Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

by John Horace Round

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] saltem. 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. 258b-9b), 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. 221b, 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 Turold.[²⁶⁷]

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]