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. (p. 46) | I.E. (p. 106) | D.B. (I. 200, a, 2) | D.B. (Ibid., in margin) | D.B. (I. 191, a, 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Et potuit recedere quo voluit sed soca remanebat Harlestone. | Potuit recedere cum terra sua absque ejus licentia, sed semper remansit socha ejus in ecclesia sancte Ædel' ut hund testantur. | Recedere cum terra sua potuit, sed soca remansit æcclesiæ. | Vendere potuit, sed soca Abbati remansit. | Potuit recedere sine licentia ejus, sed soca remansit Abbati. |
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: