PART I TERRITORIAL STUDIES
Reading edition
DOMESDAY BOOK
The true key to the Domesday Survey, and to the system of land assessment it records, is found in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis. Although the document so styled is one of cardinal importance, it has, from accident, been known to few, and has consequently never succeeded in obtaining the attention and scientific treatment it deserved. The merit of its identification belongs to Mr Philip Carteret Webb, who published in 1756 a paper originally read before the Society of Antiquaries, entitled, A Short Account of Danegeld, with some further particulars relating to William the Conqueror's Survey. It is difficult to speak too highly of this production, remembering the date at which it was composed. Many years were yet to elapse before the printing of Domesday was even begun, and historical evidences were largely inaccessible as compared with the condition of things today. Yet the ability shown by Mr Webb in this careful and conscientious piece of work is well seen in his interesting discovery, which he announced in these words:
In searching for the Liber Eliensis, I have had the good fortune to discover in the Cotton Library a MS. copy of the Inquisition of the jury, containing their survey for most of the hundreds in Cambridgeshire. This MS. is written on vellum in double columns and on both sides of the page. It is bound up with the Liber Eliensis, and begins at p. 76a and ends at p. 113. It is written in a very fair but ancient character, not coeval with the Survey, but of about the time of Henry II. It was given by Mr Arthur Agard to Sir Robert Cotton, and is marked Tiberius A. VI 4. Your lordship and the Society will be of opinion that this is a discovery of importance, and what had escaped the observation of Sir H. Spelman, Mr Selden, and other antiquarians. A part of this valuable morsel of antiquity is already transcribed, and in a few weeks I hope to be able to communicate the whole of it to the Society (p. 26).
The Cottonian MS. [Tib. A. VI] has also a second and unique portion of this survey, which was not printed in the edition published by the Record Commission in 1816. It commences 'in Grantebriggesira, in Staplehouhund', and ends imperfectly 'et vicecomiti regis v. auras'.
These words prove that Sir Thomas had inspected the MS., which duly begins and ends with the words here given.
The printing of the document in record type, the collation throughout with Domesday Book, and the appending of the Inquisitio Eliensis, edited from three different texts, represent an extraordinary amount of minute and wearisome labour. The result is a volume as helpful as it is indispensable to the scholar.
I propose in this paper to take up anew the subject, at the point where Mr Hamilton has left it, to submit the text to scientific criticism, to assign it its weight in the scale of authority, and to explain its glossarial and its illustrative value for the construction and the contents of Domesday Book.
I. NATURE OF THE 'INQ. COM. CANT.'
The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensi (hereafter styled 'the I.C.C.') deals with the county of Cambridge alone, but, in that county, with the lands of all holders. The Inquisitio Eliensis (which I propose to style 'the I.E.') deals with several counties, but, in these counties, with the lands of the abbey alone. The latter was duly printed, with Domesday Book, by the Record Commission; the former remained in manuscript till printed by Mr Hamilton.
The problem then that we have to solve is this: 'Is the I.C.C. an actual transcript of these original returns, and if so, is it faithful?' I will not, like Mr Hamilton, assume an affirmative, but will attempt an impartial inquiry.
The two paths which we must follow in turn to arrive at a just conclusion are (1) the construction of the I.C.C., (2) collation with the Inq. Eliensis. For I hope to show that the latter record must have been derived from the same source as the Inq. Com. Cant.
Following the first of these paths, we note at once that while Domesday Book arranges the Manors according to fiefs, the Inq. Com. Cant., on the contrary, arranges them by hundreds and townships. Its system is regular and simple. For every hundred it first enumerates the principal jurors who made the return, and then gives the return itself, arranged according to townships (villæ). These townships are thus the units of which the Manors they contain are merely the component fractions. This is precisely what we should expect to find in the original returns, but it only creates a presumption; it does not afford a proof. For instance, it might be reasonably urged that these copies may have omitted certain items in the returns, just as Domesday Book omitted others.
To reply to this objection, we must turn to the second path; that is to say, we must collate the Inquisitio Eliensis with the Inq. Com. Cant. I shall prove below that the latter cannot have been taken from the former, which only covers a portion of its field, and that, on the other hand, the former cannot have been taken from the latter, because the Inquisitio Eliensis is accurate in places where the Inq. Com. Cant. is in error. Consequently they must both have been derived independently from some third document. This being so, if we should find that their versions agree closely, we may fairly infer that each is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the above 'third document'. In other words, if neither version omits items which are given in the other, we are entitled to assume that the copy is in each case exhaustive, for two scribes working independently are not likely to have systematically omitted the same items from the document before them.
What then was the 'third document' from which they both copied? Obviously it was either the original returns of the Domesday jurors, or a copy (exhaustive or not) of these returns. Now we cannot suppose that two scribes, working, as I have said, independently, would both have worked, not from the original returns themselves, but from a copy, and that the same copy of these returns—a copy, moreover, of the existence of which we have no evidence whatever. Moreover, in this hypothetical copy, there would, we may safely assert, have been some clerical errors. These would have duly re-appeared in both the Inquisitiones, and collation with Domesday Book would enable us to detect them. Yet in no single instance, though each of them contains errors, have I found a clerical error common to both. We are thus driven to the conclusion that in both these Inquisitiones we have copies of the actual returns made by the Domesday jurors.
I.C.C. I.E.
Meldeburna pro x. sol[idis] se defendebat T.R.E. et modo pro viii. Et de his x. hidis tenet predictus abbas ii. hidas et Iam. virgam. v. carrucis est ibi terra. Una carruca et dimidia, et una hida et una virga in dominio, et dimidia carruca potest fieri. iii. Carucæ villanis. vi. villani, ix. bordarii, iii. cotarii, dimidium molendinum de iii. solidis, et viii. denariis. Pratum v. carrucis. Pastura ad pecora villæ, ccc. oves iii. minus, xxxiiii. porci. Inter totum valet c. sol., et quando recepit totidem. T.R.E. vi. lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in ecclesia sancte Ædel. de eli in dominio. Et de his x. hidis tenet Wido de Reb' curt de rege, &ca., &ca. Meldeburne pro x. hidis se defendebat in tempore R. ÆD. et modo pro viii. Et de his x. hun[dredis] tenet abbas de eli ii. hidas et i. v[irgam]. v. carucis ibi est terra. I. caruca et dimidia, et i. hida et dimidia, in dominio, et dimidia caruca potest fieri. iii. carucæ hominibus. vi. villani, ix. bordarii, iii. cotarii. Pratum v. carucis. i. molendinum de ii. solidis et viii. denariis. Pastura ad pecora villæ. oves ccc., iiies. minus, et xxxiiii. porci. Inter totum valet v. lib. Quando recepit v. lib. T.R.E. vi. lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in ecclesia sancte Ædel' ely in dominio. In eadem villa habet Guido de Raimbecurt de rege, &ca., &ca.
