Essulfus
                                         filii Ringulf               3/4
                                       De Waltero del Burc
                                         Randulf et Essulf           1/2
  Ibi duo presbyteri [de               De Westmonasterio
    Westmonasterio] tenet i.             Theobaldus et Walterus
    hidam que nunquam geldavit  1        fil' Thorald               1
  Isdem [Radulfus] tenent in           De Almelega fil' Aiulfi
    Wich i. hidam de x. hidis            et mater ejus              1
    [geldantibus]               1

    [Footnote 1: See my paper 'An early reference to Domesday'
    (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 542-4).]

    [Footnote 2: _Domesday Studies_, p. 513; _Domesday Book_
    (S.P.C.K.), p. 305.]

    [Footnote 3: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 19.]

    [Footnote 4: _Domesday Studies_, p. 547.]

    [Footnote 5: _Domesday Book_ (S.P.C.K.), pp. 78, 305.]

    [Footnote 6: There was a similar dispute about the same time
    in the case of Abingdon Abbey and its possessions in Berkshire
    (_Abingdon Cart._, ii. 1600).]

    [Footnote 7: This, however, as I have elsewhere shown must
    remain a presumption, as it is possible that, owing to the
    youth of his heir, he may have been entered as nominal tenant
    for some time after his death (see p. 155).]

    [Footnote 8: MS. now destroyed here.]

    [Footnote 9: 'Non geldat.']

    [Footnote 10: p. 116.]

    [Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 149 _et seq._]

    [Footnote 12: We are enabled by this Survey, and by the
    division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the
    original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great
    Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of
    Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot,
    had seized an estate of five hides (_Heming's Cartulary_ fo.
    125_b_). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other
    'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (_ibid._). In
    Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in
    Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that
    the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in
    'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to
    the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly
    the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus
    learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this
    calculation is confirmed by the entry in the _Testa_ (p. 41):
    'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij.

    [Footnote 13: It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday,
    both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.]

    [Footnote 14: See p. 244 _infra_.]

    [Footnote 15: _Harl. MS._, 3,763, fo. 80.]

    [Footnote 16: _Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.]



This 'invaluable Survey', as Mr Stevenson has termed it,[1] might be
described as a miniature Domesday for each of the Wapentakes in the
three trithings into which Lindsey was divided. For although drawn up,
Wapentake by Wapentake, as is the Leicestershire Survey, Hundred by
Hundred, the lands within each Wapentake described are grouped under
the names of the holders of fiefs, instead of being entered Vill by
Vill. It was doubtless compiled, like other surveys, in connection
with the assessment of the 'geld'.[2]

Remarkable from a palaeographic standpoint, as well as from the nature
of its contents, the record, which is found in a Cottonian MS.
(Claud. C. 5), has been singularly unfortunate in its editors. As Mr
Greenstreet truly observed:

    The indefatigable Hearne, seeing that the manuscript related
    to a very ancient period of our history, and recognizing its
    great importance, printed it in the Appendix to his 'Liber
    Niger', but he does not appear to have properly examined
    either the question of the date of the writing, or the
    internal evidence.... As a natural consequence of his
    superficial examination, he associates it wrongly with the
    reign of Henry II.

Stapleton, of course, knew better than this, and assigned the
survey at one time to _circ._ 1108,[3] but in his _Rotuli Scaccarii
Normanniæ_[4] to 1106-20. It was subsequently investigated and
analysed with great care by Mr Eyton, whose note-books, now in the
British Museum, show that he adopted the sound method of comparing it
in detail with Domesday Book. After his death Mr Chester Waters issued
(1883) an annotated translation of the text, with an introduction,
analysis, etc., in which the place-names were carefully identified,
and the same system of comparison with Domesday adopted.[5]

It is, unfortunately, necessary to explain that Mr Waters in the
table of contents described his translation as 'from the Cotton MS.,
Claudius C. 5', and wrote on the opposite page:

    This MS. engaged the attention of Thomas Hearne, the
    antiquary, who has printed it amongst the additaments to his
    edition of the _Liber Niger Scaccarii_; but Hearne was one
    of those industrious but uncritical antiquaries who had no
    conception of the duties of an editor of the importance of

Knowing the high opinion entertained of Mr Waters' works,[6] I
accepted his translation in all good faith as 'from the Cotton
MS.' and was, I confess, not a little startled to discover from Mr
Greenstreet's facsimiles that it was made not from the Cotton MS., but
from that inaccurate edition by Hearne, which Mr Waters had mentioned
only to denounce. On fo. 4_b_ a whole line, containing three entries,
was accidentally omitted by Hearne, and is, consequently, absent also
from Mr Waters' version. On collating the two, however, I found, to
my great surprise, that matters were even worse than this, and
that Hearne's text was far less inaccurate than Mr Waters' own, the
erroneous figures found in the latter being almost always correctly
given by the 'uncritical' Hearne. As for the version given by Mr
Waters, even in the very first Wapentake, there are three serious
errors, five carucates being given as three, nine as seven, and
eleven as two! And for Bradley Wapentake (p. 27), his figures are so
erroneous that, according to him, 'Radulf Meschin alone had 42 cars.
6 bovs. in this Wapentake', though his real holding was only fifteen
cars. three bovs. With another class of resultant errors I shall have
to deal below.

To the enterprise of Mr Greenstreet scholars were indebted for
an _édition de luxe_ of the record in facsimile, which made its
appearance shortly after the treatise of Mr Waters. Unfortunately, no
attempt was made in the appended literal translation to identify the
names of places or persons, while such a word as '[ap]pendiciis',
which occasionally appears in the survey, is mistaken for a place-name
'Pendicus'. The book enjoys, however, the great advantage of an index.

The identification of places and of persons in Mr Waters' treatise
shows extraordinary knowledge; but both Mr Eyton and Mr Waters had the
provoking habit of making important assertions without giving their
authority. I expressed a wish in the _Academy_, at the time, that Mr
Waters would give us some clue as to his sources of information, but
as he did not think fit to do so, we have to test his statements as
best we can for ourselves. Now we learn from him on p. 36 that 'Walter
fitz William', a tenant at South Willingham, was 'brother of Simon
mentioned above', namely of 'Simon fitz William (ancestor to the Lords
Kyme)'. This is impressive until we discover that the actual words
in the survey (as indeed in Hearne's text) are 'Walt[erius] fil[ius]
Walt[eri]i' (fo. 11 _b_).[7] To an expert such a test as this will
prove significant enough. But to turn from an actual misreading of the
text to cases in which are incorporated interlineations, not part of
the original text, but written in later times, we find Mr Waters--like
other antiquaries who had followed Hearne's text--stating that 'Ranulf
[Meschin] is twice styled in the Roll Earl of Lincoln, but there is no
record of his creation, and no other authority for possession of the
earldom' (p. 8). The difficulty vanishes when we discover that this
supposed style was a mere interlineation made by a much later hand.[8]
So again we read on p. 30:

    Richard, Earl [of Chester], has 6 cars. in Barnetby-le-Wold,
    where [William], the constable of Chester, is his tenant [as
    his father was Earl Hugh's in Domesday].

But on turning to Mr Greenstreet's facsimiles, we find that the survey
had nothing about 'the constable of Chester', the words 'constabularia
[_sic_] Cestrie' being only a faint interlineation by a later hand.

And even where a reference to the true text does not at once dispose
of the matter, these statements of Mr Waters are, on other grounds,
open at times to question. He assumes, for instance, that Hugh fitz
Ranulf, who occurs as a landowner in the survey, was a younger son of
Ranulf Meschin, afterwards Earl of Chester (p. 12). No such son would
seem to be known; and this assumption, moreover, does violence to
chronology. For the pedigree it involves is this:

  Roger        (1)  Lucy      (2)    Ranulf
  fitzGerold    =              =     Meschin
                |              |-------.....
                |              |           .
            William           Ranulf,     Hugh
            de Roumare,       Earl of     fitz Ranulf
            Earl of Lincoln   Chester

Now William de Roumare was not old enough to claim his inheritance
from the King till 1122, and his half-brother, Ranulf, was some
years younger than he was, as the words of Orderic imply in 1140.
Consequently Hugh, the youngest brother, can have been only a boy in
1122. How then could he, as Mr Waters alleges, have held a fief in
right of his wife so early as 1115 or thereabouts?

In this assumption, however, he only follows Stapleton, to whom
he here refers, and who relied on an abstract in the cartulary of
Spalding (fol. 416 _a_, _b_). This abstract which cannot, from its
form, preserve the wording of the original charter, runs:

    Sciant tam presentes quam futuri quod Hugo frater Rannulfi
    comitis Cestrie et Matild' uxor ejus, fil' filia [_sic_]
    Lucie comitisse concesserunt, etc., etc.

Stapleton boldly rendered the obviously corrupt words as 'son and
daughter-in-law of the countess Lucia',[9] and hence pronounced this
Hugh to be 'a married brother of the whole blood' to the _second_
Randulf, Earl of Chester.[10] As he only knew their gift to Spalding
to be 'prior to 1141', no chronological difficulty was caused by this
view; but the occurrence of Hugh's name in the Lindsey Survey, as
already in possession of his small fief, at once raises the difficulty
I have explained. The solution that occurs to me is that the Hugh fitz
Ranulf of our survey, and the 'Hugo frater Ranulfi Comitis Cestrie'
of the Spalding charter, was a brother, not of the second but of the
_first_ Earl Ranulf, and that the words 'fil' filia Comitisse Lucie'
were introduced in error by the compiler, whose head was full of the
Countess Lucy, and who had here confused the two Earls Randulf.

Stapleton, Mr Waters has justly observed, was '_facile princeps_ of
Anglo-Norman genealogists'.[11] Yet I venture to think that, as he
here mistook a brother of the first Earl Ranulf for a son, so he
confused William Meschin, another and better known brother, with
William de Roumare, the Earl's stepson, afterwards Earl of Lincoln.
William Meschin was not merely a considerable landowner in Lindsey,
but had also estates in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, as our
survey of those counties show.[12] Stephen, according to Stapleton,
created him Earl of Cambridge.

Remembering the _dictum_ of Dr Stubbs that 'Stephen's earldoms are
a matter of great constitutional importance', it is worth while to
examine this earldom of Cambridge.

In one of Stapleton's greatest essays, that on Holy Trinity Priory,
York,[13] he writes of this William Meschin, that

    By King Stephen he was made Earl of Cambridge, as we learn
    from the following extract from a charter of Alexander, Bishop
    of Lincoln, in 1139, founding the nunnery of Haverholm, in
    the parish of Ruskington, of the order of St. Gilbert of
    Sempringham. 'But this donation ... we have confirmed ... by
    the testimony of Rannulph, Earl of Chester, and of William,
    Earl of Cambridge, his brother' (p. 34).

The words in the original are:

    Testimonio Rannulfi comitis Cestriæ et Willelmi comitis
    Cantebrigiæ fratris ejus (_Mon. Ang._, v. 949).

Now, though Stapleton is positive on the point, speaking again of
'William Meschin, Earl of Cambridge' (p. 35), and though this learned
paper well sustains his reputation, yet he has here beyond question
gone astray. Earl Randulf, first of his name, appears as deceased
in the Pipe Roll of 1130. He could not therefore have been the Earl
Randulf of 1139, who was his son and namesake. Therefore the latter's
'brother', the Earl of Cambridge, could not have been William Meschin,
who was his father's brother.[14] A short chart pedigree will make the
matter clear:

                             _Vicomte_ of the Bessin
                            |                           |
  Roger      (1) Lucy (2)  Randulf                      William
  fitzGerold  =        =   Earl of Chester,             Meschin
              |            dead 1130
              |                 |
           William            Randulf
          de Roumare,        'de Gernon',
        Earl of Lincoln    Earl of Chester
     ('Earl of Cambridge')   living 1139

The pedigree shows my solution of the mystery. The two brother-earls
of 1139 are those who are found so constantly together, and who were
jointly concerned, next year, in the surprise of Lincoln, but who
were really only _half_-brothers, though they spoke of one another as

The identity of the 'Earl of Cambridge' is thus clearly established;
but there of course remains the question why he is not here styled
'Earl of Lincoln'. Every mention of him as Earl of Lincoln is later,
if this charter be rightly dated, so that he may possibly have changed
his style. It is really strange that precisely as William, Earl of
Lincoln, is here once styled Earl of Cambridge, so William, Earl
of Arundel, is twice styled Earl of Lincoln, as I have shown in my
_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 324), though in that case also the fact
had never been suspected. It is most tempting, if rash, to suggest
that the reason why the Earl of Lincoln was at first Earl of Cambridge
is that the Earl of Arundel (Sussex) was at first Earl of Lincoln, and
thus kept him out of that title.

In any case an error has now been corrected, and one of Stephen's
alleged earls disposed of.

The question of the date of this interesting survey is no less
puzzling than important. Mr Greenstreet held that 'there is hardly any
room for doubting' that it was previous to 1109. This conclusion
was based on a misapprehension, and Mr Waters claimed to have
'established' the date as 'between March 1114 and April 1116' (pp.
2-4). In this conclusion he would seem to have been anticipated by
Mr Eyton, as is shown by that writer's note-books,[15] but I cannot
accept the identical and somewhat far-fetched argument on which they
relied. They obtained their limit on the one hand from a passage in
'Peter of Blois', and on the other from the fact that Robert, the
King's son, is entered in the roll as 'filius Regis', and 'was
therefore not yet Earl of Gloucester', whereas he was certainly Earl,
they say, 'before Easter, 1116', when he witnessed as Earl, a charter
they both assign to that date.

Of the latter date I disposed in my paper 'The Creation of the Earldom
of Gloucester',[16] in which I showed that Robert did not become
Earl till several years later. The other evidence, if it cannot be
disproved, cannot at least, be relied on. For, without asserting that
the chronicle assigned to 'Peter of Blois' is so daring a forgery as
the 'Historia Ingulphi', of which it is a 'continuatio', it must be
plainly described as absolutely untrustworthy. Apart from the passage
on Cambridge University,[17] we have a description 'Inclyti Comitis
Leycestriæ Roberti tunc validissimi adolescentis, burgensiumque suæ
dictæ civitatis' in 1113, and of his presence, with his knights,
at the laying of the Abbey foundation stones next year.[18] Now the
future Earl of Leicester was some nine years old at the time, and his
father, the Count of Meulan, lived till 1118. So also, about the year
1114 we meet with 'Milonis Comitis Herfordensis', who did not become
Earl of Hereford till 1141, and whose father, Walter of Gloucester,
was living long after 1114; while on the next page we find the
notoriously false Countess Lucy legend, with the additional blunder
of converting her son, the Earl of Lincoln, into her husband's
brother![19] It is in the midst of all this that we have the vital
passage on which Mr Waters relies:

    We know from the _Continuator_ [_sic_] _of Peter of Blois_
    (p. 121) that Stephen and his elder brother Theobald were on a
    visit to Henry I, at Oxford, at some period between March 7th
    and August 1st, 1114, when Theobald is described as Count of
    Blois, and Stephen as 'pulcherrimus adolescens dominus postea
    rex Anglorum'. It is manifest that at this date Stephen was
    not yet Count of Moreton, so the Roll must be later than March
    7th, 1114 (p. 3).

The fact that this alleged visit is connected by 'Peter' with
intervention in favour of the Abbot of Crowland, will not lessen the
suspicion under which the evidence must lie. Crowland was guilty of
'hiring', Dr Stubbs has severely observed, 'Peter of Blois, or some
pretended Peter who borrows an illustrious name, to fabricate for her
an apocryphal chronicle'.[20]

The actual proof of the survey's date is minute, no doubt, but
conclusive. In the Lindsey Survey, 'the sons of Ragemer' (himself the
Domesday under-tenant) are found holding of Walter de Gant; therefore
their father, at the time of the survey, had been succeeded by them in
this holding. But, as 'Rachmar, son of Gilbert', he is found attesting
a charter of Maud, Walter de Gant's wife, to Bridlington Priory, which
is addressed to Thurstan, Archbishop of York, and which therefore
must be later at the very least than his election, August 15, 1114.
Therefore Ragemer was alive after that date, and the survey, at the
time of which he was dead, can consequently scarcely be earlier than
1115. On the other hand, we can scarcely place it later than the death
of the great Count of Meulan in the summer of 1118,[21] though, as I
have urged in the _Genealogist_, the lands he had held might still be
assigned to 'the Count of Meulan', till his fiefs were divided among
his sons, who were boys at the time of his death. On the whole we
may safely assign the survey to 1115-1118, and in any case it cannot
possibly be later than the close of 1120.

As, according to Stapleton, the best authority, it is in this survey
that the name of Marmion first appears in England, it may not be
inopportune to examine here the accepted pedigree of that house. In
the Roger Marmion of our survey we have its undoubted ancestor, but of
Robert Marmion, who appears on its opening folio as a tenant of Walter
de Gant at Winteringham, one cannot speak so positively. In Domesday
Winteringham, as 12 carucates, was held of Gilbert de Gant by
'Robertus homo Gilberti' (354_b_): in our Survey eleven[22] of these
carucates were held of Gilbert's son Walter by Robert Marmion, and the
twelfth _in capite_ by Roger Marmion. Mr Waters (p. 17) identifies the
former with the Domesday under-tenant, which is a tempting solution,
were not the Domesday Robert also under-tenant at Risby (which was
held in our survey not by Marmion, but by Walter de St Paul). It seems
to me more probable that Robert, the under-tenant in our survey, was,
as Mr Waters, contradicting himself, elsewhere observes (p. 14), the
son and heir of Roger. Yet of Roger Marmion's estate at Fulstow, Mr
Waters writes (p. 27): 'Roger's father, Robert Marmion, was tenant
there in Domesday of Robert Dispenser.' This would give us an
interesting clue. But on turning to Domesday (363_b_), we find that it
is only one more mistake of Mr Waters, its 'Robertus' being no other
than Robert Dispenser himself.[23]

Stapleton, who worked out the descent, held that Roger's son Robert,
who had succeeded by 1130, and who was slain in 1143, was father of
the Robert who died in 1218. I would rather interpolate another Robert
between the two:

                of the Lindsey Survey
                Robert        =           Millicent
                Marmion,                      |
                in possession 1130,           |
                slain 1143                    |
                 living 1155
  Maud           =    Robert       =        Philippa
  de Beauchamp,  |    Marmion      |
  living 1181    |    d. 1218      |
  (Stapleton)    |                 |
                 |                 |
      ___________|                 |________________
     |                                 |            |
  Robert                            Robert      William
  Marmion,                          Marmion,    Marmion,
  'senior,'                         junior      clerk
  d. _circ._ 1242
                 died _circ._ 1292,
                 last of his line

The pedigree really turns on the charter of Henry III in 1249, to
Philip Marmion, confirming the royal charters to his ancestor. Mr
Stapleton declares that Henry inspected and confirmed

    The charter which King Henry, his great-great-grandfather, had
    made to Robert Marmyon, great-grandfather of Philip Marmyon,
    of having warren in all his land in the county of Warwick, and
    especially at Tamworth; and likewise of the charter of
    King Henry, his uncle ['Avunculus noster' is the reading
    transcribed on the rolls, obviously in error of 'atavus
    noster'], which he had made to the said Robert of having
    warren in all his land of Lindesay (_Rot. Scacc. Norm._, II.

This abstract is strangely inaccurate, considering that Stapleton had,
clearly, examined the Inspeximus[24] for himself. Henry VI inspected
and confirmed:

  (1)  The charter of Henry I, granting Robert Marmion freewarren
  in Warwickshire (specially at Tamworth) as his father had.

  (2)  The charter of Henry II (confirming the above charter),
  'T. Tom. Canc. apud Brugiam', and therefore granted in 1155.

  (3)  The charter of Henry III, who had inspected--

      (_a_)  'Cartam quam Henr' rex avus [_sic_] noster [_i.e._ Henry II]
          fecit Roberto Marmyon proavo Philippi Marmyun';

      (_b_)  'Cartam Henrici regis avunculi nostri quam fecit Roberto';
  and confirmed them as the charters, 'H. Regis avi nostri et H. regis
  avunculi nostri', to Philip Marmion.

It is clear then that Henry III inspected the charter of his
grandfather ('avus') Henry II (not, as Mr Stapleton wrote, his
great-great-grandfather'), in 1155, to Robert Marmion, '_proavus_' of
Philip. This, it will be seen, could only be the Robert whom I have
inserted in the pedigree. Nor can Mr Stapleton's 'atavus' assumption
be accepted in view of the facts. The 'avunculus' and namesake of
Henry III would duly have been the 'young king' Henry (crowned 1170).
If 'avunculus' is a clerical error, the word to substitute is 'avus';
but the careful way in which the charter distinguishes the King's two
predecessors is quite opposed to the idea that they were in both cases
his grandfather.

As against the evidence afforded us by the charter of Henry III,
we have the statements and documents relating to Barbery Abbey, a
daughter of Savigny. It is alleged that the house was first founded in
1140[25] by that Robert Marmion who was slain at Coventry in 1143.[26]
Stapleton accepted this without question. Yet, so far as documents are
concerned, we have only the charter of Robert Marmion (1181), in which
he speaks of his father Robert as beginning the foundation.[27] If
that father were indeed the Robert who was slain in 1143, Stapleton's
pedigree is duly proved as against that which I derive from Henry the
Third's charter. But for this identification we have only, it would
seem, the _obiter dictum_ of the 'Gallia Christiana' editors, while
the fact that the first Abbot was appointed about 1177,[28] combined
with the fact that Robert Marmion, in 1181, was avowedly completing
that foundation which his father's death had arrested, certainly seems
to point to his father's benefaction being then recent, and little
previous to the said appointment of the first Abbot. In that case his
father would be not the Robert who died in 1143, but a Robert who, as
I suggest, came between the two.[29]

Leaving now this question of pedigree, there is a theory as to the
name of Marmion which one cannot pass over in silence, because it has
received the sanction even of Stapleton. Writing on the date of the
Lindsey Survey, that eminent authority observes:

    Robert Le Despenser [_Dispensator_] was brother of Urso de
    Abbetot, whose other surname, Marmion, is equivalent in Norman
    French to the Latin word Dispensator; and as Robert Marmion
    died in 1107, it was probably in the following year that this
    catalogue was written.[30]

His meaning, though clumsily expressed, as was sometimes the case,
is that the Latin 'Dispensator' represented the name 'Marmion'.
This theory would seem to be derived from the word 'Marmiton' (not
'Marmion') which means not a 'Dispensator', but a scullion, the most
despised of the menials employed in the kitchen. There was indeed in
old French a rare word 'Marmion', but according to Godefroy, it
was equivalent to 'Marmot', the name of the Marmoset. In any case,
therefore, this illustrious surname, immortalized by Scott

  They hailed him Lord of Fontenaye,
  Of Lutterworth and Scrivelbaye,
    Of Tamworth tower and town

had nothing to do with 'Dispensator', but meant either a scullion or
a monkey, and was one of those nicknames that the Normans loved to
inexorably bestow on one another.

What was the actual relation of the Marmions to Robert 'Dispensator'
is a problem as yet unsolved. Mr Waters wrote:

    It is generally believed that Scrivelsby and the rest of the
    Honour of Dispenser came to the Marmions through the marriage
    of Roger Marmion's grandson,[31] Robert Marmion, who was the
    husband of Matilda de Beauchamp, the grand-daughter of Urso
    de Abitot, and grand-niece of Robert Dispenser. But the Roll
    proves that Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert
    Dispenser (p. 14).

I know of no such general belief. Stapleton, to whom one would
naturally turn, had pointed out long before, in his 'Rolls of the
Norman Exchequer', that this survey proves Roger Marmion to have held
the Lincolnshire fief of Robert 'Dispensator',[32] while those who
have identified the latter magnate with Robert 'Marmion' have traced
the descent of Scrivelsby in the Marmions even from the Conquest.[33]

In any case, as I wrote in my _Ancient Charters_ (1888) of a document
there published:

    The succession of Urse [de Abetot] to this [Lincolnshire] fief
    is a genealogical discovery which throws a wholly new light
    on the very difficult problem of the relation of Marmion to
    Despenser, and is fatal to the assertion of Mr Chester
    Waters that 'Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert

Moreover, in the Leicestershire Survey,[34] and still more in that
of Worcestershire,[35] we have evidence that Robert's inheritance
was shared between Beauchamp and Marmion which points there also to
descent through Urse de Abetot. In my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (pp.
313-5) I have suggested that in their rivalry for Tamworth,[36] the
Marmions embraced the cause of Stephen, and the Beauchamps that of
Maud, their variance being terminated under Henry II by a matrimonial
alliance. Such a compromise was common enough. It was agreed on in the
case of Grantmesnil; it was carried out at this very period in that of
Fitzharding and Berkeley; it was again resorted to at a later stage in
the history of the house of Berkeley; it was arranged in the case
of Hastings; and it was repeated in that of Boleyn, where the Butler
inheritance was at stake.[37]

    [Footnote 1: _English Historical Review_, v. 96.]

    [Footnote 2: I have discussed above (pp. 69-72) the bearing
    of its evidence on the problem of Domesday assessment, so need
    not recur to the subject here.]

    [Footnote 3: See note 31 below.]

    [Footnote 4: Vol. II. p. xcvi.]

    [Footnote 5: _A Roll of the Owners of Land in the parts
    of Lindsey_ ('Reprinted from the Associated Architectural
    Societies Reports and Papers').]

    [Footnote 6: In consideration of which he received a pension
    on the Civil List.]

    [Footnote 7: There is a similar error on fo. 13, where the
    'William fitz Aubrey' of Mr Waters proves to be 'filius
    _Albrede_' (not _Alberici_).]

    [Footnote 8: Hearne duly prints it as an interlineation.]

    [Footnote 9: _Rolls of the Norman Exchequer_, II. clvi.]

    [Footnote 10: He further hazarded the erroneous conjecture
    that Roheis, Countess of Lincoln, was his daughter.]

    [Footnote 11: _Gundrada de Warrenne_, p. 9.]

    [Footnote 12: See pp. 171, 179, _infra_.]

    [Footnote 13: pp. 1-237. Bound up in the York volume of the
    Royal Archæological Institute.]

    [Footnote 14: Stapleton indeed exposed himself unconsciously
    by stating on the very same page that William Meschin's lands
    had passed to his heirs 'prior to 1138', so that he could not
    be the Earl of 1139.]

    [Footnote 15: See on this point the important letters of Mr
    Greenstreet and Mr J. A. C. Vincent to the _Athenæum_, May 9
    and June 27, 1885.]

    [Footnote 16: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 420 _et seq._]

    [Footnote 17: Ed. Gale, pp. 114, 115.]

    [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, pp. 118, 119.]

    [Footnote 19: _Ibid._, pp. 124, 125.]

    [Footnote 20: _Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History_, p.

    [Footnote 21: _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 2.]

    [Footnote 22: Mr Waters, in error, states _two_.]

    [Footnote 23: It is an illustration of the ignorance prevalent
    on early genealogy that even Mr Freeman could write of
    'Mr Chester Waters, than whom no man better deserves to be
    listened to on any point of genealogy, especially of the
    Norman genealogy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries'
    (_English Historical Review_, iii. 690).]

    [Footnote 24: Rot. Pat. 27 Hen. VI, part I, _m_ 30.]

    [Footnote 25: _Neustria Pia_, 683.]

    [Footnote 26: _Gallia Christiana_ (1874), xi. 452.]

    [Footnote 27: _Neustria Pia_, 881; _Gall. Christ._, xi.,
    Instr. 86.]

    [Footnote 28: _Gall. Christ._, xi. 452.]

    [Footnote 29: Since this was written I have found that Mr C.
    F. R. Palmer, in his admirable little treatise on the Marmion
    family (1875), duly inserts this intermediate Robert. Mr
    Palmer has shown himself by far the best authority on the
    subject, and has printed a valuable charter of Stephen to
    Robert Marmion.]

    [Footnote 30: Paper on 'Holy Trinity Priory, York', p. 208
    note. This identification is accepted by no less an authority
    than Mr A. S. Ellis (_Domesday Tenants of Gloucestershire_, p.

    [Footnote 31: i.e. according to Stapleton's pedigree.]

    [Footnote 32; And Mr Palmer independently had done the same in
    his _History of the Marmions_ (1865).]

    [Footnote 33: Lodge's _Scrivelsby: the Home of the

    [Footnote 34: See p. 174.]

    [Footnote 35: See p. 174.]

    [Footnote 36: It is certain that Tamworth originally belonged
    to Robert 'Dispensator', and equally certain that it was held
    successively by Roger and Robert Marmion under Henry I.]

    [Footnote 37: See my _Early Life of Anne Boleyn_, pp. 25-7.]



Asserting the importance of the Lindsey Survey, Mr Chester Waters
observed that 'this is the sole record of its kind which deals with
the interval between the completion of Domesday in 1086, and the
compilation of the Pipe-Roll of 1129-30, and that no similar return
of the landowners of any other county is known to exist' (p. 2). And,
indeed, it would seem that the survey to which I now address myself
has hitherto remained unknown. It is found in the form of a late
transcript on an unidentified roll in the Public Record Office.[1]

Comprising the whole of Gosecote Wapentake, and in part those of
Framland and Gartree, it retains for these divisions the Domesday name
of Wapentake--they are now 'Hundreds'--while subdividing them into
small 'Hundreds', of which the existence seems to have been hitherto
unsuspected. Proceeding, like the I.C.C., 'Hundred' by 'Hundred', and
Vill by Vill, it enables us, like that document, to reconstitute the
aggregate assessments, and thus affords priceless evidence on 'the
six-carucate unit'.[2] But apart from this, it is invested with no
small importance from that 'great want of documentary evidence' for
the reign of Henry I which Mr Hunter rightly lamented in his elaborate
introduction to the first great roll of the Pipe (p. ii). It affords
us new and trustworthy evidence on the many vicissitudes of the great
fiefs, and enables us, while tracing the fortunes of their owners,
to see how the first Henry provided for his _novi homines_, showering
escheats and royal demesne on the trusty officials he had raised
'from the dust', as well as on his favourite nephew, Stephen, Count of

The date of this survey is thus determined. The frequent mention of
'Rex D[avid]' places it subsequent to his accession to the throne in
April 1124. On the other hand, the name of Ralf Basset (the justiciar)
shows it to be anterior to his death; and he was dead before Mich.,
1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I). Moreover, it speaks more than once of
Hugh de Leicester as 'Vicecomes', and Hugh's shrievalty seems from the
Pipe-Roll to have terminated at Mich., 1129. We may therefore place
this survey between the spring of 1124 and the autumn of 1129, with a
likelihood of its having been compiled nearer the latter date.


    ... 'Comes Lerc[estri]æ vj. car.

    _H[undredum] de[3] Langeton'_.--In eadem villa Comes
    Lerc[estriæ] xj. car. et j. virg. Ibidem Ric[ardus] Basset
    iii. car. et. j. virg. In thorp Eustaci[us] iij. car. et.
    iij. virg. In alia Langeton' Abbas de Burg' iiij. car. et iii.
    virg. Ibidem Henricus de pport j. car. In thurlington idem
    Henricus xij. car. In sscanketon' Comes Lerc[estriæ] x. car.
    Ansch' ij. car.[4]

    _H[undredum] de Chiburd'_.--In eadem villa xii. car. de feodo
    Ansch'. In alia chiburd' Walt[erus] de Bell' campo xj. car.,
    Ricardus Basset j. car. In bocton Comes Leicestriæ xij. car.
    In carleton' idem Comes x. car. Et Monachi Sancti Arnulphi v.
    virg. Et de ssoch' Regis iij. virg.[5]

    _H[undredum] de Knossinton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. de
    Honore de Blida. Et Henricus de ferr' iij. car. et. iij.
    virg. In Osolinstona Rex D[avid] vij. car. In Picwell et in
    Lucerthorp de feudo Rogeri de Moubray xv. car. In Neubotel
    Robertus de ferr' j. car. et dim. In Burg' Marm' iij. car.
    In Balbegrave vj. car. iij. bov. minus de Soch[a] Regis. In
    Mardefeud iij. car. de eadem Soch[a]. In alia Mardefeud iij.


    _H[undredum] de Lodinton[e]_, in Sceftinton[e] Norm[annus] de
    Verdun viij. car. et dim. Ricardus Bass[et] iij. car. et dim.
    In Gokebia Normannus de Verdun vj. car. In Adelacston[e] v.
    car. et j. virg. de feodo Regis David. Et de Soch[a] Regis
    iij. virg. In Ludinton[e] Ricardus Basset xii. car. In Thorp
    et in Twyford Ricardus de Roll[os] ix. car. j. bov. minus.
    Ibidem Henricus de ferr[ariis] ix. car. j. bov. minus. Et de
    Soch[a] Regis v. car. Ex hiis Grimbaldus tenet dim. car. et
    Rex D[avid] j. car. In Norton[e] x. bov. Walter de Bello campo
    vj. car. Et Roger de Moubray iiij. car. et iij. virg.[7]

    _H[undredum] de[8] Tilton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. j. bov.
    minus de Soch[a] Regis. Ibidem Walt[erus] de Bello campo iij.
    car. Archiepiscopus[9] j. car. In Neuton[e] Walter de Bello
    campo iiij. car. Roger de Moubray viii. car. In Lousebia Rex
    David xij. car. In Watebergia Dominicum Regis iiij. car. In
    Hallested Normannus de Verdun iij. car. j. virg. minus.[10]

    _H[undredum] de bebia_.--In eadem villa Abbas de Croyland xij.
    car. In Cahiham iiij. car. de Soch[a] Regis. Comes Lercestrie
    ij. car. In Hung'ton ix. car. In Siglebia ix. car. et. vj.
    bov. et dim. de[11] Comite Lercestriæ. Ibidem Comes Cestrie
    iij. car. Ibidem Ricardus Basset ij. car. Robertus de
    ferrer[iis] v. bov.[12]

    _H[undredum] de Barkbia_.--In eadem villa v. car. de feodo de
    Belvar[o]. In Hamelton' et in thorp vi. car. de eodem feudo,
    et de feodo Comitis Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. In Thormedeston
    Canonici iij. car. In Crocheston[e] ij. car. et j. bov. et
    dim. de Soch[a] Regis. In Neubold[e] Robertus de ferer[iis]
    j. car. et dim. In Barnesby Rex iij. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem
    Comes Lercestriæ xiij. bov. In Gadesby [t]erra[13] Reg[is]
    viij. car. et dim. et dim. et dim. [_sic_] bov. Ibidem
    Episcopus Lincolniensis viij. bov. Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et
    dim. bov. Ricardus Basset dim. car. Rex D[avid] ij. car.[14]

    _H[undredum] de Essebia_.--In eadem villa Rex David v. car.
    Ibidem Hugo de Lerc[estria] j. car. In Humberstay Roger de
    Ram[is] viij. car. Ibidem Walter de Mustere j. car. Rad[ulfus]
    de Martinwast iij. car. In Mardegrave Comes Lercestriæ xij.
    car. In thurmedeston idem Comes car. [_sic._] Idem in Burstall
    ix. car. Idem in Anlepia vij. car. Idem in Anesting[e] vj.

    _H[undredum] de Resebia_.--In eadem villa Ricardus Basset v.
    car. Ibidem Comes Cestrie ij. car. et dim. Rex David iiij car.
    et dim. In Quenburg[o] xij. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
    Siefton[e] Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In Brokesbya Comes
    [_sic_] Cestrie v. car. Rex David j. car. quam Pip[er]d
    tenet. In Quenebia vj. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
    thurketleston[e] de feodo Comitis viij. car. In Cropeston[e]
    iiij. car. In Rodeleia terra Regis v. car.[16]

    _H[undredum] de Magna Dalbia_.--In eadem villa Episcopus
    Lincolniensis ix. car. et dim. Radulfus Basset j. car. et iij.
    bov. Ibidem Wil[elmus] Gam[erarius] j. car. In frisebia Comes
    Cestrie iij. car., et de Soch[a] Regis viij. car. In Rederbia
    Comes cestrie vi. car. In Asfordebia Comes Lercestriæ xiij.
    car. In Wartnadeby de Soch[a] Regis vi. car.[17]

    _Hundredum de Dalbia super Wald'_.--In eadem villa ix. car. de
    feodo Edwardi de sar[esbiria], Comes Lercestrie iij. car. In
    Grimestona de Soch[a] Regis iij. car. j. bov. et dim. minus.
    Ricardus Basset iij. car. In Saxebia Comes Lercestrie v. car.
    et de Soch[a] Regis j. car. In Siwaldebia Comes Lercestrie
    vj. car. In Cosinton[e] Comes Cestrie vj. car. In Horton[e]
    Robertus de Jor' ij. car.[18]

    _H[undredum] de Turstanestona_.--In eadem villa Thomas x. car.
    et iij. virg. Ibidem Roger de Moubray xiiij. bov. In Wileges
    ij. car. de eodem feudo. In Rachedal[e] vj. car. de eodem
    feudo. In Houbia vij. car. et j. virg. de feodo Thome. Ibidem
    de feodo Albemarl' iiij. car. et iij. virg.[19]

    _H[undredum] de tunga_.--In eadem villa cum appendiciis xij.
    car. de feodo Roberti de ferr[ariis]. In Caggworth Comes
    Cestrie xv. car. In Wrdintona iij. car. secundum cartam Regis
    et s[uper] dictum[20] hominum hundredi xij. car.[21]

    _H[undredum] de[22] Luaeb'_.--In eadem villa j. H[ida] et
    xiij. car. cum appendiciis. In cherlega vj. car. et dim. In
    Dixeleia et in Geroldon et in Thorp ix. car. In Hantirna est
    dim. H[ida].[23]

    _H[undredum] de Beltona_.--In eadem villa Normannus de
    Verdon vj. car. In Overton[e] Ricardus Basset iiij. car. In
    Wrdinton[e] j. car. In alia Overton[e] Robertus de ferr[ariis]
    ij. car., ibidem Comes Cestrie j. car. In Stanton Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Normannus de Verdon iij. car. In
    Dailescroft Philippus de Bello Campo Maresc[allus] j. car. In
    Doninton Comes Cestrie cum appendiciis xxij. car. et dim. In
    Witewic Comes Lercestrie j. car. et dim. Ibidem Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] j. car. et dim.[24]

    _H[undredum] de Dichesword_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] vj. car. et j. virg. Comes cestrie vj. car. Ibidem
    Comes iij. car. et dim. Normannus de Verdon j. car. et ij.
    bov. In Hanthirn[e] ix. car. In Widesers iij. car. Willelmi
    de Gresel[e]. Idem in Lintona j. car. In blakefordeb[ia] Comes
    Lercestriæ iij. car. In Culverteb[ia] ij. car. et Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] j. car. In Wodete Robertus de ferr[ariis] j. car.
    et dim. In Alton[e] Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. Idem in
    Raveneston[e] j. virg. et dim. Ibidem Comes Cestrie iij. virg.
    et dim. Et Comes War' ij. car. In Suipestona Hugo vic[ecomes]
    ij. car.[25]

    _H[undredum] de Seyla_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] vij. car. In alia Seyla idem vj. car. Idem in
    Bocthorp j. car. Idem in appelbia j. car. et j. bov. Idem in
    Strecton j. car. et dim. Idem in Durantestorp ij. car. quas
    Walkelinus tenet. Idem in Swepeston[e] vj. car. In Neuton ij.
    car. In Actorp dim. car. In Chilteston Comes cestrie j. car.
    Idem in Alpelbia dim. car. In Assebia Comes Lercestriæ iij.
    car. In Pakinton Hugo Vicecomes v. car. Idem in Osgodesthorp
    dim. car. In scegla Henricus de Alben[eio] ij. car. que
    pertinent ad defencionem de Swepeston[e].[26]

    _H[undredum] de Shepesheved_.--In eadem villa Comes [     ][27]
    et in wacthon[e] et in Lokinton et in Aminton ij. h[idas] et
    dim. et iiij. car. In Wacton[e] Normannus de Verdon ij. car. et
    ij. bov.[28]


    _H[undredum] de caleverton[e]_.--In eadem villa xij. car.
    de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. In Someredebia Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] v. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Ibidem
    Robertus Marm[ion] iij. car. et in Burg[o] iij. car. In Dalbia
    Robertus de ferr[ariis] v. car. et j. bov. de feodo tessun.
    Ibidem Roger de Moubray xv. bov. In Wittok Walt[erus] de bello
    campo j. car. et dim. In Gillethorp Roger de Moubray iij. car.
    Idem in Burg[o] j. car. In Neubold Robertus de ferr[ariis] j.
    car. et dim.[29]

    _H[undredum] de Estwell_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Robertus
    de insula iiij. car. In aitona idem Robertus iij. car. et ij.
    bov. Et de Belvero dim. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem Robertus
    de insula viij. car. et iij. bov. et dim. In Branteston[e]
    Episcopus Lincolniensis vij. car. et dim. Robertus de Insula
    iiij. car. et dim.[30]

    _H[undredum] de Melton[e]_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
    xv. car. Idem in Burton[e] xj. car. et vij. bov. Et de Honore
    blide iij. car. Robertus de ferr[ariis] ix. bov. In Fredebia
    ix. car. et ij. bov. et dim.[31]

    _H[undredum] de Chirchebia_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
    xxiiij. car. Idem in chetlebia viiij. car. In Sixtenebia iiij.
    car. et dim. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Rex D[avid] iiij. car. et
    dim. In alebia ix. car. de feudo Rogeri. Ibidem Rex David iij.

    _H[undredum] de Droctona_.--In eadem villa Comes de Moretonio
    xij. car. In thorp Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In brantingbia
    vj. car. de eodem feodo. In Ringolfestorp ij. car. et ij. bov.
    de eodem feodo. Robertus de ferrer[iis] j. car. et vj. bov.
    In Wyfordebia iiij. car. et dim. de blide. Roger de Moubray
    j. car. et dim. In chetelby et Holewell[e] ix. car. de feodo
    Basset. Episcopus Lincolniensis j. car.[33]

    _H[undredum] de Scaldeford_.--In eadem villa Rex David xj.
    car. et dim. Ricardus Basset dim. car. In Goutebia Roger de
    Moubray vj. car. In Knipton Comes de Moriton[io] viij. car. et
    vi. bov., et Willelmus de Alben[eio] iij. car. et ij. bov.[34]

    _H[undredum] de[35] Waltham_.--In eadem villa Comes Lercestriæ
    xvj. car. et dim. Alanus de creon ij. car. et dim. In
    Stonesbia idem Alanus viij. car. In Caston Robertus de
    ferr[ariis] ix. car.[36]

    _H[undredum] de Barcheston_.--In eadem villa Willelmus de
    Alben[eio] xxiij. car. G. Camerarius j. car. In Saltebia
    et berthaldebia xx. car. de feodo Peuerelli. In Garthorp
    Willelmus Mesch[in] vij. car.[37]

    _H[undredum] de Sproxcheston[e]_.--In eadem villa Rex David
    viij. car. Alanus de Creon ij. car. Ibidem filius Gilberti ij.
    car. In Bucheminest[re] et in Seustern[e] ix. car. et dim. de
    feodo Episcopi Lincolniensis. Ibidem Robertus de ferer[iis]
    dim. car. Willelmus Mesch[in] v. car. In Sessebia Rex David
    iij. car. Robertus de ferrer[iis] iij. car.[38]

    _H[undredum] de Claxton[e]_.--In eadem villa xvi. car. et dim.
    et dim. bov. Ibidem Henricus Tuchet xj. car. j. bov. minus. In
    Houwes de feodo de Beluer vij. car. et dim.[39]

    _H[undredum] de Stapelford_.--In eadem villa x. car. de feodo
    Roberti de ferrer[iis]. In Wymundeham et in thorp xxvij. car.
    et dim. de eodem feodo. Ricardus Basset iij. car. et dim.[40]

    _H[undredum] de Herdebia_.--In eadem villa et in plungar xvij.
    car. de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. Ibidem Ricardus Basset
    j. car. In Stacthirn Willelmus de Alben[eio] viij. car. et
    dim. Ibidem Roger de Moubray viij. car. Robertus de Insula j.
    car. et dim.[41]

    _H[undredum] de Botlesford_.--In eadem villa et Moston et
    Normanton[e] Willelmus de Alben[eio] xxxij. car. Ibidem Agnes
    de Gaunt ij. car. In Moston[e] Robertus de Insula j. car. et

    _[H]undredum de crocstona_.--In eadem villa Comes Maur[itonii]
    xxiiij. car. In Harestan idem Comes xij. car.'[43] ...


The work of identifying the places named in this survey is difficult,
not only from the corruption of the text, but also from the fact
that many of them are only obscure names, needing, for their perfect
ascertainment, local knowledge. A careful study of the map will show
that these Leicestershire 'Hundreds', unlike those to which we are
accustomed in the hidated districts, were strangely intermingled among
themselves. Another of their peculiarities is that just as we find
the reconquered 'shires' named each after its capital town, so these
'Hundreds' were each named after one of their Vills instead of after
some natural object--probably the meeting-place of the primitive
moot[44]--as so often in the south of England.

It is important to observe that, except for this survey, we should
not even have known of the existence of these 'Hundreds' in
Leicestershire. And when we compare the entry on our roll--'Framelaund
Wap'. Hundredum de Calevertone. In eadem villa xii. car.'--with that
in the Derbyshire Domesday: 'Morelestan Wepentac. Salle Hundred. In
Salle et Draicot et Opewelle ... xii. car.' (i. 273), it is scarcely
possible to resist the conclusion that, in this passage relating to
Sawley, divided only by a river from Leicestershire, we have a glimpse
of the same system existing in Derbyshire also. That is to say,
that Sawley was not a 'Hundred' of twelve carucates,[45] as has been
suggested,[46] but was the _caput_ of a 'Hundred' similar to those
of Leicestershire. I believe, indeed, that in our survey we see the
system on which these counties were surveyed in 1086. The original
returns will have been drawn up Wapentake by Wapentake, and 'Hundred'
by 'Hundred'. But when transcribed into Domesday Book the entries were
arranged under Wapentakes alone, and the headings of the 'Hundreds'
omitted. In the case of Sawley alone the heading slipped in,
immediately preceding the entry of the Manor, as it must have done
on the original return. It is thus that I account for the mention of
'leets' slipping into the Norfolk Domesday, in two cases, from the
original return;[47] just as, in Cambridgeshire, the total assessments
of Impington and Chatteris have slipped, from the original returns,
into the _Inq. Eliensis_,[48] though duly omitted in Domesday Book.

One more point should be noticed. The somewhat mysterious entry of
land belonging 'ad defensionem de Swepestone' is at once made clear
when we compare it with that 'Defensio x. acrarum', to which I have
appealed[49] in discussing 'Wara', and which, like the 'wered' of the
Northamptonshire geld-roll,[50] refers to assessment for Danegeld.

We will now collate some of our 'Hundreds' with the relative entries
in Domesday.

                        LODINGTON HUNDRED

              (1086)                        (1124-29)


  Rex                       12     Norman de Verdon           8-1/2
                                   Richard Basset             3-1/2


  Rex                        6     Norman de Verdon           6


  Countess Judith            6      King David's fee          5-1/4
                                    Rex                         3/4


  Robert de Buci            12      Richard Basset           12


  Rex                        4-1/2  Richard de Rullos         8-3/4

    _Thorpe Sackville_

                                    Henry de Ferrers          8-3/4

    _East Norton_

  [?Rex                      3]     [Richard Basset]          1-1/4
  Robert dispensator         4-1/2  Walter de Beauchamp       6
  Geoffrey de la Guerche     4-1/2  Roger de Mowbray          4-3/4
                           -------                           ------
                            12                               12

                        TILTON HUNDRED


  Rex                        2      Rex                       1-3/4
  Robert Despencer           3      Walter de Beauchamp       3
  Archbishop of York         1      Archbishop                1
                         ---------                          --------
                             6                                5-3/4

    _Newton Burdet_

  Geoffrey de la Guerche     6      Walter de Beauchamp       4
  Hubert _serviens_ 1/2             Roger de Mowbray          8


  Countess Judith            9      King David               12


  Rex                        3      Rex                       4


  Rex                        2-3/4  Norman de Verdon          2-3/4

                     BEBY HUNDRED


  Crowland Abbey            10-1/2  Crowland Abbey           12


  Rex                        4      Rex                       4

    _Hungerton_                                               9


  Hugh de Grantmesnil        8-1/2  Earl of Leicester         9-13/16
                                    Earl of Chester           3
  Rex                        3-1/4  Richard Basset            2
                                    Robert de Ferrers         1-1/4

                       BARKBY HUNDRED


  Robert de Todeni          18      'Belvoir'                 5


                                    'Belvoir'                 6

    _Barkby Thorpe_

  Adeliza de Grentmesnil     1-1/2   Earl of Leicester        1-1/2


  Hugh de Grentmesnil       10
                                     {Canons [of St Mary de
  Hugh de Grentmesnil        3-1/2   {Castro, Leicester][52]  3


                                     Rex                      2-3/16

    _Newbold Folvile_

  Henry de Ferrers          1        Robert de Ferrers        1-1/2


  Rex                       4-5/8    Rex                      3-1/16
                                     Earl of Leicester        1-5/8


  Rex                       8-3/8    Rex                      8-9/16
  Rex                       1        Bishop of Lincoln        1
  Countess Judith           2        Earl of Leicester        1-1/16
                                     Richard Basset             1/2
                                     King David               2

                      HUNDRED OF ASHBY

    _Ashby Folvile_

  Countess Judith          4[53]     King David               5
  Countess Judith          1-1/2     Hugh of Leicester        1
  Humfrey _camerarius_     1[54]


  Hugh de Grentmesnil?               Roger de Ramis           8
                                     Walter de Mustere        1
                                     Ralf de Martinwast       3


  Hugh de Grentmesnil      7         Earl of Leicester        12
  Adeliza de Grentmesnil   1


                                      Earl of Leicester      [10]


  Hugh de Grentmesnil      6          Earl of Leicester        9


  'In manu Regis'          4          Earl of Leicester        7
  Hugh de Grentmesnil      2          Earl of Leicester        6[55]

                         REARSBY HUNDRED


  Robert de Buci           1-3/4      Richard Basset           5
  Rex                      1-7/8      Earl of Chester          2-1/2
  Countess Judith          2-1/2      King David               4-1/2


  Geoffrey de la Guerche   9          'Belvoir'               12


  Hugh de Grentmesnil      9          Earl of Leicester       12


  Earl of Chester          2          Earl of Chester          5
  Countess Judith            3/4      King David               1


  Robert de Todeni         2          'Belvoir'                6
  Robert de Todeni (in
  South Croxton)           4


  Hugh de Grentmesnil      9          Earls [of Leicester]     8



  Rex                      5          Rex                      5

                           DALBY HUNDRED

    _Great Dalby_

  Bishop of Lincoln        8          Bishop of Lincoln        9-1/2
  Robert de Buci           1          Ralf Basset              1-3/8
  Humfrey Cam.             1          William 'Gam'            1


  Rex (Barrow)             1          Earl of Chester          4
  Rex                      8          Rex                      8


  Rex (Barrow)             2-3/4      Earl of Chester          6


  Rex (Rothley)           12         Earl of Leicester        13
  Radulfus Framen          3-1/2


  Rex                      6         Rex                       6


    _Dalby on the Wolds_

  Ralf fitz Hubert         9          Edward of Salisbury      9
                                      Earl of Leicester        3


  Rex                      2-13/16    Rex                      2-13/16
  Robert de Buci           3          Richard Basset           3


  Rex                      1          Rex                      1
                                      Earl of Leicester        5


  Hugh de Grentmesnil      8-1/2      Earl of Leicester        6


  Earl of Chester          6          Earl of Chester          6


  Robert de Lorz           4          Robert de Jor'           2


  Guy de Raimbercurt      12          Thomas                  10-1/4?
  Guy de Raimbercurt     [18]         Roger de Mowbray         1-3/4?


  Robert de Buci           2          Roger de Mowbray         2


  Robert de Buci           6          Roger de Mowbray         6


                                      Thomas                   7-1/4
  Dru de Bevrere           4-1/4      'Albemarle'              4-3/4

                 HUNDRED OF TONG


  Henry de Ferrers        21-1/2      Robert de Ferrers       12


  Earl of Chester         15          Earl of Chester         15


  Henry de Ferrers         4                                3 or 12

In the case of this last Hundred our survey records a conflict of
testimony and, in so doing, mentions incidentally (as would Domesday)
the witness of the Hundred-court. Henry de Ferrers in the Domesday
Survey, is credited with 21-1/2 car. in 'Tunge cum omnibus
appendiciis', and with four in 'Werditone' (i. 233). But here Tong,
'cum appendiciis', is reckoned at twelve car. only. There remained,
therefore, to be accounted for a large balance of car., and these
the men of the Hundred assigned to his Manor of Worthington. It
is desirable to analyse some of the fiefs in our survey, and, by
comparison with Domesday, to trace their descent or origin.

                 _Roger de Mowbray's fief_

           (1124-29)                        (1086)

                           car     [Geoffrey de la Guerche]
  Picwell and Lucerthorp  15       Pichewelle and Luvestorp  14
  East Norton              4-3/4   East Norton                4-1/2
  Newton Burdet            8       Newton Burdet              6
  Thrussington             1-3/4
                                   [Robert de Buci]
  Wileges                  2       Wilges                     2
  Rachedale                6       Ragendele                  6
                                   [Geoffrey de la Guerche]
  Somerby                  6       Dalby                      4
  Dalby                    1-7/8   Dalby                      2-1/2
  Gillethorp               3       Godtorp                    3-1/2
  Burg                     1       Burg                       1
  Eastwell                 6       Eastwell                   6
  Melton                  15       Melton
  Burton                  11-7/8   Burton                    11-7/8
  [Fredebie                9-5/16  Fredebie                  10]
  Chirchebia              24       Cherchebi (17 + 7)        24
  Kettleby                 9(?)    Chettlebi                  8
  Sixtenebia               4-1/2   Sistenebi (2-1/2 + 2)      4-1/2
  Alebia                   9       Alebia                     7-3/4
  Wyfordebia               1-1/2   Wordebia                   1-1/2
  Goutebi                  6       Goutebi                    6
  Stacthirn                8       Stachetone                 8-1/4

                 _Anschitel's  fief_

                  car                 car
  Scanketon'        2     Scantone      2  Robert de Veci.
  Chiburd          12     Chiborne     12  Robert de Veci.

                 _Edward of Salisbury's fief_

  Dalby on the  }
  Wolds         }   9     Dalbi         9  Ralf fitz Hubert.

                 _William Meschin's fief_

  Seustern          5     Seustern      5  William Lovet.

                 _Henry de Albini's fief_

  Scegla            2     Sela          2  Nigel de Albini.

                 _Gilbert's son's fief_

  Sproxcheston      2     Sprotone      2  Godfrey de Cambrai.

                 _William Chamberlain's fief_

   Great Dalby      1     Dalby         1 {Hunfridus  Camerarius.

                _Thomas's fief_

                       car                car
  Thrussington 10-3/4}
  Hoby          7-1/4} 18    Thrussington  18     Guy de Raimbercurt.

                _Count of Mortain's fief_

  Broctone          12       Broctone      12     Rex.
  Knipton            8-3/4   Cnipeton       8-3/4 Rex.
  Croxton           24       Croxton       24     Rex.
  Harestan          12       Horstan       12     Rex.

                _Alan de Craon's fief_

  Stoneby            8       Stoneby        8     Guy de Craon.
  Waltham            2-1/2   Waltham        2-1/2 Guy de Craon.
  Sproxton           3       Sproxton       2     Guy de Craon.

                _William de Albini's fief_

  Cold Overton      12       Cold Overton  12     Dru de Bevrere.
  Knipton            3-1/4   Knipton        3-1/4 Robert de Todeni.
  Herdebi and
    Plungar         17       Herdeby       17     Robert de Todeni.
  Stacthirn          8-1/2   Stacthirn      9-3/4 Robert de Todeni.
  Bottlesford       32       Bottlesford   24(?)  Robert de Todeni.

                _Henry Tuchet's fief_

  Claxton           10-7/8   Claxton   6  }       Robert Hostiarius.
                             Howes   4-1/2}       Robert Hostiarius

                _Richard Basset's fief_

  Langton            3-1/4
  Chiburd            1
  Skeffington        3-1/2   Skeffington   3-1/2  Rex.
  Lodington         12       Lodington    12      Robert de Buci.
  Sileby             2       Sileby        2-1/4  Rex.
  Gaddesby             1/2
  Reresby            5       Reresby       1-3/4  Robert de Buci.
  Grimstone          3       Grimstone     3      Robert de Buci.
  Overton            4       Overton       4      Robert de Buci.
  Kettleby and     }         Holwell       5 }
  Holwell          } 9       Kettleby      6 }    Robert de Buci.
  Goatby             6       Goatby        6      Robert de Buci.
  Scaldeford                 Scaldeford      1/2  Robert de Buci.
  Wymondham       }
   and Thorpe     }  3-1/2   Wymondham     3-1/2  Robert de Buci.
  Hardebi            1       Hertebi       1      Robert de Buci.

The fief of Richard Basset is that of a typical man, of one of those
trusted officials who flourished under Henry I. We know not the fate
of Robert de Buci, a Domesday baron in Leicestershire and Northants;
but as two, at least, of his Leicestershire estates passed, we have
seen, to Mowbray, it was, we may infer, forfeiture or escheat that
brought his fief into the king's hands, and enabled him to divide it
among his own favourites. We learn from the evidence to which I am
coming that the eight carucates in Swinford and Walcote, and the two
in little Ashby which Robert de Buci had held in 1086, were in the
hands of Geoffrey Ridel ninety years later. We may then infer, though
they are not included in the sphere of our survey, that they had been
obtained, like the rest, by Basset _temp._ Hen. I.[56]

The elaborate fine made at Leicester, June 31, 1176,[57] has an
important bearing on the Bassets' Leicestershire possessions. Not only
does it specify the lands they held at Swinford (with Walcote), Ashby,
and Fleckney, but it mentions their fee of Madeley, Staffordshire. Now
the descent of this Staffordshire fee can be traced by charters on the
same roll.[58] One of these (No. 12) is a confirmation, by Robert
de Stafford, of Madeley to Geoffrey Ridel, to be held as his
'antecessores' had held it. This was Geoffrey, son of Richard Basset,
by Maud Ridel, as is shown by the fact that the first witness to the
charter is Hervey de Stretton, who held two knights' fees of Stafford
in 1166,[59] and that another is Robert Bagot, who held a quarter of
a fee,[60] while Geoffrey Ridel himself then held one, namely,
Madeley.[61] But the enrolling scribe confused him with his (maternal)
grandfather and namesake (d. 1120), and thus wrongly assigned this
charter to the reign of Henry I, and threw the whole descent into
utter confusion. The right clue is found in a charter of Robert 'de
Toni' (_i.e._ de Stafford), 'conceding' Madeley to Robert 'de Busa'
(_alias_ 'de Busci'), 'per servitium unius militis'.[62] This fee,
therefore, must have come to the Bassets with the rest of the Buci
estates; and we thus learn that this must have been late in the reign
of Henry I, for the names of the witnesses to this charter prove that
it must be subsequent to 1122.[63]

As Robert de Buci was then in possession, it cannot have been, here at
least, till later that Basset succeeded him.

Among the points to be observed in the descent of the above fiefs are
Edward of Salisbury's succession to that of Ralf fitz Hubert,[64]
the appearance of Henry de Albini, founder of the Cainho line, as
successor to Nigel, and the portions of the great Belvoir fief, held
in Domesday by Robert de Todeni, now owned by Robert de L'Isle and
William de Albini 'Brito'. In the midst of great but vanished names,
it is pleasant to meet with one, at least, still surviving in the male
line: William de Gresley, holder of Linton (a Derbyshire hamlet close
to Gresley), had succeeded, there and at 'Widesers', Nigel, a tenant
of Henry de Ferrers in 1086 (D.B., i. 233_b_).[65] In this 'Nigel',
therefore, it would seem, we have Nigel de Stafford, Lord of Drakelow
(D.B., i. 278).

I will close with the names of those who had succeeded the Domesday


  Count of Meulan                Earl of Leicester
  Earl Aubrey                    (Escheat)
  'Countess' Godgifu
  'Countess' Ælfgifu             Earl of Chester (Donnington)
  Earl of Chester                Earl of Chester
  Hugh de Grentmesnil            Earl of Leicester
  Henry de Ferrers               Robert de Ferrers
  Robert de Todeni               William de Albini
  Robert de Veci                 [Anschitil]
  Roger de Busli                 [Honour of Blyth]
                               { Walter de Beauchamp
  Robert Dispensator           { Robert Marmion
                               { Henry Tuchet (10-7/8)
  Robertus Hostiarius, (10-1/2)
  Ralf Mortimer
  Ralf fitz Hubert                Edward of Salisbury
  Guy de Raimbercurt              [Thomas]
  Guy de Craon                    Alan de Craon
  William Peverel                 Honour of Peverel
  William Buenvaslet              Comes War'?
  William Loveth                  Will. Meschin
  Geoffrey Alselin
  Geoffrey de 'Wirce'             [Escheat]
  Godfrey de Cambrai              the son of Gilbert
  Gunfrid de Cioches
  Humfrey Camerarius              Willelmus Camerarius
  Drogo de Bevrere                Albemarle
  Nigel de Albini                 Henry de Albini
  'Countess' Judith               King David

    [Footnote 1: Q.R., Misc. Bdle. 558, I.P.R., 8113; Knight's
    Fees, Com. Leic.]

    [Footnote 2: See pp. 75-6.]

    [Footnote 3: MS. 'in'.]

    [Footnote 4: Langton, Thorpe Langton, Tur Langton, Shangton.]

    [Footnote 5: Kibworth, Burton Overy, Carlton Curlieu.]

    [Footnote 6: Knossington, Owston, Picwell and Leesthorpe,
    Newbold, Burrow, Baggrave, Marefield.]

    [Footnote 7: Skeffington, Allexton, Thorpe and Twyford, East

    [Footnote 8: MS. 'in'.]

    [Footnote 9: MS. 'Archid'.]

    [Footnote 10: Tilton, Loseby, Whadborough, Halstead.]

    [Footnote 11: Interlined.]

    [Footnote 12: Beeby, Keyham, Hungerton, [? Sileby].]

    [Footnote 13: MS. injured here.]

    [Footnote 14: Barkby, Hambleton, Thorpe, Thurmaston, South
    Croxton, Barsby, Gaddesby.]

    [Footnote 15: Ashby, Humberstone, Belgrave, Thurmaston,
    Birstall, Wanlip, Ansty.]

    [Footnote 16: Rearsby, Queensborough, Syston, Brooksby,
    Rothley, Thurcaston, Cropston.]

    [Footnote 17: Great Dalby, Frisby, Rotherby, Asfordby,

    [Footnote 18: Dalby on the Wolds, Grimston, Saxelby, Sileby,
    Cossington, Hoton.]

    [Footnote 19: Thrussington, Ragdale, Hoby.]

    [Footnote 20: MS. illegible.]

    [Footnote 21: Tong, Kegworth, Worthington.]

    [Footnote 22: MS. 'in'.]

    [Footnote 23: Loughborough, Charley, Dishley, Garendon,
    Thorpe, Hathern.]

    [Footnote 24: Belton, [? Coleorton], Worthington, Staunton
    Harold, Castle Donington, Whitwick.]

    [Footnote 25: Diseworth, Hathern, Linton (Derby), Blackfordby,
    Ravenstone, Snibston.]

    [Footnote 26: Seal (Nether and Over), Bogthorpe, Appleby,
    Stretton on le Field, Donisthorpe, Swepston, Oakthorpe, Ashby,
    Pakington, Osgathorpe.]

    [Footnote 27: Blank in MS.]

    [Footnote 28: Sheepshed, Whatton, Lockington.]

    [Footnote 29: Cold Overton, Somerby, Burrow, Dalby, Withcote,

    [Footnote 30: Eastwell, Eaton, Branston.]

    [Footnote 31: Melton Mowbray, Burton Lazars, Freeby.]

    [Footnote 32: Kirby Bellars, Abkettleby, Sysonby.]

    [Footnote 33: Nether Broughton, Thorpe, Brentingby, Wyfordby,
    Abkettleby, Holwell.]

    [Footnote 34: Scalford, Goadby, Knipton.]

    [Footnote 35: MS. 'in'.]

    [Footnote 36: Waltham, Stonesby, Coston.]

    [Footnote 37: Barkstone, Saltby, [? Bescoby], Garthorpe.]

    [Footnote 38: Sproxton, Seustern, Buckminster, Saxby.]

    [Footnote 39: Clawson, Hose.]

    [Footnote 40: Stapleford, Wymondham, Edmondthorpe.]

    [Footnote 41: Harby, Plungar, Stathern.]

    [Footnote 42: Bottesford, Muston, Normanton.]

    [Footnote 43: Croxton, Harston.]

    [Footnote 44: See the valuable list, for Dorset, in Mr Eyton's
    _Key to Domesday_, p. 143.]

    [Footnote 45: The Lincolnshire 'Hundred'.]

    [Footnote 46: Waters' _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 5; _Eng. Hist.
    Rev._, v. 100; _supra_, p. 73.]

    [Footnote 47: _Supra_, p. 90.]

    [Footnote 48: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 113, 116.]

    [Footnote 49: _Supra_, p. 101.]

    [Footnote 50: _Supra_, p. 127.]

    [Footnote 51: Including Hambleton and Hungerton (6) in

    [Footnote 52: By grant of Robert, Count of Meulan.]

    [Footnote 53: In Newbold.]

    [Footnote 54: In Barnsby.]

    [Footnote 55: Given (as 24 virgates) to Leicester Abbey.]

    [Footnote 56: See also _supra_, p. 130.]

    [Footnote 57: _Infra_, p. 388.] (See T.N. at end)

    [Footnote 58: _Sloane Cart._, xxxi. 4.]

    [Footnote 59: _Liber Rubeus_, Ed. Hall, p. 266.]

    [Footnote 60: _Ibid._, p. 268.]

    [Footnote 61: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 62: _Sloane_, xxxi. 4, No. 10.]

    [Footnote 63: They are 'Nigellus de Aubeni, Ran[ulfus] Comes
    Cestrie, Galfridus Cancellarius, Simon decanus Lincolnie,
    Willelmus fil' Reg', Thomas de Sancto Johanne, Willelmus
    de Aubeny Brito, Unfridus de Bohun et alii.' The Dean's
    occurrence so late is worth noting.]

    [Footnote 64: Compare 'The Barons of Criche' (_Academy_, June

    [Footnote 65: That William was his son is proved by the
    Ferrers _Carta_ (1166), which enters 'Willelmus filius
    Nigelli' as the tenant of four fees under Henry I, and as
    succeeded, in 1166, by his son Robert.]



This 'Hydarium' of Northamptonshire is found in a Peterborough
Cartulary (Cott. MS. Vesp. E. 22, fo. 94 _et seq._). It is drawn up
Hundred by Hundred, like the surveys of Leicestershire and of Lindsey,
and is, therefore, probably connected with the assessment of Danegeld.
Although it is of special value for reconstituting the Domesday Vills,
the assessment it records so often varies from that which is found in
Domesday that we cannot institute a close comparison. The introduction
of a 'parva virgata' further complicates the reckoning. That the
original document was written on a roll is shown by the use of the
phrase 'per alium rotulum'. The statement on fo. 97_b_ that
there ought, at one place, to be half a hide more 'per rotulos
Wyncestr[ie]', would seem to refer to Domesday; but on the next page
we read:

    In Pytesle Abbas de Burgo v. hid. [et] dim. set tamen in
    Rotulis Wyncestr[ie] vi. hid. et iii. parvas virgatas.

Since Domesday records this holding as 'v. hid. et una virgata terræ',
the reference (if the text of the survey is right) must clearly be to
some other record preserved in the national treasury.

