[10] These extracts are extended and punctuated to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed within square brackets.
[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.
[12] The references to pages are to those of Mr Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets are the passages omitted.
[13] In this instance the omission is so gross that it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnoteid 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'.
[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.
[15] 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.'
[16] 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p. 50).
[17] 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'—p. 62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).
[18] 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).
[19] 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).