These extracts are typical and instructive. They leave, in the first place, no doubt upon the mind that both are versions of the same original. This, which proves my postulate, will be shown below to possess a further and important bearing. But while these versions closely agree, we notice (1) independent blunders, (2) slight variants in diction. As to blunders, we see that the I.C.C. has 'sol[idis]' where the I.E. has the correct 'hidis', while, conversely, the I.E. reads 'hun[dredis]' where the I.C.C. has, rightly, 'hidis'. Again the I.C.C. allots to demesne an assessment of a hide and a virgate, but I.E. a hide and a half (i.e. two virgates). Collation with Domesday Book confirms the former version. Conversely, the I.C.C. assigns to the mill the value of three shillings and eightpence, but the I.E. of two shillings and eightpence. Collation with Domesday Book confirms the latter. Turning now to the variants, we may express them more clearly thus:
I.C.C. I.E.
T.R.E. predictus abbas villanis dimidium molendinum c. sol. totidem de his x. hidis tenet = = = = = = = in tempore R. ÆD. abbas de eli. hominibus. i. molendinum. v. lib. v. lib. in eadem villa habet.
These prove that verbal accuracy was not aimed at by the transcribers. The same freedom from its trammels is seen in the transposition of the 'mill' and 'meadow' passages, and, indeed, in the highly abbreviated form of the I.E. entries (in which a single letter, mostly, does duty for a word), which shows that the original version must have been either extended in the I.C.C., or (more probably) abbreviated in the I.E.
We are now in a position to advance to the criticism of the text of the Inq. Com. Cant., and to inquire how far it can be trusted as a reproduction of the original returns. In other words, are its contents more or less trustworthy than those of Domesday Book?
It might, no doubt, be fairly presumed that a simple transcript of the original returns was less likely to contain error than such a compilation as Domesday Book, in which their contents were (1) rearranged on a different system, (2) epitomized and partly omitted, (3) altered in wording. Mr Hamilton, indeed, who was naturally tempted to make the most of his MS., appears to have jumped at this conclusion; for he speaks in his preface (p. xii) of its 'superior exactness', and gives us no hint of omissions or of blunders. There are, however, plenty of both, as will be seen from the lists below, which do not profess to be exhaustive.
Another of Mr Hamilton's examples is this:
'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' (Domesday) is abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton MS.
But, on referring to the passage in question, we find that the Domesday passage: 'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' has nothing to do with that 'long account', but corresponds to the simple formula in the I.C.C., 'Hanc terram tenuerunt monache de cet'ero T.R.E. et modo tenent'. The example which follows it is this:
At pp. 38, 39 we see a curious alteration in the value of the land, which had risen from xv. lib. 'quando recepit' and T.R.E. to xvii. lib. at the time the return was made, and dropped again to xvi. lib. in the Domesday Survey.
This strange comment implies the supposition that the I.C.C. records an earlier survey than Domesday Book, whereas, of course, they are derived from the same returns, so that the discrepancy of xvi. and xvii. is merely a clerical error. One more instance, the 'curious reading' Harlestone in the I.C.C., is shown below to be merely an error in that MS. Such are eight of the examples adduced by Mr Hamilton. The remaining two merely illustrate not the superior accuracy, but the greater elaboration of the I.C.C. It has been absolutely necessary to dispose of these examples, in order to show that a critical estimate of the value of the I.C.C. has yet to be made.
Taking the omissions in the MS. first, we find some really bad ones. On fo. 79a (2), collation with Domesday gives this result:
I.C.C. (p. 12)12 D.B. (I. 196a)
II. hidas et dimidiam et x. acras tenuerunt. [................................ .................................................. ...................................................]. Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia. Tenuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam et x. acras. Nec isti potuerunt recedere absque licentia abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni, homines regis E., tenuerunt ii. hidas. Non potuerunt recedere absque licentia.
A similar 'run on' omission is found on fo. 109a (1):
I.C.C. (p. 79) D.B. (I. 200a, 193a)
Tenet Radulfus de Widone iiiciam. partem i. virgatæ [Terra est i. bovi], et ibi est bos. Valet et valuit ii. sol., et vendere potuit, et iiiitam. partem unius Avere vicecomiti invenit.
In Oreuuelle tenet eadem æcclesia iiiitam. partem unius virgatæ. Terra est dimidio bovi et valet xii. den.
Another instance of 'running on' occurs on fo. 105a (1), where 'xviii. cotarii' (p. 67) is proved by Domesday to stand for 'xviii. [bordarii x.] cotarii'. Again on fo. 79b (2) we have this:
I.C.C. (p. 14) D.B. (I. 195b 1)
Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i. virgatam et Wluui homo ejus i. hidam et i. virgatam. Socam ejus habuit Eddeua.
So, too, on fo. 100b(1):
I.C.C. (p. 52) D.B. (I. 190a)
XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani, xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol' de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol' de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi. carrucis. XV. villani et xv. bordarii cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi, et i. molinus de xvi. denariis et alii duo molini xxxii. denariis. Pratum xvi. carucis.
The importance of such an omission as this lies in the proof of unintelligent clerkship and want of revision which so unmeaning an entry as 'xv. xvi. carrucis' supplies.