I append about a fifth of the Survey as a specimen of the whole.


    Twywell. Albr[icus] camerar[ius] ii. hidas de feudo Abbatis
    de Thorneya. Ibidem de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem de feudo
    Abbatis Burgi i. magnam virgatam.

    In Slipton i. hidam et unam virgatam de feudo Will'i de Corcy.
    Ibidem Ricardus filius Hugonis ii. partes unius hidæ de feudo
    Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus nepos Abbatis tertiam partem unius hidæ
    de eodem feudo.

    In Suburc [Sudboro'] ii. hidas [et] dim. de feudo

    In Lofwyc [Luffwick] Th----[1] i. hidam et unam virgatam de
    feudo de Deneford. Ibidem Radulfus Fleming i. virgatam et
    dim. de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem Wydo frater ejus i. magnam
    virgatam de feudo de Thorneya.

    In Drayton Albr[icus] camerar[ius] dimidiam hidam de feudo

    In Yslep [Islip] idem Albri[cus] de feudo Regis. Ibidem
    iiii^{or.} sokemanni Regis i. hidam de feudo Westmonaster'.

    In Audewyncle [Aldwinkle] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hidas [et]
    dimidiam quas Ascelinus de Waterville tenet. Ibidem Galfridus
    de Glynton i. magnam virgatam de feudo Glovernie pertinens ad
    Barton. Ibidem Ricardus filius Wydonis iii. hidas dim. virg.
    minus de feudo Regine [_sic_].

    Item in Benifeld [Benefield] Willelmus le Lisurs iii. magnas
    virg. de feudo Regis.

    In Bernewelle [Barnwell] Robertus de ferariis vi. hidas et i.
    magnam virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne vi.
    hidas de feudo de Rammeseye.

    In Lilleford Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo Regis Scotie.


    In Tytheni [? Tichmarsh] Robertus de Ferr[ers] x. hid. Ibidem
    Ascelinus de Waterville iii. hid. et i. virg. et tres partes
    dim. hid. de Burgo.

    In Thrapston Radulfus fil. Oger ii. hid. et i. virg. de feudo
    de Brunne. Ibidem Robertus filius Edelinæ i. hid. et i. virg.
    de feudo de Clare.

    In Torpe et Achirche Ascelinus de Waterville vi. hid. [et]
    dim. de feudo Burgi.

    In Clopton Walterus i. hid. et i. virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem
    iii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi. Ibidem Ascelinus dim. hid.
    de feudo Burgi.

    Wadenhowe [Wadenhoe]. Albricus de Ver ii. hid. et i. virg. de
    feudo Regis David. Ibidem Wymunt de Stok[e] i. virg. de feudo
    Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Infans ii. parvas virg. de eodem feudo.
    Ibidem Wivienus de Chirchefelde dim. hid. de eodem feudo.
    Ibidem Galfridus de Gonthorp ii. hid. de eodem feudo. In
    Catteworthe i. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi.


    In Pokebroc Robertus de Cauz i. hid. et. i. virg. de feudo
    Regis. Ibidem Walterus de Clopton ii. hid. et dim. de feudo
    Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Marmium i. hid. et i. virg. de eodem

    In Armeston [Armston] de Burgelay ii. hid. [et] dim. de eodem
    feudo. Ibidem Turkil i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Wydo
    Maufee i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Galfridus de Gunthorp
    ii. partes dim. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Tedrik' iii.
    partes de dim. hid. de eodem feudo.

    In Pappele [Papley] i. hid.

    In Lillington [Lutton] i. hid.

    In Hennington Berengerus le Moyne ii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo
    de Rammes[eye]. Ibidem Ricardus filius Gilberti i. hid. et i.
    virg. et dim. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Wydo Maufe dim. hid. et
    dim. virg. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne dim.
    hid. et dim. virg. de eodem feodo.

    In Kynesthorp [Kingsthorp] Walterus de Lodington i. hid. et i.
    virg. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Willelmus de Chirchetot dim. hid.
    de feodo Regis.

    In Therninge [Thurning] Rogerus Marmioun iii. parvas virg. de
    feodo Burgi.

    In Ayston [Ashton] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hid. in dominico.
    Ibidem Papilun dim. hid. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Leuenoth dim.
    hid. de eodem feodo.

    In Undele [Oundle] Abbas in dominico vi. hid. Ibidem Vivien i.
    parvam virg.[2]


    In Stinton Willelmus de Lisurs ii. hid.

    In Bernak Fulco paynel iii. hid.[3]

    In Wirthorpe Abbas Croylaund ii. hid. Ibidem de feodo Eudonis
    Dapiferi i. virg.

    In Eston [Easton] Simon i. hid. [et] dim.

    In Peychirche [Peakirk]. In Etton. In Northburgo dim. virg.

    In dominico Abbatis de Burgo sancti Petri lxx. hid. et iii.
    virg. et dim.


    In eadem villa [King's Sutton] Dominus Rex habit in dominico
    iiii. hid.

    In eadem villa Willelmus de Quency i. hid. [et] dim. et parvam
    virg. terre de Comitat[u] Leycestr[ie]. Ibidem Alfredus viii.
    parvas virg. de Gilberto de Pinkeny. Ibidem Paganus i. hid.
    et dim. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] Leycestri[ie],
    Robertus filius Osberti tenuit.

    In Evenle i. hid. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is]

    In Preston dim. hid. de feodo Comit[is] Leyc[estrie].

    In Croulton [Croughton] iiii{^or.} parvas virg. de feodo
    Comit[is] Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Sewar' i. hid. et ii. parvas
    virg. de feodo Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Brien filius Comitis i.
    hid. [et] dim. et ii. parvas virg. de feodo de Walinford.

    In Neubottle Regis [_sic_] de Reynes vi. hid. et i. parvam
    virg. de feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie], Willelmus de Lepyn

    In furningho [Farningho] iiii. hid. de feodo Comitis

    In Cherlington [Charlton] Maynardus i. hid. [et] dim. et i.
    parvam virg. Ibidem Simon Chendut i. hid. [et] dim. de feodo
    de Berkamstede et i. parvam virg. Ibidem Odo dapifer viii.
    parvas virg. de feodo de Colescestra.

    In Gremesbir' [Grimsbury] Aunsel' de Chokes ii. hid. et iiii.
    parvas virg. scil. quarta pars ii. hid.

    In Middleton Willelmus Me[s]chin i. hid. et dim. et i. parvam
    virg. de feodo Willelmi de Curcy.

    In alia Middleton [Middleton Chenduit] Simon Chendut ii. hid.
    de feodo de Berkamstede.

    In Thayniford [Thenford] Mainfenn de Walrentone i. hid. Ibidem
    Robertus Basset i. hid. de feodo de Walingford.

    In Ayno [Aynho] Willelmus de Mandeville iii. hid.

    In Middelton monachi de sancto Eu'ald[4] ii. hid.

    In Walton i. hid. cum ii. virg. in Sutton quas Suouild tenuit.

    In Gildeby i. hid. et vii. parvas virg. de feodo de Mortal'


    In Chacombe iiii. hid. de feodo Episc. Lincoln.

    In Evenle ii. hid. et [_sic_] i. parvam virg. minus quas Alouf
    de Merke tenuit.

    In Thorpe [Thorpe-Mandeville] ii. hid.

    In Stanes [Stene] Gilbertus de Pinkeny ii. hid.

    In Colewyth [Culworth] Willelmus ii. hid. et iiii. parvas
    virg. Ibidem Otuer i. hid.

    In Stotebyr[e] [Stotesbery] ii. hid. quas monachi Norht'[5]

    In Rodestone [Radston] ii. hid. de feodo Comitis Cestr[ie].

    In Wytefeld [Whitfield] Gilbertus de Monte ii. hid. et ii.
    virg. in dominico.

    In Merston [Merston St Lawrence] Radulfus Murdac iiii. hid. de
    feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].

    In Siresham Thomas Sorel i. hid. [et] dim. Ibidem Comes
    Leyc[estrie] i. parvam virg. Ibidem Gilo dim. hid. Ibidem
    Willelmus filius Alui' [? Alan] iiii. parvas virg.

    In Helmendene [Helmedon] Willelmus de Torewelle iiii. hid. de
    feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].

    In Chelverdescote dim. hid. Idem. Comes Leyc[estrie].

    In Brackle et Hausho [Hawes] idem Comes vii. hid. [et] dim.


    In Wardon Ricardus foliot[6] ii. hid. [et] dim. et i. magnam
    virg., scilicet quarta pars i. militis de feodo Regis in

    In Estone [Aston] et Apeltreya [Apeltre] Willelmus de Bolonia
    vii. hid. de feodo Comitis de Mandeville.

    In Bottolendon [Boddington] Fulco Paynel[7] ii. hid. una ex
    illis de feodo Cestr[ie]. Ibidem Willelmus Meschin i. hid.
    Ibidem i. hid. de feodo Episcopi Lincoln.

The only writer, it would seem, who has used this important survey is
Bridges, who refers to it throughout in his _Northamptonshire_ as of
the time of 'Henry II'. A good instance of the confusion caused by
this assumption is seen in the remarks of Bridges as to Barnack (ii.
491), where he is puzzled by our record, giving as its lord, not
Gervase Paynell, but Fulc Paynell (who was really his grandfather).
To refute his conclusion, it is sufficient to refer to the first name
entered--that of 'Albricus Camerarius'. This was no other than Aubrey
de Vere, a trusted minister of Henry I, who was made by him
Great Chamberlain in 1133, and who was slain in May 1141.[8] His
Northamptonshire estate descended to his younger son, Robert, who,
as 'Robertus filius Albrici Camerarii', made his return as a
Northamptonshire 'baron' in 1166.[9] There can, therefore, be no
confusion between Aubrey the Chamberlain (d. 1141) and his eldest son
and namesake. Yet if, from the occurrence of his name, we pronounced
the date of this survey to be 1133-41, we should be in error. There
are names belonging to an earlier, as to a later, date than this.

Among the earliest are 'Ricardus filius Wydonis', the son and
successor of Guy de Raimbercurt, a great Domesday tenant-in-chief;
Walter fitz Winemar, whose father was both a tenant _in capite_ and
under-tenant in Domesday; and Ralf fitz Oger, whose name illustrates
the value of these early surveys; for the entry proves that Oger, the
Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 228), was identical with
Oger 'Brito', the Lord of Bourne, Linc. (i. 364_b_), and that the son
and successor of this Oger was Ralf. We also recognize Roger Marmion,
who was succeeded, under Henry I, by Robert; Nigel de Albini, the
founder of the house of Mowbray; Michael de Hanslape, who died under
Henry I; and 'Robertus filius Regis', who became Earl of Gloucester
_circ._ 1122. Other tenants, living _temp._ Hen. I, are William
de Mandeville,[10] William Meschin, Richard Basset, Viel (Vitalis)
Engaine, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, and Brian fitz Count. As for Ascelin
de Waterville and Alouf de Merke, they are found as under-tenants in
Domesday itself. On the other hand, such a name as 'Comes Warenn de
Morteyn' points to the latter years of Stephen's reign, or to the
early days of that of Henry II; while the mention of the earldoms of
Arundel, Ferrers (Derby) and Essex preclude, of course, an earlier
date than 1140.

After careful examination, I propound the solution that this survey
was originally made under Henry I, and was subsequently corrected here
and there, to bring the entries up to date, down to the days of Henry
II. The late transcriber, to whom we owe the survey in its present
form, has incorporated these additions and corrections in a single
text with the most bewildering result. We trace exactly the same
process in the Red Book of the Exchequer. In the Black Book the
later additions that were made to the barons' _cartae_ of 1166 are
distinguished by the difference in handwriting. But in the Red Book
these interpolations are found transcribed in the same hand as the
genuine original returns. To the uninitiated this has been the cause
of no small confusion. So, too, in the above list of Peterborough
knights (p. 157), the very first entry, made _temp._ Hen. I, has
been carried on by a later hand to the time of Henry III. But there
Stapleton, who transcribed the list, carefully discriminated between
the two.[11] It is probable that the lists of Abingdon knights,
published in the Abingdon cartulary, are rendered untrustworthy in
places from the same cause of error.

The transcriber's ignorance is clearly shown by such a name as 'Comes
Mauricius', which is evidently his erroneous extension of an original
'Comes Maur'', _i.e._ Count of Mortain! So also we are enabled to
detect proof of the theory I advance in such an entry as 'Willelmus
Meschin de feodo Wellelmi de Curcy'; for William de Curcy held,
_temp._ Henry II, the barony held by William Meschin (his maternal
grandfather, according to Stapleton[12]) _temp._ Henry I. Thus, the
original entry will have run 'William Meschin', while a later hand,
in his grandson's days, will have added, by way of substitution, 'De
feodo William de Curcy'.[13] Our transcriber, combining the two, has,
of course, made nonsense of the whole. The same explanation applies to
the entry, 'Robertus filius Regis de feodo Glovernie', where the first
three words represent the original entry, while the others were added,
probably under Henry II, to connect the holding with the fief of [the
Earl of] Gloucester. 'Brien filius Comitis de feodo de Wallin[g]ford'
is another instance in point, and so, I suspect, is 'Odo [_sic_]
dapifer de feodo de Colcestra'; for I take it that the entry was
originally made in the lifetime of Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120) and that, as
his 'honour' passed into the King's hands, the 'de feodo de Colcestra'
was added at a later time.[14]

I have given sufficient of the survey to prove that, in spite of
confusion and corruption, it possesses a real value. If we take, for
instance, Polebrook ('Pochebroc'), a township of five hides, we find
that in Domesday (221_b_, 228) Eustace ('the Sheriff') held a hide and
a quarter _in capite_ and three hides and three quarters as a tenant
of Peterborough Abbey (see p. 138). Now our survey shows us the former
holding in the hands of Robert de Cauz, while the other has been
broken up, two-thirds of it passing to Walter 'de Clopton' and
one-third to Roger Marmion.

Just below, in the case of Hemington, also a Vill of five hides, which
was equally divided between the Abbeys of Peterborough and Ramsey,
we read in Domesday that 'iii. milites' held the Peterborough
half (221_b_). Our survey enables us to distinguish their
tenancies--Richard fitz Gilbert holding a hide and three-eighths; Guy
Maufe, five-eighths of a hide, and Reginald le Moyne the same.[15] But
we can go further and identify the first, from his holding, as the son
of Gilbert Fauvel, the Domesday tenant (see p. 138); while the second
was the heir, and probably the son of Roger Malfed (see p. 132).

One more instance may be given. Our survey reckons Clapton
('Cloptone') as five and a quarter hides, of which 'Walter' held one
and a quarter _in capite_. Here again he had succeeded Eustace, whose
Domesday estate at 'Dotone' (228) ought, as Bridges conjectured, to
have been entered 'Clotone'.[16] On the other hand, his tenancy of the
Abbot at 'Clotone' had been broken up, half a hide of it passing to
Ascelin de Waterville. All this goes to show that the fief of Eustace
the Sheriff did not, as has been alleged, descend to his heirs.

Such an entry as 'In Lilleford, Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo
Regis Scotiæ' is peculiarly suggestive. It reminds us that David
Holyfard, godson of King David of Scotland, and his protector in
1141, was the founder of the house of Oliphant; and in the family's
possession of Lilford (which was held of the Countess Judith in 1086)
we see the origin of their Scottish connection. William 'Olifard'
was of Northamptonshire, and Hugh 'Olifard' of Huntingdonshire in
1130;[17] while Hugh 'Olifart' (of Stoke) was a knight of the Abbot of
Peterborough in rather earlier days. The earliest member of the house,
however, it would seem, on record is Roger Olifard, who witnessed
(doubtless as his tenant) Earl Simon's charter to St. Andrew's,
Northampton, granted, probably, not later than 1108. This, of course,
is but one of the cases in which the son of a Norman house settled in
Scotland through its King's connection with the earldoms of Huntingdon
and Northampton.

At the close of the survey I have here discussed there is a list
of the knights of Peterborough (fos. 99_b_, 100) holding in
Northamptonshire. It ought to be carefully compared with the one
I have examined above (p. 131), being, it seems probable, about a
generation later. Such entries as these, at least, are conclusive for
the holding to which they refer:

  Paganus de Helpestun terciam      Roger fil[ius] Pagan[i] in
  partem unius militis              Helpestun terciam partem i.
  (_Chronicon Petroburgense_,      militis (Vesp. E. xxii.,
  p. 171).                          fo. 100).

In the same way, Roger Marmion had been succeeded by Robert. This
second list is of special value from the fact that the Peterborough
_carta_ of 1166 gives no particulars of the knights or of their fees.

    [Footnote 1: Or Sh----.]

    [Footnote 2: See _Chronicon Petroburgense_, p. 158.]

    [Footnote 3: See Bridges' _Northamptonshire_, ii. 491.]

    [Footnote 4: St. Evroul, Grantmesnil's in Domesday.]

    [Footnote 5: St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.]

    [Footnote 6: The heir of Guy de Raimbercurt.]

    [Footnote 7: Clearly Fulk Paynel the first, Founder of Tykford

    [Footnote 8: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 81.]

    [Footnote 9: See also as to Twywell itself. _Mon. Ang._, ii.

      'Ego Albericus, regis camerarius terram de Twiwell quamdiu vixero
      de domino abbate Guntero et monachis de Thorneya per talem
      conventionem teneo adfirmam.'

      'Ego Robertus filius Albrici camerarii regis terram de Twiwelle
      quamdiu vixero de domino abbate Roberto et monachis de Thorneia
      per eandem conventionem in feodi firmam teneo per quam
      conventionem pater meus ante me tenuit.'

    The Great Chamberlain occurs again on fo. 97_b_, where we

      'In alia Adington Albric[us] Camerar[ius], ii. hid. de feodo

    [Footnote 10: If, as probable, the son of the Domesday Baron.]

    [Footnote 11: _Chronicon Petroburgense_, pp. 168-9.]

    [Footnote 12: _Holy Trinity Priory, York_, p. 35.]

    [Footnote 13: Since this was written I have come across
    a curious confirmation of the hypothesis advanced. In the
    Lindsey Survey (Ed. Greenstreet), an entry on fo. 20, in the
    original ran: 'Comes Odo [tenet] in Aldobi', above which a
    later hand has interlined, 'De feodo Comitis Albemerle'. It
    is curious that in the same survey another later
    interlineation--'Comes Lincoln'--was, though distinguished by
    Hearne, incorporated with the text by Mr Waters (see p. 151).]

    [Footnote 14: Eudo was identified with Colchester.]

    [Footnote 15: Giving a total of 2-5/8, instead of 2-1/2--a
    trivial discrepancy.]

    [Footnote 16: It is singular that in Sussex the 'Cloninctune'
    of Domesday is, conversely, an error for 'Doninctune'. The
    source of the error in both cases must have been the likeness
    of 'cl' to 'd' in the original returns, on which these names
    cannot have begun with a capital letter.]

    [Footnote 17: _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.]


    'The growth of knighthood is a subject on which the greatest
    obscurity prevails; and the most probable explanation of its
    existence in England, the theory that it is a translation into
    Norman forms of the thegnage of the Anglo-Saxon law, can only
    be stated as probable.'--STUBBS, _Const. Hist._, i. 260.

In approaching the consideration of the institutional changes and
modifications of polity resulting from the Norman Conquest, the
most conspicuous phenomenon to attract attention is undoubtedly the
introduction of what it is convenient to term the feudal system.
In the present paper I propose to discuss one branch only of that
process, namely, the introduction of that military tenure which
Dr Stubbs has termed 'the most prominent feature of historical

In accordance with the anticataclysmic tendencies of modern thought,
the most recent students of this obscure problem have agreed to adopt
the theory of gradual development and growth. The old views on
the subject are discredited as crude and unhistorical:[2] they are
replaced by confident enunciation of the theory to which I have
referred.[3] But when we examine the matter closely, when we ask for
details of the process by which the Anglo-Saxon thegn developed into
the Norman knight, we are met at once by the frank confession that
'between the picture drawn in Domesday and the state of affairs which
the charter of Henry I was designed to remedy, there is a difference
which the short interval of time will not account for'.[4] To meet
this difficulty, to account for this flaw in the unbroken continuity
of the series, a _Deus ex machinâ_ has been found in the person of
Ranulf Flambard.

Now this solution of the difficulty will scarcely, I venture to think,
bear the test of investigation. It appears to have originated in Dr
Stubbs' suggestion that there must have been, between the days of
Henry I and of William I, 'some skilful organizing hand working with
neither justice nor mercy'[5]--a suggestion subsequently amplified
into the statement that it is to Ranulf Flambard 'without doubt that
the systematic organization of the exactions' under William Rufus
'is to be attributed',[6] and that by him 'the royal claims were
unrelentingly pressed', his policy being 'to tighten as much as
possible the hold which the feudal law gave to the king on all
feudatories temporal and spiritual'.[7] There is nothing here that can
be called in question, but there is also nothing, be it observed, to
prove that either 'feudal law' or 'military tenure' was introduced by
Ranulf Flambard. Indeed, with his usual caution and unfailing sound
judgment, our great historian is careful to admit that 'it is not
quite so clear' in the case of the lay as of the church fiefs 'that
all the evil customs owed their origin to the reign of William
Rufus'.[8] And, even if they did, they were, it must be remembered,
distinctly abuses--'evil customs', as Henry I himself terms them in
his charter--namely (in the matter we are considering), '_excessive_
exactions in the way of reliefs, marriages and wardships, debts to
the crown, and forfeiture. In the place,' we are told, 'of _unlimited_
demands on these heads, the charter promises, not indeed fixed
amercements, but a return to ancient equitable custom'.[9] All this
refers, it will be seen, to the abuse of an existing institution,
not to the introduction of a new one. The fact is that Ranulf's
proceedings have been assigned a quite exceptional and undue
importance. Broadly speaking, his actions fall under a law too often
lost sight of, namely, that when the crown was strong it pressed,
through the official bureaucracy, its claims to the uttermost;
and when it found itself weak, it renounced them so far as it was
compelled. Take, for instance, this very charter issued by Henry I,
when he was 'playing to the gallery', and seeking general support:
what was the value of its promises? They were broken, says Mr Freeman,
to the Church;[10] they were probably broken, says Dr Stubbs, to
the knights;[11] and they were certainly broken, I may add, to the
unfortunate tenants-in-chief, whom the Pipe-Roll of 1130 shows us
suffering from those same excessive exactions, of which the monopoly
is assigned to Ranulf Flambard, and which 'the Lion of Justice' had so
virtuously renounced. I might similarly adduce the exactions from the
Church by that excellent king, Henry II (1159), 'contra antiquum morem
et debitam libertatem'; but it is needless to multiply examples of
the struggle between the interests of the crown and those of its
tenants-in-chief, which was as fierce as ever when, in later days, it
led to the provisions of the Great Charter. What the barons, lay and
spiritual, complained of from first to last, was not the feudal system
that accompanied their military tenure, but the abuse of that system
in the excessive demands of the crown.

Mr Freeman, however, who had an equal horror of Ranulf Flambard and of
the 'feudal system', did not hesitate to connect the two more closely
even than Dr Stubbs, though invoking the authority of the latter in
support of his extreme views. The passages to which I would invite
attention, as expressing most concisely Mr Freeman's conclusions, are

    The system of military tenures, and the oppressive
    consequences which were held to flow from them, were a work of
    the days of William Rufus.

    If then there was any time when 'the Feudal System' could be
    said to be introduced into England, it was assuredly not in
    the days of William the Conqueror, but in the days of William
    the Red. It would be more accurate to say that all that we
    are really concerned with, that is, not an imaginary 'Feudal
    System', but a system of feudal land-tenures, was not
    introduced into England at all, but was devised on English
    ground by the malignant genius of the minister of Rufus.[12]

As the writer's line of argument is avowedly that of Dr Stubbs, it is
only necessary to consider the point of difference between them. Where
his predecessor saw in Henry's charter the proof that Ranulf Flambard
had abused the existing feudal system by 'excessive' and 'unlimited'
demands, Mr Freeman held, and endeavoured to convince us, that he
had introduced not merely abuses of the system, but the actual system
itself.[13] The question virtually turns on the first clause of the
charter;[14] and it will not, I think, be doubted that Dr Stubbs
is right in adopting its natural meaning, namely, that the novelty
introduced by Ranulf was not the _relevatio_ itself, but its abuse in
'excessive exactions'. Indeed, even Mr Freeman had virtually to admit
the point.[15] If, then, the argument breaks down, if Ranulf cannot be
shown to have 'devised' military tenure, how are we to bridge over the
alleged chasm between the date of Domesday (1086) and that of Henry's
charter (1100)? The answer is simply that the difficulty is created
by the very theory I am discussing: it is based on the assumption that
William I did not introduce military tenure,[16] combined with the
fact that 'within thirteen years after the Conqueror's death, not only
the military tenures, but the worst abuses of the military tenures,
were in full force in England'.[17] But, here again, when we examine
the evidence, we find that this assumption is based on the silence,
or alleged silence, of Domesday Book.[18] Now no one was better aware
than Mr Freeman, as an ardent student of 'the great Record', that to
argue from the silence of Domesday is an error as dangerous as it is
common. Speaking from a rather wide acquaintance with topographical
works, I know of no pitfall into which the local antiquary is more
liable to fall. Wonderful are the things that people look for in the
pages of the great survey; I am always reminded of Mr Secretary Pepys'
writing for information as to what it contained 'concerning the sea
and the dominion thereof'.[19] Like other inquests, the Domesday
Survey--'the great inquest of all', as Dr Stubbs terms it--was
intended for a special purpose; special questions were asked, and
these questions were answered in the returns. So with the 'Inquest of
Sheriffs' in 1170; so also with the Inquest of Knights, if I may so
term it, in 1166. In each case the questions asked are, practically,
known to us, and in each they are entirely different. Therefore, when
Mr Freeman writes:

    The survey nowhere employs the feudal language which became
    familiar in the twelfth century. Compare, for instance,
    the records in the first volume of Hearn's _Liber Niger
    Scaccarii_. In this last we find something about knights' fees
    in every page. In Domesday there is not a word--[20]

it is in no spirit of captious criticism, but from the necessity of
demolishing the argument, that I liken it to basing conclusions on the
fact that in the census returns we find something about population
in every page, while in the returns of owners of land there is not a
word. As the inquest of 1166 sought solely for information on knights
and their fees, the returns to it naturally contain 'something about
knights' fees in every page'; on the other hand, 'the payment or
nonpayment of the _geld_ is a matter which appears in every page of
the survey' [of 1086] because 'the formal immediate cause of taking
the survey was to secure its full and fair assessment'.[21] Nor is
this all. When the writer asserts that 'in Domesday there is not a
word' about knights' fees, he greatly overstates his case, as indeed
is shown by the passages he proceeds to quote. I shall be able to
prove, further on, that knights' fees existed in cases where Domesday
does not mention them, but even the incidental notices found in the
Great Survey are quite sufficient to disprove its alleged silence on
the subject. As Mr Freeman has well observed:

    Its most incidental notices are sometimes the most precious.
    We have seen that it is to an incidental, an almost accidental
    notice in the Survey that we owe our knowledge of the great
    fact of the general redemption of lands.[22]

Here then the writer does not hesitate to base on a single accidental
notice the existence of an event quite as widespread and important as
the introduction of knight service.[23]

I have now endeavoured to make plain one of the chief flaws in the
view at present accepted, namely, that it is mainly grounded on
the negative evidence of Domesday, which evidence will not bear the
construction that has been placed upon it--and further that, even if
it did, we should be landed in a fresh difficulty, the gulf between
Domesday and Henry's charter being only to be bridged by the
assumption that Ranulf Flambard 'devised' and introduced military
tenure, with its results--an assumption, we have seen, which the facts
of the case not only fail to support, but even discountenance wholly.

Let us pass to a second difficulty. When we ask the advocates of the
view I am discussing what determined the number of knights due to
the crown from a tenant-in-chief, we obtain, I venture to assert, no
definite answer. At times we are told that it was the number of his
hides; at times that it was the value of his estate. Gneist, who has
discussed the matter in detail, and on several occasions, has held
throughout, broadly speaking, the same view: he maintains that 'since
Alfred's time the general rule had been observed that a fully equipped
man should be furnished for every five _hidæ_, but it had never been
established as a rule of law as in the Carlovingian legislation':[24]
consequently, he urges, 'a fixed standard for the apportionment of the
soldiery was wanting' at the time of the Conquest, and this want was
a serious flaw in the Anglo-Saxon polity. William resolved to make the
system uniform, and

    the object that the royal administration now pursued for
    a century was to impose upon the whole mass of old and new
    possessors an equal obligation to do service for reward. The
    standard adopted in carrying out this system was approximately
    that of the five hides possession of the Anglo-Saxon period;
    yet with a stricter rating according to the value of the

The difficulty encountered in ascertaining this value was a main cause
of the Domesday Survey being undertaken. This is Gneist's special
point on which he invariably insists: 'Domesday book laid the basis
of a roll of the crown vassals';[26] upon it, 'in later times, the
fee-rolls were framed'.[27] By its evidence, 'according to the extent
and the nature of the productive property, could be computed how
many shields were to be furnished by each estate, according to the
gradually fixed proportion of a £20 ground rent'.[28] For 'the _feuda
militum_ thus computed are no knights' fees of a limited area',[29]
but 'units of possession', the unit being £20 in annual value.

Dr Stubbs, on the other hand, while rejecting the view that military
service, since the days of Alfred, had been practically fixed at one
warrior for every five hides,[30] leans nevertheless to the belief
that the knight's fee was developed out of the five-hide unit, and
that the military 'service' of a tenant-in-chief was determined by the
number of such units which he possessed. But, as he also recognizes
the £20 unit, there will be less danger of misrepresenting his views
if I append _verbatim_ the relevant passages:

  The customary service of one           The value of the knight's fee
  fully armed man for each five hides    must already have been fixed
  was probably the rate at which the     --twenty pounds a year.[32]
  newly endowed follower of the king
  would be expected to discharge his
  duty ... and the number of knights
  to be furnished by a particular
  feudatory would be ascertained by
  inquiring the number of hides that
  he held.[31]

  The number of hides which the          It cannot even be granted that
  knight's fee contained being known,    a definite area of land was
  the number of knights' fees in any     necessary to constitute a
  particular holding could be easily     knight's fee; ... It is
  discovered.[33]                        impossible to avoid the
                                         conclusion that the extent of a
  All the imposts of the ... Norman      knight's fee was determined by
  reigns, were, so far as we know,       rent and valuation rather than
  raised on the land, and according      acreage, and that the common
  to computation by the hide: ... the    quantity was really expressed
  feudal exactions by way of aid ...     in the twenty librates, etc.
  were levied on the hide.[34]           [35]

                                         The variation in the number of
                                         hides contained in the knight's

Mr Freeman's views need not detain us, for he unhesitatingly accepts
Dr Stubbs' arguments as proving that the Norman military tenure was
based on 'the old service of a man from each five hides of land'.[37]

We find then, I submit, that the recognized leaders of existing
opinion on the subject cannot agree among themselves in giving us a
clear answer, when we ask them what determined the amount of 'service'
due from a Norman tenant-in-chief, or, in other words, how that
'service' was developed in unbroken continuity from Anglo-Saxon

The third point that I would raise is this. Even assuming that the
amount of 'service' bore a fixed proportion--whether in pecuniary or
territorial units--to the extent of possession, we are, surely, at
once confronted by the difficulty that the owner of _x_ units of
possession would be compelled, for the discharge of his military
obligations, to enfeoff _x_ knights, assigning a 'unit' to each. A
tenant-in-chief, to take a concrete instance, whose fief was worth
£100 a year, would have to provide _ex hypothesi_ five knights; if, as
was quite usual, he enfeoffed the full number, he would have to assign
to each knight twenty librates of land (which I may at once, though
anticipating, admit was the normal value of a knight's fee), that
is to say, the crown would have forestalled Henry George, and the
luckless _baro_ would see the entire value of his estate swallowed up
in the discharge of its obligations.[38] What his position would be
in cases where, as often, he enfeoffed more knights than he required,
arithmetic is unable to determine. I cannot understand how this
obvious difficulty has been so strangely overlooked.

The fourth and last criticism which I propose to offer on the subject
is this. If we find that under Henry II--when we meet with definite
information--a fief contained, as we might expect, more 'units of
possession' than it was bound to furnish knights (thus leaving a
balance over for the _baro_ after sub-infeudation), we must draw one
of two conclusions: either this excess had existed from the first; or,
if the fief (as we are asked to believe) was originally assessed up to
the hilt for military service, that assessment must, in the interval,
have been reduced. In other words, Henry I--if, as Dr Stubbs in one
place suggests,[39] he was the first to take a 'regular account of the
knights' fees'--must have found the land with a settled liability of
providing one knight for every five hides, and must, yet, have reduced
that liability of his own accord, on the most sweeping scale, thus,
contrary to all his principles, ultroneously deprived himself of the
'service' he was entitled to claim.

Having completed my criticisms of the accepted view, and set forth its
chief difficulties, I shall now propound the theory to which my own
researches have led me, following the same method of proof as that
adopted by Mr Seebohm in his _English Village Community_, namely
working back from the known to the relatively unknown, till the light
thrown upwards by the records of the twelfth century illumines
the language of Domesday and renders the allusions of monks and
chroniclers pregnant with meaning.

1. THE 'CARTAE' OF 1166

In the formal returns (_cartae_) made to the exchequer in 1166 by
the tenants-in-chief (_barones_) of England, of which the official
transcripts are preserved in the _Liber Niger_ and the _Liber Rubeus_,
we have our earliest glimpse of the organization of that purely feudal
host among whom our lands had been parcelled out to be held, as I
shall show, by military service. We have, therefore, in them our best
starting-point for an inquiry into the origin and growth of military
tenure in England.

It may be well perhaps, at the very outset, to contrast these _cartae_
of 1166 with those of the Domesday Inquest eighty years before.[40]
For the essentially feudal character of the former is at once, by the
comparison, thrown into relief. The original returns of the Domesday
Inquest were made Hundred by Hundred; those of 1166 were made fief
by fief. The former were made by the jurors of the Hundred-court; the
latter by the lord of the fief. Thus, while the one took for its
unit the oldest and most familiar of native organizations, the other,
ignoring not only the Hundred, but even the shire itself, took for its
unit the alien organization of the fief.[41] The one inquest strictly
continued, the other wholly repudiated, the Anglo-Saxon system.

It is consequently worse than lost labour to examine these two
inquests, based as they are on opposite systems, and giving us as they
do a cross-division as if they were but successive editions of the
national register or rate-book.

The first point to be considered is this: What was the information
which the tenants-in-chief were called upon to supply in these
returns? It was _not_, as Dr Stubbs and others have supposed,
the amount of 'service' due from each fief to the crown.[42] The
information asked for was _the number of 'milites' actually enfeoffed_
by each 'baron' and his predecessors in title, with the number
of 'servitia' due from each such 'miles' to the 'baron'. In this
distinction, missed by Dr Stubbs, we find the key to the problem. The
crown, we shall see, must previously have known the total amount of
'service' due from each fief; but what it did not know, and what it
wished to know, was the number of knights' fees which, up to 1166, had
been created on each fief.

Although there is great diversity in the form of return adopted--a
diversity which imparts to the _cartae_ a pleasant flavour of
character--it may fairly be assumed that, as in similar cases, they
were called for throughout the realm by one uniform writ. If we may
deduce the purport of that writ from the collation of those returns
which refer to it most explicitly, we must infer that the information
asked for was to be given under four heads:

    (1) How many knights had been enfeoffed before the death of
    Henry I?

    (2) How many have been enfeoffed since?

    (3) How many (if any) remain to be enfeoffed to complete the
    'service' due from the fief. Or, in other words, what is
    the balance of your 'service' remaining chargeable to your

    (4) What are the names of your knights?

In support of these statements I append the whole of the relevant


  Praecepistis mihi       Praecipit dignitas     Praecepit nobis,
  quod mandarem vobis     vestra omnibus         domine, vestra
  per breve meum          fidelibus vestris      sublimitas, quod
  sigillatum et apertum,  clericis et laicis,    literis nostris
  non quot servitia       qui de vobis           sigillatis, extra
  militum vobis debeam,   tenent de capite       sigillum
  sed (1) quot habeam     in Eboracsira, ut      pendentibus, vobis
  milites feffatos de     mandent vobis per      mandaremus (1) quot
  tempore Regis Henrici   literas suas, extra    milites feffatos
  avi vestri, et (2)      sigillum pendentes     haberemus de veteri
  quot post mortem        (1) quot milites       feffamento et
  ipsius, et (3) quot     quisquis habeat de     (2) de novo,
  sint super dominium     veteri feffamento      scilicet, anno et
  meum.[43]               de tempore Regis       die quo Rex Henricus
                          Henrici avi vestri,    fuit vivus et
                          scilicet de die et     mortuus et de [_sic_]
                          anno quo ipse fuit     post mortem ejus ...
                          vivus et mortuus,      (3) super dominium
                          et (2) quot habeat     vero nostrum, de quo
                          de novo feodamento     similiter mandare
                          feffatos post mortem   præcepistis, etc.
                          bonae memoriae avi     (pp. 416, 418).
                          vestri ejusdem, et
                          (3) quot feoda
                          militum sint super
                          uniuscujusque, et
                          (4) omnium illorum
                          nomina, tam de novo
                          feffamento quam de
                          veteri feffatorum
                          quae sint in illo
                          brevi scripta, quia
                          vultis quod si
                          aliqui ibi sunt qui
                          vobis nondum
                          fecerunt ligantiam,
                          et quorum nomina
                          non sunt scripta in
                          rotulo vestro, quod
                          infra dominicam
                          primam xl^{ae}
                          ligantiam vobis
                          faciant (p. 412).

  HERBERT DE              ENGELARD DE           ROBERT DE
  CASTELLO                STRATTONE             BRINTONE

  Michi et comparibus     Michi et ceteris      Michi et aliis
  meis mandastis ut       comparibus meis       comparibus meis per
  vobis per breve         qui de vobis          litteras vestras
  nostrum pendens         tenemus in capite     innotuistis ut per
  extra sigillum,         per litteras          fidem et ligantiam
  mandaremus (1) quot     vestras mandastis     quam vobis debemus
  milites antiquitus      ut vobis per breve    per breve nostrum
  feodatos de tempore     nostrum pendens       pendens extra
  Regis Henrici avi       extra sigillum        sigillum mandaremus
  vestri habeamus et      mandaremus            (1) quot milites
  (2) quot de novo        (1) quot milites      haberemus de veteri
  feodamento.... Et       habeamus de veteri    feodamento de tempore
  hii omnes ligantiam     feodamento de         Henrici Regis avi
  et homagium vobis       tempore Henrici       vestri, et (2) quot
  fecerunt (pp. 275-6).   Regis avi vestri,     milites haberemus de
                          et (2) quot           novo feodamento post
                          habeamus de novo      tempus Regis Henrici
                          feodamento (p. 276).  avi vestri, et (3)
                                                quot milites habeamus
                                                super dominium
                                                Et vobis quidem et
                                                filio vestro
                                                ligantiam et
                                                homagium fecerunt
                                                (p. 277).[44]

Let me here break off for a moment to consider one of the most
important points suggested by this great inquest, namely, the issue of
the writs under which it was held. It has been generally assumed that
each tenant received his writ direct from the crown; and a casual
reading of the _cartae_ might, perhaps, favour such a view. I have,
however, been led to the conclusion that a general writ was issued to
the sheriff of each county, and that its terms were communicated by
him to the several tenants-in-chief, whose _capita baroniæ_ lay within
his jurisdiction.

Baderun of Monmouth has heard the writ read out in the county
court;[45] Earl Patrick also has heard the writ read out.[46] William
fitz Siward derives from the sheriff, he tells us, his knowledge of
the writ:[47] even the bishop of Chester has received his instructions
from the sheriff.[48] But more especially do I rely upon the return
of the Archbishop of York because he recites the tenor of the writ
in terms which can leave no doubt that it was addressed, through the
sheriff, to the whole shire collectively.[49] If the Archbishop of
York did not receive a special writ, we may fairly infer that no other
tenant can have done so.

Further, I believe that as the 'barons' received their instructions
from the sheriffs, so they also sent in their returns through those
officers. The memorandum, for instance, on the missing _carta_ of
Osbert fitz Hugh informs us that it was brought to the exchequer by
William de Beauchamp. Now, William de Beauchamp was sheriff of
the shire. This would account for the grouping of the returns 'per
singulos comitatus', as Swereford expresses it, and indeed this
arrangement would but follow the existing practice of collecting the
scutage shire by shire.

Returning now to the terms of the inquiry, it is obvious that the
tenant (_baro_) to whom such queries were addressed must of necessity
have belonged to one of these three classes--

    (_a_) Those who had created _the exact number_ of knights'
    fees sufficient to discharge their 'service'.

    (_b_) Those who had created _more_ than sufficient.

    (_c_) Those who had created _less_ than sufficient.

This last class requires some explanation. When the number of knights'
fees created was not sufficient to discharge the baron's 'service',
the balance of that service remained charged on the non-infeudated
portion of his fief, that is, on the 'demesne', and was technically
said to be 'super dominium'. It is all-important that this should
be grasped, for it might otherwise be supposed that such a phrase as
'quot milites super dominium' implied the existence of actual knights
enfeoffed on the demesne, which, to those who realize the working of
the system of knight-service, is an absolute contradiction in terms.
This, it will be found, beautifully explains the first article of the
Assize of Arms (1181)--that every tenant is to keep in stock harness
for as many knights 'quot habuerit feoda militum in dominio suo'.[50]
That is to say, that if, after deducting the knights actually
enfeoffed, there remained due from his fief a balance of
knight-service, he must keep in readiness harness sufficient for
those knights whom he would have to provide himself to discharge that

Having made this point clear, I now pass to the immediate object
of the inquest of 1166. What that object was, no one has as yet
discovered. Dr Stubbs, for instance, in his preface to the Pipe-Roll
of 1166, writes: 'On the immediate purpose for which the inquiry was
made--and it can scarcely be doubted that it was for the collection of
a scutage--we shall look for further information in the rolls of the
succeeding years.' My own researches enable me to assert that this
inquest formed part of a financial revolution hitherto ignored, which
deserves to be compared with those other innovations in administration
and finance that characterized the latter half of the twelfth century
in England.

When we come to place side by side the returns of 1166 and the
payments made upon those returns in 1168, we find (at least, on the
lay fiefs) the same distinction in both between 'the old feoffment'
and 'the new'. But while the _returns_, as we saw, were made under
three heads,[52] the _payments_ were made under two, namely, under
the two feoffments. The reason of this difference can be established
beyond dispute: the exchequer clerks had, in every instance, added the
returns under the _third_ head to those under the _first_, and classed
them together as 'old feoffment'. This is one of the points which, I
think, have never been hitherto explained.

Plenty of examples might be given, but these two will suffice. Walter
de Aincurt returns 24 fees _de veteri_, 5 _de novo_, and 11 _super
dominium_. The exchequer, in 1168, records him as paying on 35 fees
_de veteri_, and on 5 _de novo_.[53] Richard de Haie returns 11
fees _de veteri_, 4 _de novo_, and 5 _super dominium_. The exchequer
records him as paying on 16 _de veteri_, and 4 _de novo_.

The main point, however, on which I propose to insist, is that these
returns were intended to provide, and, as a matter of fact, did
provide a new feudal assessment, wholly superseding the old one, in no
case to the advantage of the tenant, but in many to the advantage
of the crown. The _modus operandi_ was as follows. Instead of either
adhering to the old assessment (_servitium debitum_), or uniformly
substituting a new one based on the fees actually created, the crown
selected in every case whichever of these two systems told in its own
favour and against the tenant of the fief. If he had enfeoffed fewer
knights than his _servitium debitum_ required, the crown retained that
_servitium_ as the irreducible minimum of his assessment; but if he
had created an excess of fees, the crown added that excess to his
pre-existing assessment and increased the 'service' due from him
_pro tanto_. This discovery is no conjecture, but is capable of
arithmetical demonstration.

It should be noticed how skilfully the queries were framed in the
inquest of 1166, to entrap the unwary tenant, and make him commit
himself to the facts. If his enfeoffed knights were short of the
required number, he was caught under the third query; if, on the other
hand, he had an excess, he was caught under the others. Now, did the
'barons', when they made their returns, anticipate this sweeping and
unwelcome reform? Presumably not. They appear to have drawn up their
_cartae_ carefully and willingly, few of those who had an excess of
knights taking even the precaution of mentioning their _servitium
debitum_.[54] The church, moreover, from the terms in which her
payments are thenceforth entered (_vide infra_), must have uniformly
and systematically adopted an attitude of protest. Yet there is no
trace of such protest in her returns. May we then infer that the crown
sought to deliberately entrap its tenants? Two circumstances might
favour that view. In the first place the tenants had to make their
returns _extra sigillum pendentes_, thereby solemnly committing
themselves;[55] in the second, the tenants would, of course, have been
tempted to conceal or understate their excess of knights, had they
foreseen the use that the crown would make of their returns.

The question may very fairly be asked, 'What check had the crown upon
a tenant in the event of the latter omitting some of his "excess"
fees?' The answer is supplied, I think, by a clause in the invaluable
return of the northern primate. He there requests that his return may
be accepted 'without prejudice', as a lawyer would say, in case of his
omitting some small fees. That is to say, these formal returns might
be brought up as evidence against tenants-in-chief who had omitted
some of their fees, proving that they had thereby themselves disowned
their right to the fees in question.[56]

Two points strike one strongly in the preparation of these returns.
The first of these is the difficulty experienced in compiling a
correct list of under-tenants and their holdings; the second is
the employment of the 'Inquest' as a means of ascertaining the

Taking the former of these, we find Hugh Wac writing, 'si amplius
inquirere possim, notificabo vobis'; and Guarine 'de Aula', 'si plus
possim inquirere, faciam vobis scire'; so too the Bishop of Ely, 'de
hiis vero certi sumus, et si amplius inquirere poterimus libenter
vobis significabimus'; and the Bishop of Bath, 'si certiorem inquirere
poterimus veritatem, nos illam vobis significabimus'; and Alfred of
Lincoln, 'si plus inquiri potest, inquirere faciemus'. The Bishop of
Exeter makes his return, 'sicut eam diligentius inquirere potui';
the Abbot of Tavistock, 'quantum inde sollicitius inquirendo scire
potuit'. Hugh de Lacy, in a postscript to his return, adds a fee 'quod
oblitus sum'; while the Earl of Clare has to send in a subsequent
rider, containing an entry, 'quod ego postquam misi cartam ...
recordatus sum'.

From this difficulty it is a short step to the inquests which it seems
in some cases to have necessitated. The Abbot of Ramsey heads
his return, 'Haec est inquisitio'; the Earl of Warwick similarly
commences, 'Hoc est quod inquisivi per homines'. Earl Patrick makes
his return, 'secundum quod de probis et antiquis hominibus meis
inquirere potui'. 'Fecimus inquirere,' writes the Bishop of Bath, 'per
legales homines meos.... Haec autem per eos inquisivimus.'

This brings us directly to the very important inquest referred to in
the _carta_ of the Earl of Arundel:

    Dominus noster Rex Henricus quadam contentione quae surrexit
    inter milites de honore de Arundel de exercitu quodam de
    Walliis, elegit iiij. milites de honore, de melioribus et
    legalioribus, et antiquioribus ... et fecit eos recognoscere
    servitia militum de honore, et super legalitatem et sacramenta
    eorum inde neminem audire voluit.

Mr Eyton argued elaborately on genealogical grounds that this inquest
must have taken place under Henry I, but indeed it is quite obvious
from the language of the _carta_ itself that this was so. It is,
consequently, worthy of notice for its bearing on 'the sworn inquest'.
While on this subject, attention may be called to the unique entry
in the Pipe-Roll of 12 Henry II (1166): 'Alanus de Munbi debet xl.
s. quia non interfuit Jurat' feodorum militum' (p. 8). Investigation
proves (through what is known as the Lindsey Survey) that Alan was an
under-tenant of the honour of Brittany, the successor of that Eudo who
held in Mumby _temp._ Domesday. This fact throws light on the entry,
by suggesting that the inquest referred to concerned the honour
of Brittany, the number of fees in which was then and subsequently

But to return. It is infinitely easier to trace the change brought
about by the inquest of 1166 in the case of the church fiefs than of
the lay ones. For on the former it was uniform and glaring. Previously
to 1166 the church tenants had paid on their _servitium debitum_
alone; after 1166 they paid, as a rule, on all the fees actually
created upon the fief. Thus the assessment of the Bishop of Durham was
raised at a blow from ten fees to more than seventy.[57] There were
several equally striking cases among the prelates. Now, whether or not
the church tenants feared something of the kind, they had generally
been careful in their returns to set forth their _servitium debitum_,
and when, in 1168, they were uniformly assessed on their total of
fees, their uniform protest is expressed in the formula 'quos non
recognoscit' applied to the payment on their excess knights. Such is
the meaning of this puzzling formula which is peculiar to the church
fiefs.[58] In these cases it wholly replaces the _de veteri_ and _de
novo_ assessment which, from 1166, was applied to the lay fiefs.


The essential feature we have to keep in view when examining the
growth of knight service is the _servitium debitum_, or quota of
knight service due to the crown from each fief.

This has, I venture to think, been obscured and lost sight of in
the generalizations and vague writing about the 'gradual process'
of development. It is difficult for me to traverse the arguments of
Gneist, Stubbs and Freeman, because we consider the subject from such
wholly different standpoints. For them the introduction of knight
service means the process of sub-infeudation on the several fiefs;
for me it means the grant of fiefs to be held from the crown by knight
service. Thus the process which absorbs the attention of the school
whose views I am opposing is for me a matter of mere secondary
importance. The whole question turns upon the point whether or not the
tenants-in-chief received their fiefs to hold of the crown by a quota
of military service, or not. If they did, it would depend simply on
their individual inclinations, whether, or how far, they had recourse
to sub-infeudation. It was not a matter of principle at all; it was,
as Dr Stubbs himself put it, 'a matter of convenience',[59] a mere
detail. What we have to consider is not the relation between the
tenant-in-chief and his under-tenants, but that between the king
and his tenants-in-chief: for this was the primary relation that
determined all below it.

The assumption that the Conqueror cannot have introduced any new
principle in the tenure of land lies at the root of the matter.
Assuming this, one must of course seek elsewhere for the introduction
of knight service. Have not the difficulties of the accepted view
arisen from its exponents approaching the problem from the wrong point
of view? The tendency to exalt the English and depreciate the Norman
element in our constitutional development has led them I think,
and especially Mr Freeman, to seek in Anglo-Saxon institutions an
explanation of feudal phenomena. This tendency is manifest in their
conclusions on the great council:[60] it colours no less strongly
their views on knight service. In neither case can they bring
themselves to adopt the feudal standpoint or to enter into the feudal
spirit. It is to this that I attribute their disposition to bring the
crown face to face with the under-tenant--or 'landowner' as they would
prefer to term him--and so to ignore, or at least to minimize the
importance of the tenant-in-chief, the 'middleman' of the feudal
system. Making every allowance for the policy of the Conqueror in
insisting on the direct allegiance of the under-tenant to the crown,
and thereby checking the disintegrating influence of a perfect feudal
system, the fact remains what we may term the 'military service'
bargain was a bargain between the crown and the tenant-in-chief, not
between the crown and his under-tenants. It follows from this that so
long as the 'baron' (or 'tenant-in-chief') discharged his _servitium
debitum_ to the crown, the king had no right to look beyond the
'baron', who was himself and alone responsible for the discharge of
this service. It is, indeed, in this responsibility that lies the
key to the situation. If the under-tenant of a knight's fee failed to
discharge his service, it was not to him, but to his lord, that the
crown betook itself. 'I know nothing of your tenant,' was in effect
the king's position; 'you owe me, for the tenure of your fief, the
service of so many knights, and that service must be performed,
whether your under-tenants repudiate their obligations to yourself or
not'. In other words the 'baron' discharged his service to the king,
whereas the baron's under-tenants discharged theirs to their lord.[61]
So the _Dialogus_ speaks of the under-tenant's 'numerum militum quos
domino debuerat'.

Let us then apply ourselves directly to the quotas of military service
due from the 'barons' to the crown, and see if, when ascertained, they
throw any fresh light on the real problem.

No attempt, so far as I know, has ever been made to determine these
quotas, and indeed it was the utter want of trustworthy information
on the subject that led Swereford to undertake his researches in
the thirteenth century. Those researches, unfortunately, leave us
no wiser, partly from his defective method and want of the requisite
accuracy; partly from the fact that what he sought was not abstract
historical truth, but practical information bearing on the existing
rights of the crown. We must turn therefore to the original
authorities: (1) the _cartae baronum_, (2) the annual rolls. These were
the two main sources of Swereford's information, as they must also be
of ours. In the next part of this paper I shall deal with the evidence
of the rolls, as checking and supplementing the _cartae baronum_.

I shall analyse the church fiefs first, because we can ascertain,
virtually with exactitude, the _servitium debitum_ of every prelate
and of every head of a religious house who held by knight service.
The importance of these figures, together with the fact that they have
never, so far as I know, been set forth till now, has induced me to
append them here in full detail.

 SEE          SERVICE DUE          SEE        SERVICE DUE
                knights                         knights

 Canterbury       60               Bath           20
 Winchester       60               London         20
 Lincoln          60               Exeter         17-1/2[62]
 Worcester        50 [60]          'Chester'      15
 Norwich          40               Hereford       15
 Ely              40               Durham         10
 Salisbury        32               Chichester      4 [2]
 York             20 [7]

Every English See then in existence is thus accounted for with the
solitary and significant exceptions of Carlisle and Rochester. The
latter See, we know, had enfeoffed knights for their names (_temp._
Henry I, I think, from internal evidence) are recorded in the _Textus
Roffensis_ (p. 223);[63] the former had been created after the date
when, as I shall argue, the Conqueror fixed the knight service due
from the fees.

In the above list the figures in brackets refer to the assessments
previous to 1166. Three changes were made at, or about, that date. The
Bishop of Worcester, in accordance with the protest he had made from
the beginning of the reign, obtained a reduction of his quota from
sixty knights to fifty; while the Archbishop of York's _servitium_
was raised from seven knights to twenty, and that of the Bishop of
Chichester from two knights to four. These changes are known to us
only from the details of the prelate's scutages; there is nothing to
account for them in the relevant _cartae_, and we can only infer from
the formula _quos recognoscit_ that the two bishops whose _servitia_
were increased acquiesced in the justice of the crown's claim.

Proceeding to the 'service' of the religious houses:

   HOUSE           SERVICE DUE      HOUSE            SERVICE DUE
                     knights                          knights

   Peterborough       60            Wilton               5
   Glastonbury        40 [60]       Ramsey               4
   St Edmundsbury     40            Chertsey             3
   Abingdon           30            St Bene't of Hulme   3
   Hyde               20            Cerne[64]            2 [3]
   St Augustine's     15            Pershore             2 [3]
   Westminster        15(?)         Malmesbury           3
   Tavistock          15(?)         Winchcombe           2
   Coventry           10            Middleton            2
   Shaftesbury        7 [10]        Sherburne            2
   St Alban's         6             Michelney            1
   Evesham            5             Abbotsbury           1

The changes of assessment on religious houses were few, and are thus
accounted for. Glastonbury, which paid on sixty knights in the first
two scutages of the reign, paid on forty in the third and in
those which followed. Pershore paid on three in the first scutage,
protesting that it was only liable to two, and from 1168 it was only
rated at two. Shaftesbury, which had paid on ten knights in the first
scutage, was assessed at only seven in the third scutage and those
which followed. Cerne also succeeded in getting its assessment reduced
from three knights to two. With these changes should be compared the
letter of Bishop Nigel of Ely to Ramsey Abbey certifying that it was
only liable to an assessment of four knights. Two cases remain which
require special treatment--Tavistock and Westminster.

Although Tavistock, in the first scutage, appears to have paid on the
anomalous assessment of ten and a half knights its payment on fifteen
in the two succeeding ones may fairly be taken as evidence that this
was its _servitium debitum_.[65] Its abbot, however, made no reference
to that _servitium_ in his return, and--by an exception to the regular
practice in the case of church fiefs--we find him charged, not on the
fees, (1) 'quos recognoscit', (2) 'quos non recognoscit', but on those
which were enfeoffed 'de veteri', and 'de novo' just as if he were a
lay tenant. As his fees 'de veteri' were sixteen, this figure recurs
in successive scutages, until in 3 John we find him contesting as
to one knight ('unde est contentio') who, doubtless, represented the
difference between fifteen and sixteen.

The case of Westminster presents considerable difficulty, the entries
relating to its payments of scutage being very puzzling. The abbey's
fees lay chiefly in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire--especially
Worcestershire--and it is under this county that we find it ultimately
(_i.e._ from 1168 onwards) assessed at fifteen fees, an assessment
which the abbot himself seems to have claimed, in the first scutage,
as the right one.

Taking then the _servitium debitum_ of all the church fiefs, at their
earliest ascertainable assessment, we obtain this result:

    Bishops                                       458-1/2
    Heads of religious houses                     318
    Capellaria de Bosham                            7-1/2
    Grand total                                   784[66]

Far more difficult is the calculation of the _servitium debitum_ from
the lay fiefs. The list which follows is constructed from the evidence
of the _cartae_ and the rolls, and, though substantially correct, is
liable to emendation in details. It only comprises those fiefs the
_servitium_ of which I have been able to ascertain with certainty or

    Robert 'filius Regis'                         100[67]
    Earl Ferrers                                   80 (? 60)[68]
    Honour of Totness                              75
    Honour of Tickhill                             60 (?)[69]
    Robert de Stafford                             60
    Count of Eu                                    60 (?)[70]
    Earl Warrenne                                  60 (?)[71]
    Lacy of Pontefract                             60
    Roger de Mowbray                               60[72]
    Earl of Essex                                  60
    Walter fitz Robert (of Essex)                  50
    Honour of Richmond                             50[73]
    Gervase Paynell                                50
    Reginald de St Valery                          50 (?)[74]
    Patrick, Earl of Salisbury                     40
    Walter de Aincurt                              40
    William de Montfichet                          40
    Payn de Montdoubleau                           40[75]
    William de Roumare                             40 (?)[76]
    Hubert de Rye                                  35
    Hubert fitz Ralf (Derbyshire)                  30
    Walter de Wahulle                              30
    William fitz Robert (Devon)                    30
    William de Traci                               30[77]
    Robert de Valoines                             30[77]
    Maurice de Craon                               30[77]
    William de Albini (of Belvoir)                 30[77]
    Bernard Balliol                                30[78]
    Roger de Arundel                               30[79]
    Walter de Mayenne                              30 (?)[80]
    Robert de Albini (Bucks)                       25
    Robert fitz Hugh                               25
    Alfred of Lincoln                              25
    Ralf Hanselin                                  25
    William de Braose                              25[81]
    Oliver de Traci                                25[81]
    Gerard de Limesi                               25 (?)[82]
    Walter Waleran                                 20
    Richard de Hay                                 20
    Honour of Holderness                           20
    William de Windsor                             20
    Hugh de Bayeux                                 20
    William de Vesci                               20 (?)[83]
    Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur                         20 (?)[84]
    Thomas de Arcy                                 20 (?)[85]
    Hugh de Dover                                  15
    Walter Bret                                    15
    Baderon de Monmouth                            15
    Earl Richard de Redvers                        15[86]
    Adam de Brus                                   15
    Hamo fitz Meinfelin                            15
    Osbert fitz Hugh                               15 (?)[87]
    ? Hugh de Scalers                              15[88]
    ? Stephen de Scalers                           15
    Gilbert de Pinkeni                             15
    Geoffrey Ridel                                 15
    Robert Foliot                                  15
    Robert de Choques                              15
    Robert de Caux                                 15
    William Paynell                                15 (?)
    Richard de Reimes                              10
    Roger de Buron                                 10
    Richard fitz William                           10
    William fitz Alan                              10
    Richard de Cormeilles                          10
    Roger de Kentswell                             10
    William Trussebut                              10
    Nigel de Lovetot                               10
    Manasser Arsic                                 10
    Richard de Montacute                           10
    Wandrille de Courcelles                        10
    Walter de Bolebec (Bucks)                      10
    Robert de Hastings                             10
    Lambert de Scotenni                            10
    Drogo de Montacute                             10 (?)[89]
    William de Reimes                              10 (?)[90]
    William de Helion                              10 (?)[91]

Graeland de Thani of Essex owed seven and a half knights (the half of
fifteen), and Roger de Berkeley probably the same. Those who owed a
_servitium_ of five knights were Robert fitz Harding, Baldwin Buelot,
Simon de Cancy, Nigel de Lovetot (of the honour of Tickhill), Amfry de
Cancy, Hugh de Dover (of the honour of Brunne),[92] Walter de Bolebec
(Northumberland), Robert de Brus, Roger Bertram, and probably Stephen
de Bulmer,[93] and Herbert 'de Castello'.

The cases in which the _servitium_ can be shown not to have been a
multiple of five are comparatively few. That of Simon de Beauchamp of
Bedford was 54, of William Fossard 33-1/2, of Humphrey de Bohun 30-1/2,
of William Malet 20-1/6, of Robert de Beauchamp (of Somerset) 17, of
William fitz John (of Harptree) 13-3/4, of William Blund 12, of Hugh
Wac 10-1/8, of William de Ros, William fitz John (of Weston) and
William de Beauchamp (of Worcestershire) 7, of John de Bidun and
Jocelin de Lovaine 5-1/2.[94] But these, it will be seen, are quite
insufficient to overthrow the accumulated array of evidence on the
other side, and some of them are, doubtless, capable of explanation.
The Bohun fief, for instance, in 1162 paid on exactly 30 fees.

It is impossible to resist the inference, from such evidence as we
have, that the amount of the _servitium debitum_ was a matter of
custom and tradition, and could not usually be determined by reference
to written grants or charters. On this point the returns of three
Essex tenants are most instructive, while their similarity is so
striking, that, as in the case of the Shropshire _formulæ_, it can
scarcely be due to accident. The Earl of Essex closes with the words:
'et homines mei dicunt mihi quod debeo Domino Regi lx. milites'.
Walter fitz Robert, who follows him, writes: 'et hoc mihi homines mei
intelligere faciunt, quod debeo inde Regi servitium de l. militibus'.
William de Montfichet ends thus: 'et hoc faciunt homines mei mihi
intelligere--quod pater meus deserviebat per xl. milites'. With these
expressions we may compare those of William fitz Alan's tenants, who
assert that his Norfolk fief 'non debet domino Regi nisi i. militem
... ut antiqui testantur'; that his Shropshire fief 'non debet Regi
nisi x. milites in exercitu ... sicut antiqui testantur'; and that, as
to his Wiltshire fief, 'non sumus certi quod servitium debeat Regi
de hoc tenemento'. The Abbot of Chertsey, also, states his _servitium
debitum_ with the proviso 'secundum quod scire possumus'. These
expressions explain the uncertainty as to the _servitium debitum_ in
such cases as the See of Worcester and Ramsey Abbey.[95]

The same principle applies to the relation between the tenant-in-chief
and his under-tenant. Thus the very first entry in the _cartae_ runs as

    Willelmus de Wokindone iiij. milites et dimidium; et praeter
    hoc, ex testimonio curiae meae, dimidium exigo, quem ipse se
    non debere defendit.

Of another tenant on the same fief we read: 'praeter hoc, _ex
testimonio curiae meae_, adhuc j. militem exigo'. Here, we see, appeal
is made not to record evidence, but to oral testimony. So, too, the
Bishop of Exeter adds this clause to his return:

    Et praeter hos omnes, sicut _a multis audivi_, comes
    Gloucestriæ, et comes Hugo, et comes de Clare debent tenere
    de Exoniensi Episcopo; sed nullum ei servitium faciunt vel

Surely in all such cases as these the obvious inference is that the
tenant had been enfeoffed _sine carta_, or in the very words of
the Provisions of the Barons (1259) 'feofatus sine carta a tempore
conquestus vel alio antiquo feofamento' (§ 1).

And now for my theory. No one can have even glanced at the lists I
have compiled without being instantly struck by the fact that the
'service' is reckoned in round numbers, and is almost invariably
_a multiple of 5, if not of 10_.[96] This discovery, of course, is
absolutely destructive of the view that it always represented the
number of five-hide (or £20) units contained in the fief. Further, the
number of differing fiefs assessed at precisely the same figure proves
that the assessment was wholly arbitrary and cannot have been even the
round sum which approximated most nearly the number of such units.[97]
What then was the true determinant in the light of these conclusions?
I reply--_the unit of the feudal host_.

'On the continent,' writes Gneist, 'fifty _milites_, or at least
twenty-five, were reckoned to one banneret; in England, in proportion
to the smaller scale of enfeoffments, a smaller number appears to have
formed the unit of the _constabularia_.'[98] He is right: the English
_constabularia_, where I find it referred to, consists of _ten_
knights.[99] It is interesting to trace this unit and its multiples
recurring in the narratives of Irish warfare, under Henry II, and in
other struggles.[100] We meet with it also in the grant by the Empress
to Geoffrey de Mandeville, in 1141, of 'feodum et servicium xx.
militum' and in Stephen's grant to him of 'lx milites feudatos'.[101]

The next step is to show that the Normans were familiar with
_servitium debitum_ in terms of the ten-knight unit when they landed
in England. For this we have only to refer to Wace. For in the 'Roman
de Rou', as quoted by Mr Freeman himself, we find William fitz Osbern
assuring the duke as to his barons:

  Vostre servise dobleront:
  Ki solt mener vint chevaliers
  Quarante en merra volontiers,
  E ki de trente servir deit
  De sesante servir vos velt,
  E cil ki solt servir de cent
  Dous cent en merra bonement.[102]

The _servitium debitum_, therefore, was a standing institution in
Normandy, and 'to the mass of his (William's) followers', as Mr
Freeman frankly admits,[103] a 'feudal tenure, a military tenure, must
have seemed the natural and universal way of holding land'. When we
find them and their descendants holding their fiefs in England, as
they had been held in Normandy, by the service of a round number of
knights, what is the simple and obvious inference but that, just as
Henry II granted out the provinces of Ireland to be held as fiefs
by the familiar service of a round number of knights,[104] so Duke
William granted out the fiefs he formed in England?

If to escape from this conclusion the suggestion be made that
these _servitia debita_ were compositions effected by English
_antecessores_, it need only be answered that the fiefs acquired were
wholly new creations, constructed from the scattered fragments of
Anglo-Saxon estates. And though in the case of the church fiefs this
objection might not apply, yet we have evidence, as I shall show, to
prove that their _servitia_ also were determined by the conqueror's
will, as indeed might be inferred from their close correspondence with
those of the lay barons.

But if the lands of the conquered realm were so granted to be held by
a _servitium debitum_ of knights, the key of the position is won, and
the defenders of the existing view must retire along the whole line;
for, as Mr Freeman himself observed, 'Let it be once established that
land is held as a fief from the crown on condition of yielding certain
services to the crown, and the whole of the feudal incidents follow

I am anxious to make absolutely clear the point that between the
accepted view and the view which I advance, no compromise is possible.
The two are radically opposed. As against the theory that the military
obligation of the Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was determined by the
assessment of his holding, whether in hidage or in value, I maintain
that the extent of that obligation was not determined by his
holding, but was fixed in relation to, and expressed in terms of, the
_constabularia_ of ten knights, the unit of the feudal host. And I,
consequently, hold that his military service was in no way derived or
developed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by
the king, from whom he received his fief, irrespectively both of
its size and of all pre-existent arrangements. Such propositions, of
course, utterly and directly traverse the view which these passages
best summarize:

    The belief that William I divided the English landed property
    into military fees is erroneous.... According to the extent
    and the nature of the productive property it could be
    computed how many shields were to be furnished by each
    estate, according to the gradually fixed proportion of a £20

    There is no ground for thinking that William directly or
    systematically introduced any new kind of tenure into the
    holding of English lands. There is nothing to suggest any such
    belief, either in the chronicles of his reign, in the Survey,
    which is his greatest monument, in the genuine or even in the
    spurious remains of his legislation.... As I have had to point
    out over and over again, the grantee of William, whether the
    old owner or a new one, held his land as it had been held in
    the days of King Edward.[107]

    There can be no doubt that the military tenure ... was itself
    introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed
    in the case of the feudal usages in general. We have no light
    on the point from any original grant made by the Conqueror
    to a lay follower; but ... we cannot suppose it probable that
    such gifts were made on any expressed condition, or accepted
    with a distinct pledge to provide a certain contingent of
    knights for the king's service.[108]

If my own conclusions be accepted, they will not only prove
destructive of this view, but will restore, in its simplicity, a
theory which removes all difficulties, and which paves the way to a
reconsideration of other kindred problems, and to the study of that
aspect of Anglo-Norman institutions in which they represent the feudal
spirit developed on feudal lines.


