Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

by John Horace Round

I.C.C.		D.B.
fo. 79 (b) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus descalariis'.[41]		I. 190 (b) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus sub abbate'.
		I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.
fo. 90 (b) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus de abbate'.		I. 190 (b) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus de Escalers de abbate'.
		I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'.
fo. 92 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus de rege'.		I. 199 (b) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus 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 claimants.

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

I.C.C. (fo. 92, b, 2)	I.E. (p. 107)	D.B. (I. 190, b, 2)	D.B. (I. 199, a, 2)
Hanc terram tenuerunt iii. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt recedere absque licentia ejus.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iii. sochemanni sub predicto abbate ely. Non potuerunt vendere terram suam sine eius licentia.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iii. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt dare nec vendere absque ejus licentia terram suam.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iii. sochemanni. Vendere non potuerunt.

I.C.C. (fo. 79, b, 1)	I.E. (p. 102)	D.B. (I. 190, b, 2)	D.B. (I. 199, a, 2)
iiii. sochemanni tenuerunt hanc terram T.R.E. Et non potuerunt recedere sine licentia abbatis de ely.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iiii. sochemanni T.R.E. de abbate ely. Non potuerunt recedere vel vendere sine licentia abbatis ely.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iiii. sochemanni, nec potuerunt recedere sine licentia abbatis.	Hanc terram tenuerunt iiii. sochemanni abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt vendere.

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 licentia domini sui terram suam.	Terram suam tamen dare et vendere potuit.
(76, b, 2)	(I. 199, a, 2)		(p. 101)
Absque eius licentia dare terram suampotuerunt, sed socham eorum habuitarchiepiscopus.	Sine ejus licentiapoterant recedere etterram suam dare velvendere, sed socaremansit Archiepiscopo.		Potuerunt dare velvendere terram suam.Saca remansit abbati.
(76, b, 2)	(I. 196, b, 1)
Potuit dare cui voluit.	Potuit absque[43] ejuslicentia recedere.
(77, b, 2)	(I. 195, b, 1)
Potuerunt recederecum terra ad quemdominum voluerunt.	Potuerunt recedersine licentia eorum.
(78, a, 1)	(I. 190, b, 1)
Potuerunt recederecum terra sua absquelicentia domini sui.	Dare et venderepotuerunt.
(90, a, 2)	(I. 190, b, 2)		(p. 102)
Non potueruntrecedere sine licentiaabbatis.	Non potuerunt recederesine ejus licentia.		Non potuerunt recederevel vendereabsque eius licentia.
	(I. 200, a, 2)
	Non potuerunt venderesine ejus licentia.
(105, a, 2)	(I. 200, a, 1)		(p. 109)
Potuerunt dare etvendere sine soca.	Terras suas venderepotuerunt. Soca de viii.sochemannis remansitin abbatia de ely.		Potuerunt dare velvendere cui voluerunt,sed saca eorum remansiteidem abbati.
(113, b, 1)	(201, a, 1)		(p. 112)
Potuerunt recedere sinesoca.	Terram suam venderepotuerunt. Soca veroremansit abbati.		Potuerunt dare preterlicentiam abbatiset 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.