Turning now to the clerical blunders, we find an abundant crop. We may express them conveniently in tabular form:
Folio Page
76 (a) 2. 'Auenam lvii. nummos,' for 'Aueram (ve)l viii. denarios' (D.B.) 2
76 (b) 1. 'Hominis' for 'ho(mo)' 3
77 (a) 2. 'In dominio et iii. villani', for 'una caruca in dominio et iii. villanis' 7
Ibid. 'Mille de anguillis dimidium de piscina', for 'i. millen' et dimidium anguill'' (D.B.) 7
78 (b) 2. 'iiii. in dominio carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio', for 'iiii. carucæ et iiii. hidæ in dominio' 11
79 (a) 1. 'cuius honor erat', for 'cuius ho(mo) erat' 12
79 (b) 2. 'iiii. bobus', for 'iiii. bord(arii)' 14
91 (b) 2. 'valent iii.', for 'valent iii. den.' 21
92 (b) 2. 'xliii. car(ucis) ibi e(st) terra', for 'xl. acras terræ' 25
95 (a) 2. 'has v. h(idas) tenet', for 'de his v. h(idis) tenet' 33
95 (b) 1. 'et pro iiii. virgis', for 'et pro iii. virgis' 34
95 (b) 2. 'unam virgam minus', for 'dimi' virg' minus' (D.B.) 35
96 (b) 1. 'dimidiam virgam', for 'i. virg'' (D.B.) 38
97 (b) 1. 'Clintona', for 'Iclintona' 41
97 (b) 2. 'unam hidam', for 'dimidiam hidam' (D.B.) 42
100 (a) 1. 'Terra est vi. carucis', for 'Terra est v. carucis'21 50
100 (a) 2. 'ii. h(idas) et dimidiam virgam', for 'ii. hidas et i. virgam et dimidiam'22 (D.B.) 50
100 (b) 2. 'vii. sochemanni', for 'iii. soch[emanni]'23 52
101 (a) 2. 'homities', for 'homines' 54
101 (b) 2. 'tenet pic' vicecomes quendam ortum de rege ii. hide', for 'tenet pic' vicecomes de rege ii. hidas'24 55
102 (a) 1. 'ii. boves', for 'ii. bord(arii)' 56
104 (b) 1. 'iiii. hidas et i. virgam', for 'iii. hidas et i. virgam' (D.B.) 65
105 (b) 2. bis 'Rahamnes', for 'Kahannes' 60
106 (a) 1. 'pro vi. hidis' (bis), for 'pro vii. hidis' 70
109 (b) 2. 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano iii. cottarios', for 'Fulcuinus tenet de comite Alano. iii. cottarii' 82
110 (a) 1. 'ely tenuit ii. h(idas)', for 'ely tenuit i. h(idam)' (I.E.) 83
110 (b) 1. 'viiii. h(idis)', for 'viii. h(idis)' 84
111 (a) 2. 'liii. carrucis est ibi terra', for 'iiii. car' est ibi terra' 87
Besides these, Ralf 'de bans' is often entered as Ralf 'de scannis'. Again, we find such blunders as this:
I.C.C. D.B.
Hugo de portu tenet sneileuuelle. Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. et modo facit de feudo episcopi baiocensis (p. 3). Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub abbate de eli. Et in morte ita quod non potuit dare neque separare ab ecclesia extra dominicam firmam monachorum T.R.E. (p. 63). Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. hidas et dimidiam virgam de ely T.R.E. (p. 65). Ipse Hugo tenet de feudo episcopi baiocensis snellewelle. Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat] semper. Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate. Non poterat separare ab æcclesia extra firmam monachorum T.R.E. nec in die mortis ejus. Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride de Ely.
In all these three cases the italicized words are misplaced, and in all three the explanation is the same, the scribe having first omitted them, and then inserted them later out of place. Having now criticized the text of the I.C.C., and shown that it presents no small traces of unintelligent clerkship, if not of actual ignorance of the terms and formulæ of Domesday, I turn to the text of Domesday Book, to test it by comparison with that of the I.C.C.
II. CRITICISM OF THE DOMESDAY TEXT
Inq. Eliensis. Inq. Com. Cant. D.B. i. 198 (a) 2. D.B. i. 198 (a) 2.
i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras quas tenuerunt vi. sochemanni de socha abbatis ely, de quibus non potuerunt dare nec recedere nisi iiics. virgas absque ejus licentia. Et si alias vendidissent tres virgas, predictus abbas semper socham habuit T.R.E.
Tenuerunt vii. [sic] sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt recedere sed soca remanebat abbati.
Tenuerunt vii. [sic] sochemanni i. hidam et dim. et vi. acras de soca abbatis de ely. Non potuerunt recedere cum terra, sed soca remanebat æcclesiæ Ely.
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
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.
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.
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'.
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 suam potuerunt, sed socham eorum habuit archiepiscopus. Sine ejus licentia poterant recedere et terram suam dare vel vendere, sed soca remansit Archiepiscopo. Potuerunt dare vel vendere terram suam. Saca remansit abbati.
(76, b, 2) (I. 196, b, 1)
Potuit dare cui voluit. Potuit absque43 ejus licentia recedere.
(77, b, 2) (I. 195, b, 1)
Potuerunt recedere cum terra ad quem dominum voluerunt. Potuerunt receder sine licentia eorum.
(78, a, 1) (I. 190, b, 1)
Potuerunt recedere cum terra sua absque licentia domini sui. Dare et vendere potuerunt.
(90, a, 2) (I. 190, b, 2) (p. 102)
Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia abbatis. Non potuerunt recedere sine ejus licentia. Non potuerunt recedere vel vendere absque eius licentia.
(I. 200, a, 2)
Non potuerunt vendere sine ejus licentia.
(105, a, 2) (I. 200, a, 1) (p. 109)
Potuerunt dare et vendere sine soca. Terras suas vendere potuerunt. Soca de viii. sochemannis remansit in abbatia de ely. Potuerunt dare vel vendere cui voluerunt, sed saca eorum remansit eidem abbati.
(113, b, 1) (201, a, 1) (p. 112)
Potuerunt recedere sine soca. Terram suam vendere potuerunt. Soca vero remansit abbati. Potuerunt dare preter licentiam abbatis et sine soca.
Glancing for a moment at another county, we have in the Survey of Leicestershire a remarkable instance of a whole fief being entered twice over. It is that of Robert Hostiarius:
Robertus hostiarius tenet de rege ii. car. terræ in Howes. Terra est iii. carucis. In dominio est i. caruca et iii. servi, et viii. villani cum i. bordario habent ii. car.... Idem [Turstinus] tenet de R. iiij. car. terræ in Clachestone. Terra est ii. caruca. Has habent ibi iii. sochemanni cum ii. villanis et ii. bordariis. Ibi viii. acræ prati. Valuit et valet x. solidos. Tetbald[us] tenet de Roberto ii. car. terræ in Clachestone. In dominio est i. caruca cum i. servo et iii. villani cum i. bordario habent i. car. Ibi vi. acræ prati. Valuit et valet x. solidos. Robertus filus W. hostiari, tenet de rege in Howes ii. cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car. in dominio et iii. serv[os] et viii. villani cum i. bordario habentes ii. car.... Idem Turstinus tenet de Roberto in Clachestone iiii. car. terræ et Tetbald[us] ii. car. terræ. Ibi est in dominio i. caruca et iii. sochemanni et v. villani et iiii. [sic] bordarii cum iii. carucis et i. servo. Ibi xiii. acræ prati. Valuit et valet totum xx. solidos. Has terras tenuerunt T.R.E. Outi et Arnui cum saca et soca.
Here the last two entries (both relating to Claxton) have been boldly thrown into one in the second version, which also (though omitting the number of ploughlands) gives additional information in the name of Robert's father, and in those of his predecessors T.R.E. This is thus an excellent illustration of the liberty allowed themselves by the compilers of Domesday.
An instance on a smaller scale is found in the Survey of Cambridgeshire, where we read on opposite pages:
In Witelesfeld hund'. In histetone jacet Wara de i. hida et dimidia de M. Cestreforde et est in Exsesse appreciata, hanc terram tenuit Algarus comes (i. 189 b). In Witelesf' h'd. In histetune jac' Wara de hida et dimidia de Cestres' man. et est appreciata in Exexe. Algar comes tenuit (i. 190).
III. 'SOCA' AND 'THEINLAND'
The extracts I have given above establish beyond a doubt the existence among the 'sochemanni' of two kinds of tenure. We have (1) those who were free to part with (vendere) and leave (recedere) their land, (2) those who were not, i.e. who could not do so without the abbot's licence. This distinction is reproduced in two terms which I will now examine.
In the Inquisitio Eliensis and the documents connected with it there is much mention of the 'thegnlands' of the Abbey. These lands are specially distinguished from 'sokeland' (terra de soca). Both, of course, are distinct from the 'dominium'. Thus in one of the Conqueror's writs we read:
Now this distinction between 'thegnland' and 'sokeland' will be found to fit in exactly with the difference in tenure we have examined above. Here is an instance from the 'breve abbatis' in the record of Guy de Raimbercurt's aggressions:
In melreda ii. hidas et dim. virg.
On reference to the two Manors in question, there is, at first sight, nothing in the I.C.C., the I.E., or Domesday to distinguish the 'thegnland' from the 'sokeland'. Of the first holding we read that it had been held T.R.E. by 10 sochemanni 'de soca S. Edelride'; of the second, that it was held by 'viii. sochemanni ... homines abbatis de Ely'. But closer examination of the I.C.C. reveals, in the former case, this distinction:
This enables us to understand the distinctions found in the summaries appended to the Cambridgeshire portion of the I.E., and recorded in the Breve Abbatis. Indeed they confirm the above distinction, for the formula they apply to holders 'de soca abbatie ely' is: 'Illi qui hanc terram tenuerunt de soca T.R.E. vendere potuerunt, sed saca et soca et commendatio et servitium semper remanebat ecclesia de ely.'
In breuessan tenet isdem W. terram Elfrici supradicte consuetudinis. In brucge tenet ipse W. terram etfled ejusdem modi.
The consuetudo referred to was this:
Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque preceperit prepositus monasterii ire et omnem rei emendationem persolvere. Et si quid de suo voluerint venundare, a preposito prius licentiam debent accipere.
The corresponding entries in the I.E. run thus:
'In Brugge una libera femina commend' S. Ædel. de lxxx. ac. pro manerio.
Thus we obtain direct evidence of the services due from commended freemen owing 'consuetudines'. Turning now to those of sochemanni, we have this important passage:
Willelmus de Warena tenet quadraginta quinque socamans in predicta felteuuella qui quotiens abbas preceperit in anno arabunt suam terram, colligent et purgabunt segetes, adducent et mittent in horrea, portabunt victum monachorum ad monasterium, et quotiens eorum equos voluerit, et ubicunque sibi placuerit, totiens habebit, et ubicunque forsfecerint abbas forsfacturam habebit, et de illis similiter qui in eorum terram forsfecerint.
Item Willelmus de uuarenna tenet triginta tres socamans, istius consuetudinis in Nortuuolda.
Item W. tenet quinque socamans istius modi in Muddaforda.
Supradictus Walterus et cum eo Durandus, homines hugonis de monte forti, tenent xxvi. socamans supradicte consuetudinis in Maraham.
Collating as before from the I.E. the relative entries, we find they run thus:
In felteuuella tenet W. de uuarenna xli. sochemannos ... Super hos omnes habebat S. Ædel. socam et commendationem et omnem consuetudinem. Illorum vii. liberi erant cum terris suis, sed soca et commendatio remanebat S. Ædel. (p. 139).
IIII. sochemanni adjacent [sic] huic manerio [felteuuella] T.R.E. Et modo habet eos W. de Warenna (p. 138).
Nortuualde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxx. sochemanni cum omni consuetudine. Et alii iiii. liberi homines qui poterant vendere terras, sed saca et commendatio remanebat S. Ædel. (p. 132).
Mundeforde ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. septem sochemanni cum omni consuetudine (p. 132).
In Mundeforde S. Ædel. vii. sochemannos cum omni consuetudine (p. 139).
Huic manerio [Mareham] T.R.E. adjacebant viginti vii. sochemanni cum omni consuetudine, sed postquam Rex W. advenit, habuit eos hugo de Munfort preter unum (p. 130).
The three former Manors lay in the Hundred of Grimeshoe, the fourth northwards, towards the Wash. Just to the south of the three Manors, over the borders of Suffolk, lay Brandon, where Lisois de Moustiers had usurped the rights of Ely over six sochemanni.
In Lakincgeheda et in Brandona vi. sochemanni S. Ædel. ita quod non potuerunt vendere terras liberati liseie antecessori eudo[nis] dapif[eri] ... Post eum tenuit eos eudo et tenet cum saca et soca (p. 142).
The record of the placitum, drawn up during the tenure of Lisois, shows us their limited services: 'Isti solummodo arabant et c'terent [sic] messes ejusdem loci quotienscunque abbas præceperit.' The difference between these services and the others we have seen recorded is considerable.
Yet another group of sokemen on Suffolk Manors rendered these services:
Ita proprie sunt abbati ut quotienscunque ipse præceperit in anno arabunt suam terram, purgabunt et colligent segetes, portabunt victum monachorum ad monasterium, equos eorum in suis necessitatibus habebit [abbas], et ubicunque deliquerint emendationem habebit semper et de omnibus illis qui in terris eorum deliquerint.
This is practically the same definition as we had for the other group, and suggests that it was of wide prevalence. A notable contrast is afforded by the entry: 'In villa que vocatur Blot tenet ipse R. iiii. homines qui tantum debent servire abbati cum propriis equis in omnibus necessitatibus suis.'
In the above extracts we saw 'liberi homines qui vendere poterant' distinguished from 'Sochemanni', who could not sell. But we also saw that the two classes were not always carefully distinguished. We find, moreover, that the 'liberi homines' were themselves, sometimes, 'not free to sell'. Thus 'tenuit anant unus liber homo sub S. Ædel. T.R.E. pro manerio ii. carucatas terræ sed non potuit vendere' (p. 142). Some light may be thrown on this by the case of the estate held by Godmund, an abbot's brother:
Totam terram quam tenebat Gudmundus in dominio, id est Nectuna, sic tenebat T.R.E. de S. Ædel. quod nullo modo poterat vendere, nec dare; sed post mortem suam debebat manerium redire in dominio ecclesiæ; quia tali pacto tenuit Gudmundus de Abbate (p. 144).
With this we may compare these entries:
In Cloptuna ... Ædmundus commendatus S. Ædel. unam carucatam ... quam non potuit vendere nec dare (p. 150).
In Brandestuna Ædmundus presbyter terram quam accepit cum femina sua dedit S. Ædel. concedente femina T.R.E. ea conventione quod non posset eam dare nec vendere. Similiter de Clopetona' (p. 152).