Precious for our purpose as are the _cartae_ of 1166, their evidence,
as it stands, is incomplete. It needs to be supplemented by the early
Pipe-Rolls of Henry II's reign. By collating these two authorities we
obtain information which, singly, neither the one nor the other could
afford. All those entries on the rolls which relate to _scutagia_,
_auxilia_ or _dona_ require to be extracted and classified before we
can form our conclusions. Hitherto, historians have remained content
with repeating Swereford's _obiter dicta_, as extracted from the
_Liber Rubeus_ by Madox, without checking these statements by the
evidence of the rolls themselves.

The question of Swereford's authority is one which it is absolutely
necessary to deal with, because his statements have been freely
accepted by successive historical writers, and have formed, indeed,
the basis on which their conclusions rest. Now the presumption is
naturally in favour of Swereford's knowledge of his subject. His
introduction to the _Liber Rubeus_ is dated 1230, and he tells us that
he had been at work among the records in the days of King John, under
William of Ely[109] himself: he wrote with the actual rolls before
him; he had been intimate with the leading officials of the exchequer,
and enjoyed full knowledge of its practice and its traditions. I
cannot wonder that, this being so, his positive assertions should have
been readily believed, or that Mr Hall, when, for a short time, I was
associated with him in preparing the Red Book for the press, should,
with a kindly bias in favour of so venerable an authority, have shrunk
from my drastic criticism of his famous introduction to that volume.

On the other hand we have Swereford's own admission that he worked
from the rolls alone.[110] These rolls are, for all purposes, as
accessible to us as they were to him, while we possess the advantage
of having, in contemporary chronicles, sources of information which
he did not use, and with which, indeed, he shows no sign of being even
conversant. We must go, therefore, behind Swereford and examine for
ourselves the materials from which he worked.

Passing, for the present, over minor points, I would fix on the 'Great
Scutage', or 'Scutage of Toulouse', as the test by which Swereford's
knowledge and accuracy must stand or fall. If he is in error on this
matter, his error is so grievous and so far-reaching that it must
throw the gravest doubt on all his similar assertions. The date of
the expedition against Toulouse was June 1159 (the host having been
summoned at Mid-Lent): from the chroniclers we learn that, to provide
the means for it, and especially to pay an army of mercenaries,
a great levy was made in England and beyond sea. The roll of the
following Michaelmas records precisely such a levy, and the payments
so recorded must have been made for the expenses of this campaign. But
we can go further still; we can actually prove from internal evidence
that sums accounted for on the roll of 1159 were levied expressly
for the Toulouse campaign.[111] Yet we are confidently informed by
Swereford that this levy was for a Welsh war, and that the scutage
of Toulouse is represented by the levies which figure on the rolls
of 1161 and 1162. He appears to have evolved out of his inner
consciousness the rule that a scutage, though fixed and even paid in
any given year, was never accounted for on the rolls till the year
after.[112] But as even this rule will not apply to his calculation
here, one can only suggest that he was absolutely ignorant of the date
of the Toulouse campaign.[113] The value of Swereford's calculations
is so seriously affected by this cardinal error, that one may reject
with less hesitation his statement that the scutage of 1156 was
taken for a Welsh war, and not, as there is evidence to imply, for a
campaign against the king's brother. Swereford, again, may be pardoned
for his ignorance of the fact that scutage existed under Henry
I,[114] but when he unhesitatingly assigns the Domesday Survey to
the fourteenth year of the Conqueror (1079-80), he shows us that the
precision of his statements is no proof of their accuracy. On both
these points he has misled subsequent writers.[115]

The incredible ignorance and credulity even of officials at the time
are illustrated by the fact that the Conqueror was generally believed
to have created 32,000 knights' fees in England, and that Swereford
plumed himself on his independence in doubting so general a
belief.[116] His less sceptical contemporary, Segrave, continued to
believe it, and even Madox hesitates to reject it.

The persistent assertion that the _Cartae Baronum_ were connected
with, and preliminary to, the _auxilium ad filiam maritandam_ of
1168 is undoubtedly to be traced to Swereford's _ipse dixit_ to that
effect. He distinctly asserts that the aid was fixed (_assisum_) in
the thirteenth year (1167), that the returns (_cartae_) were made in
the same year (1167), and that the aid was paid and accounted for in
the fourteenth year (1168).[117] Modern research, however, has shown
that the returns were made quite early in 1166, while the youthful
Matilda, we know, was not married till October 1168. This throws an
instructive light on Swereford's _modus operandi_. Finding from the
rolls that the payments made in 1168 were based on the returns in the
_cartae_, and not being acquainted with the date of the latter, he
jumped to the conclusion that they must have been made in 1167, it
being his (quite unsupported) thesis that all levies were fixed in the
year preceding that in which they were accounted for on the rolls.

Proceeding further, we find him explaining (p. 9) that he omits the
aid of 1165, 'quoniam probata summa auxilii propter hoc non probatur
numerus militum'. And yet this aid, the last to be taken before the
returns of 1166, is of special value and importance for the very
purpose he speaks of. It is, indeed, an essential element in the
evidence on which I build; and this compels me to discuss the point in
some detail.

Those who contributed towards this aid either (1) gave arbitrary sums
for the payment of _servientes_--whose number was almost invariably
some multiple of five--or (2) paid a marc on every fee of their
_servitium debitum_. We are only here concerned with those who adopted
the latter course. Now let us take the case of those who adopted this
alternative in the counties of Notts and Derby, and compare their
payments with their _servitium debitum_ as known to us from other

     PAYMENTS (1165)                              SERVICE (1166)

                             _marcae_                knights

  Hubert fitz Ralf             30                      30
  Ralf Halselin                25                      25
  Robert de 'Calz'             15                      15
  Roger de Burun               10                      10

In this case there is no doubt as to the _servitium debitum_, for it
is ascertained from the _cartae_ themselves. Having then proved, by
this test, the exact correspondence of the payments, I turn to the
case of Devonshire.

     PAYMENTS (1165)                             SERVICE (1166)

                             _marcae_               knights[118]

  Robert 'filius Regis'       100                      (?)
  William de Traci             30                      (?)
  William de Braose            25                      (?)
  Oliver de Traci              25                      (?)
  Abbot of Tavistock           15                      15
  William fitz Reginald         1                       1
  Ralf de Valtort               1                       1
  Robert fitz Geoffrey          1                       1

Here we are supplied by this roll with four important _servitia_ which
would otherwise be absolutely unknown to us. And they happen to be of
special interest. For while the _carta_ of William de Braose returns
twenty-eight fees, and that of Oliver de Traci twenty-three and a half
(though he pays on thirty and a half),[119] their payments in 1165,
by revealing their _servitium debitum_, show us that their fiefs
represent the two halves of the Honour of Barnstaple (which,
therefore, was assessed at 50 knights) then in their respective hands.
Again, William de Traci returns his fees in his _carta_ as twenty-five
and three-quarters, and says nothing about any balance on his
_dominium_, as he should have done. Hence we should not have known his
_servitium_ but for the roll of 1165.

Swereford's extraordinary failure to understand this roll aright
is possibly due to the fact that most of the relevant payments are
entered without mention of their object. He seems to have been very
dependent upon the rolls explaining themselves, and to have worked in
the spirit of a copying clerk rather than of an intelligent student.

One more example of his errors will suffice. In his abstracts from the
aid 'ad maritandam primogenitam filiam regis' (1168), we read:

    Abbas Gloucestriæ de promissione, sed non numeratur quid;
    sed in rotulo praecedenti dicitur:--Abbas Gloucestriæ debet
    xxxviij. l. ij. s. vj. d. de veteri scutagio Walliae.

Now (1) the amount of the abbot's contribution is duly entered on the
roll ('xl. marcas de promissione de eodem auxilio'), and it is not
paid in respect of fees, but is a voluntary proffer; (2) the phrase
in the preceding roll is not 'de veteri _scutagio_', but 'de veteri
_exercitu'_; (3) the payment there recorded represents a contribution
of fifty _servientes_, and had nothing to do with scutage, for the
abbot (as Swereford should have known) did not hold by military
service, and ought not, therefore, to figure in his lists at all.[120]

Let us turn, therefore, to the rolls themselves. Now, although the
language of the exchequer was not so precise as we could wish, it
is possible, more or less, to distinguish and classify these levies.
Thus, we have of course a typical 'aid' in the levy for the marriage
of the king's daughter (1168), while, on the other hand, we have an
equally typical 'scutage' in 1156, in the payments made by the church
tenants in lieu of military service.

On the institution of 'scutage' there has been much misconception.
It is placed by our historians among the great innovations wrought by
Henry II, who is supposed by them to have introduced it in 1156.[121]
Here we see, once again, the danger of seeking our information on such
points secondhand, instead of going straight to the fountainhead for

John of Salisbury implies that scutage was no novelty in 1156 when he
writes, not that the king imposed it, but that he '_could not remit_
it'. This inference is at once confirmed by the appearance of scutage
_eo nomine_ in the reign of Henry I.

The following charter is found in the (MS.) _Liber Eliensis_ (Lib.
III), No. xxi, and in the Cottonian MS. Nero A. 15:

    H. rex Anglorum Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus,
    Comitibus, etc. Salutem. Sciatis me condonasse Ecclesiæ S.
    Ætheldredæ de Ely pro Dei amore et anima Patris et Matris
    meae et pro redemptione peccatorum meorum, et petitione Hervei
    ejusdem Ecclesie Episcopi 40 libras de illis 100 libris
    quas predicta Ecclesia solebat dare de _Scutagio_ quando
    _Scutagium_ currebat[122] per terram meam Anglie: ita quod
    Ecclesia amodo inperpetuum non dabit inde nisi 60 libras
    quando _Scutagium_ per terram evenerit, et ita inperpetuum
    sit de predictis libris Ecclesia predicta quieta. T. Rogero
    Episcopo Saresberiensi, Gaufrido Cancellario meo et Roberto
    de Sigillo et Willelmo de Tancarvilla et Willelmo de Albineio
    Pincerna et Radulfo Basset et Gaufrido de Clintona et Willelmo
    de Pondelarche. Apud Eilinges in transitu meo.

This is followed by (No. xxii) a grant of Chatteris Abbey to the
church of Ely;[123] and this again is followed, in a register of
Chatteris Abbey,[124] by a remission of 6s 7d Wardpenny hitherto
paid by that abbey. The first and third charters receive singular
confirmation, being thus accounted for in the Pipe-Roll of Henry I:

    Et idem Episcopus debet ccxl. li. ut rex clamet eum quietum
    de superplus militum Episcopatus, et ut Abbatia de Cateriz sit
    quieta de Warpenna (p. 44).

This entry, moreover, connects the _scutagium_ with the system of
knight-service (_superplus militum_).

It is delicious to learn, on comparing the records, that the virtuous
king who made these grants for the weal of his parents' souls and the
remission of his own sins, extorted from the church, for making them,
an equivalent in hard cash.[125]

Again, the (MS.) Cartulary of St Evroul contains a confirmation by
Randulf, Earl of Chester (1121-29) of his predecessor (d. 1120) Earl
Richard's benefaction, 'liberam et quietam ab _escuagio_', etc., etc.
The list of the Abbot of Peterborough's knights (see p. 131) is a
further illustration of knight-service _temp._ Henry I, while the
entry as to Vivian, who was enfeoffed by Abbot Turold: 'servit pro
milite _cum auxilio_' (_Chron. Petrob._, p. 175), must refer to the
somewhat obscure 'auxilium militum' of the period. So also, it would
seem, must the curious charter of Eustace, Count of Boulogne,[126]
in which he speaks of his knights serving: 'sive _in nummis_, sive
in exercitu, sive in guarda', under Henry I. Most important of all,
however, is a passage on which I have lighted since this essay first
appeared. In reading through the letters of Herbert (Losinga), Bishop
of Norwich (d. 1119), I found this appeal to the Bishop of Salisbury,
in the king's absence from England:

    In terris meis exiguntur quinquaginta libræ pro placitis, cum
    earundem terrarum mei homines nec in responsionem nec in facto
    peccaverint.[127] Item _pro militibus sexaginta libræ_ quos [?
    quas] tanto difficilius cogor reddere, quanto annis præteritis
    mea substantia gravius attenuata est (Ed. Giles, p. 51).

The sum is that to which the Ely contribution is reduced by the above
charter, and the death of the writer in 1119 proves the early date of
the payment.

Indeed, a little consideration will show that payment in lieu of
military service, which was the essential principle of scutage,
could be no new thing. The two forms which this payment might
assume--payment to a substitute, or payment to the crown--both appear
in Domesday as applicable to the fyrd; the former is found in the
'Customs' of Berkshire, the latter in other passages. From the very
commencement of knight service, the principle must have prevailed;
for the 'baron' who had not enfeoffed knights enough to discharge his
_servitium debitum_, must always have hired substitutes to the amount
of the balance. Nor is this a matter of supposition: we know as a
fact, from the _Abingdon Chronicle_ and the _Ely History_, that under
William I knights were so hired.[128] Here it should be noted, as a
suggestive fact, that the 'forty days' of military service, though
bearing no direct proportion either to the week or to the month, do so
to the marc and to the pound. The former represents 4d, and the
latter 6d, for each day of the military service.[129] It may fairly
be assumed that this normal 'scutage' would be based on the estimated
cost of substitutes paid direct. Thus the only change involved would
be that the tenant would make his payments not to substitutes, but to
the crown instead.

There is a valuable entry bearing on this point in the roll of 8 Henry
II (p. 53). We there read:

    Et in liberatione vii. militum soldariorum de toto anno quater
    xx. et iiii. li. et xviii. s. et viii. d. Et in liberatione
    xx. servientium de toto anno xxx. li. et vi. s. et viii. d.
    Et in liberatione viii. Arbalist' viii. li. et xvi. sol. Et in
    liberatione v. vigilum et i. Portarii vi. li. et xvi. d.

This represents 8d a day to each of the seven knights for a year
of 364 days, which, be it observed, corresponds precisely with the
statements in the _Dialogus_: 'Duo milites bajuli clavium quisque
in die viii. [den.] _ratione militiae_; asserunt enim quod equis
necessariis et armis instructi fore teneantur', etc. (i. 3). And so,
we see, a scutage of two marcs, such as that which was raised for
the expedition of Toulouse (1159), would represent, with singular
accuracy, 8d a day for the forty days of feudal service, or exactly
a knight's pay. Again the pay of the _serviens_, recorded in this
passage, works out at a penny a day for a year of 364 days, which has
an important bearing, we shall find, on the roll of three years later
(11 Henry II). A similar calculation shows that the porter received 2d
a day, and the _vigil_ 1d--the very pay assigned him in the _Dialogus_
(i. 3). There is another similar passage in the roll of 14 Henry II
(p. 124):

    Et in liberatione i. militis et ii. Portariorum, et ii.
    vigilum de Blancmost' xviii. li. et v. sol. Et in liberatione
    xl. servientum de Blancmust' de xxix. septimanis xxxiii. li.
    et xvi. s. et viii. d. Et xx. servientibus qui remanserunt
    xxiii. septimanas xiii. li. et viii. s. et iiii. d.

Here again the knight's pay works out at 8d a day, while the porters,
the watchmen, and the _servientes_ received 1d. Specially valuable,
however, are the entries (to which no one, I think, has drawn
attention) relating to the small standing guards kept up in the summer
months at 'Walton' and Dover.[130] Eventually the payments to these
guards were made from the central treasury ('exitus de thesauro'), and
are therefore appended, on the rolls, to the list of _combustiones_
where no one would think of looking for them.

On the roll of 10 Henry II we find: 'Liberatio iiii. militum et ii.
servientum de Waletone a festo Ap. Phil' et Jac' usque ad festum S.
Luce xxiiii. li. et xx. d.' This works out at exactly 8d a day for the
_miles_, and 1d for the _serviens_. On the roll of the next year the
five knights at Dover are paid £25 for 150 days' service, or exactly
8d a day each. So too on the roll of the thirteenth year we read:
'Liberatio iiii. militum de Waletone xxiii. li. et ix. s. et iiii. d.
de clxxvi. diebus.... Et ii. servientibus de clxxvi. diebus xxix. sol.
et iiii. d.' Here again the _miles_ gets 8d, the _serviens_ 1d a day.
It is needless to multiply instances, but it may be added that similar
calculations show the sailors of Richard's crusading fleet to have
received 2d and their boatswains 4d a day.

It is, perhaps, possible to trace a complete change of policy in this
matter by the crown. The Conqueror, we may gather from divers hints,
was anxious to push forward the process of sub-infeudation, that as
many knights as possible might be actually available for service. As
the chief danger lay, at first, in the prospect of English revolt
it was clearly his policy to strengthen to the utmost that 'Norman
garrison', as we may term it, which the feudal system enabled him
to quarter on the conquered land.[131] But as the two races slowly
coalesced, the nature of the danger changed: it was no longer a
question of Norman _versus_ Englishman, but of danger to the crown
from war abroad and feudal revolt at home. Thenceforth its policy
would be no longer to encourage personal service, but rather payment
in lieu thereof, which would provide the means of hiring mercenaries,
a more trustworthy and useful force. Clearly the accession of the
Angevin house would, and did, give to this new policy a great impetus.

The first levy to which the rolls bear witness is that of 1156. As
this was only raised from the _church_ fiefs, Henry II was, as yet,
confining himself strictly to the precedent set him, as we know, in
his grandfather's reign. This levy was at the rate of _one pound_ on
the fee, and was made on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_).

I have already shown that the levy in question was not, as alleged, an
innovation. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The peculiar measure of the second
year was the collection of scutage from the knights' fees holding
of ecclesiastical superiors,[132] a measure which met with much
opposition from Archbishop Theobald at the time';[133] and speaking
of William of Newburgh, he suggests that 'possibly in William's
estimation the consent of St Thomas took from the scutage on church
fees its sacrilegious character'.[134] But if the institution was
fully recognized under Henry I, how was it 'sacrilegious'? Theobald's
'opposition' in 1156 can only be inferred from the king's reply
explaining the necessity for the levy,[135] and was clearly directed,
not against the principle, but by way of appeal against the necessity
in that instance. Miss Norgate holds that 'no resentment seems to have
been provoked by the measure', although she sees in it 'the origin of
the great institution of scutage'.[136] Then there is the question of
the object for which the levy was made. Swereford says 'pro exercitu
Walliæ',[137] and this misled, through Madox, Dr Stubbs (who wrote
'the scutage of 1156 was also for the war in Wales',[138]) and
Gneist.[139] The former writer, however, has elsewhere[140] pointed
out that 'its object was to enable Henry to make war on his brother';
and Miss Norgate gives the same explanation.[141] Swereford's error, I
believe, can undoubtedly be traced to an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the
third year (1157) recording the payment by the Abbot of Abbotsbury of
two marcs 'de exercitu Walie'.[142] But this must refer to the
Welsh campaign of that year, not to the foreign trouble of the year

The next levy was 'the scutage of Toulouse' in 1159. This, 'the great
scutage' of Miss Norgate,[144] is, strange as it may seem, on the
Pipe-Roll itself almost uniformly styled not a scutage, but a _donum_.
The explanation given by Swereford is wholly inadequate, and is this:
'Intitulaturque illud scutagium _De Dono_ ea quidem, ut credo, ratione
quod non solum prelati qui tenentur ad servitia militaria sed etiam
alii abbates, de Bello et de Salopesbiria et alii tunc temporis
dederunt auxilium'.[145]

Miss Norgate, adopting this explanation, writes:

    The reason doubtless is that they were assessed, as the
    historians tell us, and as the roll itself shows, not only
    upon those estates from which services of the shield were
    explicitly due, but also upon all lands held in chief of the
    crown, and all church lands without distinction of tenure; the
    basis of assessment in all cases being the knight's fee, in
    its secondary sense of a parcel of land worth twenty pounds a
    year. Whatever the laity might think of this arrangement,
    the indignation of the clergy was bitter and deep. The wrong
    inflicted on them by the scutage of 1156 was as nothing
    compared with this, which set at nought all ancient precedents
    of ecclesiastical immunity, and actually wrung from the church
    lands even more than from the lay fiefs.[146]

I am obliged to quote the passage _in extenso_, because, in this case,
the accomplished writer betrays a singular confusion of ideas, and
misrepresents not only the levy, but also the point at issue. The
whole passage is conceived in error, error the more strange because
Miss Norgate enjoyed over her predecessors the advantage of writing
with the printed roll before her. The lay estates were not, as implied
('all lands held in chief of the crown'), in any way exceptionally
assessed: in no case was the basis of assessment the unit alleged by
the writer; and as to the 'church lands', a reference to the roll will
show that all over England there were only eight cases in which those
not owing 'services of the shield' contributed (and that in no way as
an assessment on imaginary knights' fees) to this levy, while in six
out of the eight their contributions were so insignificant that their
collective amount barely exceeded £50.[147]

The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that only a
portion of the tax was raised by way of scutage. As this great levy
has been wrongly supposed to have consisted of a scutage alone,[148]
and as it played an important part in the development of direct
taxation, I propose to set forth, for the first time, the various
methods by which the money was raised. These were eight in number:

    I. (FIXED) A _donum_ of two marcs on the fee from the
    under-tenants of the church, raised _by fiefs_ on the old
    assessment (_servitium debitum_).

   II. (FIXED ?) A _donum_ of (it is said) two marcs on the fee
    from the under-tenants of the lay barons, raised partly _by
    counties_ and partly _by fiefs_.

  III. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the church tenants-in-chief
    themselves, irrespective of their fees.

   IV. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from some of the non-feudal
    religious houses (tenants _in elemosina_, and not by military

    V. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the towns.

   VI. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the sheriffs.

  VII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the Jewries.

 VIII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the moneyers.

Of these, the _first_ was strictly regular, being merely a repetition
of the scutage of 1156, at the rate of two marcs instead of twenty
shillings. The _second_ presents some difficulty. Subject to
correction, there are some fifteen cases in which the payment is made
separately by fiefs, and in which the rate is clearly two marcs, while
there are twenty-two in which the _milites_ of the county pay as a
group through the sheriff, and in which, therefore, we cannot actually
test the rate of the levy or the manner of raising it. Swereford's
_ipse dixit_ as to the rate in these latter cases was probably based
on analogy, here our only guide.

With the _third_ and _fourth_ divisions we return to sure ground.
To them I invite particular attention, because it is to them (and
especially to the third) that apply the complaints of the church
chroniclers, and not (as has always, but erroneously, been supposed)
to the perfectly legitimate levy of two marcs on the fee. It is
necessary to emphasize the fact that the matter has been wholly
misunderstood. The bitter complaint of John of Salisbury that
Henry, on this occasion, 'omnibus (contra antiquum morem et debitam
libertatem) indixit ecclesiis ut _pro arbitrio_ ejus satraparum suorum
conferrunt in censum', would have been without meaning had it referred
(as alleged) to the latter levy (or even to the insignificant sums
contributed _ut supra_ by eight foundations); but when we learn that,
over and above this legitimate levy, a far larger sum was arbitrarily
wrung from the church, the truth and justice of the protest are
at once made evident. I here give two tables illustrative of this
exaction. Each is divided into three columns. In the first column
I give the number of the knights due from each bishopric and each
religious house. In the second column I give the marcs due, and paid
on this occasion, on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_). In the
third will be found the exaction complained of, namely, the _dona_
extorted from the spiritual 'barons' themselves.

  |                  |            |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant|
  |Sees              |Knights due |   (in marcs)     |(in marcs)       |
  |Winchester        |  60        |   120            |   500           |
  |Lincoln           |  60        |   120            |   500           |
  |Worcester         |  60        |   120            |   200           |
  |Norwich           |  40        |   80             |   200           |
  |Bath              |  20        |   40             |   500           |
  |London            |  20        |   40             |   200           |
  |Exeter            |  17-1/2    |   35             |   150           |
  |Chester           |  15        |   30             |   100           |
  |Durham            |  10        |   20             |   500           |
  |York              |   7        |   14             |   500           |
  |Total             |  --        |   619            | 3,350           |

  |                  |            |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant|
  |Religious Houses  |Knights due |   (in marcs)     |  (in marcs)     |
  |Peterborough      |   60       |   120            |    100          |
  |St Edmund's       |   40       |    80            |    200          |
  |Glastonbury       |   40       |    80            |     --          |
  |Abingdon          |   30       |    60            |     60          |
  |Hyde              |   20       |    40            |    150          |
  |St Augustine's    |   15       |    30            |    220          |
  |St Alban's        |    6       |    12            |    100          |
  |Evesham           |    5       |    10            |     60          |
  |Wilton            |    5       |    10            |     20          |
  |Ramsey            |    4       |     8            |     60          |
  |St Benet of Hulme |    3       |     6            |     30          |
  |Pershore          |    3       |    --            |      7-1/2      |
  |Chertsey          |    3       |     6            |     60          |
  |Cerne             |    3       |     6            |     --          |
  |Winchcombe        |    2       |     4            |      7-1/2      |
  |Middleton         |    2       |     4            |     --          |
  |Sherburne         |    2       |    --            |     10          |
  |Abbotsbury        |    1       |     2            |      7-1/2      |
  |Total             |   --       |   482            |  1,092-1/2      |

We thus obtain a grand total of 1,101 marcs raised from the church
by legitimate scutage, and 4,442-1/2 (or, adding the _dona_ from
non-feudal houses, 4,700) marcs by special imposition.[149] This
distinction at once explains the real extortion of which churchmen
complained;[150] and shows that it had nothing to do with scutage, but
was a special imposition on the church fees from which the lay ones
were exempt.[151] The idea of the impost was not improbably the
adjustment of inequalities in cases where the knight-service was a
quite inadequate assessment; the precedent created was not forgotten,
and it proved in later days a welcome source of revenue.

The discovery of this exaction identifies, it will be seen, in spite
of Swereford's error, the levy accounted for on the roll with the
famous 'scutage of Toulouse'. And if even further proof were needed,
it is found in an incidental allusion which clinches the argument.
Giraldus Cambrensis (iii. 357) refers to Bishop Henry of Winchester
assembling all the priests of his diocese 'tanquam ad auxilium
postulandum (dederat enim paulo ante quingentas marcas regi Henrico
_ad expeditionem Tholosanam_)'. The sum here named is that which he
paid in 1159, as my table shows. Its destination is thus established,
as also, it may be noted, the means by which he was expected to recoup

As to the scutage on the lay fiefs, the general impression, broadly
speaking, is that Henry replaced his English feudal host by an army of
mercenaries paid from the proceeds of a scutage of two marcs per fee
on all lands held by military service.[152] But is that impression
confirmed by the evidence of the rolls? Without setting forth the
evidence in detail, I may sum it up as amounting to this: that the
grouped payments found under twenty-two counties[153] present, I
think, a total of 1,895 marcs, while those of the fiefs which paid
separately amounted to 666. This gives us a grand total of 2,561
marcs, representing, of course, 1,280 knights. Now although the amount
of knight service due to the crown from its English realm has been, as
we shall see, absurdly exaggerated, the above number, I need scarcely
say, must represent a minority of the knights due from the lay fiefs.
This sets the matter in quite another aspect. In spite of the passage
in Robert de Monte, on which the accepted view is based,[154] the roll
presents proof to the contrary, and indeed the words of Robert show
that he knew so little of the levy in England as to believe that it
was wholly arbitrary. There are, perhaps, indications that the fiefs
which, on this occasion, paid scutage, were largely those in the
king's hands,[155] and if we add to these the escheated honours, of
which the scutage would be paid through the sheriffs, we must conclude
that the great bulk of the tenants who had a choice in the matter
served abroad with their contingents and did not pay scutage.

Before taking leave of 'the great scutage', another point demands
notice. Gervase of Canterbury sets forth its proceeds in terms of
great precision:

    _Hoc anno_ rex Henricus scotagium sive scutagium _de Anglia_
    accepit, cujus summa fuit centum millia et quater viginti
    millia librarum argenti (i. 167).

Quite desperate attempts have been made to reconcile this statement
with the actual sums raised. In his preface to the _Gesta Henrici
Regis_, Dr Stubbs suggests that Gervase included in his total the
scutage of two years later (1161), but adds that, if so, the rolls are
very incomplete. In his _Constitutional History_ he speaks of 'this
[scutage] and a very large accumulation of treasure from other
sources, amounting, according to the contemporary writers, to
£180,000' (i. 457), but admits, in a footnote, that 'the sum is
impossible', and throws out as probable a different explanation. Miss
Norgate writes that 'the proceeds, with those of a similar tax levied
upon Henry's other dominions, amounted to some £180,000'.[156] But
Gervase distinctly states that this sum was raised _from England_. Now
the actual sum raised, _by scutage_, in England (1159) was £2,440 in
all, as I reckon it, while the special clerical impost produced some
£3,130 in addition. Consequently, no ingenuity can save the credit of
Gervase. He was not, after all, worse than his fellows. We shall find
that when mediæval chroniclers endeavour to foist on us these absurd
sums they require much bolder handling than they have ever yet

Pass we now to the _third_ levy, that of 1161. For this the rate was
again _two marcs_ on the fee according to Swereford (followed, of
course, by subsequent writers), though the study of the roll (7 Henry
II) reveals that in many cases, on the lay fiefs at least, the rate
was _one_ marc. Both this and the levy of the following year are most
difficult to deal with in every way. We have seen that an entry on the
roll of 1163 led Swereford to believe that the levy of 1161 was made
for the Toulouse campaign, and Dr Stubbs has made the suggestion that
it might have been raised to defray 'debts' incurred on that
occasion;[157] but the difficulties in the way of accepting this view
seem insuperable.[158]

The _fourth_ levy, which is that of 1162 (8 Henry II), was at the
rate of _one_ marc, and is recorded by Swereford, but not by Dr
Stubbs.[159] Though richer in names than that of 1161, it is even
less useful for our purpose, as the sums entered are most irregular,
perhaps owing to the adoption of a new method of collection.[160]
Neither of these levies affords, in the absence of corroboration,
trustworthy evidence on the _servitium_ of any lay fief.

The _fifth_ levy, on the other hand, in 1165 (11 Henry II), affords
most valuable evidence, although it is ignored by Swereford and by
those who have followed him. It is, however, of a singular character.
The money was raised, we gather from the roll, on two different

(I) By a _fixed_ payment at the rate of one marc on the fee (old

(II) By an _arbitrary_ payment of certain mysterious sums, which prove
to be multiples of the unit 15s 3d. But there is no fixed proportion
to be traced between the amount paid and the number of _servitia_ due.
Numerous instances are found of a single knight's fee being charged
with a sum equivalent to five of these mysterious units. Magnates,
again, are found paying apparently strange sums, which prove on
dissection to represent 50, 100, 200 and even 300 of these units.
The clue to the mystery is found in an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the
following year (12 Henry II), which proves that this unit was the
pecuniary equivalent of a _serviens_, and that the various payers had
'promised' the king so many _servientes_ for the war in Wales.[161]
Such 'promises' were evidently offers, made independently of the
actual service due from the 'promising' party. Following up this clue,
we see that the Abbot of Abingdon must, like the Bishop of Hereford,
have promised 100 'serjeants',[162] that the Abbot of St Alban's must
have done likewise,[163] while the Bishop of London must have promised
150, _in addition_, be it noted, to paying a scutage of a marc on each
knight's fee (20) of his _servitium debitum_.[164] For the rolls of
1162 and 1163 prove that he had duly paid the scutage of the former
year, and that this was a further payment. The varying form of these
entries should be observed, for it was evidently quite immaterial to
the clerks whether they wrote '5 serjeants' or their equivalent--76
shillings and 3 pence.[165] Taking the pay of the _serviens_ at 1d a
day, the unit in question would represent six months' pay (for a year
of 366 days).

But, for our present purpose, we must confine ourselves to the scutage
proper. The passage on which I would specially dwell is the entry
on the roll in which the _custos_ of the archbishopric of Canterbury
'reddit compotum de cxiii. li. de Militibus de Archiepiscopatu de ii.
Exercitibus' (p. 109).[166] In the first place, we have here, surely,
witness to the _two_ Welsh campaigns of this year, which Mr
Eyton adopts, following Mr Bridgeman,[167] but which Miss Norgate
rejects.[168] Secondly, this sum resolves itself, on analysis,
into two constituents of 84-3/4 marcs each. Now the return for the
archbishopric the following year is: 'Archiepiscopus habet iiij^{xx.}
et iiij^{or.} et dimidium et quartam partem feffatos.'[169] Having set
forth this exact corroboration, I will briefly trace the _servitium_
of the See. In 1156 and 1159 it pays no scutage when the other church
fiefs do, but within six months of Theobald's death it pays to the
scutage of 1161 on a _servitium_ of sixty knights, being then in the
hands of the crown. Under Becket, in 1162, it is once more omitted;
but in 1165 it again pays, as we have seen, and now not on sixty
knights but on 84-3/4. In 1168 it contributes, on the same amount, to
the _auxilium_, and in 1172, but the latter year is the first in which
the _recognoscit_ formula is employed, enabling us to determine that,
as in 1161, the _servitium debitum_ was sixty knights.

The typical difference between these sixty knights and the 84-3/4
actually enfeoffed will serve to illustrate the point on which I
insist throughout. Had the fee been held by its tenant, he would
have raised 84-3/4 marcs, paid sixty to the crown, and kept 24-3/4 for
himself.[170] But when a _custos_ held the fief, he could keep
nothing back, and therefore paid over the whole. We have, I think, an
illustration of the same kind in the payment (p. 202, note 76) by the
_custos_ of the Romare fief, 'de noviter feffatis' (_noviter_, be it
observed not yet _de novo_).

Having brought the levies down to 1165, I hope it has now been made
clear that the officials of the exchequer were well aware of the
amount of _servitium debitum_ from every fief, the levies being always
based on the said amount. Swereford, therefore, was quite mistaken in
the inference he drew from the inquest of 1166:[171] indeed, his words
prove that he completely misunderstood the problem.

This was the last levy raised previous to the making of the returns
(_cartae_) in 1166. These returns were followed in 1168 by the first
levy on the new assessment. I have already dealt with the changes
which this new assessment involved, but I would here again insist upon
the fact that the church and the lay fiefs were not dealt with alike,
the latter being assessed wholly _de novo_, while the former retained
their old assessments, while accounting separately, and under protest,
for the fees in excess of their _servitium debitum_. So far as the lay
fiefs were concerned, their _servitia_, congenital with Norman rule,
were now swept away. Here, from the single county of Northumberland,
are three cases in point:

  1162                               1168

  De scutagio Walteri de Bolebec.    Walterus de Bolebec redd. comp.
  In thesauro v. marcae.[172]        de iiii. marcis et dim. de eodem

                                     Idem debet xlviii. s. et v. d. pro
                                     tribus Militibus et ii^{abus.}
                                     terciis partibus
                                     Mil. de Novo feffamento.

  De scutagio Stephani de Bulemer.   Stephanus de Bulemer redd.
  In thesauro v. marcae.             comp. de iiii. marcis de eodem

                                     Idem debet xxiii. s. et iiii. d.
                                     de i. milite et dim. et quarta
                                     parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.

  De scutagio Radulfi de Wircestria. Radulfus de Wigornio redd. comp.
  In thesauro i. marca.[173]         de i. marca de eodem auxilio pro
                                     i. milite.

                                     Idem debet xiii. s. de dim. Mil.
                                     et de i. tercia et de i. septima
                                     parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.

The change thus made by the restless king was permanent in its effect,
and thenceforth the only assessment recognized was that based upon the
fees, which, by 1166, had been created de veteri and de novo.[174]

Before leaving the subject of this levy, there is one point on which
I would touch. When we find, as we often do, that the sum paid in 1168
in respect of a fief does not tally with the number of fees recorded
in the _cartae_, we must remember that in the _Liber Niger_ and _Liber
Rubeus_ we have not the original _cartae_, but only transcripts
liable to clerical error. Checking the _cartae_ by these payments, we
constantly find cases in which the number of fees should be slightly
greater than is recorded in the _carta_.[175] I suspect that the
transcriber, in these cases, has omitted entries in the original
_carta_, and this suspicion is strongly confirmed by the fact that
where the original return enables us to test the transcript, we
find in the great _carta_ for the honour of Clare that the original
transcriber has omitted half a fee of William de Hastinges, has left
out altogether the entry 'Reginaldus de Cruce, _dimidium militem_',
and has changed the quarter fee of Geoffrey fitz Piers into half a
fee; while in that of the Bishop of Chichester, Robert de Denton's
half fee is converted into a whole one. The later (Red Book)
transcriber has made a further omission.

Another source of discrepancy may be found in the dangerous
resemblance of formulae. Thus the _carta_ of Ranulf fitz Walter
records three and three-quarter fees duly accounted for. Yet his
payment in 1168 is not £2 10s but £2 4s 5d. The explanation is
that the holding was really three and one-third fees,[176] but
the transcriber read 'iij[^{a.}] pars' (one-third) as 'iij. partes'

How easily such errors arose may be seen in the elaborate entries on
Simon de Beauchamp's fief. Here the formula 'decem denarios quando
Rex accipit marcam de milite', correctly reproduced in the Black Book,
becomes 'x. denarius', etc., in the Red Book. The former expression
means '_tenpence_ in the marc' (_i.e._ one-sixteenth of a fee);
whereas the latter is equivalent to '_the tenth penny_ in the marc'
(_i.e._ one-tenth of a fee), and upsets the whole reckoning. The
correct formula is a not uncommon one and should be compared with the
'de xx. solidis viii. denarios' (eightpence in the pound) which
is given as the holding of two knights of the honour of Clare, and
represents the thirtieth of a fee.[177]

Lastly, I think that, on further examination, there are three fiefs of
which the _servitia debita_, though at first sight irregular,[178] may
fairly be brought into line as multiples of the _constabularia_.
That of Bohun, though implied by the _carta_ to be thirty and a half
knights, paid in the fifth and eighth years on exactly thirty; that of
Malet, though similarly given as twenty and one-sixth in the _carta_,
is returned in the _Testa de Nevill_ as exactly twenty;[179] that
of Beauchamp of Hacche, though distinctly given as seventeen in the
_carta_, will be found, on careful collation of the rolls for 7 and 8
Hen. II, to be claimed by the exchequer as 17 + 3, _i.e._ 20.

Here also, perhaps, it may be allowable to glance at the foreign
parallels to fiefs of sixty fees and smaller multiples of five. There
is a charter of Charles the Fair (1322-28) 'qua Alphonsum de Hispania
"Baronem et Ricum Hominem" Navarræ creat; et, ut Baronis et Rici
Hominis statum manu tenere possit, eidem de gratia speciali 60
militias [knight's fees] in regno sua Navarræ concedit modo consueto
tenendos et possidendos',[180] while an edict of earlier date
proclaims: 'De Vasvassore [_i.e._ baron] qui _quinque milites_ habet,
per mortem [? pro morte] ejus, emendetur 60 unciæ auri cocti, et
per plagam [? pro plaga] 30, et si plures habuerit milites, crescat
compositio sicut numerus militum.'[181]


'Ad hoc solicitius animum direxi ut per regna Angliæ debita Regi
servitia militaria quatinus potui plenissime percunctarer.'[182] So
writes Swereford, who proceeds to explain that neither the famous
Bishop Nigel himself, nor his successor, Bishop Richard, nor William
of Ely (_ut supra_) had left any certain information on the subject;
while he (Swereford) could not accept the common belief that
the Conqueror had created _servitia_ of knights to the amount of
32,000.[183] The cause of his failure is found in the fact that he
confused two different things: (1) the _debita Regi servitia_, which
formed the only assessment of fiefs down to 1166; (2) the assessment
based on the _cartae_ of 1166, which superseded the _debita servitia_,
and is not evidence of their amount.[184] But then, as I have already
explained above, the exchequer official was concerned only with the
actual claims of the crown; for him the original 'service due' had a
merely academic interest.

There are two estimates for the total of which we are in search. One
is 32,000 knights; the other 60,000.

'Stephen Segrave,' Dr Stubbs reminds us, 'the minister of Henry III,
reckoned 32,000 as the number' (which confirms Swereford's
statement); but he himself wisely declines to hazard 'a conjectural
estimate',[185] adding that 'the official computation, on which the
scutage was levied, reckoned in the middle of the thirteenth century
32,000 knights' fees, but the amount of money actually raised by
Henry II on this account, in any single year, was very far from
commensurate'. Gneist repeats this figure, but holds that 'as far
as we may conjecture by reference to later statements, the number of
shields may be fixed at about 30,000'.[186]

On the wondrous estimate of 60,000 I have more to say. Started by
Ordericus,[187] this venerable fable has been handed down by Higden
and others, till in the _Short History of the English People_ it
has attained a world-wide circulation.[188] Dr Stubbs has rightly
dismissed the statement 'as one of the many numerical exaggerations
of the early historians';[189] but neither he nor any other writer
has detected, so far as I know, the peculiar interest of the sum. What
that interest is will be seen at once when I say that Ordericus, who
asserts that the Conqueror had so apportioned the knight-service 'ut
Angliæ regnum lx. millia militum indesinenter haberet' (iv. 7), also
alleges that the number present at the famous Salisbury assembly
(1086) was 60,000. It is very instructive to compare this 'body
whose numbers were handed down by tradition as no less than sixty
thousand',[190] with the 'sixty thousand horsemen'[191]--'ut ferunt
sexaginta millia equitum'--of thirteen years earlier, and with
the number of the Norman invaders, 'commonly given at sixty
thousand',[192] of seven years earlier still. It is Ordericus, too,
who states that the treasure in Normandy at the death of Henry I was
£60,000. His father seems to have left behind him the same sum at
Winchester, for, though the chronicle left the amount in doubt, 'Henry
of Huntingdon,' Mr Freeman observed, with a touch of just sarcasm,
'knew the exact amount of the silver, sixty thousand pounds, one
doubtless for each knight's fee'.[193] He also reminds us, as to the
crusade of William of Aquitaine, that 'Orderic allows only thirty
thousand. In William of Malmesbury they have grown into sixty
thousand. Figures of this kind, whether greater or smaller, are always
multiples of one another'.[194]

Pursuing the subject, we learn from Giraldus that the Conqueror's
annual income was 60,000 marcs.[195] Fantosme speaks of marshalled
knights as

    _Meins de_ seisante mile, _e plus de seisante treis,_

and the author of the Anglo-Norman poem on the conquest of Ireland
gives the strength of the Irish host, in 1171, as 60,000 men. Even
'Sir Bevis', if I remember right, slew in the streets of London 60,000
men; and Fitz Stephen asserts that, in Stephen's reign, London was
able to turn out 60,000 foot.[196] It may, also, not be without
significance that 60,000 Moors are said to have been slain at Navas
de Tolosa, and that William of Sicily was said to have bequeathed to
Henry II three distinct sums of 60,000 each.[197]

The fact is that 'sixty thousand' was a favourite phrase for a
great number, and that 'sixty' was used in this sense just as the
Romans[198] had used it in classical times and just as Russian
peasants (I think I have read) use it to this day. The 'twice six
hundred thousand men', who were burning to fight for England,[199] and
the £180,000 (60,000 × 3) of Gervase (1159), are traceable, doubtless,
to the same source.

How strangely different from these wild figures are the sober facts
of the case! The whole of the church fiefs, as we have seen, were
only liable to find 784 knights, a number which, small as it was, just
exceeded the entire knight service of Normandy as returned in 1171. As
to the lay fiefs it is not possible to speak with equal confidence. I
have ventured to fix the approximate _quota_ of 104 (more or less),
of which ninety-two are in favour of my theory: forty-eight fiefs, of
five knights and upwards, remain undetermined.[200] If the average of
knights to a fief were the same in the latter as in the former class,
the total contingents of the lay barons would amount, apparently, to
3,534 knights; but, as the latter one includes such enormous fiefs as
those of Gloucester and of Clare, with such important honours as those
of Peverel and Eye, we must increase our estimate accordingly, and
must also make allowance for fiefs omitted and for those owing less
than five knights (which are comparatively unimportant).

Making, therefore, every allowance, we shall probably be safe in
saying that the whole _servitium debitum_, clerical and lay, of
England can scarcely have exceeded, if indeed it reached, 5,000

Indefinite though such a result may seem, it is worth obtaining for
the startling contrast which it presents to the 60,000 of Ordericus,
to the 32,000 of Segrave,[201] and to the 30,000 of Gneist. The only
writer, so far as I know, who has approximated, by investigating
for himself, the true facts of the case, is Mr Pearson;[202] but his
calculations, I fear, are vitiated by the unfortunate guess that the
alleged 32,000 fees were really 6,400 of five hides each. It is a
hopeless undertaking to reconcile the facts with the wild figures
of mediæval historians by resorting to the ingenious devices of
apocalyptic interpretation.


Much labour has been vainly spent on attempts to determine the true
area of a knight's fee. The general impression appears to be that
it contained five hides. Mr Pearson, we have seen, based on that
assumption his estimate of 6,400 fees, and other writers have treated
the fee as the recognized equivalent of five hides. The point is of
importance, because if we found that the recognized area of a knight's
fee was five hides, it would give us a link between the under-tenant
(_miles_) and the Anglo-Saxon thegn. But, as Dr Stubbs has recognized,
the assumption cannot be maintained; no fixed number of hides
constituted a knight's fee.

The circumstance of a fee, in many cases consisting of five hides, is
merely, I think, due to the existence of five-hide estates, survivals
from the previous _régime_. We have an excellent instance of such
fees in a very remarkable document, which has hitherto, it would seem,
remained unnoticed. This is a transcript, in Heming's Cartulary, of a
hidated survey of the Gloucestershire Manors belonging to the See of
Worcester. I believe it to be earlier than Domesday itself, in which
case, of course, it would possess a unique interest. Here are the
entries, side by side, relating to the great episcopal Manor of
Westbury (on Trym), Gloucestershire.

  CARTULARY                          DOMESDAY

  Ad _uuestbiriam_[203] pertinent    Huesberie. Ibi fuerunt et sunt l.
  l. hide. xxxv. hidas in dominio    hidae.... De hac terra hujus
  habe_t_[203]                       Manerii tenet Turstinus filius Rolf
  episcopus, et milites sui habent   v. hidas in Austrecliue et
  xv. hidas. In icena_t_une v.       Gislebertus filius Turold iii.
  hidas, In com_t_una v. hidas,      hidas et dimidiam jn Contone, et
  In b_i_scopes s_t_oke v. hidas.    Constantinus v. hidas jn
                                     Icetune.... De eadem terra hujus
                                     Manerii tenet Osbernus Gifard v.
                                     hidae et nullum servitium facit....
                                     Quod homines tenent (valet) ix.

The three five-hide holdings, we find, figure in both alike, but
Gilbert fitz Thorold's holding of three hides and a half appears in
addition in Domesday. The inference, surely would seem to be that
Gilbert was enfeoffed between the date of the survey recorded in
the Cartulary and the date of the Domesday Survey. If so, the former
survey is, as I have suggested, the earlier; and in that survey we
have the three tenants of five-hide holdings described _eo nomine_ as
the bishop's _milites_.

In the _cartae_ of 1166 we have fees of 5 hides,[204] of 4,[205]
of 6,[206] of 10,[207] of 2-1/2,[208] and even of 2;[209] also of 5
carucates,[210] of 11,[211] and of 14.[212] Cartularies, however, are
richer in evidence of this discrepancy. Thus the six fees of St Albans
contained 40 hides (an average of 6-2/3 hides each), the figures being
5-1/2, 7, 8-1/2, 6, 5-1/2, 7-1/2.[213] So too in the Abingdon Cartulary
(ii. 3) we find four fees containing 19 hides, three containing 14, a
half-fee 4, a fee and a half 13, one fee, 10, 5, 9. On the other hand,
if we take 20 _librates_ as the amount of the fee--which it was already,
as Dr Stubbs observes, in the days of the Conqueror--the _cartae_
confirm that conclusion.[214] We must therefore conclude that the
knight's fee, held by an under-tenant, consisted normally of an estate,
worth £20 a year, and was not based on the 'five hides' of the
Anglo-Saxon system.


We will now work upwards from the _cartae_ to the Conquest.

Allusions to early enfeoffment are scattered through the _cartae_
themselves. Henry fitz Gerold begins his return: 'Isti sunt milites
Eudonis Dapiferi', and Eudo, we know, 'came in with the Conqueror'. We
learn from another return (_Lib. Rub._, p. 397) that Henry I had given
William de Albini, 'Pincerna, de feodo quod fuit Corbuchun xv. milites
feffatos'. Now this refers to 'Robertus filius Corbution', a Domesday
tenant in Norfolk. The _Testa_, again, comes to our help. Thus we
learn from Domesday that Osbern the priest _alias_ Osbern the sheriff
(of Lincolnshire) was William de Perci's tenant at Wickenby, co.
Lincoln, but the _Testa_ entry (p. 338_a_) proves that William had
enfeoffed him in that holding by the service of one knight.[215] So
too Count Alan (of Brittany) had enfeoffed his tenant Landri at Welton
in the same county for the service of half a knight (_ibid._, 338_b_),
and we find his son, Alan fitz Landri, tenant there to Count Stephen,
a generation later than Domesday, in the Lindsey Survey. The barony of
Bywell in Northumberland, we read in the _Testa_(p. 392_a_), had been
held by the service of five knights[216] since the days of William
Rufus, who had granted it on that tenure.[217] After this we are not
surprised to learn that the barony of Morpeth had been held 'from the
Conquest' by the service of four knights, and that of Mitford as
long by the service of five (_ibid._, p. 392_b_), or that those of
Calverdon, Morewic, and Diveleston had all been similarly held by
military service 'from the Conquest'. In Herefordshire, again, John
de Monmouth is returned as holding 'feoda xv. militum a conquestu
Anglie'.[218] So too Robert Foliot claims in his _carta_ (1166)
that his predecessors had been enfeoffed 'since the conquest of
England';[219] and William de Colecherche, that his little fief was
'de antiquo tenemento a Conquestu Angliae' (_L.R._, p. 400); Humphrey
de Bohun enumerates the fees 'quibus avus suus feffatus fuit in primo
feffamento quod in Anglia habuit' (_ibid._, p. 242), and refers to his
grandfather's subsequent enfeoffments in the days of William Rufus
(p. 244), while Alexander de Alno similarly speaks of sub-infeudation
'tempore Willelmi Regis' (p. 230). To take one more instance from the
_cartae_, an abbot sets forth his _servicium_ due to Henry, 'sicuti
debuit antiquitus regibus predecessoribus ejus' (p. 224). This brings
us to the instructive case of Ramsey Abbey.

Dr Stubbs refers to a document of the reign of William Rufus as 'proof
that the lands of the house had not yet been divided into knights'
fees'.[220] But he does not mention the striking fact that the special
knight service for which the abbot was to be liable is distinctly
stated to have been that for which his 'predecessors' had been
liable.[221] As this charter is assigned to 1091-1100, the mention of
'predecessors' would seem to carry back this knight service very far
indeed. And we have happily another connecting link which carries
downwards the history of this knight service, as the above-named
charter carries it upwards. This is the entry in the Pipe-Roll of

    Abbas de Ramesia reddit compotum de xlviij. li. xj. s. et
    vj. d. pro superplus militum qui requirebantur de Abbatia (p.

Further, we have a notable communication to the abbot from Bishop
Nigel of Ely, which must refer to the scutage of 1156 or to that of
1159 (probably the former):

    Sciatis quod ubi Ricardus clericus[223] reddidit compotum de
    scutagio militum vestrorum ad Scaccarium ego testificatus sum
    vos non debere regi plusquam quatuor milites, et per tantum
    quieti estis et in rotulo scripti.[224]

Lastly, we have the return in the Black Book (1166):

    Homines faciunt iiii. milites in communi in servitium domini
    regis, ita quod tota terra abbatiae communicata est cum eis
    per hidas ad prædictum servitium faciendum.

Prof Maitland, writing on the Court of the Abbey of Ramsey, in the
thirteenth century, observes that:

    The Abbot is bound to provide four knights, and (contrary to
    what is thought to have been the common practice) he has not
    split up his land into knights' fees so that on every occasion
    the same four tenants shall go to the war ... the process by
    which the country was carved out into knights' fees seems in
    this case to have been arrested at an early stage.[225]

The case of Ramsey was undoubtedly peculiar, but in the third volume
of the Cartulary, now published, we have (pp. 48, 218) fuller versions
of the Abbot's return in 1166. The second of these is specially
noteworthy, and reads like a transcript of the original return.[226]
Here we see separate knights' fees duly entered, with the customary
formula 'debet unum militem'. But the service was certainly provided
in 1166 and afterwards 'per hidas'. Further inquiry, therefore, is
needed; but we have in any case, for Ramsey, a chain of evidence which
should prove of considerable value for the study of this difficult

The phenomenon, however, for which we have to account is the
appearance from the earliest period to which our information extends
of certain quotas of knight-service, clearly arbitrary in amount, as
due from those bishops and abbots who held by military service. When
and how were these _quotas_ fixed? The answer is given by Matthew
Paris--one of the last quarters in which one would think of
looking--where we read that, in 1070, the Conqueror

    episcopatus quoque et abbatias omnes quae baronias tenebant,
    et eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerant,
    sub servitute statuit militari, inrotulans episcopatus
    et abbatias _pro voluntate sua_ quot milites sibi et
    successoribus suis hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis
    exhiberi (_Historia Anglorum_, i. 13).

This passage (which perhaps represents the St Albans tradition) is
dismissed by Dr Stubbs as being probably 'a mistaken account of the
effects of the Domesday Survey'.[227]

But the Abingdon Chronicle, quite independently, gives the same
explanation, and traces the _quota_ of knights to the action taken by
the Crown:

    Quum jam regis edicto in annalibus annotarentur quot de
    episcopiis quotve de abbatiis ad publicam rem tuendam
    milites (si forte hinc quid causae propellendae contingeret)
    exigerentur, etc.[228]

Moreover, the Ely Chronicle bears the same witness, telling us that
William Rufus, at the commencement of his reign,

    _debitum servitium quod pater suus imposuerat_ ab ecclesiis
    violenter exigit.[229]

It also tells us that, when undertaking his campaign against Malcolm
(1072), the Conqueror

    jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae _debita
    militiae obsequia_ transmitti;[230]

and it also describes how he fixed the _quota_ of knights due by an
arbitrary act of will.[231] The chronicler, like Matthew Paris, lays
stress upon the facts that (1) the burden was a wholly new one; (2)
its incidence was determined by the royal will alone.[232]

Here, perhaps, we have the clue to the (rare) clerical exemptions from
the burden of military tenure, such as the abbeys of Gloucester and of

The beginnings of sub-infeudation consequent on the Conqueror's action
are distinctly described in the cases of Abingdon and Ely, and alluded
to in those of Peterborough[234] and Evesham. At the first of these,

    primo quidem stipendariis in hoc utebatur. At his sopitis
    incursibus ... abbas mansiones possessionum ecclesiae
    pertinentibus inde delegavit, edicto cuique tenore parendi de
    suae portionis mansione.[235]

At Ely, the abbot

    habuit ex consuetudine, secundum jussum regis, prætaxatum
    militiae numerum infra aulam ecclesiae, victum cotidie de manu
    celerarii capientem atque stipendia, quod intollerabiliter et
    supra modum potuit vexare locum.... Ex hoc compulsus quasdam
    terras sanctæ Ædeldredae invasoribus in feudum permisit tenere
    ... ut in omni expeditione regi observarent, [et] ecclesia
    perpetim infatigata permaneret.[236]

For Canterbury we have remarkable evidence, not, it would seem,
generally known. In Domesday, of course, Lanfranc's _milites_ figure
prominently; but the absence of a detailed return in 1166 leaves their
names and services obscure. Now in the Christ Church Domesday there
is a list of the Archbishop's knights,[237] in which are names
corresponding with those of his tenants in 1086. It can, therefore,
be little, if at all, later than the Conqueror's reign. It is drawn
up exactly like a _carta_ of 1166, giving the names of the knights
and the service due from each. Its editor, instead of printing this
important document in full, has, unfortunately, given us six names
only, and--mistaking the familiar 'd[imidium]' and 'q[uarterium]'
of the list for 'd[enarios]' and 'q[uadrans]'--asserts that the
contributions of the knights are 'evidently ... expressed in terms
of the shilling and its fractions',[238] thus missing the essential
point, namely, that they are expressed in terms of knight service.

As Lanfranc had done at Canterbury, as Symeon at Ely, as Walter
at Evesham, as Athelelm at Abingdon, so also did Geoffrey at
Tavistock,[239] and so we cannot doubt, did Wulfstan at Worcester.
The _carta_ of his successor (1166) distinctly implies that before his
death he had carved some thirty-seven fees out of the episcopal fief.
Precisely as at Ely, he found this plan less intolerable than the
standing entertainment of a roistering troop of knights.[240]

The influence of nepotism on sub-infeudation, in the case of
ecclesiastical fiefs, is too important to be passed over. On every
side we find the efforts of prelates and abbots thus to provide for
their relatives opposed and denounced by the bodies over which they
ruled. The Archbishop of York in his _carta_ explains the excessive
number of his knights: 'Antecessores enim nostri, non pro necessitate
servitii, quod debent, sed quia cognatis et servientibus suis
providere volebant, plures quam debebant Regi feodaverunt.' The
Abbot of Ely, we are told by his panegyrist, enfeoffed knights by
compulsion, 'non ex industria aut favore divitum vel propinquorum
affectu'.[241] Abbot Athelelm of Abingdon, says his champion,
enfeoffed knights of necessity;[242] but a less friendly chronicler
asserts that, like Thorold of Peterborough, he brought over from
Normandy his kinsmen, and quartered them on the abbey lands.[243] The
Tavistock charter of Henry I restored to that abbey the lands which
Guimund, its simoniacal abbot (1088-1102), had bestowed on his brother
William. Abbot Walter of Evesham and his successor persisted in
enfeoffing knights 'contradicente capitulo'.[244]

So, during a vacancy at Abbotsbury under Henry I, 'cum Rogerus
Episcopus habuit custodiam Abbatiæ, duas hidas, ad maritandam quandam
neptem suam, dedit N. de M., contradicente conventu Ecclesiæ'.[245]
Henry of Winchester has left us a similar record of the action of his
predecessors at Glastonbury.[246] His narrative is specially valuable
for the light it throws on the power of subsequent revocation, perhaps
in cases where the corporate body had protested at the time against
the grant. Of this we have a striking instance in the grants of Abbot
Æthelwig of Evesham, almost all of which, we read, were revoked by
his successor.[247] Parallel rather to the cases of Middleton and
Abbotsbury (_vide cartas_) would be the action of William Rufus during
the Canterbury vacancy.[248]

It was to guard against the nepotism of the heads of monastic houses
that such a clause as this was occasionally inserted:

    Terras censuales non in feudum donet: nec faciat milites nisi
    in sacra veste Christi.[249]

And by their conduct in this matter, abbots, in the Norman period,
were largely judged. But this has been a slight digression.

Now that I have shown that in monastic chronicles we have the
complement and corroboration of the words of Matthew Paris, I propose
to quote as a climax to my argument the writ printed below. Startling
as it may read, for its early date, to the holders of the accepted
view, the vigour of its language convinced me, when I found it, that
in it King William speaks; nor was there anything to be gained by
forging a document which admits, by placing on record, the abbey's
full liability.[250]

    W. Rex. Anglor[um] Athew' abbati de Euesh[am] sal[u]tem.
    Precipio tibi quod submoneas omnes illos qui sub ballia et
    i[us]titia s[un]t quatin[us] omnes milites quo mihi debent
    p[ar]atos h[abe]ant ante me ad octavas pentecostes ap[ud]
    clarendun[am]. Tu etiam illo die ad me venias et illos quinque
    milites quos de abb[at]ia tua mihi debes tec[um] paratos
    adducas. Teste Eudone dapif[er]o Ap[ud] Wintoniam.[251]

Being addressed to Æthelwig, the writ, of course, must be previous
to his death in 1077, but I think that we can date it, perhaps, with
precision, and that it belongs to the year 1072. In that year,
says the Ely chronicler, the Conqueror, projecting his invasion to
Scotland, 'jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae debita
militiae obsequia transmitti', a phrase which applies exactly to the
writ before us. In that year, moreover, the movements of William fit
in fairly with the date for which the feudal levy was here summoned.
We know that he visited Normandy in the spring, and invaded Scotland
in the summer, and he might well summon his baronage to meet him on
June 3rd, on his way from Normandy to Scotland, at so convenient a
point as Clarendon. The writ, again, being witnessed at Winchester,
may well have been issued by the king on his way out or back.

The direction to the abbot to summon similarly all those beneath his
sway who owed military service is probably explained by the special
position he occupied as 'chief ruler of several counties at the
time'.[252] We find him again, two years later (1074), acting as
a military commander. On that occasion the line of the Severn was
guarded against the rebel advance by Bishop Wulfstan, 'cum magna
militari manu, et Ægelwius Eoveshamnensis abbas cum suis, ascitis sibi
in adjutorium Ursone vicecomite Wigorniae et Waltero de Laceio cum
copiis suis, et cetera multitudine plebis'.[253] The number of knights
which constituted the _servitium debitum_ of Evesham was five then
as it was afterwards, and this number, as we now know, had been fixed
_pro voluntate sua_, in 1070, by the Conqueror.

We find allusions to two occasions on which the feudal host was
summoned, as above, by the Conqueror, and by his sons and successors.
William Rufus exacted the full _servitium debitum_ to repress the
revolt at the commencement of his reign.[254] Henry I called out the
host to meet the invasion of his brother Robert.[255] In both these
instances reference is made to the questions of 'service due' that
would naturally arise,[256] and that would keep the _quotas_ of knight
service well to the front. That these _quotas_, however, as I said
(_supra_, p. 205), were matter of memory rather than of record, is
shown by a pair of early disputes.[257]

Let us pass, at this point, to the great survey. I urged in the
earlier portion of this paper that the argument from the silence
of Domesday is of no value. Even independently of direct allusions,
whether to the case of individual holders, or to whole groups such
as the _milites_ of Lanfranc, it can be shown conclusively that the
normal _formulae_ cover unquestionable military tenure, tenure by
knight service.[258]

An excellent instance is afforded in the case of Abingdon Abbey (fol.
258_b_-9_b_), because the _formulae_ are quite normal and make 'no
record of any new duties or services of any kind'.[259] Yet we are
able to identify the tenants named in Domesday, right and left,
with the foreign knights enfeoffed by Athelelm to hold by military
tenure,[260] owing service for their fees 'to Lord as Lord'. There
are some specially convincing cases, such as those of Hubert, who
held five hides in a hamlet of Cumnor,[261] and whose fee is not only
entered in the list of knights:[262] but is recorded to have been
given before Domesday for military service.[263] Another case is
that of William _camerarius_, who held Lea by the service of
one knight;[264] so too with the Bishop of Worcester's Manor of
Westbury-on-Trym, where the _homines_ of Domesday appear as _milites_
in a rather earlier survey.[265]

Again, take the case of Peterborough. The Northamptonshire possessions
of that house are divided by Domesday (fol. 221) into two sections,
of which the latter is headed 'Terra hominum ejusdem ecclesiae', and
represents the sub-infeudated portion, just as the preceding section
contains the _dominium_ of the fief.[266] Here 'Terra hominum ejusdem'
corresponds with the heading 'Terra militum ejus' prefixed to the
knights of the Archbishop of Canterbury (fol. 4). The Peterborough
_homines_ are frequently spoken of as _milites_ (fol. 221_b_,
_passim_), and even where we only find such _formulae_ as
'Anschitillus tenet de abbate' we are able to identify the tenant as
Anschetil de St Medard, one of the foreign knights enfeoffed by Abbot

But it is not only on church fiefs that the Domesday under-tenant
proves to be a feudal _miles_. At Swaffham (Cambridgeshire) we read in
Domesday (fol. 196) 'tenet Hugo de Walterio [Gifard]'.[268] Yet in
the earlier record of a _placitum_ on the rights of Ely, we find this
tenant occurring as '_Hugo de bolebec_ miles _Walteri Giffard_', while
in 1166 his descendant and namesake is returned as the chief tenant on
the Giffard fief. The same _placitum_ supplies other illustrations of
the fact.[269] The cases taken from the Percy fief and from the honour
of Britanny afford further confirmation, if needed, of the conclusions
I draw.[270]

It will startle the reader, doubtless, to learn that there is in
existence so curious a document as a list of knights' fees drawn up
in Old English. Headed 'these beth thare Knystene londes', etc., and
terming a knight's fee a 'knystesmetehom', it has been placed by
the Editors of the new _Monasticon_ (ii. 477) among documents of the
Anglo-Saxon era, but belongs, I think (from internal evidence), to
about the same period as the _cartae_ (1166). The original is extant
in a Cartulary now in the British Museum.


It was urged in the earlier part of this paper that Ranulf Flambard
had been assigned a quite unwarrantable share in the development of
feudalism in England. But so little is actually known of what his
measures were that they have hitherto largely remained matter of
inference and conjecture. It may be well, therefore, to call attention
to a record which shows him actually at work, and which illustrates
the character of his exactions by a singularly perfect example.

The remarkable document that I am about to discuss is printed in
Heming's 'Cartulary' (i. 79-80).[271] It is therefore most singular
that it should be unknown to Mr Freeman--to whom it would have been
invaluable for his account of Ranulf's doings--as it occurs in the
midst of a group of documents which he had specially studied for his
_excursus_ on 'the condition of Worcestershire under William'.[272]
It is a writ of William Rufus, addressed to the tenants of the See
of Worcester on the death of Bishop Wulfstan, directing them to pay
a 'relief' in consequence of that death, and specifying the quota
due from each of the tenants named. The date is fortunately beyond
question; for the writ must have been issued very shortly after the
death of Wulfstan (January 18, 1095), and in any case before the
death of Bishop Robert of Hereford (June 26, 1095), who is one of the
tenants addressed in it. As the record is not long, and practically,
as we have seen, unknown, one need not hesitate to reprint it.

    W. Rex Anglorum omnibus Francis et Anglis qui francas terras
    tenent de episcopatu de Wireceastra, Salutem. Sciatis quia,
    mortuo episcopo, honor in manum meam rediit. Nunc volo, ut de
    terris vestris tale relevamen mihi detis, sicut per barones
    meos disposui. Hugo de Laci xx. libras. Walterus Punher xx.
    libras. Gislebertus filius turoldi c. solidos. Rodbertus
    episcopus x. libras. Abbas de euesham xxx. libras. Walterus
    de Gloecestra xx. libras. Roger filius durandi [quietus per
    breve regis][273] x. libras. Winebald de balaon x. libras.
    Drogo filius Pontii x. libras. Rodbert filius Sckilin c.
    solidos. Rodbert stirmannus lx. solidos. Willelmus de
    begebiri xl. solidos. Ricardus & Franca c. solidos. Angotus
    xx. solidos. Beraldus xx. solidos. Willelmus de Wic xx.
    solidos. Rodbertus filius nigelli c. solidos. Alricus
    archidiaconus c. solidos. Ordricus dapifer[274] xl. libras.
    Ordricus blaca[275] c. solidos. Colemannus[276] xl. solidos.
    Warinus xxx. solidos. Balduuinus xl. solidos. Suegen filius
    Azor xx. solidos. Aluredus xxx. solidos. Siuuardus xl.
    solidos. Saulfus xv. libras. Algarus xl. solidos. Chippingus
    xx. solidos.

    Testibus Ranulfo capellano & Eudone dapifero & Ursone de
    abetot. Et qui hoc facere noluerit, Urso & bernardus sasiant
    et terras et pecunias in manu mea.

The points on which this document throws fresh light are these.
First, and above all, the exaction of reliefs by William Rufus and
his minister, which formed so bitter a grievance at the time, and
to which, consequently, Dr Stubbs and Mr Freeman had devoted special
attention. On this we have here evidence which is at present unique.
It must therefore be studied in some detail.

Broadly speaking, we now learn how 'the analogy of lay fiefs was
applied to the churches with as much minuteness as possible'.[277] One
of the respects in which the church fiefs differed from those of
the lay barons was, that on the one hand they escaped such claims as
reliefs, wardships and 'marriage', while, on the other, their tenants,
of course also escaped payment of such 'aids' as those 'ad filium
militem faciendum' or 'ad filiam maritandam'. In this there was a fair
'give and take'. But Ranulf must have argued that bishops and abbots
who took reliefs from their tenants ought, in like manner, to pay
reliefs to the crown. This they obviously would not do; and, indeed,
even had they been willing, it would have savoured too strongly of
simony. And so he adopted, as our record shows, the unwarrantable
device of extorting the relief from the under-tenants direct. This
was not an enforcement, but a breach, of feudal principles; for an
under-tenant was, obviously, only liable to relief on his succession
to his own fee.[278]

It would be easy to assume that this was the abuse renounced by Henry
I.[279] But _distinguo_. The above abuse was quite distinct from the
practice of annexing to the revenues of the crown, during a vacancy,
the temporalities. This, which was undoubtedly renounced by Henry,
and as undoubtedly resorted to by himself and by his successors
afterwards, was, however distasteful to the church,[280] a logical
deduction from feudal principles, and did not actually wrong any
individual. It could thus be retained when the crown abandoned such
unjust exactions as the Worcester relief, and it afforded an excellent
substitute for wardship, though practically mischievous in the impulse
it gave to the prolongation of vacancies.

There are many other points suggested by the record I am discussing,
but they can only be touched on briefly. It gives us a singularly
early use of the remarkable term 'honour', here employed in its
simplest and strictly accurate sense; the same term was similarly
employed, we have seen, in the case of Abingdon (1097), where we also
find the fief described as reverting to the crown _vacante sede_.[281]
It further alludes to a special assessment by 'barons' deputed for
the purpose; it affords a noteworthy formula for distraint in case of
non-payment; and it gives us, within barely nine years of the great
survey itself, a list of the tenants of the fee, which should prove of
peculiar value.

If the sums entered be added up, their total will amount to exactly
£250. It is tempting to connect this figure with a _servitium debitum_
(_teste episcopo_) of fifty fees at the 'ancient relief' of £5 a fee;
but we are only justified in treating it as one of those round sums
that we find exacted for relief under Henry II, especially as its
items cannot be connected with the actual knights' fees. The appended
analysis will show the relation (where ascertainable) of sums paid to
hides held.

  DOMESDAY, 1086                       THE RELIEF, 1095

                      _h._ _v._                             _£_  _s._

  Roger de Laci        23   2  Hugh de Laci                  20   0
  Walter Ponther       10   2  Walter Punther                20   0
  Gilbert fitz Thorold  7   2  Gilbert fitz Thorold           5   0
  Bishop of Hereford    5   0  Bishop Robert [of Hereford]   10   0
  Abbot of Evesham      9   0  Abbot of Evesham              30   0
  Walter fitz Roger     8   0  Walter de Gloucester          20   0
  Durand the sheriff    6   0  Roger fitz Durand             10   0
                               Winebald de Balaon            10   0
  Drogo                10   0  Drogo fitz Ponz               10   0
  Schelin               5   0  Robert fitz Schilin            5   0
                               Robert Stirman                 3   0
  Anschitil             2   0  Anschitil de Colesbourne      10   0
                               Roger de Compton               1   0
  Eudo                  1   3  Eudo                           3   0
                               William de Begeberi            2   0
                               Richard & Franca               5   0
  Ansgot                1   2  Angot                          1   0
                               Berald                         1   0
                               William de Wick                1   0
                               Robert fitz Nigel              5   0
  Ælfric the archdeacon 4   0  Ælfric the archdeacon          5   0
  Orderic}              6   1  Orderic the _Dapifer_         40   0
  Orderic}                     Orderic Black                  5   0
                               Coleman                        2   0
                               Warine                         1  10
                               Baldwin                        2   0
                               Swegen fitz Azor               1   0
                               Alfred                         1  10
  Siward                5   0  Siward                         2   0
                               Sawulf                        15   0
                               Ælfar                          2   0
                               Cheping                        1   0
                                                           £250   0

The comparison of these two lists suggests some interesting
conclusions. Roger de Laci, forfeited early in the reign for treason,
had been succeeded by his brother Hugh. 'Punher' supplies us with the
transitional form from the 'Ponther' of Domesday to the 'Puher' of
the reign of Henry I. The identity of the names is thus established.
Walter fitz Roger has already assumed his family surname as Walter
de Gloucester, and his uncle Durand has now been succeeded by a son
Roger, whose existence was unknown to genealogists. The pedigree of
the family in the Norman period has been well traced by Mr A. S. Ellis
in his paper on the Gloucestershire Domesday tenants, but he was of
opinion that Walter de Gloucester was the immediate successor in the
shrievalty of his uncle, Durand, who died without issue. This list, on
the contrary, suggests that the immediate successor of Durand was his
son Roger, and that if, like his father, he held the shrievalty, this
might account for the interlineation remitting, in his case, the sum
due. In this Roger we, surely, have that 'Roger de Gloucester' who was
slain in Normandy in 1106, and whom, without the evidence afforded by
this list, it was not possible to identify.[282]

The chief difficulty that this list presents is its omission of the
principal tenant of the see, Urse d'Abetot. One can only assign it to
the fact of his official position as sheriff enabling him to secure
exemption for himself, and perhaps even for his brother, Robert
'Dispensator'. Their exemption, however accounted for, involved an
arbitrary assessment of all the remaining tenants, irrespective of the
character or of the extent of their tenure. With these remarks I must
leave a document, which is free from anachronism or inconsistency, and
as trustworthy, I think, as it is useful.

It is my hope that this paper may increase the interest in the
forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_ under the care of Mr Hubert
Hall, and that it may lead to a reconsideration of the problems
presented by the feudal system as it meets us in England. Nor can
I close without reminding the reader that if my researches have
compelled me to differ from an authority so supreme as Dr Stubbs, this
in no way impugns the soundness of his judgment on the _data_ hitherto
known. The original sources have remained so strangely neglected,
that it was not in the power of any writer covering so wide a field
to master the facts and figures which I have now endeavoured to set
forth, and on which alone it is possible to form a conclusion beyond

    [Footnote 1: Reprinted, with additions, from the _English
    Historical Review_.]

    [Footnote 2: 'The belief which has come down to us from
    Selden, and the antiquarian school, a belief which was
    hitherto universally received, that William I divided the
    English landed property into military fees, is erroneous, and
    results from the dating back of an earlier [? later] condition
    of things.'--GNEIST, _Const. Hist._, i. 129.]

    [Footnote 3: 'There can be no doubt that the military tenure,
    the most prominent feature of historical feudalism, was itself
    introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed
    in the case of the feudal usages in general.'--STUBBS, _Const.
    Hist._, i. 261.]

    [Footnote 4: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 260-1. So too Freeman.]

    [Footnote 5: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

    [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, i. 298.]

    [Footnote 7: _Ibid._, i. 298, 301.]

    [Footnote 8: _Ibid._, i. 300.]

    [Footnote 9: _Select Charters_, p. 96.]

    [Footnote 10: _Norm. Conq._, v. 380.]

    [Footnote 11: _C.H._, i. 581.]

    [Footnote 12: _N.C._, v. 377; cf. _History of William II_, pp.
    335, 337, 'The whole system, a system which logically hangs
    together in the most perfect way, was the device of the same
    subtle and malignant brain.']

    [Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 374.]

    [Footnote 14: 'Si quis baronum meorum, comitum sive aliorum
    qui de me tenent, mortuus fuerit, heres suus non _redimet_
    terram suam sicut faciebat tempore fratris mei, sed justa et
    legitima relevatione _relevabit_ eam.']

    [Footnote 15: 'In that charter the military tenures are
    taken for granted. What is provided against is their being
    perverted, as they had been in the days of Rufus, into engines
    of oppression.'--_N.C._, v. 373.]

    [Footnote 16: _N.C._, v. 372; _C.H._, i. 261.]

    [Footnote 17: _N.C._, v. 373.]

    [Footnote 18: Palgrave, as Mr Freeman observes, 'strongly and
    clearly brought out the absence of any distinct mention of
    military tenures in Domesday'. Dr Stubbs more cautiously
    wrote: 'The wording of the Domesday Survey does not imply that
    in this respect the new military service differed from the
    old.' (_C.H._, i. 262.) Mr Freeman confidently asserts:
    'Nothing is more certain than that from one end of Domesday
    to the other, there is not a trace of military tenures as they
    were afterwards understood.... We hear of nothing in Domesday
    which can be called knight-service or military tenure in
    the later sense.' (_N.C._, v. 370, 371.) Mr Hunt (_Norman
    Britain_) follows the same line, and Gneist, vouching
    Palgrave, Stubbs, and Freeman, repeats the argument. (_C.H._,
    i. 130.)]

    [Footnote 19: 'I spoke to Mr Falconberge to look whether he
    could out of Domesday Book give me anything concerning the sea
    and the dominion thereof' (1661).]

    [Footnote 20: _N.C._, v. 465.]

    [Footnote 21: _N.C._, v. 4.]

    [Footnote 22: _Ibid._, p. 42.]

    [Footnote 23: As so much stress has been laid on the argument
    from Domesday, it is desirable further to demonstrate its
    worthlessness by referring to the Lindsey Survey (_vide
    supra_, p. 149). This survey can only be a few years
    previous to 1120, and was therefore made at a time when, _ex
    hypothesi_, feudal tenures had been established for some time.
    Yet here, also, page after page may be searched in vain for
    any mention of 'knights' or 'fees'.]

    [Footnote 24: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 132.]

    [Footnote 25: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 118.]

    [Footnote 26: _Ibid._, i. 156, 133, 124.]

    [Footnote 27: _Ibid._, i. 130.]

    [Footnote 28: _Ibid._, i. 156.]

    [Footnote 29: _Ibid._, i. 133.]

    [Footnote 30: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 192. I do not quite
    understand the passage that 'it is probable that the complete
    following out of the Frank idea [exact proportion of service
    to hides] was reserved for Henry II, unless his military
    reforms are to be understood, as so many of his other measures
    are, as the revival and strengthening of anti-feudal and
    pre-feudal custom'. (_Ibid._) The allusion is, clearly, to the
    assize of arms; but was that assize based on fixed quantities
    of land? Mr Little has discussed the five-hide question in the
    _English Historical Review_, xvi. pp. 726-9 (_vide supra_, p.

    [Footnote 31: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

    [Footnote 32: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

    [Footnote 33: _C.H._, i. 386.]

    [Footnote 34: _Ibid._, i. 581.]

    [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, i. 264-5.]

    [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, i. 432.]

    [Footnote 37: 'The growth of the system of knights' fees out
    of the older system of hides is traced by Stubbs. The old
    service of a man from each five hides of land would go on,
    only it would take a new name and a new spirit' (_N.C._, v.

    [Footnote 38: This argument, of course, applies, _mutatis
    mutandis_, to a five-hide unit as well.]

    [Footnote 39: _C.H._, i. 265.]

    [Footnote 40: Henry of Huntingdon (p. 207) speaks of the
    Domesday returns by the same name (_cartae_).]

    [Footnote 41: _Domesday Book_ occupies a medial position,
    being arranged under counties, but within each county, under

    [Footnote 42: Compare the _carta_ of the bishop of Exeter,
    _Præcepistis mihi quod mandarem vobis_ non _quod servitia
    militum vobis debeam_, etc. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The king issued
    a writ to all the tenants-in-chief of the crown, lay and
    clerical, directing each of them to send in a cartel or report
    of the number of knights' fees for the service of which he was
    legally liable.'--_Const. Hist._, i. 584.]

    [Footnote 43: The bishop of 'Coventry' expresses it: 'numerum
    ... eorum si quos in dominio tenemus, et eorum nomina' (p.

    [Footnote 44: These references are to the pages of the
    forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_. It will be observed
    that the second three returns are too closely alike for
    accidental coincidence; the three Shropshire 'barons' who
    made them must have been in some communication. Note here the
    remarkable use of the term 'compares'.]

    [Footnote 45: Audivi praeceptum vestrum in consulatu

    [Footnote 46: Audito praecepto vestro.]

    [Footnote 47: Praeceptum vestrum, per totam Angliam
    divulgatum, per vicecomitem vestrum Northumberlande ad me,
    sicut ad alios, pervenit.]

    [Footnote 48: Mandavit nobis ... Vicecomes Stephanus, ex parte
    vestra quatinus, etc.]

    [Footnote 49: Praecepit dignitas vestra omnibus fidelibus
    vestris, clericis et laicis, qui de vobis tenent in capite in
    Eboracsira ut mandent, etc.... Quorum ego unus, etc.]

    [Footnote 50: It should be scarcely necessary to warn the
    reader against confusing the _dominium_, or non-infeudated
    portion of the entire fief, with the _dominium_, or demesne
    portion, of each Manor upon that fief.]

    [Footnote 51: An instance in point is afforded by the Bardolf
    barony (_i.e._ fief) _temp._ John: 'Heres Dodon' Bardulf tenet
    feoda xxv. militum per totum. Inde xv. milites sunt feoffati
    et x. feoda sunt super dominium' (_Testa de Nevill_, p. 19).]

    [Footnote 52: (1) Old feoffment, (2) new feoffment, (3)

    [Footnote 53: He and his successors are consequently found
    paying, time after time, on thirty-five fees.]

    [Footnote 54: William de Beauchamp, of Worcestershire, is
    virtually a solitary exception. He inserts, _cavendi causa_,
    this significant clause: 'De hiis praenominatis non debeo Regi
    nisi servitium vii. militum, nec antecessores mei unquam plus
    fecerunt, sed quia dominus Rex praecepit michi mandare quot
    milites habeo et eorum nomina, ideo mando quod istos [_i.e._
    16] habeo fefatos de veteri feffamento; sed non debeo Regi
    nisi servitium vii. militum.' But William was a sheriff at the
    time, and may have had special information which put him on
    his guard.]

    [Footnote 55: Compare the case of the Irish bishops six years
    later (1172), who sent the king 'litteras suas in modum
    cartae extra sigillum pendentes' (Howden). Note also that the
    addition of the seal made the return essentially a _carta_.
    In Normandy, the tenants by knight-service were only required
    (1172) to seal the return (_breve_) of their _servitium

    [Footnote 56: The point is of some importance in its bearing
    on the right of the individual to assess himself, which is
    held in this case to have been exercised. 'The assessment,'
    writes Dr Stubbs, 'of the individual depended very much on
    his own report, which the exchequer had little means of
    checking.'--_C.H._, i. 585.]

    [Footnote 57: By one of those slips so marvellously rare in
    his writings Dr Stubbs writes that 'the Bishop of Durham's
    service for his demesne land was that of ten knights, but it
    was not cut up into fees' (i. 263). What the bishop said was
    that he owed no service for his demesne, because there were
    already over seventy fees created on his fief, though he only
    owed ten.]

    [Footnote 58: This is one of the points on which Madox is
    completely at sea. He quotes the case of the Bishop of Durham
    (1168) as an instance of 'Doubts about the number of knights'
    fees' (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 122); and he writes, of the above
    uniform formula: 'This uncertainty about the number of
    the fees frequently happened in the case of ecclesiastical
    persons, Bishops, and Abbots.'--_Exchequer_, i. 647.]

    [Footnote 59: _C.H._, i. 264.]

    [Footnote 60: See my papers on 'The House of Lords; the
    Transition from Tenure to Writ' (_Antiquary_, October and
    December 1884, April 1885).]

    [Footnote 61: See, for instance, the language used in the
    _carta_ of Ralf de Worcester (p. 441): 'Teneo de vobis in
    capite de veteri fefamento feodum i. militis, unde debeo vobis
    facere servitium i. militis. Et de eodem feodo Jordanus Hairum
    debet mihi facere iiii.^{am.} partem servitii,' etc. In Normandy
    (1172), the phrase ran: 'quot milites unusquisque baronum
    deberet ad servicium regis, et quot haberet ad suum proprium

    [Footnote 62: Sometimes Exeter pays on 15-1/2 (14, 33, Hen.
    II), but 17-1/2 (2, 5, 7, 18 Hen. II) is the normal amount.
    The explanation of this odd number is found in the _Testa
    de Nevill_ (p. 226) where ('Veredictum militum de Rapo de
    Arundel') we read: 'Episcopus Exoniensis tenet de Domino Rege
    de Capellaria de Boseham vii. feoda militum et dimidium.' The
    Bosham estate (as belonging to Osbern) had formed part of the
    episcopal fief in Domesday, but (the bishops having founded
    a church there) we find it assessed and paying separately as
    7-1/2 fees.]

    [Footnote 63: I have found a case bearing upon this point and
    reported at great length (Thorpe's _Registrum Roffense_, pp.
    70 _et seq._). It arose from an attempt of the Archbishop of
    Canterbury, in 1253, to distrain the Bishop of Rochester for
    the 'auxilium ad filium regis primogenitum militem faciendum'.
    The bishop 'posuit se super recordum rotulorum de Scaccario,
    per quos rotulos poterit et illa quam rex contra episcopum et
    etiam illa quam archiepiscopus contra episcopum movit questio
    diffiniri. Didicerat enim episcopus per unum fidelem amicum
    quem in scaccario tunc habebat quod nunquam tempore alicujus
    regis pro aliquo feodo episcopatus aliquod fuit regi factum
    servicium vel datum scutagium.... Unde consulebat quod
    audaciter poneret se episcopus super recordum rotulorum de
    Scaccario, nichil enim tenet episcopus per baroniam de rege,
    sed per puram elemosinam, quod non est dicendum de aliquo
    episcopatu Anglie, nec de Archiepiscopatu, nisi dumtaxat de
    Karleolen. Cumque cum audacia institisset episcopus, quod
    decideretur per rotulos de Scaccario quibus creditur in omnibus
    illis sicut sancto evangelio', etc., etc. The barons of the
    exchequer examined the rolls, 'a tempore primi conquestus' (?)
    and reported: 'nusquam invenerunt episcopum Roffensem solvisse
    aut dedisse aliquod servicium regibus temporale'. But the
    dispute was not finally decided till 1259. The clue to the
    matter is found in the Canterbury 'Domesday Monachorum' (8th
    Report Hist. MSS. i. 316), where a list of the archbishop's
    knights, perhaps coeval with Domesday (_vide infra_, p. 236),
    is headed by 'Episcopus Roffensis' with a _servitium_ of ten
    knights to the Primate.]

    [Footnote 64: Cerne had to provide 'ten' knights _ad wardam_
    at Corfe Castle, or 'two' _ad exercitum_ (_vide_ cartam).]

    [Footnote 65: This indeed is proved by an extract quoted by
    Madox (_Exchequer_) from the Roll of 22 Hen. II (rot. 10_a_).]

    [Footnote 66: The effect of all the changes of assessment we
    have traced under Henry II would only be the reduction of this
    total to 774.]

    [Footnote 67: Roll of 11 Hen. II. (This was, of course, the
    son of Henry I by Edith.)]

    [Footnote 68 The custos of his fief paid scutage for eighty
    knights in 1159, but he speaks 'de meis lx. militibus' in his

    [Footnote 69: The undoubted assessment in 1162. Afterwards it
    is found paying on sixty and a fraction.]

    [Footnote 70: 'Lx. milites ... habere solebat pater meus'

    [Footnote 71: This figure is given in the _Liber Niger_, but
    is really derived from his recorded payments.]

    [Footnote 72: Tot habuit milites feodatos ... scilicet lx. de
    antiquo feodo (_Carta_).]

    [Footnote 73: In Yorkshire alone. In all England, many more.]

    [Footnote 74: This figure is taken from the payments in 1161
    and 1172.]

    [Footnote 75: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

    [Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass
    of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important
    entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment
    by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi
    vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro
    feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former
    entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that
    time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its
    real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he
    completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I
    think, should be read together as relating to the estates
    of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and
    of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original
    _servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands
    of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin.
    Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history
    of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the
    unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide
    infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is
    66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in
    1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees.
    If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly
    existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one
    fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added
    that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as
    20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by
    Richard de Camville in both these years.]

    [Footnote 77: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

    [Footnote 78: He omitted to send in a _carta_ in 1166; but,
    both before and after, he paid on 30 fees.]

    [Footnote 79: He twice pays on 30 fees before 1166, in which
    year his fief was held by Gerbert de Percy. Subsequently, as
    the honour of Poerstoke (Poorstock), it always pays on 30.]

    [Footnote 80: This is a very difficult case. Walter's _carta_
    might easily be read as implying a _servitium debitum_ of 20
    fees, and his fief paid on 29 _de veteri_ and 1-1/2 _de novo_.
    But careful scrutiny reveals that the words 'hos iiij^{or.}
    milites qui has predictas terras tenent' are preceded by _six_
    names. If they refer, either to the four names immediately
    preceding, or (which is more probable) to the four knights who
    held his lands but rendered him no service, the total of his
    _servitium debitum_ would, in either case, be 30.]

    [Footnote 81: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

    [Footnote 82: He paid on 25 fees in 1162.]

    [Footnote 83: 'Feodum xx. militum de rege de veteri feffamento
    quod pater suus tenuit' (_carta_).]

    [Footnote 84: He paid on 20 fees in 1161, but the subsequent
    assessment of the fief varies considerably.]

    [Footnote 85: He paid on 20 fees in 1162 and 1165, and
    returned his fees in 1166 as 20 _de veteri_ and 3/4 _de novo_.]

    [Footnote 86: The scutages record him as paying always on
    15 knights _quos recognoscit_--the formula for _servitium

    [Footnote 87: His payment on 15 fees in 1161 probably
    represents his _servitium debitum_. His total enfeoffments
    were 23.]

    [Footnote 88: Hugh and Stephen de Scalers are the names given
    in the _cartae_, but Henry and William de Scalers held the
    fiefs at the time.]

    [Footnote 89: He paid 10 marcs in 1168, though his _carta_
    only records 9-5/6 fees.]

    [Footnote 90: A difficult fief to deal with, but almost
    certainly the half of an original Reimes fief owing 20 knights
    (_vide supra_).]

    [Footnote 91: Apparently 15 at first, and 10 later.]

    [Footnote 92: _i.e._ the Peverel Honour of Bourne,
    Cambridgeshire (held in Domesday by Picot, the Sheriff), not
    Bourne, Lincolnshire, held by the Wakes.]

    [Footnote 93: He only pays on 5 fees in 1162, and the excess
    _de novo_ in his _carta_ is accounted for, he says, by the
    necessities of his position.]

    [Footnote 94: This is not proved for the latter fief.]

    [Footnote 95: Compare with these allusions to a traditional
    _servitium debitum_ the significant words of Wace (_Roman de

      'Ne ke jamez d'ore en avant,
      Ço lor a miz en covenant,
      N'ierent de servise requis,
      Forz tel ke solt estre al paiz,
      E tel come lor ancessor
      Soleient fere a lor Seignor,'--

    which are the reply to the fears of the barons (_Norm. Conq._,
    iii. 298):

      'Li servise ki est doblez
      Creiment k'il seit en feu tornez,
      Et en costume seit tenu
      Et par costume seit rendu (lines 11272 _et seq._).']

    [Footnote 96: It can be shown that the 'service' in Normandy
    was based on precisely the same five-knight unit.]

    [Footnote 97: 'The estates of the twenty greatest feodaries in
    Domesday Book contain, according to the ordinary computation,
    793, 439, 442, 298, 280, 222, 171, 164, 132, 130, 123, 119,
    118, 107, 81, 47, 46 and 33 knights' fees.'--Gneist (_Const.
    Hist._, i. 334).]

    [Footnote 98: _C.H._, i. 289.]

    [Footnote 99: For instance, the Abbot of St Edmund's
    'quinquaginta milites' are spoken of as 'milites de quatuor
    constabiliis' with 'decem miles de quinta constabilia'
    (_Memorials of St Edmunds_, Ed. Arnold, i. 269, 271).]

    [Footnote 100: Robert fitz Stephen lands with 30 knights,
    Maurice de Prendergast with 10, Maurice fitz Gerald with 10,
    Strongbow with 200, Raymond the Fat with 10, Henry himself
    with either 400 or 500, etc.]

    [Footnote 101: See my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 103.]

    [Footnote 102: Lines 11253 _et seq._ The figures, however, are
    far too large, and savour of poetic licence.]

    [Footnote 103: _N.C._, v. 368.]

    [Footnote 104: Meath with a _servitium debitum_ of 100,
    Limerick of 60, Cork with two _servitia_ of 30 each.]

    [Footnote 105: _N.C._, v. 378.]

    [Footnote 106: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 129, 156.]

    [Footnote 107: Freeman, _N.C._, v. 372, 371.]

    [Footnote 108: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

    [Footnote 109: Mr Hall informs me that is the name of the
    official referred to.]

    [Footnote 110: 'Prout rumor ex rotulis ad me devenit.']

    [Footnote 111: See p. 221 _infra_.]

    [Footnote 112: 'Et nota quod quandocumque assidentur scutagia,
    licet eodem anno solvantur, annotantur tamen in annali anni
    sequentis' (_Red Book_, ed. Hall, p. 8).]

    [Footnote 113: It is just possible that the source of his
    error is to be found in a solitary entry on the roll of 1163:
    'Advocatus de Betuna reddit compotum de vi. li. xiii. s. iiii.
    d. de auxilio exercitus de Tolusa' (p. 9)--which refers to the
    levy of 1161.]

    [Footnote 114: 'Temporibus enim regis Henrici primi ... nec
    inspexi vel audivi fuisse scutagia assisa' (p. 5).]

    [Footnote 115: _Vide supra_, p. 118 note.]

    [Footnote 116: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum tunc
    temporis divulgatum.']

    [Footnote 117: See _Red Book of the Exchequer_, pp. 5, 8.]

    [Footnote 118: See list of church fiefs.]

    [Footnote 119: His _carta_ is corrupt.]

    [Footnote 120: 'Abbas Gloucestrie tenet omnes terras in libera
    elemosina.'--_Testa_, p. 77.]

    [Footnote 121: 'A new impost specially levied (1156) upon some
    of the ecclesiastical estates, under the name of _scutage_'
    (Norgate's _Angevin Kings_, i. 433). 'The famous scutage, the
    acceptance of a money composition for military service, alike
    for the old English service of the fyrd' [this, of course, is
    a misconception], 'and for the newer military tenures, dates
    from this (1159) time' (Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, v. 674).
    'The term _scutage_ now (1156) first employed.... As early as
    his second year (1156) we find him collecting a scutage, a new
    form of taxation' (Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 454, 458, 581,

    [Footnote 122: The phrase 'debet scutagium quando currit' is
    of course, a normal one.]

    [Footnote 123: 'Teste Gaufrido Cancellario et Willelmo de
    Albineio Pincerna et Gaufrido de Clintona et Pagano fil
    Johannis. Apud Sanctum Petrum desuper Divam.']

    [Footnote 124: Cott. MS. Julius A., i. 6, fo. 74_a_.]

    [Footnote 125: These charters have an independent value for
    the light they throw, in conjunction with the roll, on the
    movements of the king. The roll itself alludes to the occasion
    on which the king crossed from Eling--'ex q[uo] rex
    mare transivit de Eilling[es]'--and as it is assigned to
    Michaelmas, 1130, the entry cannot refer to his departure at
    that very date, especially as these charters are not paid for
    among the _nova_ proceedings of the year. They must therefore
    have been granted at his previous departure (August 1127),
    when he must have crossed from Eling and have gone to S.
    Pierre sur Dive (and Argentan) in Normandy. Pleas were heard
    before him at Eling on this occasion (_Rot. Pip._, pp.
    17, 38), and are referred to in a charter of Stephen to
    Shaftesbury Abbey.]

    [Footnote 126: Printed in _Athenæum_, December 2, 1893.]

    [Footnote 127: Cf. _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 105.]

    [Footnote 128: 'Abbas locum sibi commissum munita manu militum
    secure protegebat; et primo quidem stipendiariis in hoc
    utebatur' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3). 'Unde abbas tristis
    recedens conduxit milites', etc. (_Historia Eliensis_, p.
    275). So too Bishop Wulfstan is found 'pompam militum secum
    ducens qui stipendiis annuis', etc. (W. Malmesb.)]

    [Footnote 129: It is singular that in his admirable work, _The
    English Village Community_, pp. 38-9, Mr Seebohm connects 'the
    normal acreage of the hide of 120 a., and of the virgate of 30
    a., with the scutage of 40s per knight's fee', and argues that
    'in choosing the acreage of the standard hide and virgate, a
    number of acres was probably assumed corresponding with the
    monetary system, so that the number of pence in the _scutum_
    should correspond with the number of acres assessed to its
    payment'. It need hardly be observed that the institution of
    scutage was, on the contrary, long posterior to that of a hide
    of 120 acres.]

    [Footnote 130: Walton was at the mouth of the Orwell and
    the Stour, and was thus an exposed port towards
    Flanders as Dover was towards France. It is noteworthy that
    when the Earl of Leicester did invade England from Flanders a
    few years later, it was at 'Walton' that he landed.]

    [Footnote 131: Compare Will. Pict.: 'Custodes in castellis
    strenuos viros collocavit ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei
    pariter ac virtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et
    equitum, ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit,' etc.]

    [Footnote 132: Should not this rather be 'from ecclesiastical
    tenants-in-chief holding by military service'? For it was
    neither collected from knights' fees, nor with reference to
    their existing number.]

    [Footnote 133: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.
    So too _Const. Hist._, i. 454: 'The practice was, as we learn
    from John of Salisbury, opposed by Archbishop Theobald'; and
    (i. 577) 'Archbishop Theobald had denounced the scutage of
    1156'; and (_Early Plant._, p. 54) 'he made the bishops,
    notwithstanding strong objections from Archbishop Theobald,
    pay scutage'.]

    [Footnote 134: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcviii.]

    [Footnote 135: 'Honori et utilitati ecclesiae tota mentis
    intentione studiosius invigilabit. Verum interim', etc. John
    of Salisbury (Ep. cxxviii). Note that 'ecclesiae' is the
    church at large, not the See of Canterbury.]

    [Footnote 136: _Angevin Kings_, i. 443.]

    [Footnote 137: _Red Book_, p. 6.]

    [Footnote 138: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcv.]

    [Footnote 139: _Const. Hist._, i. 454.]

    [Footnote 140: _Ibid._, i. 164.]

    [Footnote 141: _Angevin Kings_, i. 458. Both writers quote the
    passage from John of Salisbury (Ep. xcxviii), on which this
    explanation is based.]

    [Footnote 142: His _servitium debitum_ was one knight.]

    [Footnote 143: The force for the Welsh campaign was raised,
    as we learn from Robert de Monte (_alias_ de Torigni), 'by
    demanding that every three knights should, instead of serving
    in person, equip one of their number', as Dr Stubbs rightly
    puts it (_Const. Hist._, i. 589), and not, as he elsewhere
    writes (preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.), by
    requiring every two to add to themselves a third, 'by which
    means, if we are to understand it literally, 90,000 knights
    would appear from 60,000 knights' fees'. The real number would
    probably be under 2,000.]

    [Footnote 144: 'This impost, which afterwards came to be known
    in English history as the "Great Scutage"' (_Angevin Kings_,
    i. 459).]

    [Footnote 145: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 6.]

    [Footnote 146: _Angevin Kings_, i. 461.]

    [Footnote 147: The abbots of Shrewsbury, Thorney, and
    Croyland; the abbesses of Barking, Winchester, and Romsey. The
    total of their _dona_ amounted to £51 13s 4d.]

    [Footnote 148: Not, however, by Dr Stubbs (Preface to _Gesta
    Henrici Regis_, II. xciv-xcvi).]

    [Footnote 149: Dr Stubbs, independently, reckons the total
    payments of the church at £3,700 (_Gesta Henrici Regis_),
    which does not differ greatly from the above calculation
    (£3,167 6s 8d). ]

    [Footnote 150: 'Ille quidem gladius quem in sancte matris
    ecclesiae viscera vestra paulo ante manus immerserat cum ad
    trajiciendum in Tolosam exercitum tot ipsam marcarum millibus
    aporiastis.' Gilbert Foliot (Ep. cxciv).]

    [Footnote 151: 'Nec permisit ut ecclesiae saltem proceribus
    coaequarentur in hac contributione vel magis exactione
    tam indebita quam injusta.' John of Salisbury (Ep. cxlv).
    Swereford, though confused in his account of the tax, points
    out that levy was made 'non solum super praelatos, verum _tam
    super ipsos_, quam super milites suos' (_L.R._, p. 6).]

    [Footnote 152: Gneist, for instance, writes: 'The first
    general imposition took place in 5 Henry II for the campaign
    against Toulouse, with two marcs per fee from all crown
    vassals' (_C.H._, i. 212).]

    [Footnote 153: Entered as 'Dona militum comitatus', not to
    be confused with the 'dona comitatus', a special levy of the
    following year (6 Hen. II), raised, it will be found, from the
    western counties, from Stafford in the north to Devonshire in
    the south.]

    [Footnote 154: 'Rex ... nolens vexare agrarios milites ...
    sumptis lx. solidis Andegavensium in Normannia de feudo
    uniuscujusque loricae et de reliquis omnibus tam in Normannia
    quam in Anglia, sive etiam aliis terris suis, secundum hoc
    quod ei visum fuit, capitales barones suos cum paucis secum
    duxit, solidarios vero milites innumeros' (p. 202, ed.

    [Footnote 155: This was certainly the case with the fiefs
    of Simon de Beauchamp and the Earl Ferrers, two of the most

    [Footnote 156: _Angevin Kings_, i. 462.]

    [Footnote 157: 'A second scutage was raised in the seventh
    year, probably for payment of debts incurred for the same war,
    the assessment being in this, as in the former case, two marcs
    to the knight's fee.' (Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, p.

    [Footnote 158: If it was raised for this purpose, it must have
    been levied either (1) from _all_ tenants-in-chief, which it
    certainly was not; or (2) from the _same_ contributors as in
    1159, which a comparison of the two rolls will at once show
    it was not; or (3) from a _new_ set of contributors, which was
    also not the case, for the prelates, the Ferrers fief, etc.,
    are found contributing as before.]

    [Footnote 159: _Const. Hist._, i. 582.]

    [Footnote 160: Instead of a fief paying _en bloc_, it seems to
    have paid through the sheriffs of the counties in which it was

    [Footnote 161: "Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi.
    libris et v. solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'"
    (p. 84).]

    [Footnote 162: 'Abbas de Abendona reddit compotum de lxxvi.
    libris et v. solidis de promise sione servientium in Waliam'
    (rot. 11 Hen. II, p. 74).]

    [Footnote 163: 'Abbas de Sancto Albano reddit compotum de
    lxxvi. libris et v. solidis de Exercitu' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

    [Footnote 164: 'Episcopus Lond' reddit compotum de xiii.
    libris et vi. sol. et viii. den. de Servicio militum.... Idem
    reddit compotum de cxiiii. marcis et v. sol. de promissione
    servientium Walie' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

    [Footnote 165: 'Willelmus de Siffrewast reddit compotum de
    lxxvi. sol. et iii. den.... Hugo de Bochelanda reddit compotum
    de. v. servientibus' (_ibid._, p. 75). Compare the love of
    variety in Domesday, _supra_, pp. 41, 42, 77.]

    [Footnote 166: 'Scutagium de ii. exercitibus' in next roll
    (rot. 12 Hen. II).]

    [Footnote 167: _Itinerary of Henry II_, p. 79 _et seq._
    Compare also the payment from the Giffard fief 'de secundo
    exercitu' (p. 25).]

    [Footnote 168: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 180, note.]

    [Footnote 169: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 193.]

    [Footnote 170: This was the point on which Abbot Sampson
    insisted, against his knights, at St Edmund's. In the case
    of Canterbury, the inquest of 1163 would have ascertained the
    actual number of the archbishop's knights and their fees.]

    [Footnote 171: Ignorasse quidem haec [debita] servitia
    militaria Regis ... successores subsequentium argumento non
    immerito potuit dubitare: quia cum Rex Henricus ... traderet,
    a quolibet sui regni milite marcam unam ... exegit, publico
    praecipiens edicto quod quilibet praelatus et baro quot
    milites de eo tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis
    significarent' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. 4).]

    [Footnote 172: 'Teneo de vobis ... feodum i. militis, unde
    debeo vobis facere servitium i. militis' (_carta_).]

    [Footnote 173: 'De hoc predicto feodo debet Regi v. milites'

    [Footnote 174: It must always be remembered that, as explained
    above, in cases where the requisite number of knights had not
    been enfeoffed by 1166, the balance _de dominio_ was added to
    those actually created, as _de veteri_ together.]

    [Footnote 175: Thus Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur pays on one fee
    (_de veteri_) more than his _carta_ records, William de Tracy
    on half a fee (_de veteri_), Adam de Port on one, the Earl
    of Gloucester on two, the Earl of Warwick on two and a half,
    Maurice de Craon on one, the Abbot of Hulme on a quarter of a
    fee, William de Albini (Pincerna) on one, Henry de Lacy on one
    and a half, William de Vescy on one, Bertram de Bulemer on
    a half, and William Paynell on one (these figures are all
    subject to correction). The case of William de Vescy is
    specially conspicuous, because the nineteen fees enumerated
    are distinctly spoken of as twenty.]

    [Footnote 176: This brings it into relation with the
    _Constabularia_ of which it thus formed just a third.]

    [Footnote 177: The same formula is found in Domesday applied
    to hidation in East Anglia, where the assessment of Manors is
    expressed not in terms of the hide, but in fractions of the
    pound. (_Vide supra_, p. 89.)]

    [Footnote 178: _Vide supra_, p. 205.]

    [Footnote 179: 'Willelmus Malet tenet Cari de Domino Rege et
    alias terras suas per servicium viginti militum' (p. 163).]

    [Footnote 180: Ducange (1887), ii. 581.]

    [Footnote 181: _Ibid._, viii. 255. Ducange indeed asserts that
    five knights was the qualification in Normandy for barony,
    but the statement is based on a mistaken rendering and is
    elsewhere disproved.]

    [Footnote 182: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 4.]

    [Footnote 183: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum, tunc
    temporis divulgatum, fatuum reputans et mirabile, quod in
    regni conquisitione Dux Normannorum, Rex Willelmus, servitia
    xxxii. militum infeodavit' (_ibid._).]

    [Footnote 184: Swereford, it is clear, failed to grasp the
    great change of assessment in 1166.]

    [Footnote 185: _Const. Hist._, i. 432.]

    [Footnote 186; _Ibid._, i. 157. Dr Stubbs rightly rejects Mr
    Pearson's conjecture that the number of 32,000 applied to the
    hides, and that 'the number of knights' fees, calculated at
    five hides each, would be 6,400'.]

    [Footnote 187: 'His temporibus militiam Anglici regni Rex
    Willelmus conscribi fecit et lx. millia militum invenit, quos
    omnes, dum necesse esset, paratos esse praecepit.']

    [Footnote 188: 'A whole army was by this means encamped upon
    the soil, and the king's summons could at any moment gather
    60,000 knights to the royal standard.']

    [Footnote 189: _Const. Hist._, i. 264. Compare pp. 16, 17.]

    [Footnote 190: Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 694).]

    [Footnote 191: _Ibid._, iv. 562.]

    [Footnote 192: _Ibid._, iii. 387. In _Social England_ (i. 373)
    we read that 'William is believed to have landed in England
    with at least 60,000 men, 50,000 horse and 10,000 foot'. But
    on turning to p. 306 of that great effort of co-operative
    genius, we learn that only 'some of William's ships carried
    horses to the number of from three to eight--as well as men'.
    So the number of his ships (396, according to Wace) is as
    great a difficulty as the proportions of Noah's Ark.]

    [Footnote 193: _William Rufus_, i. 17.]

    [Footnote 194: _Ibid._, i. 313.]

    [Footnote 195: 'Annui fiscales redditus ... ad sexaginta
    millia marcarum summam implebant.']

    [Footnote 196: 'Sexaginta millia peditum' (p. 4).]

    [Footnote 197: 'Sexaginta millia silinas de frumento,
    sexaginta millia de hordeo, sexaginta millia de vino'
    (_Richard of Devizes_, ed. Howlett, p. 396).]

    [Footnote 198: 'Sexaginta accipitur indefinite de magno
    numero. Sexcenti saepe usurpatur pro numero ingenti et
    indefinito' (Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_).]

    [Footnote 199: 'Bis sex sibi millia centum' (_Carmen de bello

    [Footnote 200: It must be clearly understood that these
    figures cannot be absolutely accurate. Some honours are
    omitted, it seems, in the returns from which we have to work,
    and for these allowance must be made.]

    [Footnote 201: '[1235] Sicut Stephanus Segrave ... asserebat
    et affirmabat vetus scutagium ad xxxii. millia scuta
    assumabatur et irrotulabatur; et ad tantundem plene et plane
    potuit novum scutagium de novis terris assumari' (_Ann.
    Monast._, i. 364).]

    [Footnote 202: 'Nine thousand for all England would be a
    large estimate at any time of the twelfth century' (_Early and
    Middle Ages_, i. 375).]

    [Footnote 203: The italics represent Anglo-Saxon characters.]

    [Footnote 204: _Lib. Rub._, pp. 188, 214, 237, 238, 292.]

    [Footnote 205: _Ibid._, pp. 211, 214.]

    [Footnote 206: _Ibid._, pp. 214, 292.]

    [Footnote 207: _Lib. Rub_., p. 292.]

    [Footnote 208: _Ibid._, pp. 200, 210.]

    [Footnote 209: _Ibid._, p. 210.]

    [Footnote 210: _Ibid._, pp. 390, 444.]

    [Footnote 211: _Ibid._, p. 429.]

    [Footnote 212: _Ibid._, pp. 431-2.]

    [Footnote 213: M. Paris, _Additamenta_, p. 436. This list,
    which seems scarcely known, is very valuable for its early
    date, being, I think, about contemporaneous with the _cartae_
    of 1166.]

    [Footnote 214: _L.R._, pp. 229, 245, 356.]

    [Footnote 215: 'Et predictus Willelmus dedit predictas
    tres carucatas terre Osberto vicecomiti pro servicio unius

    [Footnote 216: Together with castle-guard of thirty knights at

    [Footnote 217: 'Post tempus domini Regis Willelmi Ruffi, qui
    eos feoffavit.']

    [Footnote 218: _Testa_, p. 69.]

    [Footnote 219: 'Post Conquestum Angliae' (_Liber Rubeus_, p.

    [Footnote 220: _Const. Hist._, i. 263.]

    [Footnote 221: 'Et deinceps tres (milites) mihi habeat _sicut
    antecessores sui faciebant_ in septentrionali parte fluminis
    Tamesie' (1091-1100).--_Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 234.]

    [Footnote 222: Compare the Ely entry (_supra_ p. 213) for

    [Footnote 223: Could this have been Richard fitz Nigel

    [Footnote 224: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 255. Compare with
    this expression 'in rotulo scripti', the Conqueror's
    command (_infra_), that the number of knights 'in annalibus

    [Footnote 225: Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, p. 50.]

    [Footnote 226: It enables us to correct such an entry in the
    Black Book as 'Radulfus Maindeherst', by identifying him with
    Ralph Mowyn, the tenant at Hurst. It supplies an entry as to
    Henry de 'Wichetone' (Whiston) which is omitted in _L.R._,
    and entered in _L.N._, with wrong name and wrong holding; and,
    better still, it shows that Silvester of Holwell held only 2
    hides, not 12, as given in error, both in _L.N._, and _L.R._
    The existence of this error in both bears, of course, on their
    relation (cf. p. 287, _supra_).]

    [Footnote 227: _Const. Hist._, i. 357. Gneist writes that
    Matthew's statement 'is for good reasons called in question by
    Stubbs' (_C.H._, i. 255, note).]

    [Footnote 228: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

    [Footnote 229: _Historia Eliensis_ (ed. 1848), p. 276.]

    [Footnote 230: _Ibid._, p. 274.]

    [Footnote 231: 'Praecepit illi (_i.e._ abbati) ex nutu regis
    custodiam xl. militum habere in insulam.' _Ibid._, p. 275.
    This is the very _servitium debitum_ that appears under Henry

    [Footnote 232: Compare for the initiative of the crown, the
    Domesday phrase, 'miles jussu regis', and the statement that
    Lanfranc replaced the drengs of his See by knights at the
    royal command ('Rex praecepit.')]

    [Footnote 233: Madox writes (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 114)
    bitterly and unjustly: 'In process of time, several of the
    religious found out another piece of art. They insisted that
    they held all their land and tenements in frankalmoigne,
    and not by knight-service.' In the cases he quotes, 'this
    allegation' was perfectly correct, and was recognized as such
    by the judges.]

    [Footnote 234: Turoldus vero sexaginta et duo hidas terrae de
    terra ecclesiae Burgi dedit stipendiariis militibus' (_John of
    Peterborough_, ed. Giles).]

    [Footnote 235: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

    [Footnote 236: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

    [Footnote 237: 'De militibus Archiepiscopis.' 8th Report on
    Historical MSS., i. 316.]

    [Footnote 238: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 239: A charter of Henry I (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 496)
    addressed 'Willelmo Episcopo Exoniensi et Ricardo filio
    Baldwini vicecomiti' (see p. 256) contains the clause:
    'Prohibeo ne aliquis præter monachos ipsas terras amplius
    teneat vel alias aliquas quæ de dominio ecclesie fuerunt,
    exceptis illis quas Gaufridus abbas dedit _ad servicium
    militare_.' Abbot Geoffrey is said to have died in 1088. A
    curious difficulty has been raised about the words in italics.
    It is argued in Alford's _Abbots of Tavistock_ (p. 68) that
    as, according to Mr Freeman, military tenures did not exist in
    Abbot Geoffrey's day, there was perhaps a second abbot of that
    name to whom that charter refers. But he is only introduced by
    Mr Alford under protest; and we see now that there is no need
    for him. Henry's charter being witnessed by Ralph, Archbishop
    of Canterbury, William, the King's son, and the Count of
    Meulan, at Odiham, belongs, I may observe to 1114-16.]

    [Footnote 240: 'Quis stipendii annuis quotidianisque
    cibis immane quantum populabantur' (Will. Malmesb., _Gesta

    [Footnote 241: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

    [Footnote 242: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

    [Footnote 243: _Ibid._, p. 2331: 'misit ... in Normanniam pro
    cognatis suis, quibus multas possessiones ecclesiae dedit et
    feoffavit, ita ut in anno lxx. de possessionibus ecclesiae eis

    [Footnote 244: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 8, 'Randulfus
    frater abbatis Walterii habet in Withelega iii. hidas de
    dominio, etc., etc. ... dono Walterii Abbatis contradicente
    capitulo'. This was the 'Rannulfum [_sic_] fratrem ejusdem
    Walteri abbatis ... qui cum fratre suo tenebat illud placitum'
    (_temp._ Will. I), whom the Bishop of Worcester's knights
    challenged to trial by battle (Heming's _Chart. Wig._, ed.
    Hearne, p. 82). His holding was represented in 1166 by the
    fees of Randulf de Kinwarton and Randulf de Coughton. Other
    cases of contested enfeoffment by Abbots Walter and Robert are
    those of Hugh Travers and Hugh de Bretfertun.]

    [Footnote 245: See the _carta_ of 1166, which explains how
    this holding became half a fee.]

    [Footnote 246: 'Miles quidam, Odo nomine, dono praedecessoris
    mei Sifridi abbatis, ob graciam cusjusdam consobrinae suae,
    quam idem Odo conjugem duxerat ... tria maneria de dominio
    sibi astrinxerat ... invitis fratribus. Alius quidam ... dono
    abbatis ... tamen absque fratrum consensu manerium possidebat'
    (_Domerham_, p. 306).]

    [Footnote 247: 'De his terris quas, ut diximus, suo tempore
    acquisivit, quibusdam bonis hominibus pro magna necessitate et
    honore ecclesiae dedit, et inde Deo et sibi fideliter quamdiu
    vixit serviebant' (_Chronicon Evesh._, p. 96). His successor,
    Walter (1077-86), incited by his own young relatives, 'noluit
    homagium a pluribus bonis hominibus quos praedecessor suus
    habuerat suscipere eo quod terras omnium, si posset, decrevit
    auferre' (_ibid._, p. 98). In the result, 'dicitur quod fere
    omnes milites hujus abbatiae haereditavit' (_ibid._, p. 91).]

    [Footnote 248: He begged Anselm that 'terras ecclesiae
    quas ipse rex, defuncto Lanfranco, suis dederat pro statuto
    servicio, illis ipsis haereditario jure tenendas, causa sui
    amoris, condonaret' (_Eadmer_).]

    [Footnote 249: Foundation charter of Alcester Priory.]

    [Footnote 250: Three other documents are found on the same
    folio. Of these the first is addressed to Lanfranc, Odo of
    Bayeux, Bishop Wulfstan, and Urse d'Abetot, and witnessed by
    Bishop Geoffrey (of Coutances) and (like our writ) by Eudo
    Dapifer, being also witnessed, like it, at Winchester. It is
    noteworthy that it grants Æthelwig the Hundred of Fishborough
    'in potestate et _justitia_ sua'.]

    [Footnote 251: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxvi. f. 15[18].]

    [Footnote 252: 'Rex commisit ei curam istarum partium terrae
    ... ita ut omnium hujus patriae consilia atque judicia fere in
    eo penderent' (_Hist. Evesham_).]

    [Footnote 253: Florence of Worcester.]

    [Footnote 254: 'Cernens itaque rex grande sibi periculum
    imminere, debitum servitium ... exigit' (_Liber Eliensis_, p.

    [Footnote 255: 'Rex Henricus contra fratrem suum Robertum,
    Normanniae comitem, super se in Anglia cum exercitu venientem,
    totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii.

    [Footnote 256: In the former case, between the crown and
    its tenant; in the latter, between the tenant and his

    [Footnote 257: 'Idem [Godcelinus de Riveria] dicebat se non
    debere facere servitium, nisi duorum militum, pro feudo quem
    tenebat de ecclesia, et abbas et sui dicebant eum debere
    servitium trium militum' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 129). 'Cum a
    quodam duos milites ad servicium regis exigerem (tantum enim
    inde deberi ab olim a commilitonibus didiceram) ipse toto
    conatu obstitit, unius dumtaxat se militis servicio obnoxium
    obtestans.'--Henry, Abbot of Glastonbury (_Domerham_, p.

    [Footnote 258: Thus undermining Mr Freeman's argument: 'We
    hear of nothing in Domesday which can be called knight-service
    or military tenure in the later sense; the old obligations
    would remain; the primeval duty of military service, due, not
    to a lord as lord, but to the state and to the king as its
    head, went on,' etc. (_Norm. Conq._, v. 371).]

    [Footnote 259: _Norm. Conq._, v. 865.]

    [Footnote 260: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3-7.]

    [Footnote 261: 'In Winteham tenet Hubertus de Abbate v. hidas
    de terra villanorum' (i. 58_b_).]

    [Footnote 262: 'Hubertus i. militem pro v. hidis in Witham'
    (p. 4).]

    [Footnote 263: 'In Wichtham de terra villanorum curiae
    Cumenore obsequi solitorum, illo ab abbate cuidam militi
    nomine Huberto v. hidarum portio distributa est' (p. 7).]

    [Footnote 264: See _Cart. Ab._, ii. 138. Cf. _Domesday_, i.
    58_b_: 'Willelmus tenet de abbate Leie.']

    [Footnote 265: See p. 231.]

    [Footnote 266: This distinction, it will be found, is
    preserved in Henry's Charter of Liberties (1101): 'nec ...
    aliquid accipiam [1] de dominico ecclesiae vel [2] de hominibus

    [Footnote 267: See my paper on 'The Knights of Peterborough',
    _supra_, p. 131.]

    [Footnote 268: In the transcript of the original return it is:
    'habet hugo de bolebech ... de waltero giffard'.]

    [Footnote 269: _Inquisitio Eliensis_ (_O._ 2. 1), f. 210, _et
    seq._ (see below, page 349).]

    [Footnote 270: See p. 166.]

    [Footnote 271: Hemingi _Chartularium_ (ed. Hearne), 1723.]

    [Footnote 272: _Norman Conquest_, vol. v.]

    [Footnote 273: Interlineation.]

    [Footnote 274: _Dapifer_ to Bishop Wulfstan.]

    [Footnote 275: He witnessed, as 'Ordric Niger', the
    _conventio_ between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of
    Evesham, and was perhaps Bishop Wulfstan's reeve (Heming, p.

    [Footnote 276: Probably Bishop Wulfstan's chancellor.]

    [Footnote 277: Although, from his ignorance of this document,
    Dr Stubbs was not aware of Ranulf's _modus operandi_, its
    evidence affords a fresh illustration of his unfailing
    insight, and of his perfect grasp of the problem even in the
    absence of proof. 'The analogy', he writes, 'of lay fiefs
    was applied to the churches with as much minuteness as
    possible.... Ranulf Flambard saw no other difference between
    an ecclesiastical and a lay fief than the superior facilities
    which the first gave for extortion.... The church was open to
    these claims because she furnished no opportunity for reliefs,
    wardships, marriage, escheats, or forfeiture' (_Const. Hist._,
    pp. 298-300).]

    [Footnote 278: It has been urged to me that relief on _mutatio
    domini_ was a recognized practice, but I cannot find proof of
    it in English feudalism.]

    [Footnote 279: 'Nec mortuo archiepiscopo, sive episcopo,
    sive abbate, aliquid accipiam de dominico ecclesiae vel de
    hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur.']

    [Footnote 280: There is a very important allusion to it, as
    introduced under Rufus, in the _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 42:
    'Eo tempore [1097] infanda usurpata est in Anglia consuetudo,
    ut si qua prelatorum persona ecclesiarum vita decederet mox
    honor ecclesiasticus fisco deputaretur regis.']

    [Footnote 281: Compare the words of the chronicle on the
    king claiming to be heir of each man, lay or clerk, with the
    expression 'honor in manum meam rediit'.]

    [Footnote 282: 'Rogerium de Glocestra, probatum militem, in
    obsessione Falesiae arcubalistae jactu in capite percussum'
    (_William of Malmesbury_, ii. 475).]




It is probable that in spite of all the efforts of that school which
found in Mr Freeman its ablest and most ardent leader, the 'fatal
habit', as he termed it at the outset of his _magnum opus_ 'of
beginning the study of English history with the Norman Conquest
itself', will continue, in practice, to prevail among those who have
a choice in the matter. It was characteristic of the late Professor
to assign the tendency he deplored to 'a confused and unhappy
nomenclature', for to him names, as I have elsewhere shown,[1] were
always of more importance than they are to the world at large. More to
the point is the explanation given by Mr Grant Allen, who attributes
to the unfamiliar look of Anglo-Saxon appellatives the lack of
interest shown in those who bore them. And yet there must be, surely,
a deeper cause than this, an instinctive feeling that in England our
consecutive political history does, in a sense, begin with the Norman
Conquest. On the one hand it gave us, suddenly, a strong, purposeful
monarchy; on the other it brought us men ready to record history, and
to give us--treason though it be to say so--something better than the
arid entries in our jejune native chronicle. We thus exchange aimless
struggles, told in an uninviting fashion, for a great issue and a
definite policy, on which we have at our disposal materials deserving
of study. From the moment of the Conqueror's landing we trace a
continuous history, and one that we can really work at in the light
of chronicles and records. I begin these studies, therefore, with the
Conquest, or rather with the coming of the Normans. For, as Mr Freeman
rightly insisted, it is with the reign of Edward the Confessor that
'the Norman Conquest really begins':[2] it was 'his accession' that
marked, in its results, 'the first stage of the Conquest itself'.[3]

As he, elsewhere, justly observed of Edward:

    Normandy was ever the land of his affection.... His heart was
    French. His delight was to surround himself with companions
    who came from the beloved land, and who spoke the beloved
    tongue, to enrich them with English estates, to invest them
    with the highest offices of the English kingdom.... His real
    affections were lavished on the Norman priests and gentlemen
    who flocked to his court as to the land of promise. These
    strangers were placed in important offices about the royal
    person, and before long they were set to rule as Earls and
    Bishops over the already half conquered soil of England....
    These were again only the first instalment of the larger gang
    who were to win for themselves a more lasting settlement four
    and twenty years later. In all this the seeds of the Conquest
    were sowing, or rather ... it is now that the Conquest
    actually begins. The reign of Edward is a period of struggle
    between natives and foreigners for dominion in England.[4]

One has, it is true, always to remember that if Edward, on his
mother's side, was a Norman, so was Harold, as his name reminds us, on
his mother's side, a Dane. Nor is it without significance that, on the
exile of his house (1051), he fled to the Scandinavian settlers on
the Irish coast, and found, no doubt, among them those who shared his
almost piratical return in 1052.[5] The late Professor's bias against
all that was 'French', together with his love for the 'kindred' lands
of Germany and Scandinavia, led him, perhaps, to obscure the fact that
England was a prey which the Dane was as eager to grasp as the Norman.
But this in no way impugns the truth of his view that 'the Norman
tendencies of Edward' paved the way for the coming of William. Nor can
we hesitate to begin the study of the Norman Conquest with the coming
of those, its true forerunners--

  'Ke Ewart i aveit menéz
  Et granz chastels è fieux dunez,'

and with whom may be said to have begun the story of Feudal England.

Professor Burrows is entitled to the credit of setting forth the
theory, in his little book upon the Cinque Ports,[6] that Edward the
Confessor 'had evidently intended to make the little group of Sussex
towns, the "New Burgh" [? afterwards Hastings], Winchelsea, and Rye, a
strong link of communication between England and Normandy', by placing
them under the control of Fécamp Abbey. He holds, indeed, that Godwine
and Harold had contrived to thwart this intention in the case of the
latter; but this, as I shall show in my paper on the Cinque Ports,
arises from a misapprehension. This theory I propose to develop by
adding the case of Steyning, Edward's grant of which to Fécamp is well
known, and has been discussed by Mr Freeman. It might not, possibly,
occur to any one that Steyning, like Arundel, was at that time a port.
But in a very curious record of 1103, narrating the agreement made
between the Abbot and De Braose, the Lord of Bramber, it is mentioned
that ships, in the days of the Confessor, used to come up to the
'portus S. Cuthmanni' [the patron saint of Steyning], but had been
lately impeded by a bridge that had been erected at Bramber. Here
then was another Sussex port placed in Norman hands. Yet this does not
exhaust the list. Mr Freeman seems to have strangely overlooked the
fact that the great benefice of Bosham, valued under the Confessor
at £300 a year, had been conferred by Edward on his Norman chaplain,
Osbern, afterwards (1073) Bishop of Exeter, whose brother, in the
words of the Regius Professor, was the 'Duke's earliest and dearest
friend', and who, of course, was of kin both to William and to
Edward. Now this Bosham, with Thorney Island, commanded a third Sussex
harbour, Chichester haven.[7]

But at London itself also we find the Normans favoured. The very
interesting charter of Henry II, granted by him, as Duke of the
Normans, in 1150 or 1151, to the citizens of Rouen, confirms them in
possession of their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days
of Edward the Confessor.[8] Here then we have evidence--which seems
to have eluded the research of our historians, both general and
local--that, even before the Conquest, the citizens of Rouen had a
haven of their own at the mouth of the Walbrook, for which they were
probably indebted to the Norman proclivities of the Confessor.

The building of 'Richard's Castle' plays a most important part in
Mr Freeman's narrative of the doings of the Normans under Edward the
Confessor. We hear of its building, according to him, in September

    Just at this moment another instance of the insolence and
    violence of the foreigners in another part of the kingdom
    served to stir up men's minds to the highest pitch. Among the
    Frenchmen who had flocked to the land of promise was one named
    Richard the son of Scrob, who had received a grant of lands in
    Herefordshire. He and his son Osbern had there built a castle
    on a spot which, by a singularly lasting tradition, preserves
    to this day the memory of himself and his building. The
    fortress itself has vanished, but its site is still to be
    marked, and the name of Richard's castle, still borne by the
    parish in which it stood, is an abiding witness of the deep
    impression which its erection made on the minds of the men of
    those times.... Here then was another wrong, a wrong perhaps
    hardly second to the wrong which had been done at Dover. Alike
    in Kent and Herefordshire, men had felt the sort of treatment
    which they were to expect if the King's foreign favourites
    were to be any longer tolerated.[9]

Accordingly, Godwine, Mr Freeman wrote, demanded (September 8,
1051) 'the surrender of Eustace and his men and of the Frenchmen of
Richard's Castle'. In a footnote to this statement, he explained that
'"the castle" [of the Chronicle] undoubtedly means Richard's
Castle, as it must mean in the entry of the next year in the same
Chronicle'.[10] Of the entry in question (1052) he wrote: '"The
castle" is doubtless Richard's Castle.... Here again the expressions
witness to the deep feeling awakened by the building of this
castle.'[11] So, too, in a special appendix we read:

    A speaking witness to the impression which had been made
    on men's minds by the building of this particular Richard's
    Castle, probably the first of its class in England, is given
    by its being spoken of distinctively as 'the castle' even
    by the Worcester chronicler (1052; see p. 309), who had not
    spoken of its building in his earlier narrative.[12]

We have, thus far, a consistent narrative. There was in Herefordshire
one castle, built by Richard and named after him. It had been the
cause of oppression and ravage, and its surrender, as such, had been
demanded by Godwine in 1051. A year later (September 1052) Godwine
triumphs; 'it was needful to punish the authors of all the evils that
had happened' (p. 333); and 'all the Frenchmen' who had caused them
were at last outlawed. But now comes the difficulty, as Mr Freeman
pointed out:

    The sentence did not extend to all the men of Norman birth or
    of French speech who were settled in the country. It was meant
    to strike none but actual offenders. By an exception capable
    of indefinite and dangerous extension, those were excepted
    'whom the King liked, and who were true to him and all his
    folk' (ii. 334).... We have a list of those who were thus
    excepted, which contains some names which we are surprised to
    find there. The exception was to apply to those only who had
    been true to the king and his people. Yet among the Normans
    who remained we find Richard, the son of Scrob, and among
    those who returned we find his son Osbern. These two men were
    among the chief authors of all evil (ii. 344).

That is to say, the Lord of Richard's castle, on whose surrender and
punishment Godwine had specially insisted, was specially exempted, as
guiltless, when Godwine returned to power.[13]

In me, at least, this discrepancy aroused grave suspicion, and I
turned to see what foundation there was for identifying the offending
garrison of 1051 with that of Richard's castle. I at once discovered
there was none whatever.

We have here, in short, one of those cases, characteristic, as I
think, of the late Professor's work, in which he first formed an idea,
and then, under its spell, fitted the facts to it without question.
The view, for instance, of the unique position of Richard's castle as
'_the_ castle' at the time is at once rendered untenable by the fact
that, on the return of Godwine, Normans fled 'some west to Pentecostes
castle, some north to Robert's castle', in the words of the
Chronicle.[14] Moreover, the former belonged to Osbern, 'whose
surname was Pentecost' (_cognomento Pentecost_), who, as we learn from
Florence, was forced to surrender it and leave the country, as was
also the fate of another castellan, his comrade Hugh.[15]

It is important to observe the clear distinction between Richard, son
of Scrob, of Richard's castle, and Osbern Pentecost, of Pentecost's
castle, of whom the former was allowed to remain, while the latter was
exiled. But it is another peculiarity of Mr Freeman's work that he
was apt to confuse different individuals bearing the same name.[16]
In this instance, he boldly assumed that 'Pentecost, as we gather
from Florence [?] ... is the same as Osbern, the son of Richard of
Richard's castle, of whom we have already heard so much' (ii. 329),
although the latter, a well-known man, is always distinguished as a
son of his father, and never as Pentecost. And he further assumes that
'Pentecost's castle' was identical with Richard's castle, 'the first
cause of so much evil' (_ibid._). These identifications led him into
further difficulty, because Osbern, the son of Richard, is found
afterwards holding 'both lands and offices in Herefordshire' (ii.
345). To account for this, he further assumes as 'certain that Osbern
afterwards returned' (_ibid._). This assumption led him on to suggest
that others also returned from exile, and that 'their restoration was
owing to special entreaties of the King after the death of Godwine'
(ii. 346). The whole of this history is sheer assumption, based on
confusion alone.

Now let us clear our minds of this confusion, and keep the two
castellans and their respective castles apart. On the one hand,
we have Richard, the son of Scrob, who was left undisturbed at his
castle, and was succeeded there by his son Osbern;[17] on the other
hand, we have Osbern, 'whose surname was Pentecost', and who had to
surrender his castle, to which the guilty Normans had fled, and to go
into exile. Can we identify that castle? I would venture to suggest
that it was no other than that of Ewyas Harold in the south-west
corner of Herefordshire, of which Domesday tells us that Earl William
had _re_-fortified it ('hoc castellum refirmaverat'), implying that it
had existed, and been dismantled before the Conquest. It heads, in the
great survey, the possessions of Alfred of Marlborough, and although
its holder T.R.E. is not mentioned, we read of the two Manors which
follow it: 'Hæc duo maneria tenuit Osbernus avunculus Alveredi T.R.E.
quando Goduinus et Heraldus erant exulati' (i. 186). Mr Freeman, of
course, assumed that this Osbern was identical with Osbern, the son
of Richard, the Domesday tenant-in-chief. This assumption is not only
baseless, but also most improbable: for Alfred was old enough to be
father-in-law to Thurstan (Mortimer), a Domesday tenant, and would
scarcely therefore be young enough to be nephew to another Domesday
tenant-in-chief. I would suggest that his uncle was that Osbern
'Pentecost' who had to surrender his castle and flee on the return
of Godwine and Harold. This would exactly fit in with the Domesday
statement, as also with the dismantling of Ewyas Castle.[18]

Ewyas Harold fits in also with the chronicle's mention of the Normans
fleeing 'west' to Pentecost's castle.

We have now seen that Richard's castle did not stand alone, and that
there is nothing to identify it with that Herefordshire castle ('ænne
castel') of which the garrison had committed outrages in 1051, and
which is far more likely, so far as our evidence goes, to have been
'Pentecost's Castle'. Mr Freeman rightly called attention to 'the firm
root which the Normans had taken in Herefordshire before 1051, which
looks very much as if they had been specially favoured in these parts'
(ii. 562); and he argued from this that Earl Ralf had probably
ruled the shire between 1046 and 1050. The Earl would naturally
have introduced the foreign system of castles, as he did the foreign
fashion of fighting on horseback. Indeed, speaking of the capture of
Hereford in 1055, Mr Freeman wrote:

    It is an obvious conjecture that the fortress destroyed by
    Gruffyd was a Norman castle raised by Ralph. A chief who
    was so anxious to make his people conform to Norman ways of
    fighting would hardly lag behind his neighbour at Richard's
    castle. He would be among the first at once to provide himself
    with a dwelling-place and his capital with a defence according
    to the latest continental patterns (ii. 391).

But if this is so, he would have built it while he ruled the shire (as
Mr Freeman believed he probably did) from 1046 to 1050, and would,
in any case, have done so on taking up its government in 1051.[19]
Consequently he would have had a castle and garrison at Hereford in
1052. But Mr Freeman, describing Gruffyd's raid in that year into
Herefordshire, and finding a castle mentioned, assumed that it could
only be Richard's castle,[20] although, a few lines before, he had
admitted the existence of other castles in the shire.[21] Even in 1067
he would have liked to hold that Richard's castle was the only one
in Herefordshire, but the words of the chronicle were too clear for

I have endeavoured to make clear my meaning, namely, that Mr Freeman's
view that 'Richard's castle' stood alone as '_the_ castle', and that
Richard and his garrison were the special offenders under Edward the
Confessor, is not only destitute of all foundations, but at variance
with the facts of the case. When we read of Herefordshire (1067) that

    The Norman colony, planted in that region by Eadward and
    so strangely tolerated by Harold, was still doing its work.
    Osbern had been sheriff under Edward, even when Harold was
    Earl of the shire, and his father Richard, the old offender,
    still lived (iv. 64)--

we must remember that the conduct of Harold was only strange if
Richard, as Mr Freeman maintained, was 'the old offender'. If,
as Florence distinctly tells us, he was, on the contrary, void of
offence, Harold's conduct was in no way strange.[23]

Let us now turn from the Herefordshire colony, planted, I think, not
so much by King Edward as by his Earl Ralph, just as Earl William
(Fitz Osbern) planted a fresh one after the Conquest.

Among the Normans allowed to remain, on the triumph of Godwine's
party in 1052, Florence mentions 'Ælfredum regis stratorem'. On him Mr
Freeman thus comments:

    Several Ælfreds occur in Domesday as great landowners, Ælfred
    of Marlborough (Osbern's nephew) and Ælfred of Spain, but it
    is not easy to identify their possessions with any holder of
    the name in Edward's time. The names Ælfred and Edward and the
    female name Eadgyth seem to have been the only English names
    adopted by the Normans. The two former would naturally be
    given to godsons or dependants of the two Althelings while in
    Normandy [_i.e._ after 1013].[24]

An appendix, in the first volume, devoted to Ælfred the giant--who
appears in Normandy, _circ._ 1030--claims that Ælfred is a name so
purely English that the presumption in favour of the English birth of
any one bearing it 'in this generation is extremely strong',[25]
and that it was only adopted by 'a later generation of Normans'. Mr
Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of
Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the
ninth century,[26] while I have noted in a single cartulary seventeen
examples between 1000 and 1150. Among these are 'Alfridus frater
Jutheli' (_ante_ 1008) and Juthel, son of Alfred (1037). Now, at the
Conquest, 'Judhael, who from his chief seat took the name of Judhael
of Totnes, became the owner', in Mr Freeman's words, 'of a vast estate
in Devonshire, and extended his possessions into the proper Cornwall
also'. But we know from charters that this Judhael was the son of an
Alfred, and was succeeded by another Alfred, who joined Baldwin of
Redvers at Exeter in 1136.[27] In the same county, as Mr Freeman
reminds us, we have another Breton tenant-in-chief, 'Alvredus Brito'.
In all this I am working up to the suggestion that the well-known
Alfred of Lincoln was not, as Mr Freeman holds, an Englishman,[28] but
a Breton. We have not only the overwhelming presumption against any
considerable tenant-in-chief being of English origin, but the fact
that his lands were new grants. When we add to this fact that his
heir (whether son or brother) bore the distinctively Breton name of
Alan,[29] we may safely conclude that Alfred was not only a foreigner
but a Breton. But the strange thing is that we do not stop there;
we have a Jool (or Johol) of Lincoln, who died in 1051[30] after
bestowing on Ramsey Abbey its Lincolnshire fief.[31] Thus we have an
Alfred and a Juhel 'of Lincoln', as we have an Alfred and a Juhel
'of Totnes'; and in Juhel of Lincoln we must have a Breton settled in
England under the Confessor.

The name of 'Lincoln' leads me to another interesting discovery. 'Both
Alfred of Lincoln and the sheriff Thorold,' Mr Freeman wrote, 'were
doubtless Englishmen.'[32] And speaking of Abbot Turold's accession
in 1070, he observed that Turold was 'a form of the Danish Thorold, a
name still [1070] familiar in that part of England, one which had been
borne by an English sheriff'.[33]

Now this Thorold (_Turoldus_) has been the subject of much speculation
by Mr Stapleton, Mr Freeman,[34] etc., in connection with William
Malet and the mysterious Countess Lucy, but the facts about him are
of the scantiest, nor, I believe, has any one succeeded in finding him
actually mentioned in the Conqueror's reign, though he is referred to
in Domesday. This, however, I have now done, lighting upon him in a
passage of considerable interest _per se_. In the 'De miraculis sancti
Eadmundi' of Herman we read that when Herfast, Bishop of Thetford,
visited Baldwin, Abbot of St Edmund's, to be cured of an injury to his
eye, the Abbot induced him to renounce his claim to jurisdiction over
the Abbey:

    In sacri monasterii vestiario, præsentibus ejusdem loci
    majoris ætatis fratribus, sed etiam accitis illuc ab abbate
    quibusdam regis primoribus, qui dictante justitia in
    eadem villa regia tenebant placita. Quorum nomina, quamvis
    auditoribus tædio, tamen sunt veræ rationis testimonio;
    videlicet Hugo de Mundford, et Rogerius cognomento Bigot,
    Richardus Gisleberti comitis filius, ac cum eis
    _Lincoliensis Turoldus_ et Hispaniensis Alveredus, cum aliis

The date of this incident can be fixed with certainty as 1076-79; and
it is of great interest for its mention both of the eyre itself and
of those 'barons' who took part in it; there can be no question that
'Turoldus' was the mysterious Thorold, sheriff of Lincolnshire, taking
his name from Lincoln.[36] He was, therefore, not 'an English sheriff'
of days before the Conquest, but a Norman--as were his fellows--who
died before Domesday.[37]

The name of William Malet, connected with that of Thorold, reminds
me of a suggestion I once made,[38] that he held Aulkborough in
Lincolnshire, T.R.E., 'and was, to that extent, as M. le Prêvost held,
"established in England previously to the Conquest"'.

Stapleton, whose name in such matters rightly carries great weight,
maintained that because the Manor was held in 1086 by Ivo Tailbois,
and is stated in Domesday 'to have previously belonged to William
Malet', it must have been alienated by William by a gift in frank
marriage with a daughter, who must, he held, have married Ivo. But
I pointed out, firstly, that 'it is not the practice of Domesday to
enter Manors held _in maritagio_ thus', and gave an instance (i. 197)
'where we find Picot holding lands from Robert Gernon, which lands
are entered in the Gernon fief with the note: "Has terras tenet Picot
Vicecomes de Roberto Gernon in maritagio feminæ suæ."' I can now, by
the kindness of Dr Liebermann, add the instance of the Mandeville fief
in Surrey, where we read of 'Aultone': 'De his hidis tenet Wesman
vi. hidas de Goisfrido filio comitis Eustachii; hanc terram dedit ei
Goisfridus de Mannevil cum filia sua' (i. 36).[39] In addition to this
argument I urged that 'in default of any statement to the contrary, we
must always infer that the two holders named in the survey are (_A_)
the holder T.R.E., (_B_) the holder in 1086'. This would make William
Malet the holder T.R.E.

Another 'Norman' on whom I would touch is 'Robert fitz Wimarc', so
often mentioned by Mr Freeman. I claim him too as a Breton, on his
mother's side at least, if Wimarc, as seems to be the case, was his
mother, for that is a distinctively Breton name. Mr Freeman queried
the Biographer's description of him as 'regis consanguineus', when
at Edward's death-bed;[40] but he is clearly the 'Robertus regis
consanguineus' of the Waltham charter.[41] He was also of kin to

The last on my list is Regenbald 'the Norman chancellor of Edward',
as Mr Freeman termed him throughout. He must have had, I presume, some
authority for doing so: but I cannot discover that authority; and,
in its absence, the name, from its form, does not suggest a Norman
origin.[43] Of Regenbald, however, I shall have to speak in another

    [Footnote 1: _Quarterly Review_, June 1892, pp. 9, 10.]

    [Footnote 2: _Norm. Conq._, i. 525, 526.]

    [Footnote 3: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 4: _Norm. Conq._, ii, 29, 30.]

    [Footnote 5: Mr Freeman admits that his crews 'probably
    consisted mainly of adventurers from the Danish Saxons of
    Ireland, ready for any enterprise which promised excitement
    and plunder' (_N.C._, ii. 313).]

    [Footnote 6: _Historic Towns: Cinque Ports_, pp. 26-9.]

    [Footnote 7: See for Osbern, Mr A. S. Ellis's _Domesday
    Tenants in Gloucestershire_, p. 18. May not Peter, William's
    chaplain, Bishop of Lichfield, 1075, have similarly been the
    Peter who was a chaplain of Edward?]

    [Footnote 8: Chèruel's _Histoire de Rouen pendant l'époque
    communale_, i. 245.]

    [Footnote 9: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 136-8.]

    [Footnote 10: _Ibid._, p. 140.]

    [Footnote 11: _Ibid._, p. 309.]

    [Footnote 12: _Ibid._, p. 607.]

    [Footnote 13: 'Norman Richard still held his castle in
    Herefordshire' (Hunt's _Norman Britain_, p. 69).]

    [Footnote 14: Mr Clark refers to this passage, adding: 'So
    that these places, probably like Richard's castle, were in
    Norman hands' (_M.M.A._, i. 37).]

    [Footnote 15: 'Osbernus vero, cognomento Pentecost, et socius
    ejus Hugo sua reddiderunt castella.']

    [Footnote 16: I have noted several cases in point, that of
    Walter Giffard being the most striking. But we also read in
    _William Rufus_ (ii. 551) that 'Henry, son of Swegen,
    who comes so often under Henry the Second, is the unlucky
    descendant of Robert, son of Wymarc', that is to say, Henry
    'of Essex', who was a son of Robert, not of Swegen, and who
    belonged to a wholly different family and district.]

    [Footnote 17: 'Worse than all, the original sinners of the
    Herefordshire border, Richard and his son Osbern, were still
    lords of English soil, and holders of English offices' (iv.

    [Footnote 18: Named, as Mr Freeman pointed out, after Harold,
    son of Earl Ralph, not after Harold, son of Godwine.]

    [Footnote 19: 'That Ralph succeeded Swegen on his final
    banishment in 1051, I have no doubt at all' (ii. 562).]

    [Footnote 20: '"The castle" is doubtless Richard's castle....
    Here again the expressions witness to the deep feeling
    awakened by the building of this castle' (ii. 309).]

    [Footnote 21: 'The Norman lords whom Eadward had settled
    in Herefordshire proved but poor defenders of their adopted
    country. The last continental improvements in the art of
    fortification proved vain to secure the land' (_ibid._).]

    [Footnote 22: Florence (1067) speaks of the 'Herefordenses
    castellani et Richardus filius Scrob' as the opponents
    of Eadric. I could almost have fancied that the words
    'Herefordenses castellani' referred to 'the castle' in
    Herefordshire (see vol. ii. p. 139); but the words of the
    Worcester chronicler 'þa castelmenn on Hereforda' seem to fix
    the meaning to the city itself' (iv. 64).]

    [Footnote 23: I have no hesitation in offering these
    criticisms, because Mr Freeman's views have been embraced
    throughout by Mr Hunt, who has followed closely in his
    footsteps. For instance:

      'A private fortress ... would   'It was the first fortress which
      seem even stranger to us now    was raised in England for the
      than it seemed to our           indulgence of private insolence
      forefathers when Richard the    and greed, and not for the
      son of Scrob raised the first   protection of Englishmen; it was
      castle on English ground'       to be the first of many, and the
      (_Norm. Conq._, v. 640).        evil deeds which Richard's men
                                      wrought were a foretaste of the
                                      evil times when fortresses such
                                      as his were common in the land'
                                      (_Norman Britain_, p. 64).

    Mr Hunt, therefore, survives to defend the position.]

    [Footnote 24: Vol. ii., p. 345.]

    [Footnote 25: Vol. i., p. 747.]

    [Footnote 26: About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus
    tyrannus, 871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879.]

    [Footnote 27: Gesta Stephani.]

    [Footnote 28: iii. (2nd ed.) 780; iv. 214.]

    [Footnote 29: See the Lindsey Survey.]

    [Footnote 30: _Ramsey Cartulary_, iii. 167.]

    [Footnote 31: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 208, ii. 74. _Domesday_,
    i. 346_b_.]

    [Footnote 32: iii. (2nd ed.) 780.]

    [Footnote 33: iv. (1st ed.) 457.]

    [Footnote 34: _Ibid._, 778-80. Mr Freeman spoke of him as 'a
    kind of centre' for the inquiry, and stated that in Domesday
    346_b_ we have 'Turoldus vicecomes' as a benefactor of
    Spalding priory. This is an error, for the words there are
    'dedit S. Gutlaco' (_i.e._ Crowland). He also urged that 'we
    must not forget the Crowland tradition' about him 'preserved
    by the false Ingulf'. But the fact is that 'Ingulf' made
    him into _two_ (1) 'Thuroldus Vicecomes Lincoln', whose
    benefaction to Crowland (D.B., i. 346_b_) was confirmed in 806
    (!) and subsequently (pp. 6, 9, 15, 19), (2) 'quidam vicecomes
    Lincolniæ, dictus Thoroldus ... de genere et cognatione illius
    vicedomini Thoroldi qui quondam', etc. (p. 65). It is the
    one living in '1051', to whom the Spalding foundation was

    [Footnote 35: _Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey_, i. 63-4.
    Herman wrote from personal knowledge.]

    [Footnote 36: There are plenty of instances of this practice,
    as at Exeter, Salisbury, Gloucester, Leicester, etc.]

    [Footnote 37: It may be well here to allude to a still more
    remarkable commission, some twenty years later, namely in
    1096, when William Rufus sent 'in quadragesima optimates
    suos in Devenesiram et in Cornubiam et Exoniam, Walcalinum,
    videlicet, Wyntonensem episcopum, Randulphum regalem
    capellanum, Willelmum Capram, Hardinum Belnothi filium (_i.e._
    Elnoth or Eadnoth; _see_ Greenfield's _De Meriet pedigree_,
    p. 6) ad investiganda regalia placita. Quibus in placitis
    calumpniati sunt cuidam [_sic_] mansioni abbacie Taviensis,'
    etc. (Tavistock cartulary in _Mon. Ang._, ii. 497). This
    eyre cannot be generally known, for Mr T. A. Archer, in his
    elaborate biography of Ranulf Flambard, does not mention it.
    The association of Bishop Walkelin with Ranulf is specially
    interesting because they are stated to have been left by the
    king next year (1097) as joint regents of the realm. The name,
    I may add, of 'Willelmus filius Baldwini' among those to whom
    the consequent charter is addressed (_Mon. Ang._, ii. 497), is
    of considerable importance, because it is clearly that of
    the sheriff of Devon, and is proof therefore that Baldwin
    the sheriff (Baldwin, son of Count Gilbert) had left a son
    William, who had succeeded to his shrievalty by 1096, and who
    was in turn succeeded by his brother, Richard fitz Baldwin,
    sheriff under Henry I.]

    [Footnote 38: _Genealogist_, viii. 4.]

    [Footnote 39: Dr Liebermann asks whether Geoffrey's daughter
    was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the future King
    of Jerusalem'.]

    [Footnote 40: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 576.]

    [Footnote 41: _Ibid._, ii. 673.]

    [Footnote 42: _Ibid._, iii. 416.]

    [Footnote 43: Mr A. S. Ellis has suggested that 'Elward filius
    Reinbaldi' (D.B., i. 170_b_) King's thegn in Glo'stershire
    'was evidently a son' of the chancellor. This suggestion
    is highly probable, and in any case, the thegn bearing this
    English name, it may fairly be presumed that his father
    Reinbald was not of Norman birth.]


[Greek: Hotan ho ischyros kathôplismenos phylassê tên heautou aulên,
en eirênê estin ta hyparchonta autou. epan de ischyroteros autou
epelthôn nikêsê auton, tên panoplian autou airei eph' hê epepoithei.]

It might well be thought the height of rashness to attempt criticism,
even in detail, of Mr Freeman's narrative of the Battle of Hastings.
For its story, as his champion has well observed, is 'the centre and
the very heart of Mr Freeman's work; if he could blunder here in
the most carefully elaborated passage of his whole history he could
blunder anywhere; his reputation for accuracy would be gone almost
beyond hope of retrieving it'.[1] And indeed, it may fairly be
described as Mr Freeman's greatest achievement, the point where he is
strongest of all. He himself described the scene as the 'battle which
is the centre of my whole history', and reminded us that

    on its historic importance I need not dwell; it is the very
    subject of my history.... Looking also at the fight simply
    as a battle, it is one of the most memorable in all military

That is the first point. The second is that in his battle pieces
our author was always at his best. Essentially a concrete historian,
objective as Macaulay in his treatment, he loved incident and action;
loved them, indeed, so well, that he could scarcely bring himself to
omit the smallest details of a skirmish:

  E ripenso le mobili
  Tende, e i percossi valli,
  E 'l campo dei manipoli,
  E l'onda dei cavalli.

Precentor Venables has well described

    that wonderful discourse, one of his greatest triumphs--in
    which, with flashing eye and thrilling voice, he made the
    great fight of Senlac--as he loved to call it, discarding the
    later name--which changed the fortunes of England and made her
    what she is, live and move before his hearers.

My third point is that his knowledge of the subject was unrivalled.
He had visited the battlefield, he tells us, no less than five times,
accompanied by the best experts, civil and military, he could find; he
had studied every authority, and read all that had been written, till
he was absolutely master of every source of information. He had
further executed for him, by officers of the Royal Engineers, an
elaborate plan of the battle based on his unwearied studies. Never was
historian more splendidly equipped.

Thus was prepared that 'very lucid and quite original account of
the battle', as Mr G. T. Clark describes it, which we are about to
examine; that 'detailed account of the battle' that Mr Hunt, in his
_Norman Britain_, describes as written 'with a rare combination of
critical exactness and epic grandeur'.


Before we approach the great battle, it is necessary to speak plainly
of the name which Mr Freeman gave it, the excruciating name of
'Senlac'. It is necessary, because we have here a perfect type of
those changes in nomenclature on which Mr Freeman insisted, and which
always remind one of Macaulay's words:

    Mr Mitford piques himself on spelling better than any of
    his neighbours; and this not only in ancient names, which he
    mangles in defiance both of custom and of reason.... In such
    cases established usage is considered as law by all writers
    except Mr Mitford ... but he proceeds on no principle but that
    of being unlike the rest of the world. Every child has heard
    of Linnæus; therefore Mr Mitford calls him Linné. Rousseau is
    known all over Europe as Jean Jacques; therefore Mr Mitford
    bestows on him the strange appellation of John James.

None of Mr Freeman's peculiar 'notes' is more familiar than this
tendency, and none has given rise to bitterer controversy or more
popular amusement. 'Pedantry' was the charge brought against him, and
to this charge he was as keenly sensitive as was Browning to that of
'obscurity'. Of both writers it may fairly be said that they evaded
rather than met the charge brought against them. The Regius Professor
invariably maintained that accuracy, not 'pedantry', was his true
offence. Writing, in the _Fortnightly Review_, on 'The Study of
History', he set forth his standing defence in these words:

    I would say, as the first precept, Dare to be accurate. You
    will be called a pedant for doing so, but dare to be accurate
    all the same.

    He who shall venture to distinguish between two English
    boroughs, between two Hadriatic islands when the authorized
    caterer for the public information thinks good to confound
    them, must be content to bear the terrible name of pedant,
    even if no worse fate still is in store for him.

Was, then, our author a mere pedant, or was this the name that
ignorance bestowed on knowledge? For an answer to this question,
'Senlac' is a test-case. 'Every child', in Macaulay's words, had heard
of the Battle of Hastings; it was known by that name 'all over Europe'
from time immemorial. Unless, therefore, that name was wrong, it was
wanton and mischievous to change it; and, even if changed, it was
indefensible to substitute the name of Senlac, unless there is proof
that the battle was so styled when it was fought.

As to the first of these points, the old name was in no sense wrong.
Precisely as the battle of Poitiers was fought some miles from
Poitiers, so was it with that of Hastings. Yet we all speak of
the Battle of Poitiers, although we might substitute the name of
Maupertuis more legitimately than that of Senlac. The only plea that
Mr Freeman could advance was that people were led by the old name to
imagine that the battle was fought at Hastings itself! Of those who
argue in this spirit, it was finely said by the late Mr Kerslake that

    instead of lifting ignorance to competence by teaching what
    ought to be known, they cut down what ought to be known to the
    capacity of those who are deficient of that knowledge. Instead
    of making them understand the meaning of the ancient and
    established word 'Anglo-Saxon', they disturb the whole world
    of learning with an almost violent attempt to turn out of use
    the established word, which has been thoroughly understood for

The simple answer to Mr Freeman's contention is, that it is needless
to make the change in histories, because those who read them learn
that the fight was at Battle; while as to those who do not read
histories, it is obvious that such a name as 'Senlac' will in no way
lighten their darkness.

The change, therefore, was uncalled for. But it was not merely
uncalled for; it was also absolutely wrong. 'To the battle itself,' Mr
Freeman wrote, 'I restore its true ancient name of Senlac.' In so
doing the writer acted in the spirit of those who 'restore' our
churches and who gave that word so evil a sound in the ears of all
archæologists, Mr Freeman himself included. I am reminded of the
protest of the Society of Antiquaries on hearing 'with much regret
that a fifteenth-century pinnacle' at Rochester Cathedral 'is in
danger of destruction in order that a modern pinnacle, professing to
represent that which stood in the place in the twelfth century, may be
set up in its stead'. Precisely such a 'restoration' is Mr Freeman's
'Senlac'. Professing to represent the ancient name of the battle, it
is substituted for that name which the battle has borne from the days
of the Conqueror to our own. In William of Malmesbury as in Domesday
Book we read of 'the Battle of Hastings' (_Bellum Hastingense_), and
all Mr Freeman's efforts failed admittedly to discover any record or
any writer who spoke of the Battle of Senlac (_Bellum Senlacium_)
save Orderic alone. Now Orderic wrote two generations after the battle
was fought; the name he strove to give it fell from his pen stillborn;
and the fact that this name was a fad of his own is shown by what Mr
Freeman suppressed, namely, that Orderic, in the same breath, tells
us that Battle Abbey was founded as 'c[oe]nobium Sanctæ Trinitatis
Senlac', whereas we learn from Mr Freeman himself that

    the usual title is 'ecclesia Sancti Martini de Bello',
    'ecclesia de Bello', or, as we have seen, in English 'þæt
    mynster æt þære Bataille'. The fuller form, 'Abbas Sancti
    Martini de loco Belli', appears in Domesday, 11_b_: but it is
    commonly called in the Survey 'ecclesia de Labatailge'.

So much for Orderic's authority.

So violent an innovation as this of our author's could not
pass unchallenged. Mr Frederic Harrison threw down the gauntlet
(_Contemporary Review_, January 1886), attacking, in a brilliant and
incisive article, Mr Freeman's 'pedantry' along the whole line. But he
chiefly complained of

    a far more serious change of name that the 'Old English'
    school have introduced; which, if it were indefinitely
    extended, would wantonly confuse historical literature. I mean
    the attempt to alter names which are the accepted landmarks of
    history. It is now thought scholarly to write of 'the Battle
    of _Senlac_' instead of 'the Battle of _Hastings_'. As every
    one knows, the fight took place on the site of Battle Abbey,
    seven miles from Hastings; as so many great battles, those of
    Tours, Blenheim, Cannæ, Chalons, and the like, have been named
    from places not the actual spot of the combat.

    But since for 800 years the historians of Europe have spoken
    of 'the Battle of Hastings', it does seem a little pedantic
    to rename it.... The sole authority for 'Battle of Senlac' is
    Orderic, a monk who lived and wrote in Normandy in the next
    century. Yet, on the strength of this secondary authority, the
    'Old English' school choose to erase from English literature
    one of our most familiar names.

Mr Freeman's rejoinder must be noticed, because singularly
characteristic. Treating Mr Harrison 'de haut en bas', he expressed
surprise that his friends should expect him to reply to an article
which had merely amused him, and--unable, of course, to adduce any
fresh authority for 'Senlac'--denounced his critic for a 'reckless
raid into regions where he does not know the road'. For this charge
there was no foundation in the matter of which we treat. Mr Freeman
persisted that he had given the battle 'the only name that I found for
it anywhere' (which we have seen was not the case), and sarcastically
observed that 'so to do is certainly "pedantic", for it conduces to

The truth is simply that the site of the battle had no name at all. As
the professor himself wrote:

    The spot was then quite unoccupied and untilled; nothing in
    any of the narratives implies the existence of any village or
    settlement; our own Chronicle only describes the site as
    by 'the hoar apple-tree' ('He com him togenes æt þære haran

Consequently, when men wished to speak of the great conflict, they
were driven, as in similar cases, to term it the Battle of Hastings,
or, if they wished to be more exact, they had to describe it, by
periphrasis, as fought on 'the site which is now called Battle'.

Henry of Huntingdon, our author tells us, is guilty, though otherwise
well informed, of 'a statement so grotesquely inaccurate as
that Harold "aciem suam construxit in _planis Hastinges_"'. Why
'grotesque'? It would be strictly accurate to describe a battle, even
seven miles from Salisbury, as fought on Salisbury Plain; while, as
to the word 'plain', his horror of field-sports may have caused Mr
Freeman's ignorance of the fact that another such stretch of Sussex
Down is known as 'Plumpton Plain'.[2] But the fact is that the whole
difficulty arose from that singular narrowness that cramped our
author's mind, and that lies at the root, when rightly understood,
of his most distinctive tenets. For he was a pedant, after all.
And, observe, this 'pedantry' did, in practice, conduce not to true
accuracy, but to the very reverse. Paradoxical though this may sound,
it is literally true. Let us take a striking instance. In his account
of the attack on Dover in 1067, Mr Freeman argued, 'from the distinct
mention of _oppidum_ and _oppidani_ in Orderic', that it was not the
castle, as supposed, but the town that was attacked. And so convinced
was he of this, that he forced his authorities into harmony with his
view against their plain meaning. This was because he was not aware
that Orderic--'my dear old friend Orderic', as in one place he terms
him--was in the habit of using _oppidum_ for castle. He must
have afterwards discovered this; for his theory was tacitly and
significantly dropped, and the old version substituted, in a
subsequent edition. Again, an article on 'City and Borough', which he
contributed to _Macmillan's Magazine_, was based on the fundamental
assumption that _civitas_, in the Norman period, must have had a
specialized denotation. The fact that, on the contrary, the same town
is spoken of as a _civitas_ and as a _burgus_, cuts the ground
from under this assumption, and, with it, destroys the whole of its
elaborate superstructure. Our author's method, in short, placed him in
standing conflict with every authority for his period. Never was 'the
sacredness of words' treated as of less account; never, indeed, were
words more wantonly changed. What would Mr Freeman have said had he
known that the compilers of that sacrosanct record, Domesday Book
itself, revelled in altering the wording of the sworn original
returns? Such was the spirit of the men whose language he strove to
limit by a terminology as precise as that of modern philosophy.

I may have wandered somewhat from 'Senlac', but my object was to show
that Mr Freeman misunderstood twelfth-century writers by assigning to
them his own peculiarities. It did not in any way follow from their
speaking of a 'Battle of Hastings' that they 'grotesquely' supposed it
to have been fought at the town itself: they allowed themselves an
elasticity, both in word and phrase, which was so alien to himself
that he could not realize its existence, and therefore accused them of
ignorance because their language was different from his. In the same
spirit he would never admit that the 'Castellum Warham' of Domesday
Book was no other than Corfe Castle, although, as Mr Eyton and Mr Bond
have shown, the fact is certain.

But the _crux_ is yet to come. To any one acquainted with 'Old
English' it must instantly occur that 'Senlac' is not an English name.
Mr Freeman glided over this by simply ignoring the difficulty, but was
he aware that the name in question, as 'Senlecque' (or 'Senlecques'),
is actually found--in France? One is reminded of his own criticism on
the name 'Duncombe Park':

    When the lands of Helmsley were made to take the name of
    Duncombe, a real wrong was done to geography.... How came a
    _combe_ in Yorkshire? The thing is a fraud on nomenclature as
    great as any of the frauds which the first Duncombe, 'born to
    carry parcels and to sweep down a counting-house', contrived
    to commit on the treasury of the nation.

How came a French 'Senlac' in 'Old English' Sussex? The name is as
obviously foreign as 'Senlis' itself, and the occurrence, in later
days of 'Santlachæ' as a local field-name, cannot avail against this
fact, or prove that this open down, in days before the Conquest, could
have borne such a title. Therefore, when Mr Freeman wrote that the
English king 'pitched his camp upon the ever memorable heights of
Senlac', he was guilty, not only of anachronism, but of a 'real wrong
to geography', and, in the name of accuracy, he introduced error.[3]

I have gone thus carefully into this matter because the name has been
meekly adopted by historians, and even by journalists, thereby proving
the power of that tendency to fashion and imitation on which, in his
_Physics and Politics_, Mr Bagehot loved to insist. For my part I make
an earnest appeal to all who may write or teach history to adhere
to the 'true ancient name' of the Battle of Hastings, and to reject
henceforward an innovation which was uncalled for, misleading, and


The distinctive peculiarity of the English tactics, we learn from Mr
Freeman at the outset, is found in an entirely novel device introduced
on this occasion by Harold. Instead of merely forming his troops in
the immemorial array known as the shield-wall, he turned 'the battle
as far as possible into the likeness of a siege',[5] by building
around them a 'palisade' of solid timber. How large a part this
'palisade' plays in Mr Freeman's story may be gathered from the fact
that it is mentioned at least a score of times in his account of the
great battle. This 'fortress of timber', with its 'wooden walls', had
'a triple gate of entrance', and was composed of 'firm barricades of
ash and other timber, wattled in so close together that not a crevice
could be seen'.

It would be easier for me to deal with this 'palisade' if one could
form a clear idea of what it represented to Mr Freeman's mind.
Judging from the passages quoted above, and from his praising Henry
of Huntingdon for his 'admirable comparison of Harold's camp to a
castle';[6] I was led to believe that he imagined precisely such a
timber wall as crowned in those days a castle mound. Such a defence
is well shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, crowning the castle mound which
William threw up at Hastings. Now, this very parallel is suggested
by Mr Freeman himself. Describing Harold's position as 'not without
reason called a fortress' [where?] he suggested that 'its defences
might be nearly equal to those of William's own camp at Hastings' (p.
447). Following up this parallel, we find Mr Freeman writing of this

    A portion of English ground was already entrenched and
    _palisaded_, and changed into a Norman fortress (p. 418)....
    He saw the carpenters come out with their axes; he saw the
    fosse dug, and the _palisade_ thrown up (p. 419). They had
    already built a fort and had fenced it in with a _palisade_
    (p. 420).

Without binding Mr Freeman down to a defence precisely of this
character--and, indeed, in this as in other matters, he may not even
himself have formed a clear idea of what he meant--it gives us, I
think we may fairly say, a general idea of his 'palisade'. It
was certainly no mere row of stakes,[7] no heap of cottage window
frames,[8] no fantastic array of shields tied to sticks,[9] no
'_abattis_ of some sort'[10] that Mr Freeman had in view, whatever
his champions may pretend. As for the defenders of the 'palisade',
they cannot even agree among themselves as to what it really was.
Mr Archer produces a new explanation, only to throw it over almost
as soon as it is produced.[11] One seeks to know for certain what
one is expected to deal with; but, so far as it is possible to learn,
nobody can tell one. There is only a succession of dissolving views,
and one is left to deal with a nebulous hypothesis.[12]

Mr Freeman wrote of his 'palisade' as a mere 'development of the usual
tactics of the shield-wall'; but this is an obvious misconception.
It might, indeed, be used as a substitute for the 'shield-wall', and
would enable the troops behind it to adopt a looser formation; but to
suppose that they were ranged 'closely together in the thick array of
the shield-wall', with this second wall in front of them, is surely
absurd. Till the 'wooden walls' were broken the 'shield-wall' was
needless. To retain the disadvantages of its close order, when that
order had been rendered needless, would have been simply insane. Yet
this insanity, in our author's eyes, was 'the master-skill of Harold'.
Was there time, moreover, to construct such a fortress, if 'the battle
followed almost immediately', as we learn, 'on the arrival of Harold'?
Lastly, would there be material on the spot for a palisade (see ground
plan) about a mile in length?[13] These awkward points may not have
occurred to Mr Freeman; but to others they will, I think, cause some
uneasiness. Let us then examine Mr Freeman's authorities for the
existence of this palisade.


In his note on 'The Details of the Battle of Senlac' (iii. 756),
Mr Freeman explained that he had given the authorities on which his
statements rested, adding:

    Each reader can therefore judge for himself how far my
    narrative is borne out by my authorities.

Loyally keeping to this principle, I propose to test his statements
by the authorities he gives for them himself. I therefore address
myself to the passages in Henry of Huntingdon and in Wace.

(1) _Henry of Huntingdon_

The passage relied on by the historian is this:

    Quum ergo Haroldus totam gentem suam in una acie strictissime
    locasset _et quasi castellum inde construxisset_[14]
    impenetrabiles erant Normannis (iii. 444, note).

Mr Freeman thus paraphrased Henry's words:

    He occupied and fortified, as thoroughly as the time and the
    means at his command would allow, a post of great natural
    strength, which he made into what is distinctly spoken of as a
    castle (_ibid._).[15]

Although the writer made it his complaint against one of the editors
in the Rolls series that he could not 'construe his Latin', we see
that the same failing led him here himself into error. _Inde_ refers,
and can only refer, to Harold's troops themselves. A fortress Harold
wrought; but he wrought it of flesh and blood: it was behind no
ramparts that the soldiers of England awaited the onset of the
chivalry of France.

The metaphor, of course, is a common one. Henry of Huntingdon himself
recurs to it, when describing that 'acies', at the Battle of Lincoln,
which Stephen 'circa se ... strictissime collocavit' (p. 271), as
Harold, he wrote, 'gentem suam in una acie strictissime locasset'
(p. 203). For he shows us Stephen's 'acies' assailed 'sicut
castellum'.[16] In the same spirit an Irish bard tells us how his
countrymen, on the battlefield of Dysert O'Dea (May 10, 1318), closed
in their ranks, 'like a strong fortress', as their enemies surged
around them. It was felicitous, indeed, to describe as 'quasi
castellum' that immovable mass of warriors girt by their
shield-wall,[17] that 'fortress of shields', as Mr Freeman termed
it, at Hastings itself (iii. 492), at Stamford Bridge (iii. 372), at
Maldon (i. 272), and even in earlier days (i. 151).

It was Mr Freeman's initial error in thus materializing a metaphor
(through misconstruing his Latin) that first led me to doubt the
existence of the 'palisade'. His champion, Mr Archer, in his first
article,[18] was ominously silent as to this error: in the second, he
had to confess of this passage, the first of Mr Freeman's proofs, that
he himself 'should never think of using it to prove a palisade'.[19]
_Exit_, therefore, Henry of Huntingdon.

(2) _Wace_

Two passages, and two alone, are in question--

(A) ll. 6991-4, which Mr Freeman has paraphrased thus:

  WACE                                 MR FREEMAN

  Heraut a le lieu esgarde,            He occupied the hill; he
  Closre le fist de boen fosse,        surrounded it on all its
  De treis parz laissa treis entrees   accessible sides by a palisade,
  Qu'il a garder a commandees.         with a triple gate of entrance,
                                       and defended it to the south by
                                       an artificial ditch (iii. 447).

My criticism on this has been from the first that Wace here speaks
_only_ of a ditch, and that Mr Freeman has not only introduced here
the alleged palisade, from which Wace's 'fosse' was quite distinct,
but has also transferred to that palisade the 'treis entrees' of the
fosse. That Mr Freeman did treat the 'palisade' and the 'fosse' as
distinct and considerably apart is proved by this passage:

    The Normans had crossed the [_sic_] English fosse, and were
    now at the foot of the hill with the palisades and the axes
    right before them (iii. 476).

The 'fosse' is that 'artificial ditch' of which Mr Freeman speaks in
the above passage, the only one of which he does speak. Therefore,
that 'artificial ditch' was, in his view, down in the valley to the
south, and had nothing to do with that 'palisade' which he placed on
the hill. There is thus no possible doubt as to Mr Freeman's view. On
his own showing, the above lines make no mention of a palisade on the

(B) ll. 7815-26: The passage in question runs thus:

  Fet orent devant els _escuz_
  De fenestres è d'altres fuz,
  Devant els les orent levez,
  Come cleies joinz è serrez;
  Fait en orent devant closture,
  N'i laissierent nule jointure,
  Par onc Normant entr'els venist
  Qui desconfire les volsist.
  D'escuz e d'ais s'avironoent,
  Issi deffendre se quidoent
  Et s'il se fussent bien tenu,
  Ia ne fussent le ior vencu.

In his first edition, writing, I believe, under the influence of
Taylor's version, Mr Freeman gave these lines in a footnote to his
narrative of the battle, and appears to have then looked on them as
describing his palisade.[21] But in his 'second edition, revised', in
preparing which he went 'minutely through every line, and corrected or
improved whatever seemed to need correction or improvement' (p. v), he
transferred these lines to his appendix on the battle, where he wrote
concerning them as follows:

    [(At Maldon) the English stood, _as at Senlac_, in the array
    common to them and their enemies--a strong line, or rather
    wedge, of infantry, forming a wall with their shields (i.

    Of the array of the shield-wall we have often heard already,
    as at Maldon (see vol. i. p. 271), but it is at Senlac that we
    get the fullest descriptions of it [_sic_] all the better for
    coming in the mouths of enemies. Wace gives his description,

      'Fet orent devant els escuz
      De fenestres è d'altres fuz;
      Devant els les orent levez.
            .  .  .  .  .
      Et s'il se fussent bien tenu
      Ja ne fussent li jor vencu.'

    So William of Malmesbury, 241. 'Pedites omnes cum bipennibus,
    conserta ante se scutorum testudine, impenetrabilem cuneum
    faciunt; quod profecto illis eâ die saluti fuisset,
    nisi Normanni simulatâ fugâ more suo confertos manipulos
    laxassent.' So at the battle of the Standard, according to
    Æthelred of Rievaux (343), 'scutis scuta junguntur, lateribus
    latera conseruntur' (iii. 763-4).

The unquestionable meaning of Mr Freeman's words is that Wace's lines
(like the other passages) describe the time-honoured shield-wall,
'the fortress of shields, so often sung of alike in English and in
Scandinavian minstrelsy' (iii. 372).

Appealing to this, his own verdict, in my original article,[23] I
spoke of these lines as referring to the 'shield-wall', and maintained
that 'escuz' meant shields, not 'barricades'. This also, it will be
seen, must have been Mr Freeman's view, when he pronounced these lines
to be a description of the shield-wall. I therefore declared that
the only evidence he adduced for his palisade had been demonstrably
obtained by misconstruing his Latin, and (on his own showing) by
mistranslating his French.

This has been my case from the first: it remains my case now.

Unlike our forefathers on the hill of battle, I will not be decoyed
into breaking 'the line of the shield-wall'.[24]


In order to show clearly that I adhere to my original position, I need
only reprint my argument as it appeared in the _Quarterly Review_.

    It is clear that if he (Mr Freeman) found it needful, in his
    story of the great battle, to mention this barricade about
    a score of times, it must have occupied a prominent place in
    every contemporary narrative. And yet we assert without fear
    of contradiction that (dismissing the 'Roman de Rou') in no
    chronicle or poem, among all Mr Freeman's authorities, could
    he find any ground for this singular delusion; while the
    Bayeux Tapestry itself, which he rightly places at their
    head, will be searched in vain for a palisade, or for
    anything faintly resembling it, from beginning to end of the

    On this passage we take our stand: it is the very essence of
    our case. We made our statement 'without fear of contradiction';
    and it is not contradicted. Moreover, we can now further
    strengthen it by appealing to Baudri's poem,[26] an authority of
    the first rank, in which, as in the others, there is no allusion
    to the existence of any 'palisade'.

    It will be observed that, in this passage, we expressly excluded
    Wace's poem. We did so because--although, as we have seen, Mr
    Freeman failed to produce from it any proof of a palisade--we
    preferred to leave it an open question whether Wace did or did
    not believe the English to have fought behind a palisade. In
    rebutting Mr Freeman's evidence, that question did not arise.

    There is another argument that we refrained from bringing
    forward because we thought it superfluous. The Normans, of
    course, as Mr Freeman reminds us, magnified the odds against
    them: 'Nothing but the special favour of God could have given
    his servants a victory over their enemies, which was truly
    miraculous' (p. 440). William of Poitiers, he adds (p. 479),
    sets forth their difficulties in detail:--

    'Angli nimium adjuvantur superioris loci opportunitate, quem
    sine procursu tenent, et maxime conferti; atque ingenti quoque
    numerositate suâ atque validissimâ corpulentiâ; præterea
    pugnæ instrumentis, quæ facile per scuta vel alia tegmina viam

    Now William who was not only a contemporary writer, but, says
    Mr Freeman (p. 757), 'understood' the site, had, obviously,
    every inducement to include, among the difficulties of the
    Normans, that special 'development', which according to
    Mr Freeman (pp. 444, 468), 'the foresight of Harold' had
    introduced on this occasion, and which, he assures us,
    involved 'a frightful slaughter' of the Normans. And yet this
    writer is absolutely silent, both here and throughout the
    battle, as to the existence of a barricade of any sort or

Here I would briefly refer to certain misrepresentations. Mr Archer
claimed, in his original article (_Cont. Rev._, 344) to 'mainly
rely' upon Wace, on the ground that I did so myself. I was obliged
to describe this statement at once as 'the exact converse of the
truth'.[28] For it will be seen, I expressly excluded Wace from the
authorities on whom I relied, and specially rested my case, from
the first, on the evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry. It is much to be
regretted that Mr Archer has deliberately repeated his statement,[29]
though even his ally reluctantly admits that it was 'not very happily

Mr Archer might well seek to avoid the Bayeux Tapestry, for its
evidence is dead against him, and he cannot explain it away. His
first attempt was a brief allusion, accepting its authority without
question, but suggesting that it might represent that part of the
line where the barricade was absent.[31] Of this suggestion I at
once disposed by showing that it is 'not only absolutely without
foundation, but is directly opposed to Mr Freeman's theory,
and, indeed, to his express statements'.[32] Forced to drop this
explanation, my opponent, in his next article, fell back on the
desperate device of repudiating the authority of the Tapestry,[33]
'the most authentic record' of the battle according to the late
Professor, who was never weary of insisting on its 'paramount
importance'. On my showing, beyond the possibility of question,
that this amounted to rejecting everything that Mr Freeman had
written on the subject,[34] Mr Archer once more shifts his tactics,
and now writes thus:

    If any fact in Hastings is more certain than another, it
    is that at the beginning of the battle the main body of
    the English was posted _on a hill_. Now 'the priceless
    record'--the Bayeux Tapestry--represents them _on a plain_. If
    the Tapestry could leave out this central feature--the hill of
    Senlac--from its picture of the _opening_ battle, still more
    easily could it leave out the intricate barriers upon the

This _ad captandum_ argument is disposed of as easily as the others.
The Tapestry does not concern itself with landscape, and shows us
neither a hill nor a plain. It could not, on a narrow strip, show us
'the hill of Senlac', but it could--and would--show us the alleged
palisade. For not only does it strive under every difficulty to
represent such objects as churches, castles and houses, but it
faithfully shows us the 'palisade'[36] raised by William at Hastings
itself. And if it be urged that it could not depict men fighting
behind such a defence, let us turn to the scene at Dinan. If we
compare it with the opening scene of the great battle itself, we see
precisely similar horsemen advancing to the attack, similar infantry
resisting that attack, and similar spears flying between them. But at
Dinan the defenders have a palisade, and on the hill of battle they
have not.[37]

But although the evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry, Mr Freeman's
own supreme authority, remains absolutely unshaken, it must not
be supposed that I rely on that evidence alone. I attach as much
importance as ever--and so will, I think, all prejudiced persons--to
the other portion of my argument, that if there had been a barricade
playing so important a part in the battle that Mr Freeman found it
needful to mention it at least a score of times, it is practically
inconceivable that all the authorities I enumerate should have
absolutely ignored its existence. Judging from Mr Freeman's own
experience, it would be simply impossible to describe the battle
without mentioning the 'palisade'.

It is very significant that when we turn to a real feature of the
English line, namely its close array, we find the above authorities as
unanimous in mentioning the fact as they are in ignoring that 'curious
defence',[38] those 'intricate barriers', as Mr Archer terms them,
'upon the hill'.[39]

The fight has raged so fiercely around this 'palisade' that I have
been obliged to discuss it at somewhat disproportionate length. But to
sum up, we have now seen, firstly, that the alleged palisade was a
new 'development', and needs, as such, special proof of its existence;
secondly, that of Mr Freeman's proofs, one at least must admittedly be
abandoned, while he himself has impugned the other;[40] thirdly, that
the evidence, both positive and presumptive, is altogether opposed to
the existence of a palisade. In the narrative of the battle we shall
find Mr Freeman interpolating the alleged defence solely from his own
imagination, such references proving, on inquiry, to be imaginary and
imaginary alone.[41]


It is a pleasure to find myself here in complete agreement with Mr
Freeman. In his very latest study of the battle Mr Freeman wrote as

    The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on
    foot in the close array of the shield-wall.[42]

Mr Archer says they cannot have done so.[43] There was also, according
to Mr Freeman, a barricade, in front of--and distinct from--the
shield-wall, being a special development which, he tells us, 'the
foresight of Harold' had introduced on this occasion (pp. 444, 468).
The barricade is denied by me, the shield-wall by Mr Archer. Whichever
of us is right, Mr Freeman's accuracy is, in either case, equally

It is essential to remember that Mr Freeman, throughout, treated the
palisade and the shield-wall as _separate and distinct_. Thus he wrote
so late as 1880:

    Besides the palisade the front ranks made a kind of inner
    defence with their shields, called the shield-wall. The Norman
    writers were specially struck with the close array of the

So in his great work we read of 'the shield-wall _and the_ triple
palisade still unbroken' (iii. 467). Later still 'the shield-wall
still stood _behind the_ palisade' (p. 487). Even when 'the English
palisade was gone _the English shield-wall_ was still a formidable
hindrance in the way of the assailants (p. 491). The array of the
shield-wall was still kept, though now without the help of the
barricades' (p. 491). Here we have the very phrase of note NN, 'the
array of the shield-wall',[45] and it is shown beyond question that
Mr Freeman's shield-wall, whatever Mr Archer may pretend, was quite
distinct from the palisade, and was a shield-wall 'pure and simple'.

Let it also be clearly understood what Mr Freeman meant by that 'array
of the shield-wall', of which the disputed passage in Wace was, he
held, a description. He shows us the whole English army 'ranged so
closely together in the thick array of the shield-wall, that
while they only kept their ground the success of an assailant was
hopeless'.[46] He describes them as, 'a strong line, or rather wedge,
of infantry, forming a wall with their shields',[47] and he ascribes
their defeat to their 'breaking the line of the shield-wall'.[48]

Of this shield-wall my opponent rashly wrote:

    The Reviewer's [_sic_] theory of an extended shield-wall
    vanishes like smoke. If Wace is any authority ... the question
    is settled once and for all. There was no extended shield-wall
    at Hastings.[49]

Of course, 'the Reviewer's theory' here is no other than Mr Freeman's

If, in spite of the above evidence, it should still be pretended by
anyone that the plain meaning of Mr Freeman's words is not their
meaning, I will refer them not to my own interpretation, but to that
of Mr Freeman's friend and colleague, the Rev W. Hunt, who wrote in
the historian's lifetime, 'at his request' and by his 'invitation',
and whose proofs were revised by Mr Freeman himself.[50] This is Mr
Hunt's version:

    Set in close array behind a palisade forming a kind of
    fortification, _shoulder to shoulder and shield to shield_,
    the army of Harold presented a steady and immovable front to
    the Norman attack ... Fatal was the national formation of the
    English battle, when _men stood in the closest order, forming
    a wall with their shields_. While no mode of array could be
    stronger so long as the line remained unbroken it made it hard
    to form the line again.[51]

So, again, in his life of Harold:

    All the heavy-armed force fought in close order, _shield
    touching shield_, so as to present a complete wall to the

Here we have no tortuous imaginings, but, in plain and straightforward
words, 'what historians in general evidently mean' when they speak of
a 'shield-wall', what it meant to Mr Freeman, what it means to Mr Hunt,
and it is admitted, to myself.[53] Such was the English shield-wall,
according to Mr Freeman, at 'Senlac'; it was what Mr Archer definitely
declares it cannot possibly have been.

Lastly, as to the ground on which Mr Archer pronounces impossible a
continuous shield-wall[54]--namely, that the English could not have
fought in such close order,[55] and that the axe-men being 'shieldless
... could not have formed the shield-wall'; one need only confront him
with Mr Freeman's words.

  MR FREEMAN                          MR ARCHER

  Referring to the mode of fighting   It is enough for me that common
  of an English army in that age,     sense, the tapestry, Wace,[58]
  and to 'the usual tactics of the    our Italian chronicler, and his
  shield-wall', Mr Freeman wrote of   later Old French translator all
  'the close array of the             show that the English axe-men
  battle-axe men' (p. 444). He had    could not or did not form the
  already written of 'the English     shield-wall (_English
  house carls with their ... huge     Historical Review_, ix. p. 14).
  battle-axes', accustomed to         Possibly they [the house carls]
  fight in 'the close array to the    may have formed a genuine
  shield-wall.'[56]                   shield-wall; but while forming
                                      it they cannot have been _using_
  'They still formed their            the 'bipennis', or the two-handed
  shield-wall and fought with         axe (_Ibid._, p. 20, note).
  their great axes.'[57]

I am compelled to repeat what I said in the _Quarterly Review_.

    We almost hesitate to waste our own and our readers' time on
    a writer who, professing to vindicate Mr Freeman's view as
    against us, devotes his energies to proving that view to be
    utterly absurd.[59]

Nor will Mr Archer derive comfort from 'our only English "specialist"
on mediaeval warfare';[60] who holds, as I had pointed out, that 'the
English axemen' did fight 'arranged in a compact mass'.[61]

It is significant that the fact Mr Archer so confidently rejects is
precisely that on which I am at one with Mr Freeman, Mr Hunt, and Mr
Oman, and to which the original authorities bear witness with peculiar
unanimity. Thus William of Poitiers, an authority of the first rank,
describes the English as 'maxime conferti', speaks of their 'nimia
densitas', and proceeds to dwell on the terrible effect of their
weapon, the famous battle-axe. William of Malmesbury tells us that the
axemen 'impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt'. Even Mr Archer's authority,
Wace, writes of these warriors:

  A pie furent _serrement_.

Baudri describes the English as 'consertos',[62] and the _Brevis
Relatio_ as 'spissum agmen'. Bishop Guy writes of the 'spissum
nemus Angligenarum', and styles them 'densissima turba'; Henry of
Huntingdon, we saw, tells us that they were arranged 'in una acie
strictissime', and were thus 'impenetrabiles Normannis'.

No feature of the great battle is more absolutely beyond dispute. It
was the denseness of the English ranks that most vividly struck
their foes. 'Shield to shield, and shoulder to shoulder', as Æthelred
describes them at the Battle of the Standard, they wedged themselves
together so tightly that the wounded could not move, nor even the
corpses drop. And so they stood together, the living and the dead.[63]

And we must remember that this mass of men was 'ranged so closely
together in the thick array _of the shield-wall_, that while they only
kept their ground the success of an assailant was hopeless'.[64] The
Conqueror saw, Mr Freeman reminds us, 'that his only chance was to
tempt the English to break their shield-wall'.[65] I need not insist
on the point further: I need not even have said so much, but that some
of those who read these pages may not have realized the true
character of Mr Archer's phantasies. The 'scutorum testudo', as
William of Malmesbury describes the famous shield-wall,[66] is
depicted, with his usual painstaking care, by the designer of the
Bayeux Tapestry. We read of the 'testudo' at Ashdown fight, even
in the days of Alfred;[67] it was, again, with the shield-wall
that 'glorious Æthelstan' won the day on the hard-fought field of
Brunanburh (937);[68] we hear of it at Maldon (991), where Brihtnoth,
we read, 'bade his men work the war-hedge',--'that is, had made his
men form the shield-wall, a sort of fortress made by holding their
shields close together'.[69] And we do, in Mr Freeman's words, meet
with it 'down to the end', when the war-hedge of Maldon was wrought
anew, by Harold, on the hill of battle, and stood once more as if a
fortress--'quasi castellum'.


To render clear the problem involved, I must first sketch as briefly
as possible the nature of the ground the English held. The hill of
battle is so fully described in Mr Freeman's narrative that I here
need only explain that it was a long narrow spur of the downs, running
nearly east and west, of which the south front was defended by the
English and attacked by the Normans. The one and only point that is
certain is that 'on the very crown of the hill', the site of the high
altar in the future, was erected the standard of Harold.[70] This,
then, the centre of the hill, was the centre of the English host.
But the ground to which our attention is directed, as having 'really
played the most decisive part in the great event of the place', lay
to the west of this, 'where the slope is gentlest of all, where the
access to the natural citadel is least difficult'.[71] Mr Freeman
assumes that this ground--the 'English right', as he terms it--where
the 'ascent is easiest in itself', was allotted to 'the least
trustworthy portion of the English army', to 'the sudden levies of the
southern shires'.[72] For this assumption, I hasten to add, there is
no authority whatever. He further assumes that the first English to
leave their post, in pursuit of the enemy, 'were, of course, some of
the defenders of the English right'.[73] William, he holds, at the
crisis of the battle, resolved to draw them again from their post by a
partial feigned retreat, that 'meanwhile another division might reach
the summit through the gap thus left open'. Accordingly, tempted by
this stratagem, 'the English on the right wing rushed down and
pursued', and their error proved 'fatal to England'.[74]

    The Duke's great object was now gained; the main end
    of Harold's skilful tactics had been frustrated by the
    inconsiderate ardour of the least valuable portion of his
    troops. Through the rash descent of the light-armed on the
    right, the whole English army lost its vantage-ground. The
    pursuing English had left the most easily accessible portion
    of the hill open to the approach of the enemy.... The main
    body of the Normans made their way on to the hill, no doubt by
    the gentle slope at the point west of the present buildings.
    The great advantage of the ground was now lost; the Normans
    were at last on the hill.[75]

Such is Mr Freeman's explanation of how the battle was won,[76] for in
this episode he discovers the decisive turning-point of the day.[77]

Now, let us consider what is involved in the theory here set forth.
'Harold's skilful tactics', we find, consisted in entrusting his
weakest point, the least defensible portion of his position, to 'the
least trustworthy portion of the English army'. The natural result
of these insane tactics was that his weak point was forced, and the
English right turned.[78] And Mr Freeman, having made this clear,
complains of 'the criticisms of monks on the conduct of a consummate
general', and insists that 'nowhere is Harold's military greatness
so distinctly felt as when ... we tread the battlefield of his own
choice'. But there is worse to come. Such tactics as these would
have been mad enough, even if these raw peasants had stood behind a
barricade; but if, as I hold, that barricade is a purely imaginary
creation, we ask ourselves what would have happened to these unhappy
creatures, protected by no 'shield-wall', and armed with 'such rustic
weapons as forks and sharp stakes',[79] when, first riddled by Norman
arrows and then attacked by Norman infantry, they were finally, broken
and defenceless, charged by heavy cavalry. The first onslaught would
have scattered them to the winds, and have won, in so doing, the key
of the English position.[80] Remembering this, it is strange to learn
that 'the consummate generalship of Harold is nowhere more
conspicuously shown than in this memorable campaign', and that his was
'that true skill of the leader of armies, which would have placed both
Harold and William high among the captains of any age'. But if the
generalship of Harold was shown by entrusting to his worst troops his
weakest and most important point, while posting 'the flower of the
English army' just where his ground was strongest, what are we to say
of 'the generalship of William, his ready eye, his quick thought', if
he failed to detect and avail himself of this glaring blunder? For
instead of concentrating his attack upon Harold's weak point, he left
it to be assailed, we learn, by 'what was most likely the least
esteemed' portion of his host,[81] while he himself with his picked
troops dashed himself against an impregnable position like a mad bull
against a wall. 'We read,' says Mr Freeman, 'with equal admiration of
the consummate skill with which Harold chose his position and his
general scheme of action, and of the wonderful readiness with which
William formed and varied his plans.' For myself, I should have
thought that the tactics he describes--tactics which stirred him to a
burst of admiration for 'the two greatest of living captains'--would
have disgraced the most incompetent commander that ever took the

But Harold, after all, was no fool. Are we then justified in accusing
him of this supreme folly? Mr Freeman held that 'the relative position
of the different divisions in the two armies seems beyond doubt'.
There is, however, as I said, absolutely no evidence for Mr Freeman's
assumption that the English right was entrusted to the raw levies.
Against it is the fact that in this quarter the first assault was
soonest repulsed: against it also is all analogy drawn from the
study of English tactics. Snorro's description of Stamfordbridge is
evidence, at least, that 'the fortress of shields' had a continuous
line of bucklers along its whole front: Æthelred gives us the reason
in his story of the Battle of the Standard; namely, that it was the
front line which had to meet the shock ('periculosum dicebant si primo
aggressu inermes armatis occurrerent'). It was therefore an essential
principle of tactics 'quatinus armati armatos impeterent, milites
congrederentur militibus'.[82] Therefore on Cowton Moor (1138), as (I
hold) on the hill of Battle (1066), we find the 'strenuissimi milites
in prima fronte locati'.[83]

The words 'and the lighter troops behind them', which originally
followed here, have been objected to by Miss Norgate, who had
originally made the same statement,[84] but who now wishes to withdraw
it.[85] Henry of Huntingdon, however--like Æthelred, a contemporary
authority--agrees with him in describing the dismounted knights,
men with shields and _loricæ_ like the 'housecarls' at Hastings, as
forming an 'iron wall' along the English front.[86] If then mailed
warriors formed the front line, it is difficult to see where the
'inermis plebs', as Æthelred terms it, could be but 'behind them'. The
fact is that the Battle of the Standard, for which we have excellent
authorities, is of no small value for the study of the Battle of
Hastings, as my opponents seem to be uncomfortably aware. 'The
tactics,' Mr Freeman admits, 'were English.' We find there again
the same dense array,[87] the same tactics for defence, though now
rendered less passive by the development of the bowman.[88] There can,
I think, be little question, if we combine the several accounts, that
the Standard, with the older chiefs around it, formed the kernel of
the host;[89] that the rude levies of the shire were massed round
about them;[90] and that the outer rim was formed by the mailed
knights, with the archers crouching for shelter behind their 'iron

Harking back to Sherstone fight (1016), we encounter precisely the
same formation. 'The King,' Mr Freeman writes, 'placed his best troops
in front, and the inferior part of his army in the rear.'

And he added, 'we must remember these tactics when we come to the
great fight of Senlac'.[91] This was, unhappily, just what he failed
to do. 'William of Poitiers,' he strangely complained, 'has his head
full of Agamemnon and of Xerxes, but this obvious analogy does not
seem to have occurred to him.' Have we also the reason why our
author himself overlooked these obvious analogies in the fact that to
illustrate the Battle of Hastings he quotes some five and twenty times
from the Odyssey and the Iliad, from Herodotus and Xenophon, from
Æschylus, Plutarch, and Dio Cassius; from Livy, Tacitus, Ammianus, and
even Ælius Spartianus? In his later edition, however, he inserted in
a footnote the words: 'On placing the inferior troops in the rear, see
the tactics of Eadmund at Sherstone.'[92] 'In the _rear_?' Yes, but
that is precisely my contention. The assumption that I am assailing is
that they formed the _wings_.

But we are not even here at the end of Mr Freeman's confusion. He had
meanwhile, in another work, published about the same time as the first
edition of his third volume, written thus:

    As far as I can see, King Harold put these bad troops _in the
    back_ ... But his picked men he put _in front_, where the best
    troops of the enemy were likely to come.[93]

This is exactly my own view; it is that 'essential principle of
tactics' on which I have insisted throughout, and on which Miss
Norgate has rashly endeavoured to pour contempt.[94] Mr Freeman,
moreover, further on, wrote of his 'light armed' as 'the troops _in
the rear_',[95] which is again my contention. What seems to have
happened is that he got into his head (I can imagine how) that the
'light-armed' formed the wings, and arranged the battle on that
assumption. Then remembering, when it was too late, that, according to
his own precedent, they ought to have been in the rear, he hesitated
to introduce a change which would affect his whole theory of the
battle, and compel him to approach it _de novo_.[96]

But indeed, even apart from this, it seems doubtful, examining Mr
Freeman's narrative, whether he had formed a clear conception of how
the English troops were arranged, and whether, if so, he kept it in
view, consistently, throughout. If we honestly seek to learn what his
conception was, a careful comparison of pp. 472, 473, 475, 490, and
505, with the ground-plan, will show that the whole right wing was
composed of 'light-armed troops, who broke their line to pursue'. And
this view seems to be accepted and defended by Miss Norgate, who,
writing as his champion, declares that to her the conclusion embodied
in his ground-plan 'seems irresistible'.[97] On the other hand, pp.
471, 480, 487, and 732 most undoubtedly convey the impression that,
as I have maintained, the heavy-armed English were extended along the
whole front,[98] and that their defeat, in Mr Freeman's words (p.
732), was 'owing to their breaking the line of the shield-wall'. I
suspect that he was led thus to contradict himself by the obvious
concentration of his interest on 'the great personal struggle which
was going on beneath the standard' (p. 487). Here, as is often the
case throughout his work, Mr Freeman's treatment of his subject was
essentially dramatic. To bring his heroes into high relief, he thrust
into the background the rest of his scene as of comparatively small
account. In this spirit, for instance, he wrote:

    A new act in the awful drama of that day had now begun. The
    Duke himself, at the head of his own Normans, again pressed
    towards the standard.... A few moments more and the mighty
    rivals might have met face to face, and the war-club of the
    Bastard might have clashed against the lifted axe of the
    Emperor of Britain (p. 483).

Homer, doubtless, would have made them meet; but a great dramatic
opportunity was lost: the 'mighty rivals' seem never to have got
within striking distance. Meanwhile, however, the warring hosts are
left quite in the background; their fate is that of a stage crowd
engaged in a stage battle. I do not mean, of course, that Mr Freeman
ignores them, but that he was so engrossed in the personal exploits of
his heroes as to be impatient of that careful study which the battle
as a whole required, and comparatively careless of consistency in his
allusions to the English array.

The charge, in short, that I have brought throughout against the
disposition of the English in Mr Freeman's narrative is that his view,
'with all that it involves, was based on no authority, was merely the
offspring of his own imagination, and was directly at variance with
the only precedent that he vouched for the purpose'.[99] There is
absolutely not a scrap of evidence that--as shown on the 'accurate'
ground-plan--the English army was drawn up in three divisions, the
'housecarls' forming the centre, and the 'light-armed' the two wings.
We do not even know that it formed an almost straight line.[100]
The whole arrangement is sheer guesswork, and analogy, here our only
guide, is wholly against it.

I cannot insist too strongly on the charge I have here made. It is
no 'matter of secondary importance';[101] nor is it the case that my
argument as to the 'palisade' is, as Mr Archer pretended, 'the only
definite and palpable charge' that I bring 'against Mr Freeman's
account of the great battle'.[102] For, as I wrote from the very
first, 'rejecting Mr Freeman's views on the groupings of the English
host, we reject with them _in toto_ the story he has built upon

My own view is based upon the fact that, in the military tactics as in
the military architecture of the age, the defence trusted largely to
its power of passive resistance: this was the essential principle of
the ponderous Norman keep; and precisely as the walls of that keep
were formed of an ashlar face of masonry backed by masses of rubble,
so the fighting line of a force standing on the defensive was composed
of a compact facing of heavily-armed troops backed by a rabble of
half-armed peasants, or at best by what we may term the light infantry
of the day. When the foe was advancing to the attack, these rear lines
could discharge such weapons as they possessed--darts, arrows, stones,
etc.--from behind the shelter of their comrades,[104] while at the
moment of actual shock they would form a passive backing, which would
save the front ranks from being broken by the enemy's impact. As the
great object of the attack was to break through the line, a formation
which virtually gave the advantage now possessed by a solid over a
hollow square would naturally commend itself to the defence.

Now in these tactics we have the key to the true story of the battle.
But, first, we must dismiss from our minds Mr Freeman's fundamental
assumption, and understand that the English 'hoplites' were not massed
in the centre, but were extended along the whole front, precisely as
they were in battles fought both before and after. The fighting face
of Harold's host was composed of this heavy soldiery, clad in helmets
and mail. Arrayed in the closest order, they presented to an advancing
enemy the aspect of a living rampart ('quasi castellum').

How the Normans attacked that rampart it will now be my task to show.


From Telham Hill Duke William scanned that living rampart, and saw
clearly that 'his only chance was to tempt the English to break their
shield-wall'.[105] It is chiefly from Baudri's poem that we learn how
he set about it.[106]

There is no question that the fight began with an advance of the
Norman infantry. William of Poitiers and Bishop Guy are in complete
accordance on the fact.[107] But as my description of the infantry has
been challenged,[108] I may show that it is quite beyond dispute.[109]
To my argument, as reprinted below, it has been objected that I
fail 'to take account of the distinction between light-armed and
heavy-armed infantry'.[110] It will be seen that my argument turns,
not on the armour, but on the _weapons_ of the foot. I have challenged
my opponents to produce mention of any weapons but crossbows,[111] or
bows and arrows, and need scarcely say that they cannot.

Describing the 'armour and weapons of the Normans', Mr Freeman,
avowedly following the Tapestry, represented the infantry as all
archers,[112] and divided them into two classes: (1) those 'without
defensive harness'; (2) those who 'wore the defences common to the
horse and foot of both armies ... the close-fitting coat of mail ...
and the conical helmet'.[113] Now this division is exactly reproduced
in the words of William of Poitiers, who divides his 'pedites' into
two classes, distinguished only by the fact that in one were the
'firmiores et loricatos'. He does not say that the latter were _not_
archers, or crossbowmen, nor did Mr Freeman venture to assign them
any other weapons.[114] Bishop Guy, moreover, distinctly tells us
that they were crossbowmen (_vide infra_). The advance, therefore, in
modern language, consisted of skirmishers, represented by archers and
perhaps some crossbowmen; supports, namely, crossbowmen who, as a
somewhat superior class, would mostly have defensive armour; and,
lastly, the cavalry as reserve.[115]

Now what was the intention of this advance? Mr Freeman assumed,
without hesitation, that the foot 'were to strive to break down the
palisades ... and so to make ready the way for the charge of the
horse' (p. 467); that 'the infantry were, therefore, exposed to the
first and most terrible danger' (_ibid._); 'that the French infantry
had to toil up the hill, and to break down the palisade' (p.
477).[116] But we find, on reference, that the above writers say
nothing of any such intention, and do not even mention the existence
of a palisade.[117] Moreover, the only weapons they speak of are
crossbows and bows and arrows, which are scarcely the tools for
pioneers. But William of Poitiers puts us on the track of a very
different explanation: 'Pedites itaque Normanni propius accedentes
_provocant_ Anglos, missilibus in eos vulnera dirigunt atque necem'.
Here Baudri comes to our aid:

  Nam neque Normannus consertos audet adire
    Nec valet a cuneo quemlibet excipere.
  Arcubus utantur dux imperat atque balistis;
    Nam prius has mortes Anglia tunc didicit.
  Tunc didicere mori quam non novere sagitta
    Creditur a cælo mors super ingruere
  Hos velut a longe comitatur militis agmen,
    Palantes post se miles ut excipiat.

The Normans dared not face the serried ranks of the English: the maxim
that cavalry should not charge unbroken infantry was asserting itself
already. But the only means of breaking those ranks, of throwing the
English into confusion, was to gall them by archers and slingers till
some of them should sally forth, when their assailants would turn tail
and leave them to be caught in the open and ridden down. As Bishop Guy
expresses it:

  Præmisit pedites committere bella sagittis,
    Et balistantes inserit in medio,
  Quatinus infigant volitantia vultibus arma,
    Vulneribusque datis ora retro faciant,
  Ordine post pedites sperat stabilire Quirites

These tactics, says Baudri, were crowned with success; the maddened
English, as they dashed forth to strike their tormentors to the
ground, were cut off in every direction by the horsemen waiting their

  Tunc præ tristitia gens effera præque pudore
    Egreditur palans, insequiturque vagos.
  Normanni simulantque fugam fugiuntque fugantes,
    Intercepit eos undique præpes equus.
  Ilico cæduntur; sic paulatim minuuntur,
    Nec minuebatur callidus ordo ducis.

This account is both intelligible and consistent, but differs wholly
from that of Mr Freeman. It had, however, been virtually anticipated
by Mr Oman, who in his _Art of War in the Middle Ages_ (p. 25), points
out, with much felicity, that

    the archers, if unsupported by the knights, could easily
    have been driven off the field by a general charge. United,
    however, by the skilful tactics of William, the two divisions
    of the invading army won the day. The Saxon mass was subjected
    to exactly the same trial which befell the British squares in
    the battle of Waterloo: incessant charges by a gallant cavalry
    were alternated with a destructive fire of missiles. Nothing
    can be more maddening than such an ordeal to the infantry
    soldier, rooted to the spot by the necessities of his

Let us compare the two theories. Mr Freeman's, here again, is not even
consistent. He first tells us that for the knights to charge, with
'the triple palisade still unbroken, would have been sheer madness';
in fact it was 'altogether useless' for them to advance until the
infantry had broken down the palisade.[118] But this the infantry
failed to do,[119] whereupon--the cavalry charged 'the impenetrable
fortress of timber' (p. 479)! One is surely reminded of the immortal
Don, when 'a todo el galope de Rocinante', he charged the windmill.

My own theory involves no such inconsistencies. I hold--not as a
conjecture based on a hypothetical palisade, but on the excellent
authority of Baudri and William of Poitiers, that the infantry
were used for the definite purpose of galling the English by their
missiles, and so enticing them to leave their ranks and become a prey
to the horse. As soon as their line had thus been broken, the cavalry
were to charge.

Up to this point, the English army, as a whole, had kept its
formation; but now the strain on its patience had become too great to
be borne. Breaking its ranks, with one accord, the whole host rushed
upon its foes, and drove them before it in confusion right up to the
Duke's post:

  Tandem jactura gens irritata frequenti,
    Ordinibus spretis irruit unanimis.
  Tunc quoque plus solito fugientum terga cecidit,
    Et miles vultum fugit ad usque ducis.

This explains what had always been to me a difficulty, namely, the
panic-stricken flight of the Normans at this stage of the battle. That
they should have 'lost heart' (p. 480) at the firmness of the English
is natural enough; but that they should have 'turned and fled'
(_ibid._) from a force which did not pursue them seemed improbable.
The difficulty is solved by Baudri's mention of the wild onslaught
by the English. Moreover, Bishop Guy's description of the rout of
the assailants--which Mr Freeman assigned to this stage of the
battle--agrees well with that of Baudri:

  Anglorum populus, numero superante, repellit
    Hostes inque retro compulit ora dari;
  Et fuga ficta prius fit tunc virtute coacta;
    Normanni fugiunt, dorsa tegunt clipei.

Again, Baudri's poem suggests a novel view by its definite statement
that the Normans in their flight reached the Duke's post. Mr Freeman
imagined that the Duke himself had been fighting in the front line
(pp. 479, 480), but a careful comparison of his two authorities,
William of Poitiers and Bishop Guy (p. 482), will show that, on the
contrary, they support Baudri's statement. Each speaks of the Duke
as 'meeting' (_occurrens_--_occurrit_) the fugitives, a difficulty
which Mr Freeman evaded by writing that 'he met _or pursued_ the

From this flight the Normans were rallied by the desperate efforts of
the Duke himself, who, as is usual at such moments, was believed to
have fallen. I deem this episode a fixed point, and it conveniently
divides the battle. All our four leading authorities--the Tapestry,
William of Poitiers, Bishop Guy, and Baudri--are here in complete
agreement. William describes the Duke as 'nudato insuper capite';
Guy tells us that 'iratus galea nudat et ipse caput'; Baudri writes
'subito galeam submovet a capite'; in the Tapestry, 'William (writes
Dr Bruce), when he wishes to show himself in order to contradict the
rumour that he has been killed, is obliged to lift his helmet
almost off his head' (p. 98). It is singular that so striking and
well-established an episode is wholly ignored by Wace.


The serious character of the assailants' flight is duly recognized by
Mr Freeman.[120] We could have no more eloquent witness to the fact
than the admission even by William of Poitiers that the Duke's Normans
themselves gave way, or the description of them by Bishop Guy as 'gens
sua victa'. The only point in question here is whether what I call
'the fosse disaster' was an incident of this headlong flight or
happened at a later stage of the battle. Mr Freeman, discussing 'the
order of events',[121] faced the difficulty frankly, observing that
Guy had placed the feigned flight before what I have termed above the
dividing incident of the day, and that this view 'may be thought to be
confirmed by the Tapestry', etc., etc. We have here perhaps the most
difficult problem raised in the course of the battle, and one which
it would be easier and safer to pass over in silence. As to Guy, I
suggest, as a possible solution--it does not profess to be more--that
what he was describing was not the great feigned flight but the lesser
man[oe]uvres of the same character described by Baudri above. He
may, of course, have transferred to these the importance of the later
episode. On the real flight, at least, he is sound. Of the Tapestry
I would speak with more confidence. 'In the nature of things,' Mr
Freeman wrote, 'exact chronological order is not its strongest point'
(p. 768). But in this case there was nothing to make it depart from
that order, no reason why it should not place the incident of 'the
fosse disaster' after the central incident of the day, instead of
before, if that were its right position. Moreover, it is here, we
find, in the closest agreement with Wace; and though I claim, as did
Mr Freeman, the right of rejecting his testimony when wholly
unsupported (as still more, when opposed to probability), yet such
marked agreement as this is not to be lightly cast aside.

In any case, nothing can be more unfortunate than Mr Freeman's
treatment of what he describes as the 'great slaughter of the French
in the western ravine' (p. 489). This is a scene invented by Mr
Freeman alone, and illustrates the peculiar use he made, at times,
of his authorities. There is no question that the Norman knights
suffered, in the course of the day, at least one such disaster as the
nobles of France at Courtrai (1302) or her cuirassiers at Waterloo.
But five authorities, so far as one can see, place the incident in the
thick of the battle, while three others assign it to the pursuit of
the defeated English. It is not strange, therefore, that some writers
should have held that there was but one such incident: Mr Freeman,
however, holds that there were two; and I expressly disclaim
questioning his view, the matter being one of opinion. Assuming then,
as he does, that the episode occurred in the course of the battle,
I turn to the spirited version of Wace, as Mr Archer defies me to
'impeach Wace's authority' (p. 346). The 'old Norman poet' is here
very precise. He first tells us (ll. 7869-70, 8103-6) that the English
had made a 'fosse', which the Normans had passed unnoticed in their
advance.[122] These passages Mr Freeman accepts without question (p.
476). But then Wace proceeds to state (ll. 8107-20) that the Normans,
driven back, as we have seen, by the English, tumbled, men and horses,
into this treacherous 'fosse' and perished in great numbers. Now Wace,
far from standing alone, is here in curiously close agreement with
the Tapestry of Bayeux. Two successive scenes in that 'most authetic
record' are styled 'Hic ceciderunt simul Angli et Franci in pr[oe]lio;
hic Odo episcopus baculum tenens confortat pueros.' Wace describes
these scenes in thirty-six lines (ll. 8103-38), devoting eighteen
lines to the first and the same number to the second. Actual
comparison alone can show how close the agreement is. Henry of
Huntingdon, we may add, independently confirms the statement that
English as well as French perished in the fatal fosse.[123]

Now all this is quite opposed to Mr Freeman's 'conception of the
battle'. He had, therefore, to adapt, with no gentle hands, his
authorities to his requirements. Cinderella's stepmother, when her
daughter's foot could not be got into the golden shoe, armed herself,
we read, with axe and scissors, and trimmed it to the requisite shape.
With no less decision the late Professor set about his own task.
Wace's evidence he simply suppressed; Henry of Huntingdon's he
ignored; but that of the Bayeux Tapestry could not be so easily
disposed of. I invite particular attention to his treatment of this,
his 'highest authority'. Retaining in its natural place (pp. 481-2)
the second of the two scenes we have described, he threw forward the
one preceding it to a later stage of the battle (p. 490). Nor did his
vigorous adaptation stop even here. The scene thus wrenched from its
place depicts a single incident: mounted Normans are tumbling headlong
into a ditch at the foot of a mound, on which 'light-armed' English
stand assailing them with their weapons. The fight is hand to hand;
the bodies touch. And yet the Professor treats this scene as a
description of two quite separate events happening at a distance from
each other. These he terms (p. 489) the 'stand of the English at the
detached hill'; and the 'great slaughter of the French in the western
ravine'. But on referring to his own ground-plan, we find that this
'ravine' and the 'detached hill' were a quarter of a mile apart, with
the slopes of the main hill between them.

My criticism here is twofold. In the first place, Mr Freeman
endeavoured to conceal the liberties he had taken with his leading
authority. No one would gather from his narrative of the battle that
any such violence had been used; nor would anyone who read of the
'hill' episode that 'the scene is vividly shown in the Tapestry' (p.
489), and, subsequently, of the 'ravine' disaster, that 'this scene
is most vividly shown in the Tapestry' (p. 490), imagine that 'the
incidents of the ravine and the little hill' (p. 768) are in the
Tapestry one and the same. In the second place, the large part which
the writer's own imagination plays in his narrative of the fight is
here clearly seen. There is nothing, for instance, in any authority to
connect 'the western ravine' with 'the great slaughter of the French'.
It is placed by those who mention it in a 'fosse', 'fossatum', or
'fovea'. 'If Wace is any authority,' to quote Mr Archer's words, 'the
question is settled once and for all';[124] the slaughter took place
not in the 'ravine', but in a ditch which according to him, the
English had dug to the south of the hill, and which, according to
Henry of Huntingdon, they had cunningly concealed. Mr Freeman produces
no authority in support of his own fancy; his only argument is that
the slaughter

    must have happened somewhere to the south or south-west of the
    hill. The small ravine to the south-west seems exactly what is
    wanted (p. 771).

The 'western ravine' however, does not fulfil these requirements
(see ground-plan, where it lies to the north-west of the hill);
while Wace's 'fosse', which--though here ignoring it--he had already
accepted, lay, as required, to the south of the hill. Wace
mentions another instance (ll. 1737-50) in which this stratagem was
adopted,[125] but whether our ditch was dug, as he states, expressly
or not, the fact of its existence does not depend on his evidence

To resume: accepting provisionally Mr Freeman's view (iii. 770) that
there were two disasters to the horse, one 'happening comparatively
early in the battle', and the other 'which William of Poitiers,
Orderic and the Battle chronicler place at the very end of the
battle', as occurring in the pursuit of the defeated English, we find
that the former is mentioned by five writers. The Tapestry and Wace
agree absolutely in making it an episode of the real flight of the
Normans before the great rally; Henry of Huntingdon assigns it to the
great feigned flight, later in the battle; William of Malmesbury
seems to make it happen during the pursuit by the Normans after their
feigned flight; the anonymous writer quoted by Andresen (ii. 713) from
Le Prevost may be left out of the question. Yet, in spite of all this
contradiction, Mr Freeman assigns this striking episode, not as a
conjecture, but as historic fact, to the pursuit of the English by
the 'Bretons'[126] after the feigned flight (p. 489). Let me make my
position clear. We expect an historian to weigh, as an expert, the
evidence before him: we look to him for guidance where that evidence
is conflicting. But we have a right to protest against the statement,
as historic fact, of hypotheses which cannot be established, and which
are quite possibly wrong. Where the evidence is flatly contradictory,
the fact that it is so should be made clear; conflicting statements
should not be evaded, nor evidence, such as that of the Tapestry,
appealed to, when it proves to be opposed to, not in favour of, the
writer's hypothesis. Dealing with the Conqueror's march on London,
after his great victory, Mr Parker has insisted with much force, on
the principle for which I am contending.

    Though, by leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the
    residue may be worked up into a consecutive and consistent
    series of events, such a process amounts to making history,
    not writing it. Amidst a mass of contradictory evidence, it
    is impossible to arrive at any sure conclusion.... It is,
    however, comparatively easy to piece together such details
    as will fit of the various stories, and still more easy to
    discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work
    produces ... [but] it cannot be reasonably regarded as real
    history. The method by which the results are obtained bears
    too close a resemblance to that by which ... some of the
    legends described in the fifth chapter have come to be
    accepted as historical narratives.[127]

That is the danger. Such a narrative as that which Mr Freeman has
given us must 'come to be accepted as historical' if allowed to pass
current without a grave warning. It will doubtless be replied that in
his appendices, he frankly admits that 'it is often hard to reconcile
the various accounts'; but the question at issue is whether one is
justified when, as here, the various accounts are not only 'hard' but
impossible to reconcile, in constructing a definite narrative at all,
instead of honestly admitting that the matter must be left in doubt.


There is no feature of the famous battle more familiar or more certain
than that of the feigned retreat. It is necessary here to grasp Mr
Freeman's view, because he discovers in this man[oe]uvre and its
results the decisive turning point of the day.[128]

That there was a great feigned flight, which induced a large portion
of the English to break their formation and pursue their foes, is
beyond question.[129] But Mr Freeman, on this foundation, built up a
legend, for which, we shall find, there exists no evidence whatever.
He first assumed that it was 'most likely' the left wing of the
assailants which 'turned in seeming flight'[130] (p. 488), and that
it was, consequently, 'the English on the right wing' who 'rushed down
and pursued them'. Thus:

    Through the rash descent of the light-armed on the right,
    the whole English army lost its vantage ground. The pursuing
    English had left the most easily accessible portion of the
    hill open to the approach of the enemy (p. 490).

The result, of course, was that 'the main body of the Normans made
their way on the hill, no doubt by the gentle slope' at this point

    The great advantage of the ground was now lost; the Normans
    were at last on the hill. Instead of having to cut their way
    up the slope, and through the palisades, they could now
    charge to the east right against the defenders of the standard

These words are most important. They set forth Mr Freeman's theory
that Harold now found the Normans charging down upon his right flank
instead of attacking him in front. It was in this sense I wrote 'that
his weak point was forced, and the English right turned', as the
natural result of the 'insane' tactics attributed to him by his
champion.[131] The man[oe]uvre assigned by Mr Freeman to the Duke is,
in fact, that by which Marlborough won the battle of Ramillies, where
he got on to the hill by dislodging the French right, and then wheeled
to his own right, outflanking the French centre.

When we turn from this elaborate theory to the authorities on which it
is supposed to be based, we find, with some astonishment, that it is
all sheer imagination. William of Poitiers, on whom the writer seemed
mainly to rely for the feigned flight, states that:

    Normanni sociaque turba ... terga dederunt, fugam ex industriâ

words which distinctly imply that this feigned flight was general.
Henry of Huntingdon merely writes: 'Docuit Dux Willelmus _genti
suæ_ fugam simulare.' No one, certainly, says or implies that it was
restricted to the left wing. As for the theory that 'the main body of
the Normans' were, by this man[oe]uvre, enabled to seize the western
portion of the hill, and thus attack Harold on his flank, it is more
imaginary, if possible, still.

The fact is that, as I explained in my original article,[132] Mr
Freeman had wholly misconceived the nature of William's man[oe]uvre.
The feigned flight was not a simple (as he supposed), but a combined
movement. The best account of that movement is found in the Battle

    Tandem strenuissimus Boloniæ comes Eustachius clam, callida
    præmeditata arte--fugam cum exercitu duce simulante--super
    Anglos sparsim agiliter insequentes cum manu valida a tergo
    irruit, _sicque et duce hostes ferociter invadente ipsis
    interclusis utrinque_ prosternuntur innumeri.

This precise statement, which Mr Freeman omits,[133] affords the clue
we seek, explaining the words of William of Poitiers, 'interceptos et
inclusos undique mactaverunt'. The retreat of the pursuing English
was cut off by the Count's squadrons, and, caught 'between two fires',
they were cut down and butchered. The supposition that, while this was
going on, the main body of the Normans was riding on to the hill is
baseless. The whole host, we have seen, were below, surrounding the
English who had left the hill. Had Mr Freeman kept in mind, as he had
intended to do, the employment of this old Norman device at the relief
of Arques (1053), he would have seen more clearly what really happened.
But this, precisely as with his Sherstone precedent, he failed to do.


To illustrate the feigned flight by analogy, I append this passage
relating to the stratagem at Arques.

    A plan was speedily devised; an ambush was laid; a smaller
    party was sent forth to practise that stratagem of pretended
    flight which Norman craft was to display thirteen years later
    [1066] on a greater scale. The Normans turned; the French
    pursued; presently the liers-in-wait were upon them, and the
    noblest and bravest of the invading host were slaughtered or
    taken prisoners before the eyes of their king (iii. 133).

The man[oe]uvre is elaborately described by Wace (ll. 3491-514) in a
passage which ought to be compared, in places, with that on the great
'feinte fuie' itself (ll. 8203-70).

He carefully distinguishes the two parties essential to the

  Partie pristrent des Normanz,
  Des forz e des mielz cumbatanz,
  . . . . .
  Puis pristrent une autre partie, etc., etc.

The latter detachment turned in flight and decoyed some of the leading
Frenchmen past the spot where the ambush was laid. Then, facing round,
they caught their rash pursuers 'between two fires'. I have shown
above, from the 'precise statement' which is found in the 'Battle
Chronicle', that the great man[oe]uvre which deceived the English was
a similarly combined one. Mr Freeman, completely missing this point,
makes the Norman 'division', which did not take part in the flight
'ride up the hill' (p. 490), where its slopes were deserted, whereas,
on the contrary, they thrust themselves between the pursuers and the
hill, and then charged on their rear, riding, of course, not on to,
but away from the hill.

So close is the Arques parallel that in Wace we find the same words
occurring in both cases:

  A cels kis alouent chazant          Engleis les aloent gabant
  E quis alouent leidissant           E de paroles laidissant
  Sunt enmi le vis tresturne,         ....
  E Franceis sunt a els mesdle (ll.   Torne lor sunt enmi le vis
  3501-4);                            ....
                                      E as Engleis entremesler (ll.
                                      8241-2, 8262-4);

while William of Malmesbury describes the French king as thus 'astutia
insidiis exceptus', just as he describes Harold, in turn as thus
'astutiâ Willelmi circumventus'. Mr Freeman quoted both passages, yet
failed to note the parallel.

I speak, it will be seen, of 'the relief of Arques'. As my critic so
rashly assumed that in my original article I exhausted Mr Freeman's
errors,[135] I may point out that this subject introduces us, at once,
to fresh ones. Our author, for instance, held that Arques was not
relieved. Let us see. We are first rightly told, on the authority
of William of Poitiers, that the Duke blockaded the stronghold
(_munitio_) by erecting a _castellum_ at its foot (p. 128). On the
next page we are told that the latter was 'a wooden tower'--which is
precisely what it was not--and that it 'is described as a _munitio_'
by William of Poitiers, whereas that term, as we have just seen,
denoted, on the contrary, the rebel stronghold itself. Then we
are told that the French king marched to the relief of the rebels,
bringing with him 'a good stock of provisions, of corn, and of wine'
for the purpose, but 'was far from being successful in his enterprise'
(p. 131). In fact, he 'went home, having done nothing towards the
immediate object of his journey--the relief of the besieged' (p.
137). Mr Freeman added in a note: 'So I understand the not very
clear statement of William of Poitiers that the King went away.' Now,
William's statement (which is quoted by him) is absolutely clear:

    _Perveniens tamen quo ire intenderat_, Rex exacerbatissimis
    animis summâ vi præsidium attentavit: Willelmum ab ærumnis uti
    eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum vindicaret.

The King, that is, in spite of the ambush, reached his destination
(the blockaded stronghold) and then furiously attacked the _castellum_
below, with the double object of raising the blockade and of avenging
the death of his followers. Wace is, if possible, even more explicit.
After describing the affair of the ambush, he proceeds thus:

  Les somiers fist apareilier,
  La garisun prendre e chargier,
  _À la tur d'Arches fist porter_,
  Il meisme fu al mener (II. ll. 3519-22).

Arques, therefore, was duly relieved; the blockading party being only
strong enough to defend, when attacked, its own _castellum_.

We will certainly not say of Mr Freeman that he had not read his
Wace 'with common care'--to quote from his criticism on Professor
Pearson--but really, when _more suo_ he corrected _ex cathedrâ_ the
faults of others, he might at least have made sure of his facts. We
will take (from the narrative of the Battle of Hastings) the case of
the knighting of Harold on the eve of the Breton war:

  WACE                            MR FREEMAN

  E Heraut out iloc geu,          Mr Planché says that Wace lays
  E par la Lande fu passez,       the scene at Avranches. He probably
  Quant il fu duc amenez,         refers to the Roman de Rou, 13723,
  Qui a Aurenches donc esteit     but the knighthood is not there
  E en Bretaigne aler deueit,     spoken of (p. 229).
  _La le fist li dus chevalier_
        [ll. 13720-5].

But it is only the feigned flight that connects the Battle of Hastings
with Arques and its blockade. We read, as the battle is about to
begin, of 'the aged Walter Giffard, the lord of Longueville, the hero
of Arques and Mortemer' (p. 457). As our author breaks the thread
of his narrative (pp. 128-37) to tell us in detail about those whose
names occur in it, we need not scruple in this instance to do the
same. Turning back, therefore, we read:

    The chief who now commanded below the steep of Arques lived
    to refuse to bear the banner of Normandy below the steep
    of Senlac ... and to found, like so many others among the
    baronage of Normandy, a short-lived earldom in the land which
    he helped to conquer (p. 123).

In the act of that refusal he is thus described:

    Even in the days of Arques [1053] and Mortimer [1054] he was
    an aged man, and now [1066] he was old indeed; his hair was
    white, his arm was failing (p. 465).

Yet we meet the veteran again, a generation later, as 'old Walter
Giffard, now [1090] Earl of Buckingham, in England ... the aged
warrior of Arques and Senlac' (_W.R._, i. 231). 'Nor do we wonder,' we
read, 'to find,' among the supporters of William Rufus in 1095, 'the
name of Walter Giffard, him [_sic_] who appeared as an aged man forty
years before' (_W.R._, i. 472). But even Mr Freeman admits that 'we
are somewhat surprised to find', among the opponents of Henry I in
1101, 'now at the very end of his long life, the aged Walter Giffard,
lord of Longueville, and Earl of Buckingham' (_W.R._, ii. 395).
Surprised? We are indeed; for, if he was 'an aged man' half a century
before, what must he have been when he joined the rebels in 1101?
It reminds one of a delightful passage in the quaint 'Memorie of the
Somervells', where the artless author, speaking of the action, in
1213, of his ancestor 'being then near the nyntieth and fourth year of
his age', observes:

    What could have induced him ... to join himself with the
    rebellious barrons at such an age, when he could not act any
    in all human probabilitie, and was as unfit for counsel, is a
    thing to be admired, but not understood or knowne.

One need scarcely point out that Mr Freeman has confused two
successive bearers of the name. The confusion is avoided by the
Duchess of Cleveland in her work on 'The Battle Abbey Roll', as it had
been by Planché and previous writers.

I here notice it chiefly as illustrating Mr Freeman's ready acceptance
of even glaring improbabilities.

But one of the most singular flaws in the late Professor's work was
his evident tendency to confuse two or more persons bearing the same
name. Three or four Leofstans of London were rolled by him into one;
Henry of Essex was identified with a Henry who had a different
father and who lived in Cumberland; while a whole string of erroneous
conclusions followed, we saw, from identifying Osbern 'filius Ricardi'
with Osbern 'cognomine Pentecost'.[136] It is strange that one who was
so severe on confusion of identity where places were concerned[137]
should have been, in the case of persons, guilty of that confusion.


I would now briefly recapitulate the points I claim to have
established. We have seen, in the first place, that Mr Freeman's
disposition of the English forces is, with all that it involves,
nothing but a sheer guess--a guess to which he did not consistently
adhere, and to which his own precedent, moreover, is directly opposed.
Secondly, as to the 'palisade' which formed, according to him, so
prominent a feature of the battle, we have found that of the passages
he vouched for its existence only one need even be considered; and
that one, according to himself, where he last quotes and deals with
it, describes, not a palisade but the time-honoured 'array of the
shield-wall'.[138] Then, passing to the battle and taking it stage by
stage, I have shown that on its opening phase he went utterly astray
in search of an imaginary assault on a phantom palisade; we have
seen how another such guess transported to 'the western ravine'
a catastrophe which, even on his own showing, must have happened
somewhere else, and assigned it to a stage of the battle which is
quite possibly the wrong one. We have watched him missing the point
of the great feigned flight and failing to see how Norman craft caught
the English in a trap. And lastly, the critical man[oe]uvre of the
day, by which the Duke's great object was gained, and 'the
great advantage of the ground lost' to the English, proves on
inquiry--although introduced, like other assertions, as a historic
fact--to be yet another unsupported guess: for the statement that by
this man[oe]uvre 'the Normans were at last on the hill' and could thus
'charge to the east right against the defenders of the Standard' there
is absolutely no foundation.

We have now--confining ourselves to points as to which there can be no
question--examined Mr Freeman's account of the Battle of Hastings. It
is, as I showed at the outset, the very crown and flower of his work,
and it is, I venture to assert, mistaken in its essential points. Must
it, then, be cast aside as simply erroneous and misleading? Hardly. In
the words of his own criticism on Mr Coote's _Romans in Britain_: 'It
ought to be read, if only as a curious study, to show how utterly
astray an ingenious and thoroughly well-informed man can go.' For
there is the true conclusion. The possession of exhaustive knowledge,
the devotion of unsparing pains--neither of these were wanting. Then
'wanting is--what?' Men have differed and will always differ, as to
how history should be written; but on one point we are all agreed. The
true historian is he, and he only, who, from the evidence before him,
can divine the facts. Other qualities are welcome, but this is the
essential gift. And it was because, here at least, he lacked in that,
in spite of all his advantages, in spite of his genius and his zeal,
our author, in his story of this battle, failed as we have seen.

Mr Freeman held that his predecessors, Thierry and Sir Francis
Palgrave, 'singularly resemble each other in a certain lack of
critical power'. His own lack, as I conceive it, was of a somewhat
different kind. For if he studied the text and weighed the value of
his authorities, yet he was often liable to danger from his tendency
to a _parti pris_. Setting out with his own impression, he read his
texts in the light of that impression rather than with an open mind.
Thus we might say of his 'very lucid and original account' of the
great battle, as he said of Mr Coote's work: 'The truth of the whole
matter is that all this very ingenious but baseless fabric has been
built upon the foundation of a single error.' Had he not stumbled at
the outset over that 'quasi castellum', he might never have erected
that 'ingenious but baseless fabric'. As it is, while the battle
should be largely rewritten, preserving only such incidents as are
taken straight from the authorities, the accompanying plan must be
wholly destroyed. Till then, as Dr Stubbs has said of the discovery
that 'Ingulf' was a forgery, 'it remains a warning light, a wandering
marshfire, to caution the reader not to accept too abjectly the
conclusions of his authority'.

What then remains, it may be asked, of Mr Freeman's narrative? When
one remembers its superb vividness, carrying us away in spite of
ourselves, one is tempted to reply, in his own words on the saga of

    We have, indeed, a glorious description which, when critically
    examined, proves to be hardly more worthy of belief than a
    battlepiece in the Iliad.... Such is the magnificent legend
    which has been commonly accepted as the history of this famous
    battle.... And it is disappointing that, for so detailed and
    glowing a tale, we have so little of authentic history to
    substitute (pp. 365-8).

For, as he has so justly observed, when dismissing as 'mythical'
this 'famous and magnificent saga' (pp. 328-9), 'a void is left which
history cannot fill, and which it is forbidden to the historian to
fill up from the resources of his own imagination'.

Accepting the principle here enunciated by Mr Freeman himself, I do
not merely reject demonstrably erroneous statements. I protest
against his giving us a narrative drawn 'from the resources of his
own imagination'. It is no answer to say that his guesses cannot be
actually proved to be wrong; the historian cannot distinguish too
sharply between statements drawn from his authorities and guesses,
however ingenious, representing imagination alone. No one I am sure,
reading Mr Freeman's brilliant narrative, could imagine how largely
his story of the battle is based on mere conjecture.

What the battle really was may be thus tersely expressed--it was
Waterloo without the Prussians. The Normans could avail nothing
against that serried mass.

  Dash'd on every rocky square,
  Their surging charges foam'd themselves away.

As Mr Oman has so well observed, the Norman horse might have surged
for ever 'around the impenetrable shield-wall'.[139] It was only, as
he and Mr Hunt[140] have shown, by the skilful combination of horsemen
and archers, by the maddening showers of arrows between the charges of
the horse, that the English, especially the lighter armed, were stung
into breaking their formation and abandoning that passive defence
to which they were unfortunately restricted. 'While no mode of array
could be stronger so long as the line remained unbroken, it made it
hard to form the line again.'[141] Dazzled by the rapid movements
of their foes, now advancing, now retreating, either in feint or in
earnest, the English, in places, broke their line, and then the Duke,
as Mr Oman writes, 'thrust his horsemen into the gaps'.[142] All this
is quite certain, and is what the authorities plainly describe. Let
us, then, keep to what we know. Is it not enough for us to picture
the English line stubbornly striving to the last to close its broken
ranks, the awful scene of slaughter and confusion, as the Old Guard
of Harold, tortured by Norman arrows, found the horsemen among them
at last, slashing and piercing right and left. Still the battle-axe
blindly smote; doggedly, grimly still they fought, till the axes
dropped from their lifeless grasp. And so they fell.

Mr Archer, when he first came forward to defend 'Mr Freeman's account
of the great battle',[143] observed that I claimed 'here to prove
the entire inadequacy of Mr Freeman's work', that I held him 'wrong,
completely wrong in his whole conception of the battle'.[144] And he
admitted that

    'such a contention, it will at once be perceived, is very
    different from any mere criticism of detail; it affects the
    centre and the very heart of Mr Freeman's work. If he could
    blunder here in the most carefully elaborated passage of his
    whole history, he could blunder anywhere; his reputation for
    accuracy would be gone almost beyond hope of retrieving it'
    (p. 336).

'Blunder', surely, is a harsh word. I would rather say that the
historian is seen here at his strongest and at his weakest: at his
weakest in his tendency to follow blindly individual authorities
in turn, instead of grasping them as a whole, and, worse still,
in adapting them, at need, to his own preconceived notions; at his
strongest, in his Homeric power of making the actors in his drama live
and move before us. Not in vain has 'the wand of the enchanter', as an
ardent admirer once termed it, been waved around Harold and his host.
We are learning from recent German researches how the narratives of
early Irish warfare are 'perfectly surrounded with magic'; how, for
instance, at the battle of Culdreimne 'a Druid wove a magic hedge,
which he placed before the army as a hindrance to the enemy'. But
spells are now no longer wrought

  With woven paces and with waving hands;

and the Druid's hedge must go the way of our own magician's

But, as I foresaw, in his eagerness to prove, at least, the existence
of a palisade, my critic was soon reduced to impugning Mr Freeman's
own supreme authority, and at last to throwing over Mr Freeman
himself. 'Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim.' Sneering[145]
at what the historian termed his 'highest', his 'primary' authority,
that 'precious monument', the Bayeux Tapestry--merely because it will
not square with his views--he rejects utterly Mr Freeman's theory as
to its date and origin,[146] and substitutes one which the Professor
described as 'utterly inconceivable'.[147] He has further informed us
that 'common sense' tells him that the English axemen cannot possibly
have fought 'in the close array of the shield-wall', as Mr Freeman
says they did.[148] And then he finally demolishes Mr Freeman's
'conception of the battle' by dismissing 'an imaginary
shield-wall',[149] and assuring us that the absurd vision of 'an
extended shield-wall vanishes like smoke'.[150]

It is impossible not to pity Mr Freeman's would-be champion. Scorning,
at the outset, the thought that his hero could err 'in the most
carefully elaborated passage of his whole history',[151] his attitude
of bold defiance was a joy to Mr Freeman's friends.[152]

  [Greek: amphi d' ar' autô baine leôn hôs alki pepoithôs,
  prosthe de hoi dyry t' esche kai aspida pantos eisên,
  ton ktamenai memaôs hos tis tou g' antios elthoi,
  smerdalea iachôn.]

But his wildly brandished weapon proved more deadly to friend than
foe: he discovered, as I knew, he could only oppose me by making
jettison of Mr Freeman's views. Of this we have seen above examples
striking enough; but the climax was reached in his chief contention,
namely, that the lines in the _Roman de Rou_, which describe, Mr
Freeman asserted, 'the array of the shield-wall',[153] cannot, on many
grounds, be 'referred to a shield-wall'.[154] No contradiction could
be more complete. So he now finds himself forced to write:

    I do not say--I have _never_ said--that I agree with every
    word that Mr Freeman has written about the great battle; but I
    do regard his account of Hastings as the noblest battle-piece
    in our historical literature--perhaps in that of the

'O most lame and impotent conclusion!' We are discussing whether that
account is 'right', not whether it is 'noble'. To the splendour of
that narrative I have borne no sparing witness. I have spoken of its
'superb vividness', I have praised its 'epic grandeur', I have dwelt
on the writer's 'Homeric power of making the actors in his drama live
and move before us', and have compared his tale with the 'glorious
description' in the saga of Stamfordbridge. But the nearer it
approaches to the epic and the saga, the less likely is that stirring
tale to be rigidly confined to fact.

I will not say of Mr Archer, 'his attack must be held to have failed',
for that would imperfectly express its utter and absolute collapse.

The whole of my original argument as to the narrative of the battle
remains not merely unshaken, but, it will be seen, untouched. Mr
Archer himself has now pleaded that 'the only' point he 'took up
directly' was that of the disputed passage in Wace;[156] and here he
could only make even the semblance of a case by deliberately ignoring
and suppressing Mr Freeman's own verdict (iii. 763-4), to which, from
the very first, I have persistently referred. In his latest, as in
his earliest article, he adheres to this deliberate suppression, and
falsely represents 'Mr Freeman's interpretation' as 'a palisade or
barricade' alone.[157]

Those who may object to plain speaking should rather denounce the
tactics that make such speaking necessary. When my adversary claims
that his case is proved, if the disputed passage does not describe a
shield-wall, he is perfectly aware that Mr Freeman distinctly asserted
that it did. To suppress that fact, as Mr Archer does,[158] can only
be described as dishonest.

Judging from the desperate tactics to which my opponent resorted,
it would seem that my 'attack' on Mr Freeman's work cannot here be
impugned by any straightforward means. The impotent wrath aroused
by its success will lead, no doubt, to other attempts equally
unscrupulous and equally futile. But truth cannot be silenced, facts
cannot be obscured. I appeal, sure of my ground, to the verdict
of historical scholars, awaiting, with confidence and calm, the
inevitable triumph of the truth.


'History is philosophy teaching by examples.' In one sense the period
of the Conquest was, as Mr Freeman asserted in his preface, 'a period
of our history which is full alike of political instruction and of
living personal interest'. In one sense, it is an object-lesson never
more urgently needed than it is at the present hour. Only that lesson
is one which Mr Freeman could never teach, because it is the bitterest
commentary on the doctrines he most adored. In the hands of a patriot,
in the hands of a writer who placed England before party, the tale
might have burned like a beacon-fire, warning us that what happened
in the past, might happen now, today. The Battle of Hastings has its
moral and its moral is for us. An almost anarchical excess of liberty,
the want of a strong centralized system, the absorption in party
strife, the belief that politics are statesmanship, and that oratory
will save a people--these are the dangers of which it warns us, and to
which the majority of Englishmen are subject now as then. But Mr
Freeman, like the Bourbons, never learnt, and never forgot. A democrat
first, an historian afterwards, History was for him, unhappily, ever
'past politics'. If he worshipped Harold with a blind enthusiasm, it
was chiefly because he was a _novus homo_, 'who reigned purely by the
will of the people'. He insisted that the English, on the hill of
battle, were beaten through lack of discipline, through lack of
obedience to their king; but he could not see that the system in which
he gloried, a system which made the people 'a co-ordinate authority'
with their king, was the worst of all trainings for the hour of battle;
he could not see that, like Poland, England fell, in large measure,
from the want of a strong rule, and from excess of liberty. To him the
voice of 'a sovereign people' was 'the most spirit-stirring of earthly
sounds'; but it availed about as much to check the Norman Conquest as
the fetish of an African savage, or the yells of Asiatic hordes. We
trace in his history of Sicily the same blindness to fact. Dionysius
was for him, as he was for Dante, merely--

                Dionisio fero
  Che fe' Cicilia aver dolorosi anni.

But, in truth, the same excess of liberty that left England a prey to
the Normans had left Sicily, in her day, a prey to Carthage: the
same internal jealousies paralysed her strength. And yet he could not
forgive Dionysius, the man who gave Sicily what she lacked, the rule
of a 'strong man armed', because, in a democrat's eyes, Dionysius was
a 'tyrant'. That I am strictly just in my criticism of Mr Freeman's
attitude at the Conquest, is, I think, abundantly manifest, when even
so ardent a democrat as Mr Grant Allen admits that

    a people so helpless, so utterly anarchic, so incapable of
    united action, deserved to undergo a severe training from
    the hard task-masters of Romance civilization. The nation
    remained, but it remained as a conquered race, to be drilled
    in the stern school of the conquerors.[159]

Such were the bitter fruits of Old-English freedom. And, in the teeth
of this awful lesson, Mr Freeman could still look back with longing
to 'a free and pure Teutonic England',[160] could still exult in the
thought that a democratic age is bringing England ever nearer to her
state 'before the Norman set foot upon her shores'.

But the school of which he was a champion has long seen its day. A
reactionary movement, as has been pointed out by scholars in America,
as in Russia[161] has invaded the study of history, has assailed
the supremacy of the Liberal school, and has begun to preach, as the
teaching of the past, the dangers of unfettered freedom.

Politics are not statesmanship. Mr Freeman confused the two. There
rang from his successor a truer note when, as he traversed the seas
that bind the links of the Empire, he penned those words that appeal
to the sons of an imperial race, sunk in the strife of parties or
the politics of a parish pump, to rise to the level of their high
inheritance among the nations of the earth. What was the Empire, what
was India--we all remember that historic phrase--to one whose ideal,
it would seem, of statesmanship, was that of an orator in Hyde Park?
Godwine, the ambitious, the unscrupulous agitator, is always for him
'the great deliverer'. Whether in the Sicily of the 'tyrants', or the
England of Edward the Confessor, we are presented, under the guise of
history, with a glorification of demagogy.

    No man ever deserved a higher or a more lasting place in
    national gratitude than the first man who, being neither King
    nor Priest, stands forth in English history as endowed with
    all the highest attributes of the statesman. In him, in
    those distant times, we can revere the great minister, the
    unrivalled parliamentary leader, the man who could sway
    councils and assemblies at his will, etc., etc.[162]

We know of whom the writer was thinking, when he praised that
'irresistible tongue';[163] he had surely before him a living model,
who, if not a statesman, was, no doubt, an 'unrivalled parliamentary
leader'. Do we not recognize the portrait?--

    The mighty voice, the speaking look and gesture of that old
    man eloquent, could again sway assemblies of Englishmen at his

    The voice which had so often swayed assemblies of Englishmen,
    was heard once more in all the fulness of its eloquence.[165]

But it was not an 'irresistible tongue', nor 'the harangue of a
practised orator', of which England stood in need. Forts and soldiers,
not tongues, are England's want now as then. But to the late Regius
Professor, if there was one thing more hateful than 'castles', more
hateful even than hereditary rule, it was a standing army. When the
Franco-German war had made us look to our harness, he set himself at
once, with superb blindness, to sneer at what he termed 'the panic',
to suggest the application of democracy to the army, and to express
his characteristic aversion to the thought of 'an officer and a
gentleman'.[166] How could such a writer teach the lesson of the
Norman Conquest?

'The long, long canker of peace' had done its work--'vivebatur enim
tunc pene ubique in Anglia perditis moribus, et pro pacis affluentia
deliciarum fervebat luxus.'[167] The land was ripe for the invader,
and a saviour of Society was at hand. While our fathers were playing
at democracy, watching the strife of rival houses, as men might now
watch the contest of rival parties, the terrible Duke of the Normans
was girding himself for war. _De nobis fabula narratur._

    [Footnote 1: Mr T. A. Archer (_Contemporary Review_, March
    1893, p. 336).]

    [Footnote 2: Mr Freeman saw nothing grotesque in Orderic's
    description of Exeter, as 'in plano sita' (_Norm. Conq._, iv.
    153), though its site 'sets Exeter distinctly among the hill
    cities' (Freeman's _Exeter_, p. 6).]

    [Footnote 3: That I may not be accused of passing over any
    defence of Mr Freeman, I give the reference to Mr Archer's
    letter in _Academy_ of November 4, 1893, arguing, as against
    Mr Harrison, that the story of a great 'naval engagement' in
    1066 may probably be traced 'to the seaside associations of
    the name Hastings'. Unfortunately for him, Mr Freeman himself
    had quoted this wild story (iii. 729) and suggested quite a
    different explanation, namely, that it originated, not in the
    Battle of Hastings, but in some real 'naval operations'.]

    [Footnote 4: Since this passage appeared in print my opponents
    themselves have written of the Battle of Hastings [_sic_], and
    Mr Archer has admitted that 'to speak of Senlac in ordinary
    conversation, or in ordinary writing, is a piece of pedantry'
    (_Academy_ _ut supra_). On my own use of the word before I had
    examined Mr Freeman's authority, see p. 273.]

    [Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 444.]

    [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, p. 757.]

    [Footnote 7: Mr Archer writes: '_Pel_ is literally "stake",
    and originally, of course, represented the upright or
    horizontal stakes which go to make a palisade' (_English
    Historical Review_, ix. 6).]

    [Footnote 8: _Ibid._, p. 10. The word which Mr Freeman (and
    others) rendered 'ash' is rendered 'windows of farm dwellings'
    by Mr Archer (see below, p. 308).]

    [Footnote 9: Mr Archer would have us believe that 'Mr Freeman
    really had in his mind ... a real wall of real shields and
    stakes' (_English Historical Review_, 16), and that the
    English would 'strap up their shields to the stakes', would
    combine 'their shields and poles', and so forth (20).]

    [Footnote 10: This is Mr Oman's third and (up to now) final
    explanation (_Academy_, June 9, 1894).]

    [Footnote 11: _English Historical Review_, ix. 232.]

    [Footnote 12: _Ibid._, ix. 232-3, 237-8, 240.]

    [Footnote 13: The difficulty of hauling timber even a short
    distance over broken and hilly ground 'in an October of those
    days' (_N.C._, iii. 446) must not be forgotten.]

    [Footnote 14: The italics are Mr Freeman's own.]

    [Footnote 15: He even spoke of it as 'the main castle' (_Arch.
    Journ._, xl. 359).]

    [Footnote 16: Miss Norgate (_Angevin Kings_) follows him,
    speaking of their assailants striving 'to assault them as if
    besieging a fortress'. One is reminded of Mr Freeman's remark
    as to Hastings, that Harold turned 'the battle as far as
    possible into the likeness of a siege' (see above).]

    [Footnote 17: 'Men ranged so closely together in the thick
    array of the shield-wall' (iii. 471).]

    [Footnote 18: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893.]

    [Footnote 19: _English Historical Review_, ix. 12.]

    [Footnote 20: My detailed reply to Mr Archer's attempt to
    confuse the 'fosse' and the palisade will be found in _ibid._,
    ix. 213, 214.]

    [Footnote 21: He paraphrased 'escuz de fenestres è d'altres
    fuz' as 'firm barricades of ash and other timber'.]

    [Footnote 22: I supply the passage in square brackets (the
    italics are my own) from the earlier volume to explain Mr
    Freeman's reference.]

    [Footnote 23: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 14.]

    [Footnote 24: I am loth to introduce into the text the
    wearisome details of controversy, especially where they are
    _nihil ad rem_, and have no bearing on my argument. But, lest
    I should be charged with ignoring any defence of Mr Freeman, I
    will briefly explain in this note the attitude adopted by his

    In the _Contemporary Review_ of March 1893, Mr T. A. Archer
    produced a reply to my original article (_Quarterly Review_,
    July 1892), or rather, to that part of it which dealt with the
    Battle of Hastings. Declaring my attack on the palisade to
    be my 'only definite and palpable charge against Mr Freeman's
    account' (p. 273) which, it will be found, is not the case--he
    undertook to 'show Mr Freeman to have been entirely right in
    the view he took of the whole question' (p. 267). To do this,
    he deliberately suppressed the fatal passage (iii. 763-4) I
    have printed above--to which, in my article, I had prominently
    appealed--in order to represent me as alone in seeing a
    description of the shield-wall in Wace's lines (p. 267).
    He then insisted that 'there are six distinct objections to
    translating this passage as if it referred to a shield-wall'
    (p. 270).

    Instantly reminded by me (_Athenæum_, March 18, April 8,
    1893), that Mr Freeman himself had taken it as a description
    of the shield-wall, and challenged to account for the fact,
    again charged (_Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 88), with
    'ignoring a fact in the presence of which his elaborate
    argument collapses like a house of cards', further challenged
    (_Academy_, September 16, 1893) to reconcile Mr Freeman's
    words (iii. 763-4), with his representation of the historian's
    position, Mr Archer continued to shirk the point, till in the
    _English Historical Review_ of January 1894, he grudgingly
    confessed that 'the discovery that a shield-wall (of some sort
    or other) was implied in this so-called "crucial passage", is
    due to Mr Freeman' (p. 3), but he and Miss Norgate endeavoured
    to urge that it could not be as I imagined, the shield-wall
    that he had always spoken of (pp. 3, 16, 62). Even this
    feeble evasion, now seems to be dropped since I disposed of it
    (_ibid._, 225-7).]

    [Footnote 25: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 15.]

    [Footnote 26: See below, p. 284.]

    [Footnote 27: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 84.]

    [Footnote 28: _Athenæum_, March 18, 1893.]

    [Footnote 29: _English Historical Review_, ix. 40.]

    [Footnote 30: _Ibid._, p. 58.]

    [Footnote 31: _Cont. Rev._, 351.]

    [Footnote 32: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, pp. 93-4.]

    [Footnote 33: _Ibid._, ix. 27, 28.]

    [Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, 219-25.]

    [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 607. The italics are Mr Archer's
    own. His own trusted authority, Wace, posts the English in 'un
    champ' (ii. 7729, 7769)!]

    [Footnote 36: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 419, 420.]

    [Footnote 37: No one, of course, would treat the Tapestry like
    a modern illustrated journal; but if it be fairly treated,
    in Mr Freeman's spirit, one's real wonder is that, under
    such obvious limitations, the designer should have been so
    successful as he has. Nowhere, perhaps, is the painstaking
    accuracy of the Bayeux Tapestry better seen than in its
    miniature representation of the fortress at Dinan. It shows us
    the _motte_, or artificial mound, surrounded by its ditch,
    and even the bank beyond the ditch, together with the wooden
    bridge springing (as we know it did in such castles) from that
    bank to the summit of the mound.

    As to Mr Archer's attempts to show that Mr Freeman in one or
    two instances did not value so highly as he did what he deemed
    the supreme authority for the battle, I need only print Mr
    Freeman's words, parallel with his own comments, to show how
    their character is distorted.

      MR FREEMAN                      MR ARCHER

      The testimony of Florence is    He rejects the Tapestry's account
      confirmed by a witness more     of Harold's coronation,
      unexceptionable than all, by    following Florence of Worcester's
      the earliest and most           statement--that Harold was
      trustworthy witness on the      crowned by Aldred, Archbishop
      Norman side, by the             of York--in avowed
      contemporary Tapestry ... in    opposition to his own reading of
      every statement but one....     the Tapestry, i.e. that Harold
      The Tapestry implies--_it can   was crowned by Stigand.
      hardly be said directly to
      affirm_--that the consecrator
      was Stigand (iii. 582). The
      representation in the
      Tapestry is singular. _It
      does not show Stigand
      crowning or anointing Harold_
      (iii. 620).

      It has been remarked by Mr      He rejects _in toto_ the
      Planché and others, that at     Tapestry's version of Edward the
      this point the order of time    Confessor's death, for that
      is forsaken; the burial of      'priceless record' makes _Edward
      Eadward is placed before his    buried before he died!_ Mr
      deathbed and death. On this     Freeman, and perhaps not
      Dr Bruce says _very truly_:     altogether without reason,
      'the seeming inconsistency      follows the saner notion of other
      is very easily explained',      authorities, that Edward died
      etc., etc. (iii. 587) ... I     before he was buried (_English
      do not think that any one       Historical Review_, ix. 607).
      who makes the comparison
      minutely (between the
      Tapestry and the Life) will
      attach much importance to
      the sceptical remarks of Mr
      Planché (_ibid._).

    One would hardly imagine from Mr Archer's sneers that Mr Freeman
    had really vindicated the Tapestry from its 'seeming inconsistency',
    did one not know him, as a writer, to be _capable de tout_.]

    [Footnote 38: _Cont. Rev._, p. 351.]

    [Footnote 39: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]

    [Footnote 40: I wish, as I have done throughout, to make
    it absolutely clear that I am here concerned only with Mr
    Freeman's rendering of Wace. If we are to go outside that
    rendering and discuss Wace _de novo_, it is best to do so in a
    fresh section. This I hope to do below, when I shall discuss
    the question of his authority (which has not yet arisen),
    and shall also propound my own explanation of the now famous
    disputed passage.]

    [Footnote 41: In my first article (_Quarterly Review_, July
    1892, pp. 15-16) I pointed out that the great weight attached
    to Mr Freeman's statements had of course 'secured universal
    acceptance' for the palisade, and that it figures 'now in
    every history'. Mr Archer, in his latest paper, refers to
    these remarks (_English Historical Review_, ix. 602) and
    triumphantly charges me with self-contradiction in having
    myself once accepted it, like every one else. He refers to
    an incidental allusion by me in the _Dictionary of National
    Biography_ so many years ago that I was unaware of its
    existence. I am particularly glad to be reminded of the fact
    that I did allude, in early days, to the 'palisade' and to
    'Senlac', for it emphasizes the very point of my case, namely,
    that that mischievous superstition of Mr Freeman's unfailing
    accuracy must be ruthlessly destroyed lest others should be
    taught, as I was, to accept his authority as supreme.

    My opponent writes:

    'Mr Round ... in direct contradiction to the _Quarterly_
    reviewer, has found for it [the palisade] an authority in
    William of Poitiers, and _has gone far beyond Mr Freeman
    himself in giving us the name of the man who first broke it

    How has Mr Archer produced the alleged 'contradiction'? He has
    taken a passage from my notice of Robert de Beaumont, written
    years before I had made any independent investigation of the
    Battle of Hastings, and when I thought, like the rest of
    the world, that I might, here at any rate, safely follow Mr
    Freeman, when it was only a matter of a passing allusion to
    the fight. The following parallel passages will prove, beyond
    the shadow of doubt, that I here merely followed Mr Freeman,
    accepting his own authority--William of Poitiers--for the
    incident. Any one in my place would have done the same. But
    Mr Archer asserts that, on the contrary, I went 'far beyond
    Mr Freeman himself in giving us the name of the man who first
    broke it down'. Let us see if this definite statement is true:

      MR FREEMAN                      MY ARTICLE

      The new castle was placed in    Of these [sons] Robert fought at
      the keeping of Henry, the       Senlac ... [and] was _the first
      younger son of Roger of         to break down the English
      Beaumont. A great estate in     palisade_ ... he was rewarded
      the shire also fell to          with large grants in
      Henry's elder brother,          Warwickshire, and Warwick Castle
      Robert, Count of Melent, who,   was entrusted to his brother
      at the head of the French       Henry--_Dict. Nat. Biog._, iv. 64.
      auxiliaries, had been _the      (Mr Freeman's works, of course,
      first to break down the         are given among the authorities
      English palisade_ at            for the article.)
      Senlac--_Norman Conquest_,
      iv. [1871] 191-2. See also
      iii. 486, and _Will. Rufus_,
      i. 185, ii. 135, 402.

    So much for Mr Archer's assertion that I made an independent
    statement not found in Mr Freeman's pages. It is obviously
    impossible to conduct a controversy with an opponent who does
    not restrict himself to fact.]

    [Footnote 42: _William the Conqueror_ (1888), p. 90.]

    [Footnote 43: 'Had they done so, they must have been set so
    close that they could not have used their weapons with any
    freedom' (_Cont. Rev._, p. 346).]

    [Footnote 44: _Short History_, p. 79.]

    [Footnote 45: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763, _ut supra_.]

    [Footnote 46: _Ibid._, iii. p. 471.]

    [Footnote 47: _Ibid._, i. 271; cf. _W.R._, ii. 411.]

    [Footnote 48: _Ibid._, iii. 732.]

    [Footnote 49: _Cont. Rev._, 348.]

    [Footnote 50: _Norman Britain_ (S.P.C.K.), p. vi.]

    [Footnote 51: _Ibid._, pp. 79, 80.]

    [Footnote 52: _Dict. Nat. Biography_ (1890), xxx. 424.]

    [Footnote 53: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.]

    [Footnote 54: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]

    [Footnote 55: _Ibid._, p. 346.]

    [Footnote 56: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 90.]

    [Footnote 57: _Old English History_, p. 335.]

    [Footnote 58: Wace, of course, is the only one worth
    mentioning of the three last, and even his 'decisive words'
    prove to be only a personal opinion ('_ço me semble_') that
    the axeman's shield must have hampered him (see _Cont. Rev._,
    348, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. 765).]

    [Footnote 59: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 91.]

    [Footnote 60: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]

    [Footnote 61: Oman's _Art of War in the Middle Ages_, 24 (see
    _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 90).]

    [Footnote 62: Compare (as Mr Freeman does) Æthelred's
    description of the English array of the Battle of the
    Standard: 'lateribus latera conseruntur'.]

    [Footnote 63: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 491.]

    [Footnote 64: _Ibid._, p. 471.]

    [Footnote 65: _Old English History_, p. 334.]

    [Footnote 66: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 764; cf. _English Historical
    Review_, ix. 18.]

    [Footnote 67: 'This is the _shield-wall_, the famous tactic
    of the English and Danes alike. We shall hear of it in all
    the great battles down to the end.' (Freeman's _Old English
    History_, p. 112.)]

    [Footnote 68: _Ibid._, p. 155.]

    [Footnote 69: _Ibid._, p. 196.]

    [Footnote 70: _Norm. Conq._, iii. viii.]

    [Footnote 71: _Ibid._, pp. 445-6.]

    [Footnote 72: _Ibid._, p. 472.]

    [Footnote 73: _Ibid._, p. 480.]

    [Footnote 74: _Norm. Conq._, iii. pp. 488, 490.]

    [Footnote 75: _Ibid._, p. 490.]

    [Footnote 76: 'The battle was lost through the error of those
    light-armed troops who, in disobedience to the King's orders,
    broke their line to pursue' (_Ibid._, 505).]

    [Footnote 77: 'The day had now turned decidedly in favour of
    the invaders' (_Ibid._, 491). I am obliged to quote these two
    passages, because my opponents have not shrunk from impugning
    (_Cont. Rev._, 353; _English Historical Review_, ix. 70) the
    accuracy of the words in the text (which are from _Q.R._, July
    1892, p. 17).]

    [Footnote 78: _Q.R._, July 1893, 101.]

    [Footnote 79: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 472.]

    [Footnote 80: To have placed some of them as an advanced post
    on the 'small detached hill' in front would have been to leave
    them _en l'air_, exposed to certain destruction from an attack
    which they could not check. For Mr Freeman held that, even if
    occupied by an outpost, it was only by the 'light-armed'. (See
    _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 99, 100.)]

    [Footnote 81: On what ground are the Bretons so described?
    Guy, quoted by Mr Freeman (iii. 459) writes of them here:
    'Gensque Britannorum quorum decus exstat in armis, Tellus ni
    fugiat est fuga nulla quibus'.]

    [Footnote 82: I have replied in _English Historical Review_
    (ix. 255) to Miss Norgate's characteristic quibble (_ibid._,
    p. 75) that these quotations apply to the Scottish army
    alone--for the principle applies alike to 'armati' and
    'armatos', to 'milites' and to 'militibus'.]

    [Footnote 83: Down to this point the present section is all
    reprinted from my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892), as not
    calling for any alteration or correction.]

    [Footnote 84: 'The general mass of the less well-armed troops
    of the shire in the rear.' (_England under the Angevin Kings_,
    i. 290.)]

    [Footnote 85: _English Historical Review_, ix. 611.]

    [Footnote 86: When the Scotch, he writes, 'amentatis
    missilibus et lanceis longissimis super aciem equitum
    nostrorum loricatam percutiunt, quasi muro ferreo offendentes,
    impenetrabiles [compare the 'impenetrabiles' ranks of
    the English at Hastings, _supra_, p. 276] invenerunt....
    Equitantes enim nulla ratione diu persistere potuerunt
    contra milites loricatos pede persistentes et immobiliter
    coacervatos' (pp. 264-5). Miss Norgate follows him, writing:
    'The wild Celts of Galloway dashed headlong upon the English
    front, only to find their spears and javelins glance off from
    the helmets and shields of the knights as from an iron wall.']

    [Footnote 87: 'Tota namque gens Normannorum et Anglorum in una
    acie circum Standard conglobata, persistebant immobiles'
    (Hen. Hunt). 'Australes, quoniam pauci erant, in unum cuneum
    sapientissime glomerantur' (_Æth. Riv._).]

    [Footnote 88: It is no less interesting than curious that
    the Bayeux Tapestry enables us to see how the archers
    were combined with the mailed knights at the Battle of the
    Standard. It shows us (on its principle of giving a type) an
    English archer of whom Mr Freeman has well observed: 'He is a
    small man without armour crouching under the shield of a tall
    Housecarl, like Teukros under that of Aias' (iii. 472). So
    Æthelred writes that the mailed warriors 'sagittarios ita sibi
    inseruerunt ut, _militaribus armis protecti_, tanto acrius
    quanto securius vel in hostes irruerent, vel exciperent

    [Footnote 89: 'Proceres qui maturioris ætatis fuerunt ...
    circa signum regium constituuntur, quibusdam altius ceteris
    in ipsa machina collatis' (_Æth. Riv._). 'Circum Standard in
    pectore belli condensantur' (_Ric. Hex._).]

    [Footnote 90: 'Reliqua autem multitudo undique conglomerata
    eos circumvallabat' (_ibid._).]

    [Footnote 91: _Norm. Conq._, i. 383.]

    [Footnote 92: _Ibid._, iii. 472.]

    [Footnote 93: _Old English History_, p. 331.]

    [Footnote 94: _English Historical Review_, ix. 75.]

    [Footnote 95: _Old English History_, p. 333.]

    [Footnote 96: Miss Norgate, unable to deny the glaring
    'self-contradiction' involved in Mr Freeman's words, dismisses
    it as a 'matter of secondary importance' (_English Historical
    Review_, ix. 74).]

    [Footnote 97: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.]

    [Footnote 98: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.]

    [Footnote 99: _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 102-3; cf. _Q.R._, July
    1892, p. 18; _English Historical Review_, ix. 254.]

    [Footnote 100: It might, for all we know, have formed a
    crescent or semi-circle, its wings resting strongly on the
    rear-slopes of the hill; or even a 'wedge', as, indeed, Mr
    Freeman twice described it (i. 271, iii. 471).]

    [Footnote 101: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.]

    [Footnote 102: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.]

    [Footnote 103: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.]

    [Footnote 104: Since this passage appeared (as it stands) in
    my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19), I have noted
    a curious confirmation in Æthelred's words where he speaks
    of the archers at the Battle of the Standard as 'militaribus
    armis protecti [ut] tanto acrius quanto securius vel in hostes
    irruerent, vel exciperent irruentes'. For, as I wrote (p. 20),
    'it would naturally be they who, like cavalry in modern times,
    would harass and follow up a retreating foe'.]

    [Footnote 105: _Old English History_, p. 334.]

    [Footnote 106: For Baudri's poem see _Q.R._, July 1893, pp.
    73-5. As to Baudri's authority, I need only repeat what I
    wrote in the _English Historical Review_ (ix. 217): 'Mr Archer
    endeavours, of course, to pooh-pooh it. Now I call special
    attention to the fact that the test I apply to Baudri is that
    which Mr Freeman applied to the Tapestry, the obvious test of
    internal evidence. But Mr Archer's ways are not as those of
    other historians: instead of examining, as I did, Baudri's
    account in detail he dismisses it on the ground that the
    writer's "description _of the world_" at that date could
    not be accurate (_ibid._, 29). We are not dealing with his
    "description of the world"; we are dealing with his lines on
    the battle of Hastings.']

    [Footnote 107: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467, 477.]

    [Footnote 108: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42-3, 603.]

    [Footnote 109: Though I have already done so in _English
    Historical Review_, ix. 250.]

    [Footnote 110: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42.]

    [Footnote 111: Mr Freeman rendered the 'sagittis armatos et
    balistis' of William by 'archers, slingers, and crossbowmen'.
    'Balistæ' can hardly mean slings _and_ crossbows, and I think,
    on consideration, it is best referred to the latter; but the
    question is not of much importance.]

    [Footnote 112: So, too, in _Arch. Journ._, xl. 359: 'You
    may call up the march of archers and horsemen across the low
    ground between the hills.']

    [Footnote 113: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 462. I regret that I must
    call attention to the fact that I gave (_English Historical
    Review_, ix. 250) this precise reference for my statement
    that, according to Mr Freeman, the infantry were all archers,
    explaining that in another passage (p. 467) William of
    Poitiers had led him to take a somewhat different view. Mr
    Archer, however, has printed (_English Historical Review_, ix.
    603) the other passage (p. 467) in triumph by the side of my
    statement. He further denies that Mr Freeman held, even on p.
    462, that the infantry were all archers. Anyone can test the
    value of Mr Archer's denial for himself by referring to
    _Norm. Conq._, iii. 462, where he will find that Mr Freeman,
    describing the Norman host, mentions no infantry but archers.]

    [Footnote 114: As he had merely copied from the Tapestry on p.
    462, so he copied William of Poitiers on p. 467.]

    [Footnote 115: The distinction between archers and crossbowmen
    is of little or no consequence, the missile being common to

    [Footnote 116: My opponents complain that in the former
    passage Mr Freeman assigns this task to 'the heavier foot'
    only; but my point is that no palisade is here mentioned,
    and no attack on it by _any_ infantry, heavy or light, and no
    weapons assigned to that infantry of any use for the purpose.]

    [Footnote 117: This is an excellent instance of what I said
    as to Mr Freeman's 'imaginary' references to the now famous
    palisade. I have challenged my opponents to disprove my
    statement that none of Mr Freeman's own authorities says
    anything here of a palisade. And, of course, they cannot do

    Here is another instance in point. We read on pp. 486-7 that
    Robert of Beaumont was specially distinguished in the work of
    breaking down the 'barricade' (see also _supra_, p. 273). But
    when we turn to William of Poitiers, the authority cited,
    we find no mention of a 'barricade', but read only of him
    'irruens ac sternens magnâ cum audaciâ'. As the writer had
    just described how the Duke '_stravit_ adversam gentem', we see
    that Robert, in his charge, laid low, not a barricade, but
    'adversam gentem'.

    This brings me to an extraordinary case of mediaeval
    plagiarism. The author of the Ely history has applied this
    description of Robert's exploits to the Conqueror himself at
    Ely (_Liber Eliensis_, pp. 244-5). The passages 'Exardentes
    Normanni--deleverunt ea', 'Egit enim quod--magna cum audacia',
    'Scriptor Thebaidos vel Æneidos', _et seq._, are all 'lifted'
    bodily from William's narrative of the Battle of Hastings and
    applied to the storming of the Isle of Ely!]

    [Footnote 118: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467.]

    [Footnote 119: 'The Norman infantry had now done its best, but
    that best had been in vain' (_ibid._, 479).]

    [Footnote 120: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 481.]

    [Footnote 121: _Ibid._, 767-8.]

    [Footnote 122:

      'Un fosse ont d'une part fait
      Qui parmi la champaigne vait

           *    *    *    *

      En la champaigne out un fosse:
      Normanz l'aueient adosse
      En beliuant l'orent passé
      Ne l'aueint mie esgarde.'

    I had followed Taylor in my rendering of this passage; but
    Miss Norgate (_English Historical Review_, ix. 46) would
    prefer to say that the Normans did not heed, than that they
    did not notice the fosse. 'The passage,' as she says, 'is
    somewhat obscure.']

    [Footnote 123: Miss Norgate has rightly pointed out (ix.
    47) that Henry places the disaster during the great feigned

    [Footnote 124: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]

    [Footnote 125: Compare the death of Robert Marmion, at
    Coventry, under Stephen, when he fell into one of the ditches
    he had dug to entrap the enemy's horse. The passage quoted by
    Andresen in his Wace (ii. 713) from Michel's notes to Benoit
    is very precise: 'Fecerant autem Angli foveam quandam caute et
    ingeniose, quam ipsi ex obliquo curantes maximam multitudinem
    Normannorum in ea præcipitaverant. Et plures etiam ex eis
    insequentes et tracti ab aliis in eadem perierunt.']

    [Footnote 126: See below, p. 292.]

    [Footnote 127: _Early Oxford_, pp. 191, 192. And see my

    [Footnote 128: See above, p. 278, for Mr Freeman's view.]

    [Footnote 129: 'Angli vero, illos putantes vere fugere,
    c[oe]perunt post eos currere volentes eos si possent
    interficere' (_Brevis Relatio_). 'Ausa sunt, ut superius,
    aliquot millia quasi volante cursu, quos fugere putabant
    urgere' (_Will. Pict._).]

    [Footnote 130: Though admitting, in a footnote, that the
    'Brevis Relatio' was opposed to this assumption.]

    [Footnote 131: _Supra_, p. 278.]

    [Footnote 132: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 20.]

    [Footnote 133: Miss Norgate has indignantly retorted (_English
    Historical Review_, ix. 50) that Mr Freeman 'only' omitted
    the words from 'sicque' onwards. But it is precisely on these
    words that my statement is based. Mr Freeman, moreover, did
    not even quote the rest _à propos_ of the feigned flight,
    where we should look for it.]

    [Footnote 134: So does Will. Gem., as quoted by Mr Freeman
    (iii. 133): 'de suis miserunt si quos forte hostium a regio
    c[oe]tu abstraherent, quos illi in latibulis degentes incautos
    exciperent.' See also my Addenda.]

    [Footnote 135: _Cont. Rev._, p. 354.]

    [Footnote 136: See above, p. 251.]

    [Footnote 137: See above, p. 259.]

    [Footnote 138: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.]

    [Footnote 139: _Social England_, i. 299. 'Mr Oman, like Mr J.
    H. Round, knows nothing of the famous "palisade", but only
    of the "shield-wall" of the English' (_Speaker_, December 2,

    [Footnote 140: _Norman Britain_, p. 79.]

    [Footnote 141: _Ibid._, p. 80.]

    [Footnote 142: _Social England_, p. 300.]

    [Footnote 143: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.]

    [Footnote 144: _Ibid._, p. 335.]

    [Footnote 145: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]

    [Footnote 146: _Ibid._, ix. 219-25.]

    [Footnote 147: _Ibid._, 224, 257.]

    [Footnote 148: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 469; and _supra_, p. 356.]

    [Footnote 149: _Cont. Rev._, 352.]

    [Footnote 150: _Ibid._, 348.]

    [Footnote 151: _Cont. Rev._, 335-6.]

    [Footnote 152: 'The Reviewer ... tells us that ... Mr Freeman
    ... is wrong, completely wrong, in his whole conception of the
    battle.... His attack must be held to have failed' (_Cont.
    Rev._, pp. 335, 353).]

    [Footnote 153: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763.]

    [Footnote 154: _Cont. Rev._, p. 349. Cf. Mr Archer's articles

    [Footnote 155: _English Historical Review_, ix. 22.]

    [Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]

    [Footnote 157: _Ibid._, ix. 606. _Supra_, p. 269.]

    [Footnote 158: _Ibid._, ix. 606, 607. My readers are invited
    to refer to this article and to that in the _Cont. Rev._
    (March 1893), and test my statement for themselves.]

    [Footnote 159: _Anglo-Saxon Britain_, p. 172.]

    [Footnote 160: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 454.]

    [Footnote 161: e.g. Vinogradoff and Dr Andrews.]

    [Footnote 162: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 352.]

    [Footnote 163: _Ibid._, 327.]

    [Footnote 164: _Ibid._, 326.]

    [Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 332.]

    [Footnote 166: 'We shall get rid of the talk about "an officer
    and a gentleman".' (_Macmillan's_, xxiv. 10).]

    [Footnote 167: _Vita Wlstani_.]


  MR FREEMAN                            MR ARCHER

  Of the array of the shield-wall    Now, there are six distinct
  we have often heard already as     objections to translating this
  at Maldon, but it is at Senlac     passage [of Wace] as if it
  that we get the fullest            referred to a shield-wall. These
  descriptions of it, all the        objections are, of course, of
  better for coming in the           unequal value; but some of them
  mouths of enemies. Wace gives      would, by themselves, suffice to
  his description, 12941:--(_Norm.   overthrow such a theory (_Cont.
  Conq._, iii. 763).                 Rev._, 349).

In discussing Mr Freeman's treatment of the great battle, we saw
that the only passage he vouched for the existence of a palisade[1]
consisted of certain lines from Wace's _Roman de Rou_, which he
ultimately declared to be, on the contrary, a description of 'the
array of the shield-wall'.[2] The question, therefore, as to their
meaning--on which my critics have throughout endeavoured to represent
the controversy as turning--did not even arise so far as Mr Freeman
was concerned. Still less had I occasion to discuss the authority of
Wace, Mr Freeman's explicit verdict on the lines (iii. 763-4) having
removed them, as concerns his own narrative, from the sphere of

The case, however, is at once altered when Mr Archer insists on
ignoring Mr Freeman's words, and makes an independent examination of
the lines, quoting also other passages which were not vouched by Mr
Freeman, as proving 'beyond the shadow of a doubt that Wace did
mean to represent the English at Hastings as fighting behind a
palisade'.[3] So long as I make it clearly understood that this
question in no way affects the controversy as to Mr Freeman, I am
quite willing to discuss the question thus raised by Mr Archer.

It is most naturally treated under these three heads:

(1) Did Wace believe and assert that there was a palisade?

(2) If so, what weight ought to be attached to his authority?

(3) If we reject it, can we explain how his mistake arose?


I have elsewhere[4] discussed 'the disputed passage' (_supra_, p.
267), and agreed with Mr Archer that there are 'four views which have
been suggested' as to its meaning.[5] Two of them, I there showed,
were successively held by Mr Freeman, and the two others successively
advanced by Mr Archer. When I add (anticipating) that, according to M.
Paris, 'le passage de Wace présente quelque obscurité',[6] and that
M. Meyer introduced yet another element of doubt in a special kind
of shield ('de grands écus') not previously suggested, it will be
obvious, quite apart from any opinion of my own, that the passage
presents difficulties.

So long as I only dealt with Mr Freeman's work, I found on his
admission that the passage described the shield-wall.[7] Now that we
are leaving his work aside, I fall back on my own conclusion, namely,
that the passage is with equal difficulty referred either to a
palisade or to a shield-wall. The word 'escuz', it will be seen,
occurs twice in the passage. Mr Archer held, at first, that in neither
case did it mean real 'shields',[8] but he afterwards assigned that
meaning to the second of the two 'escuz', while still rendering the
first 'in a metaphorical sense'.[9] It is obvious that when Mr Freeman
took the lines to describe 'the array of the shield-wall', he must
have done so on the ground that 'escuz' meant 'shields'. That is my
own contention. While fully recognizing the obstacles to translating
'the disputed passage' as if it referred throughout to a shield-wall,
I maintain that 'escu' means shield, as a term 'which is one of the
commonest in Wace' and invariably means shield.[10] But to cut short
a long story, it was decided by Mr Gardiner to settle this issue by
submitting the disputed passage to the verdict of MM. Gaston Paris
and Paul Meyer. In spite of my protest, this was done without my
articles and my solution of the problem[11] being laid before them
at the same time. A snap verdict was thus secured before they had
seen the evidence. I am sure that Mr Gardiner must have thought this
fair, and editors, we know, cannot err; but it seems to me quite
possible that these distinguished French scholars were not familiar
with the shield-wall, an Old English tactic, and were not aware that
this information was the great feature of the battle. Had all this,
as I wished, been duly set before them, their verdict would, of
course, have carried much greater weight.

But having said this much, I frankly admit that their verdict is in
favour of Mr Archer's contention, and, so far as the first 'escuz' is
concerned, against my own.[12] They may not agree in detail with each
other, or with either of Mr Archer's views, but, on the broad issue,
he has a perfect right to claim that their verdict is for him so
long as he does not pretend that it also confirms 'Mr Freeman's
interpretation', by ignoring the historian's own latest and explicit
words.[13] It must also be remembered that this admission in no way
diminishes the obscurity of the passage, which, as we have seen,
is beyond dispute, and which forms an important element in my own
solution of the problem.[14]

Having now shown how the matter stands with regard to 'the disputed
passage', I need not linger over those which Mr Freeman ignored,
and which Mr Archer adduced to strengthen his views as to the main
passage. I have dealt with these elsewhere,[15] and need here
only refer to ll. 8585-90, because that passage raises a point of
historical interest quite apart from personal controversy. I have
maintained that it can only be accepted at the cost of 'throwing
over Mr Freeman's conception of the battle',[16] and have proved, by
quoting his own words, that he placed the standard with Harold at his
foot 'in the very forefront of the fight'.[17] I do not say that he
was right in doing so: he was, I think, very probably wrong, and was
influenced here, as elsewhere, by his dramatic treatment of Harold.
But as this can only be matter of opinion, I have not challenged his
view; I only say that those who accept it cannot consistently appeal
to a passage in Wace which places the standard in the rear of the
English host.


Assuming then, for the sake of argument, that Wace mentions a defence
of some kind,[18] even though not consistently[19] in front of the
English troops, let us see whether his statement is corroborated,
whether it is in harmony with the other evidence, and whether, if
it is neither corroborated nor in such agreement, his authority is
sufficient, nevertheless, to warrant its acceptance.

As to corroboration, Mr Archer undertook 'to produce corroborative
evidence from other sources';[20] but this at once dwindled down to
one line--'tending in the same direction'[21]--from Benoît de St Maur,
who does not even mention a palisade.[22] There is therefore, on his
own showing, not a shred of corroborative evidence.

As to the second point, I may refer to my arguments against the
palisade,[23] where I showed that none of our authorities is here in
agreement with Wace.

We come, therefore, to our third point, namely, the weight to
which Wace's testimony, when standing alone, is entitled. Here,
as elsewhere, I adhere to my position. As I have written in the
_Quarterly Review_:

    Even if Wace, clearly and consistently, mentioned a palisade
    throughout his account of the battle, we should certainly
    reject the statement of a witness, writing a century after it,
    when we find him at variance with every authority (for that
    is our point), just as Mr Freeman rejected the bridge at
    Varaville,[24] or the 'falsehood' of the burning of the ships,
    or the 'blunder' of making the Duke land at Hastings, or his
    anachronisms, or his chronology. For, 'of course', in the
    Professor's own words, 'whenever he [Wace] departs from
    contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating
    traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events
    which he records, his statements need to be very carefully

Let me specially lay stress upon the points on which, when Wace and
the Tapestry differ, the preference is given by Mr Freeman himself to
the Tapestry as against Wace:

    Had the tapestry been a work of later date, it is hardly
    possible that it could have given the simple and truthful
    account of these matters which it does give. A work of the
    twelfth or thirteenth century[26] would have brought in, _as
    even honest Wace does in some degree_, the notions of the
    twelfth or thirteenth century. One cannot conceive an artist
    of the time of Henry II, still less an artist later than the
    French conquest of Normandy, agreeing so remarkably with the
    authentic writings of the eleventh century (iii. 573).

    [In the Tapestry] every antiquarian detail is accurate--the
    lack of armour on the horses (iii. 574). [But] Wace speaks of
    the horse of William fitz Osbern as 'all covered with iron'
    (iii. 570).

Wace again, is 'hardly accurate' (iii. 765), we read, as to the
English weapons, because he differs from the Tapestry. As to Harold's
wound, 'Wace places it too early in the battle' (iii. 497); Mr Freeman
follows the Tapestry. As to the landing of the Normans at Pevensey:

    _Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry ... Wace ... altogether
    reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings, and
    go to Pevensey afterwards' (iii. 402).

As to the 'Mora', the Duke's ship, the Tapestry shows 'the child with
his horn'; Wace describes him 'Saete et arc tendu portant'. Mr Freeman
adopts the 'horn' (iii. 382). Harold, says Mr Freeman, was imprisoned
at Beaurain.

    This is quite plain from the Tapestry: 'Dux eum ad Belrem et
    ibi eum tenuit'. Wace says, 'A Abevile l'ont mené....' This I
    conceive to arise from a misconception of the words of William
    of Jumièges (iii. 224).

This illustrates, I would remind Mr Archer, the difference between a
primary authority and a mere late compiler.

To these examples I may add Wace's mention of Harold's _vizor_
(_ventaille_). Mr Freeman pointed out the superior accuracy of the
Tapestry in 'the nose-pieces' (iii. 574), and observed that 'the
vizor' was a much later introduction (iii. 497).[27] Here again we
see the soundness of Mr Freeman's view that Wace could not help
introducing 'the notions' of his own time into his account of the
battle. Miss Norgate admits that he 'transferred to his mythical
battles the colouring of the actual battles of his own day', but
urges that these narratives illustrate the 'warfare of Wace's own ...
contemporaries'.[28] Quite so. But the battle of Hastings belonged
to an older and obsolete style of warfare. That is what his champions
always forget. If Miss Norgate's argument has any meaning, it is that
the men who fought in that battle were 'Wace's own contemporaries'.

But, even where Wace's authority is in actual agreement with the
Tapestry, Mr Freeman did not hesitate to reject, or rather, ignore it,
as we saw in the matter of the fosse disaster.

As to Wace's sources of information, and the _prima facie_ evidence
for his authority, a question of considerable interest is raised. Mr
Archer discusses it from his own standpoint.[29] On Wace's life,
age and work, facts are few and speculations many. These have been
collected and patiently sifted in Andresen's great work, with the
following result:

Wace was certainly living not merely in 1170,[30] but in 1174, for
he alludes to the siege of Rouen (August 1174) in his epilogue to the
second part of the 'Roman'.[31] It is admitted on all hands, though Mr
Archer does not mention it, that he did not even begin the third part
till after the coronation of the younger Henry (June 14, 1170).[32]
Allowing for its great length, he cannot have come to his account
of the battle _at the very earliest_ till 1171, 105 years after the
event. For my part, I think that it was probably written even some
years later. But imagine in any case an Englishman, ignorant of
Belgium, writing an account of Waterloo, mainly _from oral tradition_,
in 1920.

Mr Archer contends that Wace was born 'probably between the years 1100
and 1110' (_ante_, p. 31). Andresen holds that the earliest date we
can venture to assign is 1110,[33] forty-four years after the battle.
Special stress is laid by Mr Archer on Wace's oral information:

    He had seen and talked with many men who recollected things
    anterior to Hastings and the Hastings campaign. Among his
    informants for this latter was his own father, then, we may
    suppose, a well-grown lad, if not an actual participator in
    the fight (_ante_, p. 32).

'We may suppose'--where all is supposition--exactly the contrary. If
Wace was born, as we may safely say, more than forty years after the
battle, 'we may suppose' that his father was not even born before it.
All this talk about Wace's father is based on ll. 6445-7, of which
Andresen truly remarks, 'Die Verse "Mais co oi dire a mon pere, Bien
m'en souient mais Vaslet ere, Que set cenz nes, quatre meins, furent",
u.s.w., sind viel zu unbestimmt gehalten, so dass wir aus ihnen streng
genommen nicht einmal entnehmen können, ob der Vater im Jahre 1066
schon auf der Welt war oder nicht' (p. lxx). I venture to take my own
case. Born within forty years of Waterloo, I can say with Wace that I
remember my father telling me, as a boy, stories of the battle. But
he was born after it. The information was second-hand. Over and over
again does Mr Archer lay stress on the fact (_ut supra_) that Wace
gives us 'the reminiscences of the old heroes who fought at Hastings
as no one else has cared to do'.[34] I must insist that Wace himself
nowhere mentions having seen or spoken to them. He does mention having
seen men who remembered the great comet (Mr Archer italicizes the
lines[35]); but this exactly confirms my point. For when Wace _had_
seen eyewitnesses he was careful, we see, to mention the fact. Men
would remember the comet, though little children at the time. One
of my own very earliest recollections is that of a great comet, even
though it did not create the sensation of the comet in 1066. Wace had
talked with those who had been children, not with those who had been
fighting men, in 1066.

I need only invite attention to one more point. Mr Archer assures
us that 'Wace is a very sober writer', with 'something of the shrewd
scepticism' of modern scholars.[36] What shall we say then, of his
long story (ll. 7005-100) of the night visit, by Harold and Gyrth,
to the Norman camp, to which Mr Archer appeals as evidence for the
_lices_ (l. 7010)? 'Nothing,' replies Mr Freeman (iii. 449), 'could be
less trustworthy.... No power short of divination could have revealed
it.'[37] Mr Archer tells us he has only space for one instance[38]
of Wace's conscientiousness. That instance is his story of the
negotiation between William and Baldwin of Flanders on the eve of the
Conquest. Of this story Mr Freeman writes:

    Of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his
    character of sovereign of Flanders Wace has a tale which
    strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to
    introduce it into the text.... The whole story seems quite
    inconsistent with the real relations between William and
    Baldwin (iii. 718-19).

Comment is superfluous.

Having now shown that Wace's evidence is not corroborated, is not
in accordance with that of contemporary witnesses, and cannot on
the sound canons of criticism recognized by Mr Freeman himself, be
accepted under these circumstances, I propose to show that my case can
be carried further still, and that I can even trace to its origin the
confused statement in his 'disputed passage' which is said to describe
a palisade or defence of some sort or other.


In studying the authorities for the Battle of Hastings, I was led to a
conclusion which, so far as I know, had never occurred to any one. It
is that William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta Regum' was among the sources
used by Wace. Neither in Korting's elaborate treatise, 'Ueber die
Quellen des Roman de Rou', nor in Andresen's notes to his well-known
edition of the 'Roman' (ii. 708), can I find any suggestion to this
effect. Dr Stubbs, in his edition of the 'Gesta Regum', dwells on the
popularity of the work both at home and abroad, but does not include
Wace among the writers who availed themselves of it; and the late Mr
Freeman, though frequently compelled to notice the agreement between
Wace and William, never thought, it appears, of suggesting the theory
of derivation; indeed, he speaks of the two writers as independent
witnesses, when dealing with one of these coincidences.[40] The
more one studies Wace, the more evident it becomes that the 'Roman'
requires to be used with the greatest caution. Based on a _congeries_
of authorities, on tradition, and occasionally of course, on the
poetic invention of the _trouveur_ it presents a whole in which it is
almost impossible to disentangle the various sources of the narrative.
Before dealing with the passage which led me to believe that the
'Gesta Regum' must have been known to Wace, I will glance at some
other coincidences. We have first the alleged landing of William at
Hastings instead of Pevensey. On this Mr Freeman observed:

    _Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry. So William of
    Poitiers and William of Jumièges. William of Malmesbury says
    carelessly, _Placido cursu Hastingas appulerunt_. So Wace,
    who altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at
    Hastings and go to Pevensey afterwards.[41]

Here William of Malmesbury, who was probably using 'Hastingas'
as loosely as when he applied that term to Battle, appears to be
responsible for the mistake of Wace, who may have tried to harmonize
him with William of Jumièges by making the Normans proceed to Pevensey
after having landed. Take again the hotly disputed burial of Harold at
Waltham. On this question Mr Freeman writes:

    William of Malmesbury, after saying that the body was given to
    Gytha, adds _acceptum itaque apud Waltham sepelivit_.... Wace
    had evidently heard two or three stories, and, with his usual
    discretion, he avoided committing himself, but he distinctly
    asserts a burial at Waltham.[42]

This, then, is another coincidence between the two writers, while,
as before, Wace found himself in the presence of a conflict of
authorities. On yet another difficult point, the accession of Harold,
I see a marked agreement, though Mr Freeman did not. Harold, according
to William of Malmesbury, _extorta a principibus fide, arripuit
diadema_, and _diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et
Willelmum cogitabat_. Wace's version runs:

  Heraut ki ert manant è forz
  Se fist énoindre è coroner;
  Unkes al duc n'en volt parler,
  Homages prist è féeltez
  Des plus riches è des ainz nes.

Not only is the attitude of Wace and William towards Harold's action
here virtually identical, but the mention of his exaction of homage
seems special to them both.

The passages, however, on which I would specially rest my case are
those in which these two writers describe the visit of Harold's spies
to the Norman camp before the battle of Hastings. This legend is
peculiar to William of Malmesbury and Wace, and though it may be
suggested that they had heard it independently, the correspondence--it
will, I think, be admitted--is too close to admit of that solution.

I print these passages side by side:


  Premisit tamen qui numerum          Heraut enveia dous espies
  hostium et vires specularentur.     Por espier quels compagnies
                                      E quanz barons e quanz armez
                                      Aueit li dus od sei menez.
                                          Ia esteient a l'ost uenu,
                                      Quant il furent aparceu
  Quos intra castra deprehensos       A Guillaume furent mene,
  Willelmus circum tentoria duci,     Forment furent espoente.
  moxque, largis eduliis pastos,      Mais quant il sout que il quereient
  domino incolumes remitti jubet.     E que ses genz esmer ueneient,
                                      Par tos les tres les fist mener
                                      E tote l'ost lor fist mostrer;
                                      Bien les fist paistre e abeurer,
                                      Pois les laissa quites aler,
                                      Nes volt laidir ne destorber.
  Redeuntes percunctatur Haroldus       Quant il vindrent a lor seignor,
  quid rerum apportent: illi, verbis  Del duc distrent mult grant enor.
  amplissimis ductoris magnificam     Un des Engleis, qui out veuz
  confidentiam prosecuti, serio       Les Normans toz res e tonduz,
  addiderunt pene omnes in exercitu   Quida que tuit proueire fussent
  illo presbyteros videri, quod       E que messes chanter peussent,
  totam faciem cum utroque labio      Kar tuit erent tondu e res,
  rasam haberent; ... subrisit rex    Ne lor esteit guernon remes.
  fatuitatem referentinum, lepido     Cil dist a Heraut que li dus
  insecutus cachinno, quia non        Aueit od sei proueies plus
  essent presbyteri, sed milites      Que chevaliers ne altre gent;
  validi, armis invicti. (§ 239)      De co se merueillout forment
                                      Que tuit erent res e tondu.
                                      E Heraut li a respondu
                                      Que co sunt cheualiers uaillanz,
                                      Hardi e proz e combatanz.
                                      'N'ont mie barbes ne guernons,'
                                      Co dist Heraut, 'com nos auons.'
                                          (ll. 7101-34)

The story is just one of those that William of Malmesbury would have
picked up, and Wace has simply, in metrical paraphrase, transferred it
from his pages to his own.

Yet another story, on which Mr Freeman looked with some just
suspicion, is common to these two writers, and virtually to them
alone. It is that of 'the contrast between the way in which the night
before the battle was spent by the Normans and the English' (iii.
760). Wace, says Mr Freeman, 'gives us the same account' as William
'in more detail', while William 'gives us a shorter account'. I
here again append the passages side by side, insisting on the fact
mentioned by Mr Freeman, that Wace expands the story 'in more detail':

  Itaque utrinque animosi duces       Quant la bataille dut ioster,
  disponunt acies.... Angli, ut       La noit auant, c'oi conter,
  accepimus, totam noctem insompnem   Furent Engleis forment haitie
  cantibus potibusque ducentes.       Mult riant e mult enueisie.
                                      Tote noit maingierent e burent,
     .     .     .     .     .        Onques la noit en lit ne jurent.
                                      Mult les veissiez demener,
                                      Treper e saillir e chanter.
                                         .     .     .     .     .
  Contra Normanni, nocte tota         E li Normant e li Franceis
  confessioni                         Tote noit firent oreisons
  peccatorum vacantes, mane           E furent en afflictions.
  Dominico corpore communicarunt.     De lor pechiez confes se firent,
  (§§ 241, 242)                       As proueires les regehirent,
                                      E qui nen out proueires pres,
                                      À son ueisin se fist confes.
                                        .     .     .     .     .
                                      Quant les messes furent chantees,
                                      Qui bien matin furent finees....
                                          (ll. 7349-56, 7362-8, 7407-8)

This brings me to my destination, namely, § 241 of the 'Gesta Regum'.
We may divide this section into three successive parts: (1) the
description of the way in which the English spent the night--which is
repeated, we have seen, by Wace; (2) the array of the English, with
which I shall deal below; (3) the dismounting of Harold at the foot
of the standard. I here subjoin the parallels for the third, calling
special attention to the phrases, 'd'or e de pierres (auro et
lapidibus)' and 'Guil. pois cele victoire Le fist porter a l'apostoire
(post victorium papae misit Willelmus).'

  Rex ipse pedes juxta vexillum      Quant Heraut out tot apreste
  stabat cum fratribus, ut, in       E co qu'il uolt out commande
  commune periculo aequato, nemo     Enmi les Engleis est uenuz,
  de fuga cogitaret. Vexillum        Lez l'estandart est descenduz
  illud post victoriam papae         Lewine e Guert furent od lui
  misit Willelmus, quod erat         Frere Heraut furent andui,
  in hominis pugnantis figura,       Assez out barons enuiron;
  auro et lapidibus arte             Heraut fu lez son gonfanon.
  sumptuosa intextum.                Li gonfanon fu mult vaillanz,
                                     D'or e de pierres reluissanz.
                                     Guill. pois cele victoire
                                     Le fist porter a l'apostoire,
                                     Por mostrer e metre en memoire
                                     Son grant conquest e sa grant
                                         (ll. 7853-66)

The only part of § 241 which remains to be dealt with is the second.
The two passages run thus:

  Pedites omnes cum bipennibus       Geldons engleis haches portoent
  conserta ante se _scutorum_        E gisarmes qui bien trenchoent
  testudine, impenetrabilem          Fait orent deuant els _escuz_
  cuneum faciunt; quod profecto      De fenestres e d'altres fuz,
  illis _ea die_ saluti fuisset,     Deuant els les orent leuez,
  nisi Normanni, simulata fuga       Comme cleies joinz e serrez;
  more suo confertos manipulos       Fait en orent deuant closture,
  laxassent.                         N'i laissierent nule iointure,
      (§ 241)                        Par onc Normant entr'els venist
                                     Qui desconfire les volsist.
                                     D'escuz e d'ais s'auironoent,
                                     Issi deffendre se quidoent;
                                     Et s'il se fussent bien tenu,
                                     Ia ne fussent _le ior_ uencu.
                                         (ll. 7813-26)

Mr Freeman, of course, observed the parallel, but, oddly enough,
missed the point. He first quoted the lines from Wace, and then
immediately added, 'So William of Malmesbury' (iii. 764), thus
reversing the natural order. The word that really gave me the clue
was the _escuz_ of Wace. It was obvious, I held, that, here as
elsewhere,[43] it must mean 'shield'; and Mr Freeman consequently saw
in the passage an undoubted description of the 'shield-wall' (iii.
763). Moreover, the phrase _lever escuz_ is, in Wace, a familiar one,
describing preparation for action, thus, for instance:

  Mult ueissiez Engleis fremir
     .     .     .     .     .
  Armes saisir, escuz leuer.
                 (ll. 8030, 8033)

On the other hand, there are, in spite of Mr Freeman, undoubted
difficulties in rendering the passage as a description of the
'shield-wall', just as there are in taking _escuz_ to mean
'barricades' (iii. 471). The result was that, perhaps unconsciously,
Mr Freeman gave the passage, in succession, two contradictory
renderings (iii. 471, 763). Now, starting from the fact that the
disputed passage supported, and also opposed both renderings, I
arrived at the conclusion that it must represent some confusion of
Wace's own. He had, evidently, himself no clear idea of what he was
describing. But the whole confusion is at once accounted for if
we admit him to have here also followed William of Malmesbury. His
_escuz_--otherwise impossible to explain--faithfully renders the
_scuta_ of William, while the latter's _testudo_, though strictly
accurate, clearly led him astray. The fact is that William of
Malmesbury must have been quite familiar with the 'shield-wall', if
indeed he had seen the fyrd actually forming it.[44] Wace, on the
contrary, living later, and in Normandy instead of England, cannot
have seen, or even understood, this famous formation, with which his
cavalry fight of the twelfth century had nothing in common. It is
natural therefore that his version should betray some confusion,
though his _Fait en orent deuant closture_ clearly renders William of
Malmesbury's _conserta ante se scutorum testudine_. There is no
question as to William's meaning, for a _testudo_ of shields is
excellent Latin for the shield-wall formed by the Romans against a
flight of arrows. Moreover, the construction of William's Latin
(_conserta_) accounts for that use by Wace of the pluperfect tense on
which stress has been laid as proof that the passage must describe a
'barricade'.[45] That Wace could, occasionally, be led astray by
misunderstanding his authority, is shown by his taking Harold to
Abbeville, after his capture on the French coast, a statement which
arose, in Mr Freeman's opinion, 'from a misconception of the words of
William of Jumièges (iii. 224)'. No one, I think, can read
dispassionately the extracts I have printed side by side, without
accepting the explanation I offer of this disputed passage in Wace,
namely, that it is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat
confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury.

Passing from William of Malmesbury to the Bayeux Tapestry, we find a
general recognition of the difficulty of determining Wace's knowledge
of it. I can only, like others, leave the point undecided. On the
other hand, his narrative, as a whole, does not follow the Tapestry;
on the other, it is hard to believe that the writer of II. 8103-38
had not seen that famous work. His description of the scene is
marvellously exact, and the Tapestry phrase, in which Odo _confortat
pueros_--often a subject of discussion--is at once explained by his
making the _pueri_ whom Odo 'comforted' to be--

  Vaslez, qui al herneis esteient
  E le herneis garder deueient.

Of these varlets in charge of the 'harness' he had already spoken (ll.
7963-7). The difficulty of accounting for Wace, as a canon of Bayeux,
being unacquainted with the Tapestry is, of course, obvious. But
in any case he cannot have used it, as we do ourselves, among his
foremost authorities.

In discussing his use of William of Jumièges, we stand on much surer
ground. It certainly strikes one as strange that in mentioning the
obvious error by which Wace makes Harold receive his wound in the eye
early in the fight (l. 8185), before the great feigned flight, Mr
Freeman does not suggest its derivation from William of Jumièges,
though he proceeds to add (p. 771):

    I need hardly stop to refute the strange mistake of William of
    Jumièges, followed by Orderic: 'Heraldus ipse in primo militum
    progressu ['Congressu', _Ord._] vulneribus letaliter confossus

But a worse instance of the contradictions involved by the patchwork
and secondary character of Wace's narrative is found in his statement
as to Harold's arrival on the field of battle. 'Wace,' says Mr
Freeman, 'makes the English reach Senlac on Thursday night' (p. 441).
So he does, even adding that Harold

  fist son estandart drecier
  Et fist son gonfanon fichier
  Iloc tot dreit ou l'abeie
  De la Bataille est establie.
          (ll. 6985-8)

But Mr Freeman must have overlooked the very significant fact that
when the battle is about to begin, Wace tells a different story, and
makes Harold only occupy the battlefield on the Saturday morning:

  Heraut sout que Normant vendreient
  E que par main se combatreient:
  Un champ out _par matin_ porpris,
  Ou il a toz ses Engleis mis.
  _Par matin_ les fist toz armer
  E a bataille conreer.
          (ll. 7768-72)

I have little doubt that he here follows William of Jumièges:
'[Heraldus] in campo belli apparuit mane', and that he was thus led to
contradict himself.

Mr Freeman had a weakness for Wace, and did not conceal it: he
insisted on the poet's 'honesty'. But 'honesty' is not knowledge; and
in dealing with the battle, it is not allowable to slur over Wace's
imperfect knowledge. Mr Freeman admits that 'probably he did not know
the ground, and did not take in the distance between Hastings and
Battle' (p. 762). But he charitably suggests that 'it is possible
that when he says "en un tertre s'estut li dus" he meant the hill of
Telham, only without any notion of its distance from Hastings'.
But, in spite of this attempt to smooth over the discrepancy, it is
impossible to reconcile Wace's narrative with that of Mr Freeman. The
latter makes the duke deliver his speech at Hastings, and then march
with his knights to Telham, and there arm. But Wace imagined that they
armed in their quarters at Hastings ('Issi sunt as tentes ale'), and
straightway fought. The events immediately preceding the battle are
far more doubtful and difficult to determine than could be imagined
from Mr Freeman's narrative, but I must confine myself to Wace's
version. I have shown that his account is not consistent as to
the movements of Harold, while as to the topography, 'his primary
blunder', as Mr Freeman terms it, 'of reversing the geographical
order, by making William land at Hastings and thence go to Pevensey',
together with his obvious ignorance of the character and position of
the battlefield, must, of course, lower our opinion of his accuracy,
and of the value of the oral tradition at his disposal.

To rely 'mainly'[46] on such a writer, in preference to the original
authorities he confused, or to follow him when, in Mr Freeman's words,
he actually 'departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down
floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events
which he records'--betrays the absence of a critical faculty, or the
consciousness of a hopeless cause.

    [Footnote 1: Dismissing _ut supra_ the 'fosse' passage, which
    neither mentions nor implies it, together with the passage
    from Henry of Huntingdon.]

    [Footnote 2: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4. I have shown in the
    _English Historical Review_ (ix. 225) that he meant here by
    the shield-wall 'exactly what he meant by it elsewhere', a
    shield-wall and nothing else.]

    [Footnote 3: _Cont. Rev._, 344.]

    [Footnote 4: _English Historical Review_, ix. 231-40.]

    [Footnote 5: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.]

    [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, 260.]

    [Footnote 7: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.]

    [Footnote 8: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]

    [Footnote 9: _English Historical Review_, ix. 17-20.]

    [Footnote 10: I explained, in one of my replies to Mr Archer,
    that this statement applied _only_ to its usage '_in Wace_'
    (_Academy_, September 16, 1893), but, characteristically, he
    has not hesitated to suppress this explanation, and renew his
    sneers at my knowledge of 'Old French', on the ground of a
    statement which, I had explained, was not my meaning (_English
    Historical Review_, ix. 604). It is difficult to describe such
    devices as these.

    Common as the word is in Wace, I have never found any other
    instance of its use (_i.e._ by him) in a metaphorical sense,
    nor, if there is one, has Mr Archer attempted to produce it.]

    [Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 313-18.]

    [Footnote 12: _English Historical Review_, ix. 260.]

    [Footnote 13: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 736-7.]

    [Footnote 14: The word 'fenestres', for instance, which Mr
    Archer first rendered 'ash', out of deference to Mr Freeman
    and his predecessors, but subsequently 'windows' (_English
    Historical Review_, ix. 18), is either a corruption or quite
    inexplicable. 'If it pleases Mr Archer,' as I wrote (_ibid._,
    236), 'to construct a barricade, of which "windows" are the
    chief ingredient, on an uninhabited Sussex down, in 1066, he
    is perfectly welcome to do so.' I may add that the rendering
    adopted by the two French scholars does not in the least alter
    my view as to the improbability, or rather absurdity, of the

    [Footnote 15: _Ibid._, ix. 244.]

    [Footnote 16: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 95.]

    [Footnote 17: _English Historical Review_, ix. 251-3. I
    was careful to add that 'if it be claimed that his text is
    contradictory, this would but prove further how confused his
    mind really was as to the battle' (p. 252). Mr Archer, as I
    anticipated, now prints, as a conclusive reply (_ibid._, ix.
    603), words which look the other way, ignoring, as usual, the
    quotations on which I explicitly relied. He has thereby, as
    I said, only proved how confused, here as elsewhere, Mr
    Freeman's conception was.]

    [Footnote 18: Mr Archer now prefers to leave its details
    doubtful (_English Historical Review_, ix. 606).]

    [Footnote 19: As I have shown in _ibid._, ix. 244-5.]

    [Footnote 20: _Cont. Rev._, 344.]

    [Footnote 21: _Ibid._, 346.]

    [Footnote 22: I have shown (_Academy_, September 16, 1893) by
    reference to Godefroi and Michel that either Mr Archer or
    they must here have been ignorant of Old French. The former
    alternative seems to be accepted.]

    [Footnote 23: _Supra_, pp. 269-70.]

    [Footnote 24: The case of the battle of Varaville, in 1058,
    is precisely similar in this respect to that of the Battle of
    Hastings. Of the former Mr Freeman writes: 'Wace alone speaks,
    throughout his narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers
    speak only of a ford' (iii. 173). Now Wace's authority was
    better for this, the earlier battle, because, says Mr Freeman,
    he knew the ground. Yet the Professor did not hesitate to
    reject his 'bridge'. So again, in 'the campaign of Hastings',
    Mr Freeman rejects 'the falsehood of the story of William
    burning his ships, of which the first traces appear in Wace'
    (iii. 408). So much for placing our reliance upon Wace, when
    he stands alone.]

    [Footnote 25: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 96.]

    [Footnote 26: Mr Archer's limit is 1066-1210.]

    [Footnote 27: We have, I suspect, a similar instance, in
    Wace's _gisarmes_ (ll. 7794, 7814, 8328, 8332, 8342,
    8587, 8629, 8656). An excellent vindication of the Bayeux
    Tapestry--oddly enough overlooked by Mr Freeman--namely, M.
    Delauney's 'Origine de la Tapisserie de Bayeux prouvée par
    elle-même' (Caen, 1824)--discusses the weapons, the author
    observing: 'La hache d'armes ressemble à celle de nos sapeurs;
    celle des temps postèrieurs au xi^{e} siècle à, dans les
    monuments, une espèce de petite lance au-dessus de la douille
    du côté opposé au tranchant' (see Jubinal, _La Tapisserie de
    Bayeux_, p. 17). This exactly describes the true _gisarme_, a
    later introduction. So again, Wace makes the _chevalier_ who
    has hurried from Hastings exclaim to Harold:

      'Un chastel i ont ia ferme
      De _breteschese_ de fosse' (ll. 6717-8),

    whereas _bretasches_ of course were impossible at the time.
    One is reminded of the description, by Piramus, of the coming
    of the English, when 'over the broad sea Britain they sought':

      'Leuent bresteches od kernels,
      Ke cuntrevalent bons chastels,
      De herituns [? hericuns] e de paliz
      Les cernent, si funt riulez
      Del quer des cheygnes, forze e halz,
      Ki ne criement sieges ne asalz.'

    (_Vie Seint Edmund le Rey_, ll. 228-33.)]

    [Footnote 28: _English Historical Review_, ix. 66.]

    [Footnote 29: _Ibid._, 31-7, 17-18, and throughout his paper.]

    [Footnote 30: _Ibid._, ix. 32.]

    [Footnote 31: 'Al siege de Rouen le quidierent gaber' (l.

    [Footnote 32: 'Demn nicht etwa am Schlusse, sondern gleich
    zu Anfang des genannten Theiles' (l. 179) 'spricht er von den
    drei Königen Heinrich die er gesehen und gekannt' (p. xciv).]

    [Footnote 33: 'Nimmt man das Jahr 1110 als Geburtsjahr des
    Dichters an', etc. (p. xciv).]

    [Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, ix. 33. It need
    scarcely be said that these 'old heroes' would be found rather
    in England than in Normandy.]

    [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 17.

      'Assez vi homes qui la virent,
      Qui ainz e pois longues vesquirent.']

    [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, ix. 33.]

    [Footnote 37: Compare his scornful rejection (iii. 469-71) of
    Wace's tales in ll. 7875-950.]

    [Footnote 38: _English Historical Review_, ix. 34.]

    [Footnote 39: Reprinted from _ibid._, October 1893.]

    [Footnote 40: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 783.]

    [Footnote 41: iii. 402, note 2.]

    [Footnote 42: iii. 782.]

    [Footnote 43: I mean, as I explained above, elsewhere in

    [Footnote 44: He describes, as Mr Freeman observed, King Henry
    bidding the English 'meet the charge of the Norman knights
    by standing firm in the array of the ancient shield-wall'
    (_William Rufus_, ii. 411).]

    [Footnote 45: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 351.]

    [Footnote 46: 'It is upon Wace that we shall mainly rely.'
    _Cont. Rev._, p. 344.]


I owe to my friend Mr Hubert Hall the suggestion that the great battle
described by the Pseudo-Ingulf as taking place between the English
and the Danes in 870--and all accepted as sober fact by Turner in his
_History of the Anglo-Saxons_--may be a concoction based on the facts
of the battle of Hastings. This is also the theory Mr Freeman advanced
as to Snorro's story of the battle of Stamford Bridge. The coincidence
is very striking. In both narratives the defending force is formed
with 'the dense shield-wall';[1] in both it breaks at length that
formation; in both it is, consequently, overwhelmed; and in both cases
the attacking force consists of horsemen and archers. But the most
curious coincidence is found in the principal weapon of the defending
force. In Snorro's narrative, as Mr Freeman renders it, 'a dense wood
of spears bristles in front of the circle to receive the charge of the
English horsemen';[2] in the Pseudo-Ingulf the defending force 'contra
violentiam equitum densissimam aciem lancearum prætendebant'.[3] Such
a defence savours of the days when the knight, fighting on foot with
his lance,[4] had replaced the housecarl with his battle-axe: it was
not that of Harold's host, but one which we meet with in the twelfth

There are marks, however, in the Pseudo-Ingulf, of study, not merely
of the Battle of Hastings, but of William of Malmesbury's account
of it. From him, it would seem, are taken the words 'testudo' and
'tumulus'. The first parallel passages are these:

  WILLIAM                             'INGULF'

  Conserta ante se _scutorum          In unum cuneum conglobati,
  testudine_, impenetrabilem          ... _testudinem clypeorum_
  cuneum faciunt.                     prætendebant.

Again, after the disaster caused, in each case, by a feigned flight,
we have the rally thus described:

  WILLIAM                             'INGULF'

  nec tamen ultioni suæ defuere,      in quodam campi _tumulo_ cetera
  quin crebro consistentes ...        planitie aliquantulum altiore
  occupato _tumulo_, Normannos,       in orbem conferti, barbaros
  calore succensos acriter ad         arietantes diutissime
  superiora nitentes, in vallem       sustinuerunt ... suum sanguinem
  dejiciunt.                          vindicantes.

The Pseudo-Ingulf alludes but briefly to the Battle of Hastings
itself. Yet here again we have traces of William of Malmesbury's words
in 'nec de toto exercitu, præter paucissimos eum aliquis concomitatur'
and 'more gregarii militis manu ad manum congrediens', which phrases
are applied to Harold.

    [Footnote 1: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 367.]

    [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 365.]

    [Footnote 3: Ed. 1684, p. 21.]

    [Footnote 4: _Vide supra_, p. 279. Cf. the fight at Jaffa,
    August 5, 1192.]


No better illustration could be given of the fact that valuable
historical evidence may lurk, even in print, unknown, than the
charters printed, from the Cirencester Cartulary, by Sir Thomas
Phillips in _Archæologia_ (1836).[1] One can imagine how highly
prized they would have been by Mr Freeman, had he only known of their

Regenbald, of whom Sir Thomas would seem never to have heard, was the
first Chancellor of England.[2] Mr Freeman called him, I know not
on what authority, 'the Norman chancellor of Eadward'. Whatever
his nationality, it is well established that he was that king's
chancellor. He occurs repeatedly in Domesday, where he is
distinguished as 'Canceler', 'Presbyter', and 'de Cirencestre'.
We learn also from its pages that he held land in at least three
counties--Berkshire, Herefordshire, and Dorset T.R.E.--and that
he seems to have received further grants from King William in his

The three charters of which I treat are found in the Cirencester
Cartulary and are in Anglo-Saxon. The first is one of King Edward's in
favour of 'Reinbold min preost', and is a confirmation to him of soc
and sac, toll and team, etc., as his predecessors had enjoyed it 'on
Cnutes kinges daie'. The third is a notification from King William
that 'ic hæbbe geunnen Regenbald minan preoste eall his lond' as 'he
hit under Ed[w]earde hædde mine meie'. The chief points to be noticed
here are that the land is granted _de novo_, not confirmed, and that
the Conqueror speaks of Regenbald as 'minan preoste', implying that he
has taken him into his service.

It is the second of these charters that is of quite extraordinary
importance. I here append it _in extenso_ as printed by Sir Thomas

'Vyllelm king gret Hereman b. & Wulstan b. & Eustace eorl & Eadrich
& Bristrich & ealle mine þegenes on [W]yltoneshyre & on Glouc'shyre
fronliche & ic cuþe eo[w] ic habbe geunnan Reinbold mina preost [þt]
land æt Esi & [þt] land æt Latton & ealle þæra þinge [þt] þar to lið
binnan port & buten mið sace & mið socne s[w]a full and s[w]a forð
s[w]a his furmest on hondan stodan Harald kinge on ællan þingan on
dæge & æfter to atheonne s[w]a s[w]a ealra lefest ys & ic nelle nenna
men geþafian [þt] him fram honda teo ænig þære þinga þæs þa ic him
geunne habbe bi minan freonshype.'

The relevant entry in Domesday speaks for itself:

    Reinbaldus presbyter tenet Latone et Aisi. Duo taini tenuerunt
    pro II. Maneriis T.R.E. Heraldus comes junxit in unum.
    Geldabat pro ix. hidis (68_b_).

If the charter were nothing more than a grant from the Conqueror to
a private individual of lands duly entered in Domesday, it would, I
believe, as such be unique. Historians have long and vainly sought
for any genuine charter of the kind; and here it has been in print for
nearly sixty years.

But the document, I hope to show, does far more for us than this: it
opens a new chapter in the history of the Norman Conquest.

We first notice that the writ is addressed not to Norman, but to
English authorities. The only exception is Count Eustace, who was, of
course, not a Norman, and who was known in England before the Conquest
as brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor. The obvious inference is
that, at the time this writ was issued, Norman government had not yet
been set up in the district. Urse d'Abetot, for instance, the dreaded
sheriff of Worcestershire, would probably have been addressed in
conjunction with Bishop Wulstan had he been then in power. But we know
that he came into power soon after the Conquest, for he had time to be
guilty of oppression and to be rebuked for it by Ealdred before that
Primate's death in 1069. But as our writ is of this early date, it
must be previous to the treason of Count Eustace in 1067. It must
therefore belong to the beginning of that year, when William had only
recently been crowned king.

We see then here, I think, the Conqueror, in his first days as an
English king, addressing his subjects, in a part of the realm not yet
under Norman sway, and doing so in their own tongue and in the forms
to which they were accustomed. As King Edward in his charter to
Regenbald had greeted bishops, earls, and sheriffs, so here his
successor greets two bishops, 'Eustace Eorl', and two Englishmen
representing the power of the sheriff. And so again in his charter to
London he began by greeting the Bishop and the Portreeve.[4]

The writ, it will be seen, is addressed to the authorities of
Gloucestershire and Wilts. The estate lay in the latter county, but
the connection of Regenbald de 'Cirencestre' with Glo'stershire may
account for the inclusion of that county. Can we identify 'Eadrich'
and 'Bristrich' with any local magnates? With some confidence I boldly
suggest that the latter was no other than the 'Bristricus' of the Exon
Domesday, that famous Brihtric, the son of Ælfgar, who, to quote from
the appendix Mr Freeman devotes to him, 'appears distinctly as a great
landowner in most of the western shires', one from whose vast domains
was carved out later the great Honour of Gloucester. Until now, all we
have known of him has been derived from the Domesday entries of his
estates T.R.E. and from the legend which associates his name with that
of Queen Matilda. But this charter enables us to say that he was
living and still holding his great position in the west in the early
days of William's reign.[5]

From 'Bristric' I turn to 'Eadric', and ask if we may not here
recognize 'Eadric the Wild' himself? This can only be matter of
conjecture, but it is certain that these two Englishmen are here
assigned the place that would be given to a sheriff, and that 'Eadric
the Wild'--'quidam præpotens minister', as Florence terms him--was a
magnate in the west (Herefordshire and Shropshire) at the time of the
Conquest. Mr Freeman terms him 'a man about whom we should gladly know
more'. It is stated by Orderic that he was one of those who came in
and submitted to William at the outset. But Mr Freeman held it 'far
more likely that he did not submit till a much later time',
because Florence says of him in William's absence: 'se dedere Regi
dedignabatur'. Orderic's statement, however, is not denied, and
Florence's words seem to me quite explicable by the hypothesis that
Eadric had refused the 'dangerous honour', as Mr Freeman terms it, of
following William to Normandy in 1067 among 'his English attendants
or hostages'. Harried, in consequence, by his Norman neighbours, he
retaliated by ravaging Herefordshire in August of that year; while
Count Eustace also threw off his allegiance and made his descent on

If the identity of 'Eadric' is matter of conjecture, that of 'Eustace
eorl' is certain. But no one has known, or even suspected, that he
held, at this period, high position in the west. It may be that, as I
have already hinted, he was sent by William to a district, as yet
only nominally subject, as being, from his previous connection with
England, less obnoxious than a Norman was likely to prove. It would
be refining overmuch to suggest that William might also intend to
establish him as far as possible from his base of operations at

In any case, we have in this charter a welcome addition to our scanty
knowledge of that obscure period when William, as it were, was feeling
his feet as an English king. Nor is it its least important feature
that it shows us William, contrary to what Mr Freeman held to be his
fundamental rule, speaking of his predecessor as 'Harald kinge'.

Before taking leave of Regenbald, we may glance at one of the Domesday
entries relating to his lands. Mr Freeman, in two distinct passages,
wrote as follows:

  An entry in 99 reads as if the      The rights of the antecessor are
  same Regenbald had been defrauded   handed on to the grantee of his
  of land by a Norman tenant of his   land.... So in Exon 432.
  own. 'Ricardus tenet in Rode i.     'Ricardus interpres habet
  hidam, quam ipse tenuit de          i. hidam terræ in Roda quam ipse
  Rainboldo presbytero licentia       emit de Rainboldo sacerdote
  regis, ut dicit. Reinbold vero      [Eadward's chancellor?] per
  tenuit T.R.E.'                      licentiam regis, ut dicit qui
  (_Norm. Conq._, v. 751)             tenuit eam die qua Rex E.
                                      fuit[6] et mortuus.'
                                      (_Ibid._, p. 784)

Although these two passages are found in two different appendices, the
entries thus diversely adduced, are, of course, one and the same. But,
it will be seen, the 'tenuit' of Domesday is equated by the 'emit' of
the Exon book. One of the two must be wrong. I should accept the
Exon text because 'emit licentia regis' is the right Domesday phrase,
because it makes better sense, and because it is a sound principle of
textual criticism that the Exchequer scribe was more likely to write
the usual 'tenuit' for the exceptional 'emit' than the Exon scribe
to do the converse. I should then read the passage thus: 'emit de
Rainboldo sacerdote--per licentiam regis, ut dicit--qui tenuit eam
die', etc.

If my view be adopted, we here detect noteworthy error in our great
and sacrosanct record.

The charter of Henry I to Cirencester Abbey--in which he had placed
Canons Regular, and of which he claimed to be the founder--sets, as it
were, the coping-stone on the story of Regenbald.[7] In it we read:

    Dedi et concessi ... totam tenuram Reimbaldi presbyteri in
    terris et ecclesiis, et ceteris omnibusquæ subscripta sunt....

    De rebus autem predictis quæ fuerunt Rembaldi hec statuimus.

The details of Regenbald's possessions are given, and are of special
value for collation with Domesday. They set him before us not only as
a landowner in five different counties, but also as the first great
pluralist. Sixteen churches, rich in tithes and glebe--one might
really term them 'fat livings'--had passed into the hands of Regenbald
'the priest'. From the king's phrase, '_dedi_ et concessi', he would
seem to have been not merely confirming an endowment by Regenbald, but
granting lands which had escheated to himself.[8]

And this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the king, while
granting them, especially reserved the life interest of the Bishop of
Salisbury and of two others--one of them, alas! a bishop's nephew--who
must have acquired their rights since Regenbald's death.

This charter, apart from its contents, is of great interest from its
mention of the place where and the time when it was granted, together
with its list of witnesses. These were the two Archbishops, the
Bishops of Salisbury, Winchester, Lincoln, Durham, Ely, Hereford, and
Rochester: Robert 'de Sigillo', Robert de Ver, Miles of Gloucester,
Robert d'Oilli, Hugh Bigot, Robert de Curci, Payne 'filius Johannis et
Eustacio et Willelmo fratribus ejus, et Willelmo de Albini Britone'.
The charter was granted 'apud Burnam in transfretatione mea anno
incarnationis Domini MCXXXIII. regni vero mei XXXIII.'; and 'Burna',
as I have elsewhere shown,[9] was Westbourne in Sussex, on the border
of Hampshire, then in the king's hands by forfeiture and near the
coast. Here therefore we see the king, when leaving England for the
last time, surrounded by his prelates and ministers, and are enabled
to say positively who were with him. I would note the predominance of
the official class represented by the Bishops of Salisbury, Lincoln,
and Ely, by the late chancellor, the Bishop of Durham, and by laymen
who are found specially entrusted with administrative work. A long
list of witnesses such as this is specially characteristic of the
closing period of the reign,[10] and, of course, always possesses
biographical value.[11]

Another English writ of the Conqueror, which may be profitably
compared with that we have discussed, is found in one of the
cartularies of Bury St Edmund's.[12] Its address, as rendered in the
transcript, runs:

    William [_sic_] kyng gret Ægelmær Bischop and Raulf Eorl and
    Nordman and ealle myne thegnaes on Sudfolke frendliche.

This writ is obviously previous to the deposition of Bishop Æthelmær
in April, 1070, but how far previous it is not easy to say. 'Nordman'
is clearly the sheriff of Suffolk, who appears in Domesday as
'Normannus Vicecomes' (II. 438). His name affords presumption, though
not proof, that he was of English birth;[13] and as his Domesday
holding consisted only of rights over two Ipswich burgesses (which he
may have acquired during his shrievalty) he is hardly likely to have
been one of the conquering race. Of the third official, Earl Ralf, we
know a good deal. Mr Freeman was much puzzled by this 'somewhat
mysterious person',[14] but eventually came to the conclusion that
'there were two Ralfs in Norfolk, father and son, the younger being
the son of a Breton mother: the elder was staller under Edward and
Earl under William'. The younger was the Earl of Norfolk (or 'of the
East Angles'), who rebelled and was forfeited in 1075; the elder was
that 'Rawulf' who, in the words of the chronicle, 'wæs Englisc and
wæs geboren on Norðfolce'. Putting our evidence together, I lean
strongly to the view that we have here, as in the case of Regenbald,
a writ addressed to English authorities before Norfolk had passed
into the hands of Norman authorities. Mr Freeman held that a passage
in Domesday (II. 194), to which he had given much attention, should
be read--'Hanc terram habuit A[rfastus] episcopus in tempore
utrorumque [Radulforum]', and that therefore 'the elder Ralph was
living as late as 1070, in which year the episcopate of Erfast
begins'. But the context clearly shows that we should read 'A[ilmarus]
episcopus', and that, therefore, the elder Ralf died before Æthelmær
was deposed. Moreover, Norwich, we are specially told, was entrusted
by the Conqueror to William fitz Osbern before his departure from
England in March 1067. William was placed, some two years later, in
charge of York castle, and we read in Mr Freeman's work that 'the man
who now (autumn, 1069) commanded at Norwich, and who was already,
or soon afterwards, invested with the East-Anglian Earldom, was the
renegade native of the shire, Ralf of Wader'.[15] This, it will be
seen, contradicts his own, and supports my reading of the Domesday
passage quoted above. Everything therefore points to the 'Raulf Eorl'
of our writ dying or being deposed shortly after the Conquest.

Before taking leave of this writ we may note that, dealing as it does
with Suffolk, it is addressed to Earl Ralf as Earl, not merely of
Norfolk, but of East Anglia. This is of some importance, because Mr
Freeman wrote, speaking of the Regents appointed in 1067:

    There was no longer to be an Earl of the West Saxons or an
    Earl of the East Angles.... Returning in this to earlier
    English practice, the Earl under William was to have the rule
    of a single shire only, or if two shires were ever set under
    one Earl they were at least not to be adjoining shires. The
    results of this change have been of the highest moment. (iv.

Yet on page 253, as we have seen, we read of 'the East Anglian
Earldom', and on page 573 that the younger Ralph 'had received the
Earldom of East Anglia'--Florence of Worcester distinctly terming him
'East-Anglorum comite'. Mr Freeman, indeed, was led by this passage to
style him 'Earl of Norfolk or of the East Angles'.[16] I believe this
latter style to be perfectly correct, and, as I have shown in my
_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 191), to apply even to the Bigod earldom
in the days of Stephen.

The curious English writ that has suggested these considerations ought
to be compared with a Latin one, also in favour of St Edmund's, on
which I lighted in examining the 'Registrum Album' of the Abbey. It is
one of those exceedingly rare documents that find their correlatives
in Domesday. The words of the writ are these:

    W. rex Anglor' E. epo. B. Abbi W. Malet salm. sciatis vos
    mei fideles me concessisse servitium de Liuremere quam Werno
    hactenus de me tenuit sancto Ædmundo Et filia Guernonis in
    vita sua de Abbate B. tenuit.[17]

The last clause is clearly an addition by the cartulary scribe.
Now this charter being addressed, like the other, to Æthelmær
('Ethelmerus'), Bishop of the East Angles, is, of course, previous to
April 1070. I should, therefore, also place it previous to the capture
of William Malet at York in September 1069. But this, unlike the
other date, is matter of probability rather than of proof. Mr Freeman
believed that William returned, and died 'in the marshes of Ely'
(1071), but this is only a guess in which I cannot concur.[18] In
any case, we have evidence here of this well-known man having held a
position in Suffolk (where he owned the great Honour of Eye) analogous
to that of sheriff. He may have succeeded Northman in that office.

The relevant Domesday entry is as follows:

    Hujus terram rex accepit de abbate et dedit Guernoni depeiz
    [de Peiz]. Postea licencia regis deveniens monachus reddidit
    terram. (363_b_.)

The charter records, I take it, the 'licencia regis' of Domesday.[19]

    [Footnote 1: Vol. xxvi., p. 256.]

    [Footnote 2: Not counting Leofric, styled 'regis cancellarius'
    by Florence in 1046.]

    [Footnote 3: See my life of him in _Dictionary of National

    [Footnote 4: It might even be suggested that not only this
    charter but the Essex writ in favour of Deorman (addressed to
    Bishop William and Swegen the sheriff) belonged to the same
    early period. Compare, however, the Conqueror's Old English
    writ that I have discussed ('Londoners and the Chase') in the
    _Athenæum_ of June 30, 1894.]

    [Footnote 5: It is a noteworthy coincidence that 'Brihtricus
    princeps' and 'Eadricus princeps' are among the witnesses to
    Harold's Waltham charter in 1062, which Regenbald himself also
    attests as Chancellor.]

    [Footnote 6: _sic._]

    [Footnote 7: See _Monast. Anglic._, ii. 177.]

    [Footnote 8: It is possible, I think, that the only endowment
    entered to the church at Cirencester in Domesday, viz., two
    hides at Cirencester, had been originally given by Regenbald.]

    [Footnote 9: Henry I, at 'Burne' (_English Historical Review_,

    [Footnote 10: As in the charters to Aubrey de Vere (_Baronia
    Anglica_, 158) and William Mauduit.]

    [Footnote 11: Here, it would seem, is further proof of
    the Bishops of Ely and Durham assuming their styles before
    consecration (_infra_, pp. 366-7).]

    [Footnote 12: Harl. MS., 743, fo. 8_d_.]

    [Footnote 13: Mr Freeman held him to be an Englishman.]

    [Footnote 14: _Norm. Conq._ (2nd Ed.), iii. 773. Cf. 1st Ed.,
    iii. 752-3; iv. 277.]

    [Footnote 15: _Ibid._ (1st Ed.), iv. 252-3.]

    [Footnote 16: _Ibid._ (2nd.), iii. 773.]

    [Footnote 17: Add. MS., 14,314, fo. 32_b_ (pencil).]

    [Footnote 18: See my letter on 'the death of William Malet' in
    _Academy_ of August 26, 1884.]

    [Footnote 19: Since this paper was written, there has
    appeared the valuable Bath Cartulary (Somerset Record Society)
    containing a most remarkable charter (p. 36), which should
    be closely compared with those to Regenbald. It is issued by
    William the King and William the Earl, and must undoubtedly be
    assigned to the former's absence from England, March-December
    1067. It shows us therefore William fitz Osbern acting
    as Regent and anticipating the office of the later Great
    Justiciar by inserting in the document his own name. This
    charter, like that to Regenbald, is addressed to the still
    English authorities of an unconquered district.]


    'And y seide nay, and proved hit by Domesday.'[1]

For a companion study to the Battle of Hastings, one could not select
a better subject than the Siege of Exeter by William in 1068. It is
so, because, in the tale of the Conquest, 'No city of England', in Mr
Freeman's words, 'comes so distinctly to the front as Exeter':[2] and
because, as editor of 'Historic Towns', he chose Exeter, out of all
others, as the town to be reserved for himself.[3] 'Its siege by
William', we are told, 'is one of the most important events of his
reign';[4] but it was doubtless the alleged 'federal' character
of Exeter's attitude at this crisis that gave its story for him an
interest so unique. This episode, moreover, has many advantages: it
is complete in itself; it is rich in suggestion; it is taken from the
period in which the Professor described himself as 'most at home'; and
its scene is laid within his own borders, his own West Saxon land. It
presents an admirable test of Mr Freeman's work at the point where he
was admittedly strongest, and his thoroughly typical treatment of it
affords a perfect illustration of the method he employed.

The year 1067 was drawing to its close when the Conqueror, summoned
back from Normandy by the tidings of pressing danger, returned to
spend his Christmas at Westminster amidst 'the sea of troubles which
still awaited him in his half-conquered island-kingdom'.[5] Threatened
at once by foes within and without the realm, he perceived the vital
necessity of severing their forces by instant suppression of the
'rebellions' at home, _swift_ suppression before the invaders were
upon him, _stern_ suppression before the movement spread. Let us bear
in mind these twin motives, by which his policy must at this juncture
have been shaped, the need for _swiftness_, with invasion in prospect,
and the need for _sternness_ as a warning to 'rebels'.

Of all the 'rebellious' movements on foot, that at Exeter, as Mr
Freeman admits, was 'specially hateful in William's eyes'.[6] It was
against Exeter, therefore, that the Conqueror directed his first blow.
In the depths of winter, in the early days of the new year, 'he fared
to Devonshire'. Such is the brief statement of the English Chronicle.

We hear of William at Westminster; we next hear of him before the
walls of Exeter: all that intervenes is a sheer blank. Of what
happened on this long westward march not a single detail is preserved
to us in the Chronicle, in Orderic or in Florence. Now it is precisely
such a blank as this that, to Mr Freeman, was irresistible. We shall
see below how, a few months later, we have, in William's march from
Warwick to Nottingham, a blank exactly parallel.[7] There also Mr
Freeman succumbed to the temptation. He seized, in each case, on
the empty canvas, and, by a few rapid and suggestive touches, he has
boldly filled it in with the outlines of historical events, not merely
events for which there is no sufficient evidence, but events which can
be proved, by demonstration, to have had no foundation in fact.

The scene elaborated by Mr Freeman to enliven the void between
the departure from London and the entrance into Devonshire is THE
incident in the Exeter campaign I propose to analyse without further

It must, in the first place, be pointed out that we have no proof
whatever of this 'Civic League' having even existed. To apply Mr
Freeman's words to his own narrative:

    The story is perfectly possible. We only ask for the proof.
    Show us the proof;... then we will believe. Without such a
    proof we will not believe.[9]

For proof of its existence Mr Freeman relies on a solitary passage in
Orderic.[10] But Orderic, it will at once be seen, does not say that
any such league was effected; he does not even say that the league
which was contemplated was intended to be an exclusively Civic League.
What he does say is that the men of Exeter sought for allies in the
neighbouring coasts (_plagæ_)[11] and in other cities. The Dorset
townlets, such as Bridport, with its 120 houses, would scarcely
represent these 'cities'. Mr Freeman assumed, however, that 'the Civic
League' was formed, assumed that the Dorset towns had 'doubtless'
joined it, and finally assumed that they were 'no doubt' besieged by
William in consequence.[12] These assumptions he boldly connected
with the entries on the towns in Domesday, entries which we shall
analyse below, and which are not only incorrectly rendered, but are
directly opposed to the above assumptions.

What, then, is the inference to be drawn? Simply this. The 'Civic
League' must share the fate of the 'palisade on Senlac'. The sieges
which took place 'probably' never took place at all; the League never
resisted; the League never fell; in short, there is not a scrap of
evidence that there was ever such a League at all. The existence of
such a League would be, unquestionably, a fact of great importance.
But its very importance imperatively requires that its existence
should be established by indisputable proof. Of such proof there is
none. One can imagine how severely Mr Freeman would have handled
such guesses from others. For he wrote of a deceased Somersetshire
historian who boldly connects the story of Gisa with the banishment of

    One is inclined to ask with Henry II, 'Quære a rustico illo
    utrum hoc somniaverit?' But these things have their use. Every
    instance in the growth of a legend affords practice in the art
    of distinguishing legend from history.

It should, however, in justice be at once added that this story did
not originate wholly with Mr Freeman himself. He refers us on the
subject of the League to his predecessor, Sir Francis Palgrave. The
brilliant imagination of that graceful writer was indeed led captive
by the fascinating vision of 'the first Federal Commonwealth', yet he
did not allow himself, when dealing with the facts, to deviate from
the exact truth. His statement that Exeter '_attempted to form_ a
defensive confederation' reproduces with scrupulous accuracy Orderic's
words. And even when he passed from fact to conjecture, there was
nothing in his conjecture at variance from fact. From him we have no
suggestion that the Dorset towns resisted William or 'stood sieges'.
It was left for Mr Freeman to carry into action Palgrave's line of
thought, and, by forcing the evidence of the Domesday Survey into
harmony with the story he had evolved, to show us, in his own words,
'the growth of a legend'. For, as he observed with perfect truth:

    What we call the growth of a story is really the result of
    the action of a number of human wills. The convenient metaphor
    must not delude us into thinking that a story really grows
    of itself as a tree grows. In a crowd of cases ... the story
    comes of a state of mind which does not willingly sin against
    historical truth, but which has not yet learned that there is
    such a thing as historical truth.

Had Mr Freeman done so himself? Did he ever really learn to
distinguish conjecture from fact? One asks this because within the
covers of a single work, his _English Towns and Districts_, that Civic
League which in the _Norman Conquest_ is said to have existed 'no
doubt', is in one place said to have existed 'perhaps', and in another
is set forth as an undoubted historic fact:

    Exeter stood forth for one moment ... the chief of a
    confederation of the lesser towns of the West.... A
    confederation of the western towns, with the great city of the
    district at their head, suddenly started into life to check
    the progress of the Conqueror.

Finally, in his 'Exeter' (1887), the same story again appears, without
a word of caution, as absolute historic fact. Exeter, we read, was

    the head of a gathering of smaller commonwealths around her;
    ... the towns of Dorset were in league with Exeter.... We
    have no record of the march, but it is plain that the towns of
    Dorset were fearfully harried.

Through all Mr Freeman's work we trace this same tendency to confuse
his own conjectures with proved historic fact.

For the details of this fearful harrying we are referred to the
Domesday Survey. It was 'no doubt', we learn, when William marched on
Exeter (1068), that

    Dorchester, Bridport, Wareham, and Shaftesbury underwent that
    fearful harrying, the result of which is recorded in Domesday.
    Bridport was utterly ruined; not a house seems to have been
    able to pay taxes at the time of the Survey. At Dorchester,
    the old Roman settlement, the chief town of the shire, only a
    small remnant of the houses escaped destruction. These facts
    are signs, etc., etc.

'These facts', we find, will not bear investigation. To refute them in
the case of Bridport, 'there is nothing to be done but to turn to the
proper place in the great Survey'. Following this, his own, precept,
we learn that there is nothing in Domesday of our author's 'utter
ruin'; and that so far from 'not a house' being 'able to pay taxes',
Domesday tells us that four-fifths of the houses then existing could
and did pay them. Here, again, the errors arose from not reading
Domesday 'with common care'. The entry runs: 'Modo sunt ibi c. domus,
et xx. sunt ita destitutæ', etc. The meaning, of course, is that
twenty houses were impoverished. Mr Freeman must have hurriedly
misconstrued his Latin, and read it as a hundred and twenty. No
error that he detected in Mr Froude could be worse than representing
Bridport, on the authority of Domesday, as the greatest sufferer among
the Dorset towns, when Domesday itself proves that it suffered least
of all. And so, too, with Dorchester. On turning to Domesday, we learn
with surprise that the 'small remnant' of houses remaining there was
eighty-eight as against one hundred and seventy-two in the days
of King Edward. From an appendix of our author's to which we are
referred, we glean the fact that

    at Dorchester, out of a hundred and seventy-two houses no
    less than a hundred and twenty-eight were 'penitus destructæ a
    tempore Hugonis vicecomitis usque nunc'.

Here, again, Mr Freeman's error can be traced beyond the possibility
of question, to a misreading of Domesday: the entry runs, 'modo sunt
ibi quater xx. et viii. [88] domus, et c. [sunt] penitus destructæ'.
Mr Freeman must have hurriedly ignored the 'quater', and then added
the 'twenty-eight' thus evolved to the hundred houses that were
destroyed. All this Mr Freeman did, and we have in 'that great record,
from which there is no appeal', the proof of the fact. Clearly, in the
notable words of M. Bémont (_Revue Historique_), 'il est prudent de
revoir après lui les textes qu'il invoque'.[13]

The strange thing is that Sir Henry Ellis's work, though 'far from
being up to the present standard of historical scholarship', could
have saved him, here also, from error, as it gives the correct figures
from Domesday.

