| 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. Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. et modo facit de feudo episcopi baiocensis (p. 3). Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub abbate de eli. Et in morte ita quod non potuit dare neque separare ab ecclesia extra dominicam firmam monachorum T.R.E. (p. 63). Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. hidas et dimidiam virgam de ely T.R.E. (p. 65). |
Ipse Hugo tenet de feudo episcopi
baiocensis snellewelle. Pro v. hidis se
defend[ebat] semper.
Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate.
Non poterat separare ab
æcclesia extra firmam monachorum
T.R.E. nec in die mortis ejus.
Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride 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.
II. CRITICISM OF THE DOMESDAY TEXT
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 vta. 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 (a) 2. | D.B. i. 198 (a) 2. |
|---|---|---|---|
| i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras quas tenuerunt vi. sochemanni de socha abbatis ely, de quibus non potuerunt dare nec recedere nisi iiics. virgas absque ejus licentia. Et si alias vendidissent tres virgas, predictus abbas semper socham habuit T.R.E. | Tenuerunt vii. [sic] sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt recedere sed soca remanebat abbati. | Tenuerunt vii. [sic] sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis. Non[30] potuerunt recedere cum terra, sed soca remanebat æcclesia de ely. | Tenuerunt vii. [sic] sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt recedere cum terra, sed soca remanebat æcclesiæ Ely. |
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 possessed.