IV. THE DOMESDAY CARUCA
I.C.C. D.B.
fo. 96 (a) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce est ibi terra.' I. 202 (a) 2: 'Terra est. iiii. bobus.'
fo. 103 (a) 2: 'iiii. bobus est terra ibi.' I. 190 (a) 1: 'Terra est dimidiæ carucæ.'
fo. 103 (b) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce est ibi [terra].' I. 196 (b) 2: 'Terra est iiii. bobus.'
fo. 112 (b) 1: 'iiii. bobus est ibi terra.' I. 201 (a) 1: 'Terra est dimidiæ caruce.'
fo. 112 (b) 2: 'iiii. bobus est ibi terra. Et ibi sunt. Pratum dimidiae caruce.' I. 202 (b) 1: 'Terra est iiii. bobus, et ibi sunt, et pratum ipsis bobus.'
Another point in connection with the caruca on which the I.C.C. gives us the light we need is this:
I.C.C. D.B.
fo. 102 (a) 2: 'ii. carrucis ibi est terra. Non sunt carruce nisi sex boves.' I. 200 (b) 1: 'Terra est iii. carucis. Sed non sunt ibi nisi boves.
Here the Domesday text is utterly misleading as it stands. But the I.C.C., by supplying the omitted 'sex', gives us at once the right sense.
V. THE DOMESDAY HIDE
I.C.C. D.B.
fo. 102 (a) 1: i. hidam et dimidiam et unam virgam. i. hidam et iii. virgatas terræ.—i. 194 (a) 2.
fo. 102 (a) 1: dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virg'. ii. virg' et dimidiam—i. 194 (a) 2.
fo. 103 (a) 1: dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virg'. ii.as virg' et dimidiam—i. 198 (a) 2.
fo. 103 (b) 1: i. hida et dimidia et dimidia virg'. i. hida et ii. virg' et dimidiam—i. 190 (a) 2.
fo. 103 (b) 2: i. hida et dimidia et i. virg'. i. hida et iii. virg'—i. 198 (b) 1.
fo. 106 (b) 2: iiii. hidæ et dimidia et una virg'. iv. hidæ et iii. virg'—i. 200 (b) 1.
fo. 112 (a) 2: xi. hidæ i. virg' minus. x. hidæ et iii. virg—i. 192 (b) 1.
We have the following direct statements:
I.C.C. D.B.
fo. 105 (b) 2: 'una virg' et x. acre in dominio'. i. 202 (b) 1: 'In dominio dimidia hida xx. acras minus.'
fo. iii. (a) 1: 'tenet Rogerus comes xx. acras.' i. 193 (b) 1: 'tenet comes ii. partes unius virg'.'
If 20 acres were identical with two-thirds of a virgate, there must, in a whole virgate, have been 30 acres; and if a virgate, plus 10 acres, was equivalent to half a hide minus 20 acres, we have again a virgate of thirty, and a hide of 120 acres. But the conclusion I uphold will be found to rest on no isolated facts. It is based on a careful analysis of the Inquisitio throughout. Here are some striking examples:
fo. 92 (b) 1. 'Belesham pro x. hidis se defendit.'
H. V. A.
Abbot of Ely 9 0 0
Hardwin 80
'Almar' 40
—— —— ——
10 0 0
fo. 99 (b) 1: 'tenet hardeuuinus de scal' vi. hidas et i. virgam et vii. acras de rege.'
H. V. A.
Ely Abbey 2½ 0 9
7 Sokemen 1½ 0 6
3 Sokemen ½ 0 0
'Alsi' ½ 0 0 T.R.E.
2 Sokemen 1 7
5 Sokemen 3½ 0
—— —— ——
6 1 7
fo. 79 (a) 2: 'Suafham pro x. hidis se defendit.'
H. V. A.
Hugh de Bolebec 7½ 0 10
Geoffrey 1 3 0
Aubrey de Ver ½ 0 20
—— —— ——
10 0 0
fo. 90 (a) 'choeie et stoua pro x. hidis se defenderunt.'
H. V. A.
Odo 1 0 0
Reginald ½ 0 2076
Picot (1) 3 3 0
Picot (2) 4½ 0 10
—— —— ——
10 0 0
fo. 96 (a) 2: 'Pampeswrda pro v. hidis et xxii. acris se defendit.'
H. V. A.
Abbot of Ely 2 3½ 0
Two Knights 1 0 22
Ralf 'de scannis' 3 0
Hardwin 10
Picot 5
Hardwin ½77 0
A priest ½ 0
—— —— ——
5 0 22
fo. 107 (a) 2: 'Barentona pro x. hidis se defendit.'
H. V. A.
Robert Gernon 7 1½78 0
Chatteris Abbey 2 0 0
Ralf 20
Walter fitz Aubrey 40
Picot ½ 0
—— —— ——
10 0 0
fo. 108 (a) 2: 'Oreuuella pro iiii. hidis se defendit.'
H. V. A.
Earl Roger 1 1⅓ 0
Durand 3⅓ 0
'Sigar' 1⅓ 0
Picot 3¼ 5
Walter fitz Aubrey 1 0
Robert 1 0
Ralf 'de bans' ⅓ 079
Chatteris Abbey ¼ 079
—— —— ——
4 0 0
This last example is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all, in the accuracy with which the virgates and their fractions, by the help of the five acres, combine to give us the required total.
But, it may be asked, how far does the Inquisitio, as a whole, confirm this conclusion? In order to reply to this inquiry, I have analysed every one of the Manors it contains. The result of that analysis has been that of the ninety-four townships which the fragment includes (not counting 'Matingeleia', of which the account is imperfect) there are only fifteen cases in which my calculation does not hold good, that is to say, in which the constituents as given do not equal the total assessment when we add them up on the above hypothesis of thirty acres to the virgate, and four virgates to the hide. This number, however, would be considerably larger if we had to work only from D.B., or only from the I.C.C. But as each of these, in several cases, corrects the errors of the other, the total of apparent exceptions is thus reduced. Hence I contend that if we could only get a really perfect return, the remaining apparent exceptions would largely disappear.
In some of these exceptions the discrepancy is trifling. Thus, at Triplow, we have 2 acres in excess of the 8 hide assessment—a discrepancy of 1⁄240. At 'Burch and Weslai' we have a deficit of 5 acres on 10 hides, that is 1⁄240. At 'Scelforda' the figures of D.B. give us an excess of 7 acres on the 20 hide assessment, that is 7⁄2400. The I.C.C. figures make the excess to be 12 acres.
A third class of these exceptions is due to the frequent omission in the I.C.C. of estates belonging to the king. Thus at Wilbraham it records an assessment of 10 hides represented only by two estates of four hides apiece. But on turning to Domesday (i. 189 b) we read: 'Wilborham dominica villa regis est. Ibi ii. hidæ.' The missing factor is thus supplied, and the apparent discrepancy disposed of. So, too, at 'Haslingefelda' (Haslingfield), where the I.C.C. accounts only for twelve hides and three virgates out of an assessment of twenty hides. Domesday here, again, supplies the missing factor in a royal Manor of seven hides and a virgate. We thus obtain, instead of an exception, a fresh illustration of our rule.
Haslingfield
H. V. A.
Rex 7 1
Picot 4 3
Count Alan 1 ½
The same ½
Geoffrey de Mandeville 5
Guy de Raimberccurt 1 1 3
Count Alan 12
—— —— ——
20 0 0
Domesday omits altogether, so far as I can find, the holding of Guy, an omission which would upset the whole calculation. But, in the case of Isleham, the apparent exception is due to the I.C.C., not to Domesday Book. Its assessment, in that document, is given as four hides. But the aggregate of its Manors, as there recorded, gives us an assessment of three hides plus eighty acres. Here any one who was rash enough to argue from a single instance (as Mr Eyton and Mr Pell were too apt to do) might jump at the conclusion that the hide must here have been of eighty acres. Yet Domesday enables us to collect all the constituents of the 'Vill', among them the king's estate, here again omitted. The real figures, therefore, were these:
H. V. A. D.B.
The King 6 0 40 i. 189 b.
Bishop of Rochester 1½ 0 20 i. 190 b.
Hugh de Port 1½ 0 20 i. 199 a.
Earl Alan 40 i. 195 b.
—— —— ——
10 0 0
It is necessary to remember that there were three processes, in each one of which error might arise:
III. In the transcription of the returns into D.B., or into the I.C.C., plus, in the case of the former, the rearrangement and abridgment of the materials.
VI. THE FIVE-HIDE UNIT
Let us now take a typical Hundred and test this theory in practice:
Hundred of Staines
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 11-17)
Vill. Hides Ploughlands Valets (T.R.E.)
Bottisham 10 20 £16 0 0
Swaffham (1) 10 16 11 10 0
Swaffham (2) 10 13¼ 12 10 0
Wilbraham 10 17 20 0 0
Stow-cum-Quy 10 11 14 10 0
— —— — — —
50 77¼ £74 10 0
Here we have five Vills varying in area from eleven ploughlands to twenty, and in value T.R.E., from £11 10s to £20, all assessed alike at ten hides each. What is the meaning of it? Simply that ASSESSMENT BORE NO RATIO TO AREA OR TO VALUE in a Vill, and still less in a Manor.
Assessment was not objective, but subjective; it was not fixed relatively to area or to value, but to the five-hide unit. The aim of the assessors was clearly to arrange the assessment in sums of five hides, ten hides, etc.
Take now the next Hundred in the Inq. Com. Cant.:
Hundred of Radfield
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 17-25)
Hides Ploughlands Valets (T.R.E.)
Dullingham 10 16 £19 5 0
Stetchworth 10 13¼ 12 15 0
Borough Green and Westley 10 17 17 1 4
Carlton 10 19½ 18 10 0
Weston 10 19¼ 13 15 0
Wratting 10 15¾ 8 8 0
Balsham 10 20 12 13 4
— —— —— — —
70 120¾ £102 7 8
Here again we have seven Vills varying in area from thirteen and a quarter ploughlands to twenty, and in value from £8 8s to £19 5s, all uniformly assessed at ten hides each. The thing speaks for itself. Had the hidation in these two Hundreds been dependent on area or value, the assessments would have varied infinitely. As it is, there is for each Vill but one and the same assessment.
Note further that the I.C.C. enables us to localize holdings the locality of which is unnamed in Domesday: also, that it shows us how certain Vills were combined for the purpose of assessment. Thus Borough Green and Westley are treated in Domesday as distinct, but here we find that they were assessed together as a ten-hide block. By this means we are enabled to see how the five-hide system could be traced further still if we had in other districts the same means of learning how two or three Vills were thus grouped together.
We may now take a step in advance, and pass to the Hundred of Whittlesford.
Hundred of Whittlesford
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 38-43)
Hides Ploughlands Valets
Whittlesford 12 20 11 20 £15 2 0 £34 2 0
Sawston 8 9 19 0 0
Hinxton 20 16 20 10 0
Icklington 20 24½ 24 5 0
Duxford 20 20¼ 27 5 0
— —— —— — —
80 80¾ £106 2 0
Here we are left to discover for ourselves that Whittlesford and Sawston were grouped together to form a twenty-hide block. And on turning from the above figures to the map we find the discovery verified, these two Vills jointly occupying the northern portion of the hundred. Thus, this hundred, instead of being divided like its two predecessors into ten-hide blocks, was assessed in four blocks of twenty hides each, each of them representing one of those quarters so dear to the Anglo-Saxon mind (virgata, etc.), and lying respectively in the north, south, east and west of the district. Proceeding on the lines of this discovery, we come to the Hundred of Wetherley, which carries us a step further.
Hundred of Wetherley
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 68-83)
Hides Ploughlands
Comberton 6 20 7 32
Barton 7 12
Grantchester 7 13
Haslingfield 20 2288
Harlton 5 20 7 27⅞
Barrington 10 15⅜
Shepreth 5 5½
Ordwell 4 20 55⁄16 293⁄16
Wratworth 4 5⅜
Whitwell 4 5
Wimpole 4 5
Arrington 4 8½
— ——
80 1111⁄16
It is important to observe that, though the grouping is my own, the order of the Vills is exactly that which is given in the Inq. Com. Cant., and by that order the grouping is confirmed. Note also how, without such grouping, we should have but a chaos of Vills, whereas, by its aid, from this chaos is evolved perfect symmetry. Lastly, glance at the four 'quarters' and see how variously they are subdivided.
Advancing still on the same lines, we approach the very remarkable case of the adjoining Hundred of Long Stow.
Now it is necessary to explain at the outset that, the Inq. Com. Cant. being here imperfect, it only gives us the first two of the above 'quarters', its evidence ending with Bourne. But, by good fortune, it is possible to reconstruct from Domesday alone the remaining half of the Hundred, and thus to obtain the most valuable example of the system we are engaged in tracing that we have yet met with. The grouping I have adopted is based on the figures, but in some cases it is obvious from the map: Eltisley and Croxton, for instance, which form a ten-hide block, occupy a projecting portion of the county all to themselves, while Caxton adjoins them.