But passing from 'facts' to theories, we find Mr Freeman holding
that 'no doubt', 'doubtless', 'probably', the destruction recorded in
Domesday was wrought by the Conqueror himself in 1068. Why should this
guesswork be substituted for history, when we have 'always the means',
as our author himself wrote, 'of at once turning to the law and
testimony to see whether these things are so'? A glance at Domesday
effectually disposes of Mr Freeman's theory; for the Survey is here
peculiarly explicit: with anxious care, with painful iteration, it
assures us that, in the case of Wareham, the devastation was wrought
'a tempore Hugonis vicecomitis', and that, in the case of Shaftesbury
and in the case of Dorchester, it was wrought 'a tempore Hugonis
vicecomitis usque nunc'. These categorical statements are conclusive:
they place the whole of the devastation subsequent to the accession of
the Norman sheriff, Hugh FitzGrip. Mr Eyton, in his work on the Dorset
Domesday, held that they fix it as having occurred between 1070 and
1084; the words, however, 'usque nunc' carry it on down to 1086, and,
but that I must now come to Exeter, I could show the real bearing of
these allusions to Sheriff Hugh.

The breakdown, when tested, of the alleged 'Civic League' strangely
vindicates the sound insight of that sagacious historian who
explicitly asserted that the English boroughs

    never, as was the case in Scotland and in Germany, adopted
    a confederate bond of union, or organized themselves in

Yet, in his _English Towns and Districts_, Mr Freeman was led by his
own tale of the resistance of the western lands and their capital to
argue from it as from a proved historic fact:

    When Exeter stood forth for one moment ... _the chief of a
    confederation of the lesser towns of the West_ ... we see that
    the path was opening by which Exeter might have come to be
    another Lübeck, the head of a Damnonian Hanse, another Bern,
    the mistress of the subject-lands of the western peninsula.
    Such a dream sounds wild in our ears.[15]

It does indeed. But it does so for the reason that it is founded on
a fact which has no historic existence. Yet, for Mr Freeman, with his
fertile imagination afire with the glories of ancient Greece and of
countless mediaeval Commonwealths, this same 'wild dream' possessed an
irresistible fascination. 'It is none the less true', he hastened to
add, that

    when a confederation of the western towns, with the great city
    of the district at their head, suddenly started into life to
    check the progress of the Conqueror, it shows that a spirit
    had been kindled, etc., etc.... It is worth while to stop and
    think how near England once was to running the same course as
    other lands, etc., etc.[16]

Returning now to sober fact, let us ask how the city of Exeter came
into William's hands. This is the pivotal point on which the whole
story revolves. On this point Mr Freeman spoke with no uncertain
sound: the city was 'taken by means of a mine'.[17] It was, he wrote,
'by undermining the walls that William at last gained possession
of the city', the citizens being thus forced 'to submit
unreservedly'.[18] He added, contrasting the success of William with
the failure, in 1003, of Swend:

    William might have been beaten back from Exeter as Swend had
    been, if the military art of Normandy in William's days had
    not been many steps in advance of the military art of Denmark
    in the days of Swend.

This allusion to 'Swend' involves a perfect tangle of confusion.
Turning back a couple of pages, we are reminded that on Penhow,
'sixty-seven years before (1001), Swend, of Denmark, driven back from
the city, had found his revenge' (p. 154). Guided by a footnote, we
turn for information to the earlier volume to which the author refers
us, only to learn that it was not Swegen, but the adventurer Pallig
who was driven back from Exeter in 1001 (i. 307), while 'of
Swegen himself we hear nothing in English history for nine years
(994-1003)'.[19] Moreover, when Swegen did come--in 1003--invading
England to avenge the massacre of Saint Brice, he was not 'driven back
from the city', but, on the contrary, 'stormed and plundered it' (p.
315), for 'the citizens who had beaten back Pallig had no chance of
beating back Swegen' (_Exeter_, p. 27). Moreover, the suggestion
that the Danes would not have been able to attack and breach the city
wall is in direct conflict with the evidence quoted by Mr Freeman
himself. Not only did Pallig, in 1001, direct his attack against the
wall,[20] but 'Swegen', we read, in 1003, 'Civitatem Exanceastram
infregit'.[21] Now, speaking of 1063, Mr Freeman wrote that 'the
expression of Florence "infregit" seems to fall in with' his view
that William breached the wall. That is to say that, according to
Mr Freeman, 'Swend' was 'beaten back' (which he was not), because he
could not breach the walls, which is precisely what, on his showing,
Swegen succeeded in doing. Could confusion further go?

For his statement that 'William's mine advanced so far that part of
the wall crumbled to the ground, making a practicable breach' (p.
156), Mr Freeman relied on an ingenious combination of Orderic's
statement that the Conqueror 'obnixe satagit cives desuper impugnare
et subtus murum suffodere' with William of Malmesbury's assertion that
he triumphed 'divino scilicet adjutus auxilio, quod pars muralis
ultro decidens ingressum illi patefecerit'. He argued that, on
the supposition that 'Exonia' is the right reading in William of
Malmesbury, his 'story, allowing for a little legendary improvement,
fits so well into Orderic's as to support the theory of a breach'. The
argument is ingenuous and plausible, nor can it be lightly dismissed.
But whether the words of Orderic imply, of necessity, a mine or
not,[22] the real point is that he does not mention a breach. He
speaks of William's efforts, but he does not say they were successful.
It is difficult to suppose that William of Poitiers, of whom Orderic
is here the mouthpiece, would not have mentioned his hero's success,
had success rewarded his efforts. We are reduced then, as the sole and
unconfirmed authority for Mr Freeman's absolute statement--or rather
as the legend from which he 'infers' the facts he states--to the
words of William of Malmesbury. Now William was classed, by Mr Freeman
himself, among those writers whose 'accounts are often mixed up with
romantic details', so that 'it is dangerous to trust them' (i. 258);
and he pointed out of the murder of Edward that:

    In the hands of William of Malmesbury the story becomes a
    romance.... The _obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury that
    Ælfhere had a hand in Edward's death is contrary to the whole
    tenor of the history ... (i. 265).

If there is thus, on Mr Freeman's showing, need for accepting with
some caution a statement made by William alone, there is further, in
this special case, the consideration that even if his story does refer
to Exeter, the phrase, '_leviter_ subegit' is justly queried by Mr
Freeman;[23] and that William here deals in hyperbole and miracle.
Indeed, when we find Mr Freeman writing: 'I infer this from William
of Malmesbury', we are reminded of his words on his predecessor's
treatment of the legend of Siward: 'Such stuff would not be worth
mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave inferred from it the
existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon' (iv. 768-9).
I will not express an opinion of my own, but will quote from Mr
Freeman's able essay on 'The Mythical and Romantic Elements in Early
English History'.[24] In it he expressly disclaimed

    sympathy with the old pragmatizing or euhemeristic school
    of mythological interpretation.... The pragmatizers take
    a mythical story; they strip it by an arbitrary process
    of whatever seems impossible; they explain or allegorize
    miraculous details; and having thus obtained something
    which possibly may have happened, they give it out as
    something which actually did happen.... It will never
    do to take the tale of Troy, to leave out all
    intervention of the gods, and to give out the remnant as
    a piece of real Grecian history (p. 3).

This criticism would seem to apply to the 'legendary' tale that the
walls of Exeter fell down, like those of Jericho, by supernatural
intervention. At least, we may say of the breaching of the walls, when
given out 'as something which actually did happen', what was said of
the possible siege of Oxford, this same year, by Mr Freeman:

    The direct evidence for a siege of Oxford is so weak that the
    tale cannot be relied on with any certainty (iv. 188).

Having now examined the direct evidence for the statement that the
citizens were forced to surrender unconditionally to William by
the successful breaching of their walls, I propose to show that the
acceptance of this statement does violence not only to the facts of
the case, but to all that is known of William's character, to the
English Chronicle, and to Domesday; and I shall prove that it rests
beyond dispute 'on the foundation of a single error'.

Assuming for the moment the accuracy of Mr Freeman's version, namely,
that the city had been placed, by a breach, absolutely at William's
mercy, what treatment of its citizens would his character and his
whole career lead us to expect? 'At all stages of his life,' as
Mr Freeman observed, paraphrasing the famous words of the English
Chronicle (1087), 'if he was _debonnair_ to those who would do his
will, he was beyond measure stern to all who withstood it' (ii. 167).
Again, speaking of his march on Exeter, the Professor insisted on the
fact that 'the policy of William was ever severity to those who
withstood him, and gentleness to those who submitted to his yoke'.[25]
How he applied this principle in practice was shown at Romney and at
Dover in 1066. Romney had successfully resisted the landing of a party
of Normans,[26] and William was resolved to avenge the deed.

    It was his policy now, as ever, to be harsh whenever he met
    with resistance, and gentle to all who submitted easily....
    Harrying then as he went, William reached Romney. The words
    which set forth his doings there are short, pithy, and
    terrible. He took what vengeance he would for the slaughter of
    his men (iii. 533-4).

Dover, on the contrary, made no resistance, but surrendered before he
'had thrown up a bank, or shot an arrow'. It was, therefore, 'plainly
his policy to show himself mild and _debonnair_ as it had been his
policy at Romney to show himself beyond measure stark'.[27]

Such being William's settled principle, what might the citizens of
Exeter expect? Even before the siege began the fear that they had
sinned too deeply for forgiveness made them disown the capitulation
their leaders had arranged.[28] The reference is doubtless to conduct
similar to that which had brought upon Romney William's merciless
vengeance.[29] But how stood the case at its close?

(1) They were rebels. And for these 'rebels, as they were deemed in
Norman eyes' (iv. 135), confiscation was the penalty (iv. 127-8).

(2) 'The movement at Exeter' was not merely a rebellion, but one which
was 'specially hateful in William's eyes' (iv. 140).

(3) They had been guilty of 'cruel and insulting treatment' to
William's earlier emissaries (iv. 138).

(4) They had offered William himself an 'insult as unseemly as it was
senseless' (iv. 155).

(5) They had flung to the winds their own capitulation with such
audacity that William 'ira repletus est' (iv. 152).

(6) They had offered a prolonged and desperate resistance, costing the
lives of many of his men (iv. 156).

Verily, in William's eyes, the cup of Exeter's iniquities must have
been exceedingly full.

Even in cases of ordinary resistance his practice, we learn, was so
uniform that Mr Freeman could take it for granted, 'after the fall of
Exeter', that

    the heavy destruction which fell on the town of Barnstaple,
    in the north-western part of Devonshire, and the still heavier
    destruction which fell on the town of Lidford, might seem to
    show that these two boroughs were special scenes of resistance
    (iv. 163).[30]

Therefore, in the aggravated case of Exeter, we could but expect him
to deal with its citizens as he had dealt with those of Alençon,[31]
and as he was to deal, hereafter, with the sturdy defenders of
Ely.[32] A fearful vengeance was their certain doom. There was,
moreover, as I stated at the outset, a need for sternness at this
juncture that might justify William, apart from vengeance, in
inflicting such signal punishment as should deter all other 'rebels'.

Yet what do we find? The citizens, we read, were 'favourably
received', and 'assured of the safe possession of their lives and
goods'. Nay, William even 'secured the gates with a strong guard of
men whom he could trust in order to preserve the goods of the citizens
from any breaches of discipline'.[33] The dreaded Conqueror, 'post tot
iras terribilesque minas', had suddenly become mild as a lamb, and Mr
Freeman accepts it all quite as a matter of course.

Such conduct would, surely, have been a positive premium on revolt.

A castle, of course, was raised; but this was inevitable, whether
a town submitted peaceably or not. For instance, 'it is plain', Mr
Freeman wrote, 'that Lincolnshire submitted more peaceably, and was
dealt with more tenderly, than most parts of the kingdom' (iv.
216); but 'a castle was, of course, raised at Lincoln, as well as
elsewhere', and 'involved the destruction of a large number of houses'
(217-8), very many more than at Exeter.

One 'penalty', however, remains as the price that Exeter was called
upon to pay for all her guilt. This, we read, was 'the raising of its
tribute to lessen the wealth which had enabled it to resist'.[34] For
its wealth is admitted. Now, before criticizing Mr Freeman's view,
let us clearly understand what that view was. Taking, as is right,
his latest work--though his view had not altered--we read of Exeter in

    The city which had been the morning-gift of Norman Emma
    was now, along with Winchester, part of the morning-gift
    of English Edith, daughter of Godwine, sister of Harold. At
    Exeter she was on her own ground; the royal revenues within
    the city were hers.[35]

In 1086, we learn:

    The whole payment was eighteen pounds yearly. Of this sum six
    pounds--that is the earl's third penny--went to the Sheriff
    Baldwin.... The other twelve pounds had formed part of the
    morning-gift of the lady, and though Edith had been dead
    eleven years, they are entered separately as hers.[36]

So far, all is consistent and clear enough. But we find it immediately
added that:

    This regular yearly payment of eighteen pounds had taken the
    place of various uncertain payments and services.... Thus the
    citizens of Exeter, who had offered to pay to William what
    they had paid to former kings, found their burthens far
    heavier than they had been in the old time. And the lady,
    while she lived, reaped her full share of the increased
    contributions of her own city.[37]

Or, as expressed in his great work:

    The money payment was now raised from an occasional half-marc
    of silver to eighteen pounds yearly. The rights of the old
    lady were not forgotten, and Eadgyth received two-thirds of
    the increased burthen laid upon her morning-gift.[38]

If the 'twelve pounds had formed part of the morning-gift of the
lady', and were accordingly received by her, as we learn,[39] in
the days of King Edward, how could they possibly form part of a new
'burthen' laid upon Exeter, as a punishment for its resistance, by
William? And if the only payment due, under Edward, was an occasional
half-marc of silver 'for the use of the soldiers'[40] what were 'the
royal revenues' from Exeter that Edith was drawing in 1050? A moment's
thought is enough to show that Mr Freeman's statements contradict
themselves, as, indeed, he must have seen, had he stopped to think.
But this he sometimes failed to do.

The whole source of Mr Freeman's confusion was his inexplicable
misunderstanding of the Domesday entry on the city.[41] We must first
note that both his predecessors--Palgrave, who was lacking in
'critical faculty', and Ellis, who was 'far from being up to the
present standard of historical scholarship'--had read this entry
rightly, and given, independently, its gist. It will best enable my
readers to understand the point at issue if I print side by side the
paraphrases of Exeter's offer given by Palgrave and by our author.

  PALGRAVE                            FREEMAN

  Tribute or gafol they would        We are ready to pay to him the
  proffer to their king such as      tribute which we have been used
  was due to his predecessors....    to pay to former kings.... The
  They (1) would weigh out the       city paid in money only when
  eighteen pounds of silver; (2)     London, York, and Winchester
  the geld would be paid, if         paid, and the sum to be paid was
  London, York, and Winchester       a single half-marc of silver.
  submitted to the tax; and (3)      When the king summoned his _fyrd_
  if war arose, the king should      to his standard by sea or by land,
  have the quota of service          Exeter supplied the same number of
  imposed upon five hydes of         men as were supplied by five hides
  land.... But the citizens          of land.... But the men of Exeter
  refused to become the men ... of   would not, each citizen personally,
  their sovereign; they would        become his men; they would not
  not ... allow the Basileus to      receive so dangerous a visitor
  enter within their walls.          within their walls.[42]

I have numbered the clauses in Palgrave's paraphrase which render the
three successive clauses in the Domesday Book entry. The first refers
to the _firma_ of the town, payable to its lord (the king);[43] the
second to the 'geld' (tax), payable to the king _qua_ king;[44] the
third to its military service.[45] The distinction between the three
clauses is admirably seen under Totnes (i. 108, _b_), and the sense
of Domesday is absolutely certain to any one familiar with its

The 'commutation of geldability' (as Mr Eyton termed it) was by no
means peculiar to Exeter. Totnes paid, 'when Exeter paid', the same
sum of half a marc 'pro geldo'. Bridport paid the same 'ad opus
Huscarlium regis' (75), Dorchester and Wareham a marc each, and
Shaftesbury two marcs (Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, 70-72). In these
Dorset instances, one marc represented an assessment of ten hides.

What Mr Freeman did was to confuse the first clause with the second,
and to suppose that both referred to the 'money payment' of the town,
the first under William, the second under Edward. He thus evolved
the statement that under William 'the money payment was raised from
an occasional half-marc of silver to eighteen pounds yearly'. This
is roughly equivalent to saying of a house rented at fifty pounds,
and paying a tax of one pound, that its 'money payment' was raised
from one pound to fifty.

But this confusion, with all its results, is carried further still.
Edith's share of the eighteen pounds is entered in Domesday as 'xii.
lib[ras] ad numerum'. This Mr Freeman rightly gave as the amount in
1086;[47] but turning back a few pages, we actually read that

    In Domesday twelve houses in Exeter appear as 'liberæ ad
    numerum in ministeriis Edid reginæ'.[48]

This is, of course, the same entry, only that here our author changed
pounds into houses, and _libras_ into _liberæ_. What idea was conveyed
to his mind by a house 'libera ad numerum' I do not profess to
explain. But, oddly enough, as he here turned pounds into houses, so
in a passage of his _William Rufus_ he turned houses into pence.[49]

The essence of the whole matter is that the 'burdens' to which Exeter
was subject were not raised at all, but remained precisely the same
as had been paid to former kings. And this fact is the more notable,
because, as Mr Freeman had to admit, 'even the tribute imposed by
William' [on his own hypothesis] 'was not large for so great a city',
and, one may add, a rich one.[50] Indeed, it was so small as to fairly
call for increase.[51] Even Lincoln, which, according to Mr Freeman,
received 'favourable' treatment from William, had its 'tribute largely
raised'[52] in fact, more than trebled.[53] What we have to account
for, therefore, is the fact that a city which had defied, insulted,
and outraged William, received not only 'a free pardon',[54] but
peculiar favour at his hands.

The paradox itself is beyond dispute, whatever may be said of my

For a solution there is. Only it is not to miracles or legends, nor
to the flatterings of courtly chaplains that we must look to learn the
truth, but, in the words of a memorable essay, to 'the few unerring
notices in Domesday and the chronicles'.[55] As yet we have not, it
must be remembered, heard the story from the English side. Let us
turn, therefore, to the English version, to what Mr Freeman described
as 'the short but weighty account in the Worcester Chronicle, which
gives hints which we should be well pleased to see drawn out at
greater length'.[56] These hints I shall now examine, though I doubt
if Mr Freeman's friends will be well pleased with the result.

We have in the Chronicle a straightforward story, not only
intelligible in itself, but also thoroughly in harmony with the known
facts of the case. The king finds himself compelled to lay formal
siege to Exeter ('besæt þa burh'); he is detained before its walls day
after day ('xviii. dægas') in the depth of an English winter, 'and
þær wearð micel his heres forfaren'. The need for sternness was there
indeed; but swiftness was to him, for the moment, a matter of life
and death. Held at bay by those stubborn walls, learning the might
of those 'two generals'--January and February--in whom the Emperor
Nicholas put his trust, William was in sore straits. Take Mr Freeman's
own words:

    The disaffected were intriguing for foreign help;... there
    was a chance of his having to struggle for his crown against
    Swend of Denmark;... men were everywhere seeking to shake off
    the yoke, or to escape it in their own persons. Even where no
    outbreak took place local conspiracies were rife.[57]

Swend was in his rear, half England on his flank; before him reared
their head the walls of dauntless Exeter.[58] In that bleak wilderness
of frost and snow his men were falling around him, and, in very
bitterness of spirit, the Conqueror bowed himself for need. So, at
least, I boldly suggest. He fell back on his 'arts of policy', and set
himself to win by alluring terms the men whom he could not conquer.
In the words of the Chronicle, he promised them well ('ac he heom well

This solution, of course, differs _toto cælo_ from Mr Freeman's
narrative. We have seen that he blindly accepted the statements of
that 'abandoned flatterer', William of Poitiers (whom Orderic had here
'doubtless followed'[59])--against whom he elsewhere warned us--and
combined them with a miracle from William of Malmesbury, which he
euhemerized in the style that he himself had ridiculed in Thierry.[60]
And as he could not harmonize the courtly version with the 'short but
weighty account' in the Chronicle he cut the knot by dismissing the
latter, and pronouncing his own version 'the most likely'.[61]

Resuming the narrative, we learn that the thegns--the party of
non-resistance from the first--must have seized this opportunity for
impressing on their 'concives' the necessity of embracing the offer,
whereupon the latter, in the words of the Chronicle, 'gave up the town
because the thegns had betrayed them'. It is just possible that the
word 'geswicon' may point to some direct treachery, but it seems best
and most naturally explained as referring to their unpatriotic advice,
which would naturally appear to English eyes a 'betrayal' of the
national cause. There can be little doubt, from the admissions of
William of Poitiers (through the mouth of Orderic), that the terms of
agreement included not only a free pardon for all past offences, and
for the city's aggravated resistance, but also security for person and
property from plunder by the Norman soldiery. And the witness of 'the
great record' implies that 'the Exeter patricians', as Mr Freeman
styled them[62]--'the civic aristocracy'[63]--gained their original
selfish aim, and secured an undertaking that they should not pay a
penny more than their 'tributum ex consuetudine pristina'.

What security, it may be asked, could they obtain for the terms they
seem to have exacted? Bold as it may seem, I would here venture to
read between the lines, and to make the suggestion--it is nothing
more--that when there issued from the gates 'the clergy of the city,
bearing their sacred books and other holy things' (as Mr Freeman
rendered the words of Orderic), the real object of their coming forth
was to make the king swear upon their relics[64] to the observance
of the terms they had obtained. It was indeed the irony of fate if
William, who was ever insisting on the breach of Harold's oath, was
driven, by the force of circumstances, to take such an oath himself.

But, it may be urged, should we be justified in treating thus
drastically the witness of Orderic, or rather, of William of Poitiers?
At Alençon, I reply, in Mr Freeman's words:

    William of Poitiers is silent altogether, both as to the
    vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps
    altogether agreeable to a professed panegyrist (_Norm. Conq._,
    ii. 285).

Stronger, however, is the case of Le Mans, and more directly to the
point. 'William,' we read, 'followed the same policy against Exeter
(1068) which he had followed against Le Mans' (1063);[65] and so, in
1073, we find him 'calling on the men of Le Mans, as he had called on
the men of Exeter', to submit peacefully, and escape his wrath.[66]
Unlike 'the Exeter patricians', indeed, 'the magistrates of Le Mans'
did receive the king peacefully within their walls; they did not incur
the guilt of offering armed resistance. But the essential point at Le
Mans is that

    the Norman version simply tells how they brought the keys of
    the city, how they threw themselves on William's mercy, and
    were graciously received by him. The local writer speaks
    in another tone. The interview between the king and the
    magistrates of Le Mans is described by a word often used to
    express conferences--in a word, _parliaments_--whether between
    prince and prince, or between princes and the estates of their
    dominions. They submitted themselves to William's authority
    as their sovereign, but they received his oath to observe the
    ancient customs and _justices_ of the city. Le Mans was no
    longer to be a sovereign commonwealth, but it was to remain a
    privileged municipality.[67]

The words 'acceptis ab eo sacramentis, tam de impunitate perfidiæ quam
de conservandis antiquis ejusdem civitatis consuetudinibus'[68] would
apply exactly to the case of Exeter, and William may well have done
there what he actually did, we here read, at Le Mans. There would have
been at Exeter even greater need for an oath, in that its 'perfidia'
had been so much the worse.

But now comes the curious parallel. Though quoting and scrutinizing so
closely the meagre accounts of the Exeter campaign, Mr Freeman seems
to have oddly overlooked the significant words of Florence, although,
of course, familiar with his narrative. Florence, we find, employs a
phrase corresponding with that in the _Vetera Analecta_.

  FLORENCE                           'VET AN'

  Cives autem _dextris acceptis_     _Acceptis ab eo sacramentis_
  regi se dedebant.                  ... sese et sua omnia dederunt.

Mr Freeman argues from the case of Le Mans that _dedere_ in these
times did not imply the fulness of a Roman _deditio_.[69] But we
are not merely dependent upon this. The words, 'dextris acceptis', I
contend, imply a promise and a pledge for its performance, and cannot
therefore be reconciled with an unconditional surrender.

Now if it were not for the fortunate preservation of the _Vetera
Analecta_ in the case of Le Mans, Mr Freeman would there also, as at
Exeter, have been hoodwinked by 'the Norman version'.[70] I am anxious
not to employ a phrase which might be deemed offensive or unjust, so
I restrict myself to that which he himself applied to his predecessor,
Palgrave, when, speaking of the story of Eadric and his brother,
he wrote that Sir Francis Palgrave 'swallowed the whole tale'.[71]
Whether my solution be accepted or not, it is, I repeat, conjectural.
I have, at least, shown that there is a mystery to be solved, that Mr
Freeman's version fails to solve it, and that, so far from Domesday
recording the punishment inflicted upon Exeter, it actually heightens
the mystery of the case by proving that Exeter obtained exceptionally
favourable treatment.

It is not merely a question of how Exeter fell. The issue illustrates
the policy and affects the character of William. The lame manner
in which Mr Freeman accounts for his sudden conversion from fury to
lamb-like gentleness is no less unsatisfactory than his treatment of
the 'weighty account' in the Chronicle when he found that this, his
valued authority, rendered the problem difficult. Even at Le Mans more
was needed than merely to print both stories. The fact that we find in
'the Norman version' the truth conveniently glossed over ought to be
insisted on and duly applied. Time after time in Mr Freeman's work we
find him paraphrasing patches of chronicles, under the impression that
he was writing history. The statements of witnesses are laid before
us, neatly pieced together, but they are not subjected to more than
a perfunctory cross-examination. Even if the accurate reproduction of
testimony were all that we sought from the historian, we should not,
so far as Domesday is concerned, obtain it in this instance. But
the case of Exeter is one where something more is needed, where even
accuracy is not sufficient without the possession of that higher gift,
the power of seizing upon the truth when the evidence is misleading
and contradictory. The paraphrasing of evidence is the work of a
reporter; from the historian we have a right to expect the skilled
summing-up of the judge.

    [Footnote 1: Letter from John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter,

    [Footnote 2: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 34.]

    [Footnote 3: It was also the subject of a special paper in his
    'Historic Towns and Districts' (1883) reprinted from _Arch.
    Journ._, xxx. 297, pp. 49 _et seq._, and _Sat. Rev._, xxix.

    [Footnote 4: _Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765.]

    [Footnote 5: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 123. The metaphor of a
    'sea' waiting in an 'island' is sufficiently original to be
    deserving of notice.]

    [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, iv. 140.]

    [Footnote 7: See 'The alleged destruction of Leicester',
    _infra_, p. 347.]

    [Footnote 8: iv. 151. 'It is certain', Mr Freeman had written,
    'that what William had to strive against in the West was a
    league of towns' (_Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765).]

    [Footnote 9: _Cont. Rev._, June 1877, p. 22. See also

    [Footnote 10: 'Hi nimirum socios e plagis finitimis inquiete
    arcessebant ... alias quoque civitates ad conspirandum in
    eadem legationibus instigabant.' _Ord. Vit._, 510 A (quoted in
    _Norman Conquest_, iv. 140).]

    [Footnote 11: Mr Freeman rendered it 'neighbouring shires',
    but I am not at all sure that, taken in conjunction with
    the words just before about the accessibility of Exeter from
    Ireland and Brittany, and those just after, about 'mercatores
    advenas', _plagæ_ does not refer to the shores from which
    these merchants came.]

    [Footnote 12: The boroughs of Dorset were doubtless among
    the towns which had joined in the Civic League. Probably
    they stood sieges and were taken by storm (_Norm. Conq._, iv.

    [Footnote 13: Mr Archer deemed it sufficient reply to all
    these 'trifling blunders' to admit that 'Mr Freeman did
    misread 128 for 100' (_Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 337). I
    invite comparison of the errors I have corrected, and of all
    the edifice built upon them, with this disingenuous attempt to
    represent them as unimportant 'slips' (_ibid._, p. 354).]

    [Footnote 14: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 625.]

    [Footnote 15: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 71.]

    [Footnote 16: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 17: _Norm. Conq._, iv. xiii, and marginal note on p.

    [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, p. 156.]

    [Footnote 19: _Ibid._, i. 289.]

    [Footnote 20: 'Dum murum illius destruere moliretur' (quoted
    from Florence, on i., p. 309).]

    [Footnote 21: Quoted from Florence, on i., p. 315.]

    [Footnote 22: It seems possible, at least, that they might
    describe a direct attack on the foot of the walls.]

    [Footnote 23: I would here compare William's description of
    the Conqueror's 'peaceful progress' to London after his great
    victory, which better evidence, Mr Freeman observed, 'quite
    upsets' (iii. 533).]

    [Footnote 24: _Essays_, 1st series.]

    [Footnote 25: _Exeter_, p. 36.]

    [Footnote 26: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 412.]

    [Footnote 27: _Ibid._, iii. 536-7.]

    [Footnote 28: 'Supplicia pro reatu nimis metuebant.']

    [Footnote 29: 'Militibus crudeliter et contumeliose illuserant
    quos ipse de Normannia miserat et tempestas ad portum illorum

    [Footnote 30: So too we read of Torkesey, a little later on,
    that it suffered so 'severely as to suggest the idea that
    William met with some serious resistance at this point'
    (_Ibid._, iv. 217); while speaking of the 'Fall of Chester',
    Mr Freeman wrote: 'We know that the resistance which William
    met with in this his last conquest was enough to lead him to
    apply the same stern remedy which he had applied north of the
    Humber. A fearful harrying fell on city and shire, and on the
    lands round about' (_Ibid._, iv. 314-5).]

    [Footnote 31: 'The Conqueror, faithful to his fearful
    oath, now gave the first of that long list of instances of
    indifference to human suffering', etc. (_Ibid._, ii. 285).]

    [Footnote 32: 'At Ely, as at Alençon, the Conqueror felt no
    scruple against inflicting punishments which to our notions
    might seem more frightful than death itself' (_Ibid._, iv.

    [Footnote 33: _Ibid._, iv. 160.]

    [Footnote 34: _English Towns and Districts_.]

    [Footnote 35: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 32.]

    [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, pp. 43-4.]

    [Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 44.]

    [Footnote 38: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

    [Footnote 39: _Exeter_, p. 32.]

    [Footnote 40: _Exeter_, p. 44; _Norm. Conq._, iv. 147.]

    [Footnote 41: This grave confusion, with all that it involves,
    was one of the 'trifling slips', as Mr Archer terms them
    (_Cont. Rev._, p. 354), exposed in my original article
    (_Q.R._, July 1892). Such a description is either dishonest,
    or must imply that Mr Archer, who boasts that he has 'a
    sterner criterion' than myself (_English Historical Review_,
    ix. 606), deems such errors of no consequence.]

    [Footnote 42: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146-7.]

    [Footnote 43: 'Hec reddit xviii. lib. per annum' (100).]

    [Footnote 44: 'Hæc civitas T.R.E. non geldabat nisi quando
    Londonia et Eboracum et Wintonia geldabant, et hoc erat
    dimidia marka Argenti ad opus militum' (100).]

    [Footnote 45: 'Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare,
    serviebat hæc civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ' (100).]

    [Footnote 46: The practice in the Survey of Devon was to state
    the render in 1086, and, if it had been different formerly,
    to add a note to that effect. Thus we read on 100_b_: 'Reddit
    xlviii. lib. ad pensam. Ante Balduinum reddebat xxiii. lib.'
    So, too, of Totnes: 'Inter omnes redd' viii. lib. ad numerum.
    Olim reddebant iii. lib. ad pensam et arsuram' (108_b_).]

    [Footnote 47: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

    [Footnote 48: _Ibid._, 139.]

    [Footnote 49: Reading 'Eudo Dapifer [tenet] v. denarios',
    where Domesday (ii. 106) has, of course, 'v. d[omus]'.]

    [Footnote 50: Mr Freeman held that Domesday hinted it might be
    classed with London, York, and Winchester (_Norm. Conq._,
    iv. 147; _Exeter_, 45), and quotes William of Malmesbury's
    description of its wealth and importance. Even in earlier
    days, he wrote, 'both the commercial and the military
    importance of the city were of the first rank' (i. 308).]

    [Footnote 51: The _firma_ of Gloucester had been raised to
    £60, and that of Chester to over £70, while at Wallingford,
    where the king had about as many houses as at Exeter, it was

    [Footnote 52: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 213.]

    [Footnote 53: 'T.R.E. reddebat civitas Lincolia regi xx.
    libras et comiti x. libras. Modo reddit c. libras ad numerum
    inter regem et comitem' (D.B., i. 336_b_).]

    [Footnote 54: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 160.]

    [Footnote 55: Mr Freeman's 'Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers'
    (_Cont. Rev._, June 1887, p. 33).]

    [Footnote 56: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

    [Footnote 57: _Ibid._, iv. pp. 103, 118. So too _ibid._, p.
    126: 'There was the imminent fear of an invasion from Denmark,
    and the threatening aspect of the still independent west and
    north. William had need of all his arts of war and policy to
    triumph over the combination of so many enemies at once.']

    [Footnote 58: 'Cives eam tenebant furiosi, copiosæ
    multitudinis, infestissimi mortalibus Gallici generis.'--_Ord.

    [Footnote 59: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146.]

    [Footnote 60: It is curious to see how Thierry waters down the
    miracle: 'Son cheval, glissant sur le pavé, s'abattit et le
    froissa dans sa chute.' Of course this is likely enough to
    have been the kernel of truth in the legend, but no man has a
    right to tell the tale in this shape as if it were undoubted
    fact.--_Norm. Conq._, iv. 291.]

    [Footnote 61: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151-2.]

    [Footnote 62: _Ibid._, 146.]

    [Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 147.]

    [Footnote 64: Cf. the familiar phrase, 'Tactis sacris
    evangeliis', with Orderic's words here, 'sacros libros'.]

    [Footnote 65: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

    [Footnote 66: _Ibid._, 559.]

    [Footnote 67: _Ibid._, 560.]

    [Footnote 68: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 69: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 560.]

    [Footnote 70: 'Edicta regalia suis opportune intimavit, et
    urbanis imperiose mandavit, ut prudenter sibi consulerent'
    (_Ord Vit._, ii. 255).]

    [Footnote 71: _Ibid._, i. 662.]


This question was raised and discussed by Mr Freeman in his _History
of the Norman Conquest_ (iv. 196-7). We there read as follows:

    Is it possible that in the case of Leicester, at least, no
    power was left either to follow or to resist? While we have no
    evidence either way on which we can rely with confidence, one
    of those secondary and local records, which sometimes contain
    fragments of authentic tradition, suggests, in a perfectly
    casual way, that a doom fell upon Leicester, which might,
    doubtless, with some exaggeration, be spoken of as utter
    destruction. And this incidental hint may perhaps draw
    some indirect confirmation from the highest evidence of
    all [Domesday] ... and it may be that Leicester earned its
    overthrow by a defence worthy of a borough which was to give
    its name to the greatest of England's later worthies.

The 'record' referred to is quoted in a footnote, and is a history
of the foundation of Leicester Abbey, one of a class of narratives
notoriously inaccurate and corrupt:

    Robertus Comes Mellenti, veniens in Angliam cum Willelmo Duce
    Normanniæ, adeptus consulatum Leycestriæ, ex dono dicti Ducis
    et Conquestoris Angliæ, _destructa prius civitate Leicestriæ_
    cum castello et ecclesia infra castellum tempore prædicti
    Conquestoris, reædificavit ipsam æcclesiam Sancta Mariæ infra

Now, it strikes one in the first place as somewhat unlikely that
William, on his arrival at Leicester, should find a castle to destroy.
But, further, how could Robert have obtained the 'consulatus' of
Leicester from the Conqueror, when he is well known to have first
obtained it (under very peculiar circumstances) from Henry I? If this
known event has been so glaringly ante-dated, may not the alleged
'destruction' be so likewise? These it may be said are only
doubts. But, as it happens, we can not only discredit the suggested
'destruction' in the days of the Conqueror: we can actually fix its
date as the reign of Henry I.

We learn from Orderic that the town of Leicester ('urbs Legrecestria')
was divided into four quarters, of which Ivo de Grantmesnil possessed
two, one in his own right, and one (which was the King's share) as the
King's reeve and representative. We also learn that he was among the
'seditiosi proceres', who rebelled against Henry in 1101, and that of
these, 'aliqui contra fideles vicinos guerram arripuerunt et gremium
almæ telluris rapacitatibus et incendiis, cruentisque cædibus
maculaverunt'. Ivo is again mentioned by Orderic in 1102, not only
among the 'proditores' of the previous year, who were now called to
account, but also as a special ringleader in that internecine conflict
to which he had already referred. He tells us that Henry

    Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in Anglia c[oe]perat et vicinorum
    rura suorum incendia combusserat (quod in illa regione crimen
    est inusitatum nec sine grave ultione fit expiatum), rigidus
    censor accusatum nec purgatum ingentis pecuniæ redditione
    oneravit, et plurimo angore tribulatum mæstificavit.

In short, as Dr Stubbs reminds us, Ivo 'has the evil reputation of
being the first to introduce the horrors of private warfare into
England'. Bearing in mind the divided authority from which Leicester
suffered, and the statement that Ivo, ruling half the town, plundered
and made fierce war upon his neighbours, we arrive at the conclusion
that the 'destruction', which, in the _Monasticon_ narrative, precedes
the accession of the Count of Meulan to the _comitatus_ of Leicester,
may be assigned, without a shadow of doubt, to the struggle of 1101.

On Ivo's disgrace, as is well known, the wily Count stepped at once
into his shoes, 'et auxilio regis suâque calliditate totam sibi
civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus'. There is no
reason to doubt the statement that St Mary 'de Castro' was rebuilt
and refounded by Count Robert after his obtaining this position at

It is singular that just as the _Monasticon_ seems to have misled Mr
Freeman at Leicester, so it is responsible for Thierry's 'story of the
fighting monks of Oxford', at about the same time, a story of which Mr
Freeman wrote that 'the whole story is a dream', and 'would not have
been allowable even in an historical novel' (iv. 779-80).


The elaborate record of this trial is only found, I believe, in the
Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2, 1 (fos. 210_b_-213_b_) from
which it has been printed by Mr Hamilton in his _Inquisitio Comitatus
Cantabrigiensis_ (pp. 192-5). This 'placitum', therefore, would seem
to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876).

The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years.
It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was
held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions
'Rodulfus comes', it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls
in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William
Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later,
therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070.
Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ('post obitum
illius'). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070;
and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time
afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this 'placitum' did not
take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn
of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years
1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076--the date
given in the _Liber Eliensis_, and accepted by Mr Freeman--it follows
that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place
under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmentioned by the chroniclers,
and unsuspected by Mr Freeman, who held that he found no favour in
William's eyes.

The great length of this document--so important for its bearing on
Domesday--precludes its discussion in detail. But its opening clause
must be given and some of its features pointed out.

    Ad illud placitum quo pontifices Gosfridus et Remigius, consul
    vero Waltheuus, necnon vicecom[ites] Picotus atque Ilbertus
    jussu Willelmi Dei dispositione Anglor[um] regis, cum omni
    vicecomitatu sicut rex preceperat, convenerunt, testimonio
    hominum rei veritatem cognoscentium determinaverunt terras que
    injuste fuerant ablate ab ecclesia sancte Dei genitricis
    Marie de insulâ ely ... quatinus de dominio fuerant,
    tempore videlicet regis Ædwardi, ad dominium sine alicujus
    contradictione redirent quicunque eas possideret.

The mention of Count Eustace among those withholding lands proves
that at the date of this document he was already restored to his
possessions. Another individual whose name occurs several times in
this document is Lisois ('De Monasteriis'), the hero of the passage of
the Aire. Collating its evidence with that of Domesday, we find that
Lisois had been succeeded, at the date of the great record, by
the well-known Eudo Dapifer in a fief, ranging over at least five
counties--Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and
Essex--in all of which Domesday records his name as the predecessor of
Eudo. This is of the more interest because Mr Freeman wrote:

    The only notice of this Lisois which I can find in Domesday
    is in ii. 49_b_, where he appears in possession, but seemingly
    illegal possession, of a small holding in Essex.

So again we have in our document this passage relating to Stigand:

    He sunt proprie ville monasterii insule Ely quos Stigandus
    archipresul tenebat, unde per annum victum fratribus reddidit
    tantum quantum pertinet ad hoc. Has vero tenet rex noster W.
    post obitum illius, Methelwald et Crokestune et Snegelwelle et

Now Stigand, according to the _Liber Eliensis_ 'quasdam illius optimas
possessiones sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium
retinuit'. Our document identifies these 'possessiones' with Methwold
and Croxton in Norfolk, Snailwell and Ditton in Cambridgeshire, and
thus disposes of Mr Freeman's very unfortunate suggestion--advanced,
of course, to justify Stigand--that the _Liber Eliensis_ here referred
to a tiny Hampshire estate, which the Abbey had held under Stigand

In my paper on Domesday I have pointed out the importance of this
document in its bearing on socmen and their services, while we saw
in investigating knight service that its language affords, in this
matter, a valuable gloss on that of Domesday. Close examination of its
details shows that the aggressions on the Abbey's property which it
records, were, in spite of the verdict on this occasion, persisted in,
if not increased. Those, for instance, of Hardwin may be recognized in
the duplicate entries in Domesday Book, representing the conflicting
claims.[2] On persons as on lands we have some fresh information.
Ilbert the Sheriff was, I believe, identical with that 'Ilbert de
Hertford', who is alluded to in Domesday (i. 200), and would thus be
a pre-Domesday Sheriff of Herts.[3] The entry, 'tenet Rotbertus
homo Bainardi in Reoden de soca', when compared with the holding of
'Rienduna' by Ralf 'Baignardi' in Domesday (ii. 414), suggests that
we have in Bainard the father (hitherto unknown) of this Domesday
tenant-in-chief. Bainard would thus be a Christian name, as was also
Mainard, which occurs in this same document.

    [Footnote 1: D.B., i. 40_b_.]

    [Footnote 2: See p. 32 _supra_.]

    [Footnote 3: Domesday (i. 200_b_) styles him, 'Ilbertus de
    Hertford', and connects him with 'Risedene', a Hertfordshire
    Manor. On the other hand, the I.C.C. makes him 'Ilbertus de
    Hereforda' (p. 56), and 'Ilbertus vicecomes' is actually found
    in Herefordshire (D.B., i. 179_b_). But what could he be doing
    in Cambridgeshire?]


In the _History of the Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.) we read of Eustace
of Boulogne:

    An incidental notice of one of his followers throws some light
    on the class of men who flocked to William's banners, and on
    the rewards which they received. One Geoffrey, an officer of
    the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint Omer, who had the charge of
    its possessions in the County of Guines, sent his sons, Arnold
    and Geoffrey, to the war ... and in the end they received
    a grant of lands both in Essex and in the border shires of
    Mercia and East-Anglia, under the superiority of their patron
    Count Eustace (iii. 314).

In an Appendix on 'Arnold of Ardres', which Mr Freeman devoted to this
subject (iii. 725-6), he gave the 'Historia Comitum Ardensium' (of
Lambert of Ardres) for his authority, and he verified, by Domesday,
the Manors which Lambert assigns to 'these adventurers', holding
that a Bedfordshire estate was omitted, while 'Stebintonia', which he
identified with Stibbington, Hunts, was wrongly included, as it was
'held of Count Eustace by Lunen'.

The first point to be noticed here is that 'these adventurers' were
the sons (as Lambert explains) not of any 'Geoffrey', a mere Abbey
officer, but of a local magnate, Arnold, Lord of Ardres. The next is
that Lambert was quite correct in his list of Manors.

In the fourth series of his historical essays Mr Freeman included a
paper on 'The Lords of Ardres', for which he availed himself of Dr
Heller's edition of Lambert in the _Monumenta_ (vol. xxiv). In this
edition the passage runs:

    Feodum Stevintoniam et pertinencias eius, Dokeswordiam,
    Tropintoniam, Leilefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam (cap.
    113, p. 615).

Dr Heller, on this, notes:

    Secundum 'Domesday Book' recepit Ernulfus de Arda Dochesworde,
    Trupintone (com. Cantabrig.) et Stiventone (comit. Bedford)
    a comite Eustacio ... e contra Toheshunt [_sic_] Hoiland,
    Leleford recepit ab eodem comite Adelolfus de Merc (prope

This note enabled Mr Freeman to identify 'Adelolfus' (which he had
failed to do in the _Norman Conquest_), though he must have overlooked
the identification of 'Stevintonia' (namely Stevington, Beds.), for we
find him still writing:

    But of the English possessions reckoned up by our author two
    only ... can be identified in Domesday as held by Arnold ...
    The local writer seems to have mixed up the possessions of
    Arnold with those of a less famous adventurer from the same
    reign, Adelolf--our Athelwulf--of Merck (pp. 184-5).

And he again insisted that 'Arnold had other lands in Bedfordshire'.

We will now turn to an entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ from the
'milites tenentes de honore Bononie':

    Comes de Gines tenet xii. milites, scilicet--in
    Bedefordescire, in _Stiveton_ et Parva Wahull III milites,
    in Cantabr' in _Dukesword_, et _Trumpeton_ III milites ... in
    Essex, _Tholehunt_ et Galdhangr' III milites, in _Hoyland'_ et
    _Lalesford_ ibidem III milites.

Here we have all the Manors mentioned by Lambert (with their
appurtenances) assigned to the Count of Guines, the heir of Arnold
of Ardres; and we can thus believe the _Testa_ entry (p. 272) of
Tolleshunt and Holland, 'quas idem comes et antecessores sui tenuerunt
de conquestu Angliæ'. But the _Testa_ does more than this; it informs
us that Holland and Lawford were held of the Count by 'Henry de Merk'.
Now, 'Adelolf' de Merk is found in Domesday holding many Manors direct
from Eustace of Boulogne, and these Manors are divided in the _Testa_
between his descendants Simon and Henry de Merk.[1] It is, therefore,
possible that he held the three Essex Manors in 1086, not directly
from Count Eustace, but, like his descendant, from their under-tenant
(Arnold). This raises, of course, an important question as to

It is interesting to observe that the village of Marck in the Pas de
Calais has, through Adelolf and his heirs, transferred its name to the
Essex parish of Mark's Tey, though not to that of Marks Hall (so named
in Domesday).

While on the subject of the Lords of Ardres, it may be convenient
to give the reference to a letter of mine to the _Academy_ (May 28,
1892), explaining that Lambert's 'Albericus Aper', who puzzled Dr
Heller and Mr Freeman, was our own Aubrey de Vere, first Earl of
Oxford, and that Lambert's statement (accepted by Mr Freeman) as to
the parentage of Emma, wife of Count Manasses, had been disproved by

    [Footnote 1: An interesting charter belonging to the close of
    Stephen's reign shows us Queen Matilda compensating Henry 'de
    Merch' for his land at Donyland (one of these Manors)--which
    she was giving to St John's, Colchester--'de redditibus
    transmarinis ad suam voluntatem'. Another and earlier charter
    from her father and mother (printed by Mr E. J. L. Scott in
    the _Athenæum_ of December 2, 1893) has Fulco de merc and M.
    de merc among the witnesses.]

    [Footnote 2: The non-appearance of Arnold's brother,
    'Geoffrey', in Domesday which has been deemed a difficulty,
    is accounted for by Lambert's statement that he made over his
    English possessions to Arnold.]


The eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
speaks of the records of the city of Chester as 'beginning with Henry
the Second's writ of licence to the citizens of Chester to trade in
Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry the First'
(p. xv). The records themselves are similarly described in the actual
report on them (pp. 355-403) as 'beginning with a curious writ,
addressed by Henry the Second to his bailiffs of the city of Durham'
[_sic_]. This, which is among those items spoken of as 'especially
interesting and important', figures thus as the head of the calendar:

    (1) Henry II. Licence to the burgesses of Chester to buy and
    sell at Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of
    Henry I--'Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie
    et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie balluis [_sic_] de Dunelina
    [_sic_] salutem:--Precipio quod Burgenses Cestrie possint
    emere et vendere ad detaillum [_or_ doraillum] apud Dunelinam
    [_sic_] habendo et faciendo easdem consuetudines quas
    faciebant tempore Regis Henrici avi mei et easdem ibi habeant
    rectitudines et libertates et liberas consuetudines quas
    tempore illo habere solebant, teste, Willelmo filio Ald'
    dapifero Apud Wintoniam.

Durham is not only a most improbable place for such a writ to refer
to, but is also an impossible rendering of the Latin name. The
interest and importance of this 'curious writ' has, in short, been
obscured and lost through the ignorance of Mr J. C. Jeaffreson, to
whom the report was entrusted. The charters which follow the writ, and
which are printed on the same page, refer to this writ as relating to
Ireland; and the town, of course, to which it refers is not Durham but
Dublin (_Duuelina_).

We have, therefore, in this writ an almost, if not quite, unique
reference by Henry II to Dublin in the days of his grandfather, and a
confirmation of the 'libertates', etc., which the men of Chester had
then enjoyed there, just as if his grandfather had been in his own
position. Secondly, we have here record evidence, not merely of a
recognized connection, but of what might be termed treaty relations
between the traders of Chester and the Ostmen of Dublin, long previous
to the Conquest of Ireland, thus confirming Mr Green's observation,
'the port of Chester depended on the trade with Ireland, which
had sprung up since the settlement of the Northmen along the Irish
Coasts'.[2] And this has, of course, a bearing on the question of 'a
Danish settlement' at Chester. Thirdly, we learn from this document
that at the date of its issue Dublin was governed by bailiffs of the
King (_ballivi sui_).

What, then, was its date? The clue, unfortunately, is slight; but it
may not improbably belong to the close of 1175 or early part of
1176. This brings us to the interesting question, why was such a
writ issued? Remembering that during his stay at Dublin (November
1171-January 1172) Henry II had granted that city to his men of
Bristol, we may hold it in accordance with the spirit of the time,
and, indeed, a matter of virtual certainty, that Bristol would have
striven on the strength of this grant to exclude 'its rival port'
(_Conquest of England_, p. 443) from the benefits of the Dublin trade.
Chester would, therefore, appeal to the King on the strength of its
antecedent rights, and would thus have obtained from him this writ,
recognizing and confirming their validity.

The Domesday customs of the city (i. 262_b_) contain a curious
allusion to its Irish trade:

    Si habentibus martrinas pelles juberet prepositus regis ut
    nulli venderet donec sibi prius ostensas compararet, qui hoc
    non observabat xl. solidis emendabat ... Hæc civitas tunc
    reddebat de firma xlv. lib et iii. timbres pellium martrinium.

There is nothing to show where these marten skins came from, or why
they are mentioned under Chester alone. But on turning to the customs
of Rouen, as recorded in the charters of Duke Henry (1150-1) and King
John (1199), we find they were imported from Ireland.

    Quæcunque navis de Hibernia venerit, ex quo caput de Gernes
    [Guernsey] transierit, Rothomagum veniat, unde ego habeam
    de unaquâque nave unum tymbrium de martris aut decem libras
    Rothomagi, si ejusdem navis mercatores jurare poterint se ideo
    non mercatos fuisse illas martras ut auferrent consuetudinem
    ducis Normanniæ, et vicecomes Rothomagi de unaquaque habeat
    viginti solidos Rothomagi et Camerarius Tancarvillæ unam
    accipitrem aut sexdecim solidos Rothomagi.

Giraldus Cambrensis, it may be remembered, alludes to the abundance of
martens in Ireland,[3] and describes how they were captured. We thus
have evidence in Domesday of the Irish trade with Chester, even in the
days of Edward the Confessor.

    [Footnote 1: The error as to the Chester writ was explained by
    me in a letter to the _Academy_ (No. 734).]

    [Footnote 2: _Conquest of England_, p. 440.]

    [Footnote 3: 'Martrinarum copia abundant hic silvestria'
    (_Top. Hib._, i. 24).]


In his detailed examination of all the evidence bearing on the death
of William Rufus, the late Mr Freeman carefully collected the few
facts that are known relative to Walter Tirel. They are, however, so
few that he could add nothing to what Lappenberg had set forth (ii.
207) in 1834. He was, however, less confident than his predecessor as
to the identity of Walter Tirel with the Essex tenant of that name in
Domesday. I hope now to establish the facts beyond dispute, to restore
the identity of Walter Tirel, and also to show for the first time who
his wife really was.

The three passages we have first to consider are these, taking them in
the same order as Mr Freeman:

    Adelidam filiam Ricardi de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum
    conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, strenuissimum militem,
    marito suo peperit (_Ord. Vit._).

    Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro
    ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (_Domesday_, ii. 41).

    Adeliz uxor Walteri Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis
    argenti de eisdem placitis de La Wingeham (_Rot. Pip._, 31
    Hen. I).

Dealing first with the Domesday entry, which comes, as Mr Freeman
observed, 'among the estates of Richard of Clare', I would point out
that though Ellis (who misled Mr Freeman) thought that 'Tirelde' was
the name, the right reading is 'tenet Walterus Tirel de R[icardo]',
two words (as is not unusual) being written as one. Turning next to
the words of Orderic, we find that Lappenberg renders them 'Adelaide,
Tochter des Richard Giffard', and Mr Freeman as 'a wife Adelaide
by name, of the great line of Giffard'. But there is no trace of a
Richard Giffard, nor can 'Adelida' herself be identified among the
Giffards. The explanation of the mystery, I hold, is that she was the
daughter, not of a Giffard, but of Richard _de Clare_, by his wife
Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard the elder. It is noteworthy that
Orderic employs a precisely similar expression in the case of another
Adeliza, the daughter of Robert de Grentmesnil. He terms her 'soror
Hugonis de Grentemaisnil de clara stirpe Geroianorum', though she was
only descended from the famous Geroy through her mother. Richard's
daughter was sufficiently described as 'Adelida filia Ricardi', just
as her brothers were known as 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi', 'Rogerus
filius Ricardi', etc. The position of that mighty family was such that
this description was enough, and they were even known collectively as
the 'Ricardi', or 'Richardenses' (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 609). This is well
illustrated by the passage in the Ely writer, describing Adeliza's
brother Richard, Abbot of Ely, as

    parentum undique grege vallatus, quorum familiam ex Ricardis
    et Gifardis constare tota Anglia et novit et sensit. Ricardi
    enim et Gifardi, duæ scilicet ex propinquo venientes familiæ,
    virtutis fama et generis copia illustres effecerat.

The above forms are curious, but not without parallel. Thus the
descendants of Urse d'Abetot are spoken of as 'Ursini' in Heming's
Cartulary. Æthelred of Rievaulx speaks of 'Poncii' and 'Morini' as
present at the battle of the Standard; Gerald, in a well-known passage
(v. 335), speaks of the 'Giraldidæ' and 'Stephanidæ', and Orderic, we
have seen, of the 'Geroiani'.

The doubly influential character of this descent is well illustrated
in this passage (_quantum valeat_) from the chronicle of St John's
Abbey, Colchester.

    Parcebatur tamen Eudoni, propter genus uxoris ipsius Rohaisæ:
    erat enim hæc de genere nobilissimo Normannorum, filia
    scilicet Ricardi, qui fuit filius Gilbert Comitis, duxitque
    Rohaisam uxorem, quæ erat soror Willelmi Giffardi, Episcopi
    Wintoniæ. Itaque, cum fratres et propinqui junioris Rohaisæ
    quoslibet motus machinaturi putarentur, si contra maritum
    ipsius aliquid durius decerneretur, sic factum est ut
    interventu predicti Episcopi, etc., etc.

This passage is, I believe, the sole evidence for the real parentage
of Bishop William. It was clearly unknown to Canon Venables, who wrote
the Bishop's life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

Like most of these 'foundation' histories, this document is in part
untrustworthy. But it is Dugdale who has misread it, and not the
document itself that is responsible for the grave error (_Baronage_,
i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl
of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a
Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from
referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law,
Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in
its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that
'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos
nupta est' (iv. 609).

In asserting under 'Clare' (_Baronage_, i. 208) that Eudo married the
widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and
more inaccurate document (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269) which actually does
speak of

    Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]--duas plures
    enim habuit--conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti,
    qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis
    magnates præcessit--

as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide
in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter
and namesake.

We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who
had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham'
was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an
important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130
(_Rot. Pip._, Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given
her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under
Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster
a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not
yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase
de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is
extant,[1] and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that
it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover
in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of
a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion,
which runs as follows:

    Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal.
    Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam
    Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de
    Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem
    concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet.

Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare
that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course,
equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This
mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade
of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the
above Gervase, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, was no
other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham
duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.[2] The chain of
evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their
Manor placed beyond question.

But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it
raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces
us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de
Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed,
were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another
brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I,
who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William
Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.[3]
Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant
attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a
Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points
to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at
least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives.

I have explained in my article on the Clares in the _Dictionary of
National Biography_ that there has been much confusion as to the
family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps
be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append
a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will
distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his
forefathers and his descendants'.

Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court
in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging
to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi
et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the
attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus]
filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus]
frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'[4]

Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard
'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different
family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard
an Earl of Devon.

Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors--which,
originating in the _Monasticon_, is embalmed in Dugdale's
_Baronage_--as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the
Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her _Battle Abbey
Roll_ (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming'
the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is
shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's _Exeter_ (1887) and by the
life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_,
by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of
Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his
father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles.

I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in
my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an
earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon.

Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another
daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match.
This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece
and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems
to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter.
The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of
Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and
her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their
mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 512-13). She can
only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de
Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet
another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who
brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard.

[Illustration: Family tree]

                                    Count Gilbert,
                                    of Brionne.
                                    Benefactor to Bec.
                                    Murdered 1040
                --------------------------------------------(connect to
                |                                 Richard de Bienfaite)
  Albreda=(1) Baldwin     (2)  Emma
  de Meules,               =
  _alias_ de Clare,   |
  _alias_ Baldwin of  |
  Exeter, _alias_     |
  Baldwin the              |
  Sheriff [of Devon].      |
  Benefactor to Bec        |
                           |                                   (connect
                           |                                   to Roger,
                           |                           'filius Ricardi')
 -------------------------------------------                   -----
 |                                         |                   |
 William,[1]        Robert,[2]         Richard,           Gilbert,
 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini',
 Sheriff of Devon,  held Brionne       Sheriff of         _alias_ Gilbert
 1090 (see p. 256). against Robert     Devon, 1129.       de Tunbridge,
 Benefactor to Bec  of Normandy        Died 1136.[3]      mar. Adeliza
                    in 1090.           Benefactor to Bec  de Clermont
                    Benefactor to Bec                      (see p. 394)
                        |                  |                  to Baldwin,
                        |                  |           'filius Gilberti')
                        |                  |                  |
                   Richard,           Gilbert,           Walter,[7]
                   'filius Gilberti,' 'filius Gilberti', 'filius Gilberti,'
                   d. 1136[3]         Earl of Pembroke.  of Maldon.
                       |              Protector of       Went on crusade
                       V              St Neot's[5]       _circ._ 1147
                   a quo the             |
                   Earls of              V
  (connect to
  Count Gilbert
  of Brionne)
  Richard                                         =  Rohese, dau. of
  de Bienfaite,                                      Walter Giffard.
  _alias_ 'filius                                    Benefactress of
  Gilberti', _alias_                                 St Neot's Priory
  'filius Comitis                                 |
  Gilberti', _alias_                              |
  'de Tunbridge',                                 |
  _alias_ 'de Clare'.                             |
  Founder of St                                   |
  Neot's Priory                                   |
  (cell to Bec)                                   |
  (connect to                                     |(connect
  Gilbert,                                        |to Robert
  'filius Baldwini')                              |'filius
  ------------------------------------------------ Ricardi')
    |                   |                  |
  Roger,             Walter,            Richard,
  'filius Ricardi',  'filius Ricardi',  'filius Ricardi',
  living 1130        ob. s. p.          Monk of Bec,
  ob. s. p.          Founder of         Abbot of Ely 1100.
  Benefactor to      Tintern Abbey,     Died 1107
  Bec[4]             1131,
                     living 1136[5]

  to Walter,'
  'filius Gilberti')
     |                     |               |
  Baldwin,              Adelidis        Rohese,[8]
  'filius Gilberti',    'de Tunbridge'  mar. Baderon
  _alias_ Baldwin       mar. William    de Monmouth
  de Clare.             de Percy
  Founder of Deeping       |
  Priory (Benedictine)     |
  and Bourne Priory        V

  to Richard
  'filius Ricardi')
    |                   |                   |
  Robert,             Rohese,            Adeliza          = Walter
  'filius Ricardi',   'filia Ricardi',   'filia Ricardi', | Tirel,
  d. (after Easter)   mar. Eudo Dapifer  died at          | Lord of Poix,
  1136.               _circ._ 1088       Conflans, an     | under-tenant
  Bur. at St Neot's,  He died 1120.      offshoot of Bec, | of his
  (? Dapifer Regis)   She died 1121,     _circ._ 1138     | father-in-law,
    |                 and was buried                      | 1086
    |                 at Bec                              |
    |                                                     |
    |                               |              Hugh
  Walter              Maude         = William     Tirel,
  'filius "Roberti',  'de Senliz'.  | de Albini   Lord of Poix,
  'Dapifer Regis[6]   Benefactress  | 'Brito'     Benefactor to Bec.
  (see p. 360)        to St Neot's  V              Went on crusade 1147

    [Footnotes from Family Tree:

    [Footnote 1: 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum,
    Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a
    monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum,
    Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (_Mon.
    Ang._, v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed
    _aliunde_. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.]

    [Footnote 2: 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex
    W.] et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (_Ord. Vit._)]

    [Footnote 3: 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus
    Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi,
    patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus'
    (_Robert of Torigni_).]

    [Footnote 4: 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et

    [Footnote 5: 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione
    mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab
    antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).]

    [Footnote 6: Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of
    Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as
    'Clarreaus'--a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.]

    [Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._ iv. 597. _Formul Ang._ p. 40.]

    [Footnote 8: _Mon. Ang._, iv. 597.]]

[_To face page_ 359.]

We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house,
Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his
daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected
that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac
(1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a
well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts
that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de
Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however,
on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale
actually relied on a charter,[5] which includes Baldwin among the
Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets
(_Baronage_, i. 207_b_). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving
Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin
_de Clare_, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the
battle of Lincoln.[6]

Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also
to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son
'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire'
(_Baronage_, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a
monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.[7]
The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of
Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of
Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord
of Daventry.

But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud
'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years
old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died
in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in _anno_ 1140'
(_ibid._)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was
the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare.
The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St
Neot's.[8] We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo.
79_b_, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (_al._ "Senliz") filia
Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one
(fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband:

    Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et
    concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti
    et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et
    antecessorum meorum.

Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio
filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius
Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz
mater mea eis prius concesserat'--her said grant of land in Cratfield
duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'.
Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this
grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield
belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in
Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given
to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in
maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what
her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is
found in this entry (1185):

    Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et
    mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et
    est lx. annorum (_Rot. de Dominabus_, p. 1).

We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William
Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may
seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of
William de Albini, who sent in his _carta_ (under Leicestershire) in
1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167.
She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the
Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman
wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of
ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux,
and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu
and of Achères by the Seine' (_W. Rufus_, II, 322, 673).[9] But the
mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman
put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with
Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way
identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and
shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to
be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with
Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of
his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with
the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the
third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087,
and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de
Poix,[10] and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he
who was father of Hugh the Crusader.[11]

Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been
known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon
in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',[12] which appears to have eluded Mr
Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions
of the death of William Rufus:

    Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a
    Waltero _de Bekam_, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege
    in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem
    divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte
    recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus,
    etc., etc.

The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is,
even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain
the 'Bekam'.[13]

If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work
on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy,
'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather
than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's
somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of
original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph
on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts
the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more
critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis
de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their
present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment
of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes
'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not,
we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is
this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline'
and son Hugh to the grant?

Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they
solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg,
imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to
diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter
Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the
'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in
the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader
of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose
evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the
son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son,
we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot
be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter
Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de
Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or
1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.

But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which
proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the
archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of
Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham'
to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had
taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of
Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read
of the charter's date:

    Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab
    incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.

Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession
of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell
us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that
year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having
survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until,
therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we
must reject it _in toto_.

I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by
which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark
his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he
empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox,
the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:

    Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell'
    licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi
    sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias
    quos poterit ibi includere.[18]

Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries
ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts'
are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.

    [Footnote 1: Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It
    is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam
    Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de
    lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a
    mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons
    on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of
    coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in
    _Arch. Journ._, ii. 46).]

    [Footnote 2: Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.]

    [Footnote 3: A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims
    for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he,
    like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see
    p. 355 _supra_).]

    [Footnote 4: See also _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 329.]

    [Footnote 5: Old _Monasticon_, i. 245_b_; and _vide infra_, p.
    393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of
    Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the
    Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost
    illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac.
    This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of

    [Footnote 6: See also _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, and my _Geoffrey
    de Mandeville_.]

    [Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._, v. 178.]

    [Footnote 8: Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.]

    [Footnote 9: Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by
    'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires
    de Poix Vicomtes d'_Equesnes_' it is probable that the latter
    was meant.]

    [Footnote 10: His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of
    Amiens, who died in 1116.]

    [Footnote 11: The essential reference occurs in the charter of
    1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon
    filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives
    depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo.
    91). These were the first and second known bearers of the
    name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix
    was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of
    considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral
    is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de

    [Footnote 12: _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin_
    (_Documents Inédits_), pp. 267-8.]

    [Footnote 13: I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin
    (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification
    'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum
    omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that
    they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram
    militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for
    'Belram' [Beaurain]?]

    [Footnote 14: _Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la
    Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix_, etc., etc.
    (2nd Ed.) 1869.]

    [Footnote 15: Vol. vii., pp. 820 _et seq._]

    [Footnote 16: _Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de
    Picardies_ (1876), xxv. 287 _et seq._]

    [Footnote 17: M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely
    similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to
    have been already in possession of Poix, although, according
    to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws
    doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.]

    [Footnote 18: Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42.
    _Supra_, p. 357.]


The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for
chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very
great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was,
as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been
supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the _Dictionary of
National Biography_), that his latest appearance as chancellor was
early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in
taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well
known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in
Normandy with the King. There is, however, in _Gallia Christiana_
(vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided
before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present
being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can
trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date.

There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss
believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in
a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.[1] This charter is printed in the
_Monasticon_ (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus _temp._ Henry IV. There is,
however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I[2]
(No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is
that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No.
2), with a fuller list of witnesses.[3] I have examined the roll for
myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs:

    Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^{o}
    centesimo vii^{o} apud Wintoniam.

The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the
words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto
apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these
Tewkesbury charters,[4] and that suspicion is not lessened by the
double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of
1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name
was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly
be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de
Pistres[5]) who was killed in 1106.

On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as
chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November
1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,[6]
in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.[7] Its date is
determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop
of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor,
combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was
granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One
must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not,
as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the
names of the witnesses point to Easter--September 1107; and it is just
possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster
gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St
Andrew's may well have been granted.

Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the
chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of
Laon,[8] but I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

    [Footnote 1: _Judges of England_, i. 140.]

    [Footnote 2: _30th Report of Deputy-Keeper_, p. 203.]

    [Footnote 3: _Ibid._, p. 204.]

    [Footnote 4: See _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, 421, 431-2.]

    [Footnote 5: See p. 245 _supra_.]

    [Footnote 6: _Judges of England_, i. 79.]

    [Footnote 7: _Monasticon_, v. 191.]

    [Footnote 8: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 22.]


A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and
biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the
church of Exeter. It is printed in the _Monasticon_ under Plimpton,
to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been
preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter,
however, is also found among those confirmed by