[1] I have found, since this was written, that it was printed by Mr T. O. Cockayne in his little-known Shrine (pp. 205-8), and pronounced by him (in error) to be 'evidently' of the date 1109-18.
[2] I opposed in 1886 (Domesday Studies, pp. 86, 87) the accepted view that no Danegeld was levied by the Conqueror till the winter of 1083-4 and discussed (Ibid., 88-92) the Inquisitio Geldi, which, as Mr Eyton showed (Key to Domesday), belongs to that date. It has been persistently confused with the Exon Domesday (being bound up with it), as by Mr Jones, in his Wiltshire Domesday (pp. xxxvii., 153 et seq.), and Professor Freeman (Quart. Review, July 1892, p. 22).
[3] It was connected, I find, by Mr Cockayne with military service, not with Danegeld.
[4] Quoted in Ellis's Introduction to Domesday, i. 315-6.
[5] Norm. Conq., iii, 741-2.
[6] The phrase employed by Mr Freeman in criticizing Professor Pearson.
[7] See Ellis, ut supra.
[8] 'Wered', like 'Wara' (supra, p. 100), refers to assessment and corresponds with the 'defendit se' phrase in Domesday. It seems here to represent the land which had actually paid.
[9] Wrongly given by Ellis and Cockayne as 'xviii'.
[10] Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx'.