Hundred of Longstow
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 83-89)
Hides Ploughlands
Eversden 8⅓ 25 13⅜ 381⁄16
Kingston 8⅓ 89⁄16
Toft and Hardwick 8⅓ 16⅛
Grandsen 5 25 9 32½
Bourne 20 [23
Gamlingay 20 25
Hatley 4¼ 5
[Unnamed] ¾
Croxton 7 10 25
Eltisley 3
Caxton 10
Caldecot 1¾ 5
Long Stow 3¼
——
100
Several points are here noticeable. Observe, in the first place, how the twenty-five hide 'quarter' which heads the list is divided into three equal blocks of 8⅓ hides each, just as we found in Wetherley Hundred that one of the twenty-hide 'quarters' was divided into five equal blocks of four hides each. In these cases the same principle of simple equal division was applied to the quarter hundred as we saw applied to the whole hundred in the first two cases we studied—the Hundreds of Staines and of Radfield. Notice next how the two Vills of Toft and Hardwick, which are separately surveyed in Domesday under their respective names, are found from the Inq. Com. Cant. to have combined (under the name of 'Toft') in a block of 8⅓ hides. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the ¾ hide not localized in Domesday fits in exactly with Hatley to complete its five hides.
The chase now becomes exciting: it can no longer be doubted that we are well on the track of a vast system of artificial hidation, of which the very existence has been hitherto unsuspected. Let us see what further light can be thrown by research on its nature.
On looking back at the evidence I have collected, one is struck, surely, by the thought that the system of assessment seems to work, not as is supposed, up from, but down to the Manor. Can it be possible that what was really assessed was not the Manor, nor even the Vill, but the Hundred as a whole? This view is so revolutionary, so subversive of all that has ever been written on the subject, that it cannot be answered off-hand. We will therefore begin by examining the case of the Hundred of Erningford, which introduces us to a further phenomenon, the reduction of assessment.
Hundred of Erningford
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 51-68)
Hides
T.R.E. T.R.W. Ploughlands
Morden (1) 10 8 20
Tadlow 5 4 10½
Morden (2) 5 4 10¾
Clopton 5 4 7
Hatley 5 4 7
Croydon 10 8 11½
Wendy 5 4 6¾
Shingay 5 4 6
Litlington 5 4 11
Abington 5 4 3¾
Bassingburne 10 8 22
Whaddon 10 8 14¾
Meldreth 10 8 20½
Melbourne 10 8 19½
–— — ———
100 80 171
Here we have, as in the last instance, a Hundred of exactly a hundred hides (assessment). But we are confronted with a new problem, that of reduction. Before we form any conclusions, it is important to explain that this problem can only be studied by the aid of the Inq. Com. Cant., for the evidence both of Domesday and of the Inq. El. is distinctly misleading. Reduction of assessment is only recorded in these two documents when the Manor is identical with the Vill. In cases where the Vill contains two or more Manors, the Vill is not entered as a whole, and consequently the reduction on the assessment of that Vill as a whole is not entered at all.
Hundred of Cheveley
(Inq. Com. Cant., pp. 9-11)
Hides
T.R.E. T.R.W. Ploughlands
Silverley 6½ 10 4 6 8 12
Ashley 3½ 2 4
Saxon Street 5 3 793
Ditton 5 392 (or 4) 10
Ditton 10 1 16
Kirtling 10 6 21
Cheveley 1091
—
50
As a preliminary point, attention may be called to the fact that the grouping of Ashley and Silverley, although they are surveyed separately in the Inq. Com. Cant., is justified by their forming, as 'Ashley-cum-Silverley' a single parish. So too, Saxon Street may be safely combined with Ditton, in which it is actually situate. We thus have a Hundred of fifty hides divided into five blocks of ten hides each, and thus presenting a precise parallel to the Hundred of Staines, the first that we examined.
It has been my object in the above argument to recall attention to the corporate character, the solidarité of the Hundred. This character, of which the traces are preserved in its collective responsibility, even now, for damages caused by riot, strongly favours the view which I am here bringing forward, that it was the Hundred itself which was assessed for geld, and which was held responsible for its payment. Although this view is absolutely novel, and indeed destructive of the accepted belief, it is in complete harmony with the general principle enunciated by Dr Stubbs, and is a further proof of the confirmation which his views often obtain from research and discovery. Treating of 'the Hundred as an area for rating', he writes thus:
I now proceed to apply my theory that the Hundreds themselves were first assessed, and that such assessments were multiples of the five-hide unit.
Hides
Erningford 100
Long Stow 100
Triplow 90
Staplehow 90100
Whittlesford 80
Wetherley 80
Radfield 70
Cheveley 50
Staines 50
This list speaks for itself, but it may be as well to point out how convenient for the Treasury was this system. At the normal Danegeld rate of two shillings on the hide, an assessment of fifty hides would represent £5, one hundred hides £10, and so on.
Can we discover in other counties traces of this same system? Let us first take the adjacent county of Bedfordshire.
Risely Tempsford Wymington
H. V. H. V. H. V.
7 0 1 1¾ 0 3
1 0 1 1 3 0
½ 0 4 1 4 0
½ 0 2 0 ½ 0
1 0 1 ¼ 0 3
1 0
—————— —————— ——————
10 0 10 0 10 0
Cople Eversholt Clophill
H. V. H. V. H. V.
4 0 2 0 5 0
5 3 7½ 0 4 0
0 1 ½ 0 1 0
—————— —————— ——————
10 0 10 0 10 0
Northill Portsgrove Chicksand
H. V. H. V. H. V.
1½ 0 1 0 ½ 0
1½ 0 7½ 0 3½ 0
½ 0 1 0 3 0
6½ 0 ½ 0 1 0
—————— —————— ——————
10 0 10 0 10 0
Eyeworth Holwell Odell
H. V. H. V. H. V.
9 0 3½ 0 4½ ⅓
1 0 6½ 0 5 1⅔
—————— —————— ——————
10 0 10 0 10 0
Pavenham Houghton Conquest Dean
H. V. H. V. H. V.
2½ 0 5 0 4 0
5 0 ½ 0 2 ½
2½ 0 4½ 0 2 7¼
0 ½
—————— —————— ——————
10 0 10 0 10 0¼
Of these fifteen ten-hide townships, the last is selected as an instance of those slight discrepancies which creep in so easily and which account for many apparent exceptions to the rule. Passing to other multiples of the five-hide unit we have:
Oakley Thurleigh Blunham
H. V. H. V. H. V.
4 0 0 1 4 1
1 0 ½ 0 0 1
½ 0 ½ 0
0 1 10 0
3 0
½ 0
—————— —————— ——————
5 0 5 0 15 0
Marston Roxton Dunton
H. V. H. V. H. V.
10 2 (less ½ virg.) 1 1 10 8 1
8 (plus ½ virg.) 0 4 1 3
5 1 1 1 10 5 0
½ 7½ 1 4½ 0
3 8 3 ½ 0
½
————————— —————— ——————
15 0 20 0 20 0
I now give three illustrations of slight discrepancies:
Streatley Sutton Eaton Socon
H. V. H. V. H. V.
1 0 5 0 3 20 0
4 1 1 0 6 3
4⅓ 0 1½ 0 0 1½
0 ⅔ ½ 0 0 ½
0 ⅔ 0 3½ 9 1
0 1½ 0 5½
2 0 2 ½
0 3 0 1
½ 0
0 1½
1 0
—————— —————— ——————
9 3⅔ 9 0½ 40 1
In the first case there is a deficiency of 1⁄120, and in the second of 7⁄80, while in the third we find an excess of 1⁄160. No one can doubt that these were really ten-hide, ten-hide, and forty-hide townships. We have to allow, in the first place, for trivial slips, and in the second for possible errors in the baffling work of identification at the present day. One can hardly doubt that if a student with the requisite local knowledge set himself to reconstruct, according to Hundreds, the Bedfordshire Domesday, he would find, as in Cambridgeshire, that even where a township was not assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, it was combined in an adjacent one in such an assessment.
Hides
Huntingdon 50
St. Ives (Slepe) 20
Hartford 15
Spaldwick 15
Stukeley 10
Abbots Ripton 10
Upwood 10
Warboys 10
Calne 6
Bluntisham 6½ 20½103
Somersham 8
Wistow104 9
Holywell 9
Houghton 7
Wyton 7
Broughton 4
Catworth 4105
———
200½
In Hertfordshire, as indeed in other counties, there is great need for that local research which alone can identify and group the Domesday holdings. So far as single Vills are concerned, Bengeo affords a good illustration of the way in which scattered fractions work out in combination.
H. V.
Count Alan 0 1
Hugh de Beauchamp 6 0
Geoffrey de Mandeville 3 1
Geoffrey de Bech 5 1
6½ 0
1 1½
0 5½
0 3½
Peter de Valognes 0 ½
—————
25 0
This case of the Hundred of Fishborough is, however, peculiar. The entry, which was prominently quoted by Ellis (who failed to see its true significance), is this:
Before leaving Worcestershire, attention should be called to the great Manor of Pershore, which Westminster Abbey held for 200 hides, and to the 100 hides connected therewith under the heading 'Terra sanctæ Mariæ de Persore'.
In Somerset we find some good instances, with the help of Mr Eyton's analyses.
Hundred of Crewkerne
Merriott (5 + 7) 12 15
Seaborough (1½ + 1½) 3
Hinton St. George 13 25
In Crewkerne 12
—
40
Hundred of Whitstone
East Pennard (19 + 1) 20
Baltonsborough 5
Doulting (14 + 3¼ + 2¾) 20
Batcombe (10¼ + 2 + 7¾) 20
Ditcheat (5 + 5½ + 6½ + 5½ + 1 + 7) 30½
Pilton (6½ + 3 + 5 + 5 + 2) 21½
Stoke St. Michael 3
——
120
We will now pass to Devon and examine the assessments of its Hundreds. Of these thirty-one are entered in the Inquisitio Geldi. Now, as four virgates went to the hide, such assessments as 25¾, 9¼ hides, show us that the simple doctrine of probability is in favour of only one Hundred in every twenty proving to be assessed in multiples of the five-hide unit. Yet we find that those so assessed form an absolute majority of the whole. When classified, they run thus—50 (four), 40 (one), 30 (two), 25 (four), 20 (five): total, 16 Hundreds.
Indeed, though I definitely advance the suggestion that the assessment was, in the first instance, laid upon the Hundred itself, and that the subsequent assessment of its Vills and Manors was arrived at by division and subdivision, the truth or falsehood of this theory in no way affects the indisputable phenomenon of the five-hide unit. On the prominence of that unit I take my stand as absolute proof that the hide assessment was fixed independently of area or value, and that, consequently, all the attempts that have been made by ingenious men to discover and establish the relation which that assessment bore to area, whether in Vill or Manor, have proved not only contradictory among themselves, but, as was inevitable, vain.
All the fanciful calculations that Mr Pell has based upon this assumption, including his delicious 'Ready Reckoner', may be safely left to slumber in oblivion by the Domesday student who does not wish to waste his time.
Although Mr Eyton also indulged in 'fanciful calculations', and committed the fatal error of combining facts and fancies, he was at least on the right track in discarding the notion that the Domesday hide denoted a fixed area, and in treating it as a term of assessment. At the same time, the acceptance of my theory that this assessment was not determined by the real value of the Manor or Vill, but was unconnected with it, would be, of course, destructive of all his calculations.
Berkshire undoubtedly offers a fruitful sphere of study. On the one hand, we have so large a proportion of Manors assessed at 5, 10, 15, 20 hides, and so forth as to strike the reader at once without special research; on the other, we find these archaic assessments reduced under the Conqueror in the most sweeping manner, and the old system thus effaced. Fortunately for us in this case its existence is recorded in the Domesday entries of the previous assessments. What is here, as elsewhere, wanted is a thorough local analysis of the hidage, Hundred by Hundred. For no county is such an analysis more urgently needed.
In Bucks the Primate's three Manors are of 40, 5, 30 hides, while nine Manors of Walter Giffard follow one another with these assessments: 20, 10, 10, 20, 3½, 10, 5, 5, 10; and in Gloucestershire we are met on every side by Manors of 5, 10, 15, 20 hides, and so on. In Surrey, the Primate's six Manors are assessed at 30, 20 80, 5, 20, 14 hides. As a proof that this feature is in no way of my own creation, I will take the Wiltshire Manors selected by Mr Pell for his tables. Seven out of the eleven selected by him are five-hide assessments, being 5, 10, 20, 40, 20, 5, 10. The marvel is that any one can have failed to observe the general occurrence of the fact.
Hides Folio
Staines 19 128
'In Speletorne Hundred' 1 128b
'Hatone' 1½ 129
Haneworde 5 129
'Leleham' 2 129
'Exeforde' 1 129
'Bedefunt' 2 129
Felteham 12 129
Stanwelle 15 130
'Bedefunde' 10 130
'West Bedefunde' 8 130
'Haitone' 1⅚125 130
'Leleham' 8 130b
'In Hundredo de Spelethorne' ⅔126 130b
'Cerdentone' 5 130b
The hundred, therefore, was assessed thus:
Hides
Stains with Ashford 20
Stanwell 15
West Bedfont 10
East Bedfont 10
Laleham 10
Feltham 12
Hanworth 5
Charlton 5
Hatton, etc. 5
Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare serviebat hæc civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ;
and to the service of Malmesbury:
What then is the meaning of the frequent recurrence in the laws of possession of five hides of land as the distinctive mark of a particular rank?
Dr Stubbs' views will be found in his Constitutional History (1874), i. 155-6, 190-2, and those of Gneist in his Constitutional History (1886), i. 13, 90, 94. The latter writer follows Schmidt rather than Maurer, but sums up his position in the words: 'Since under Ælfred and his successors every estate of five hides is reckoned in the militia system as one heavy-armed man, the rank of a thane becomes the right (as such) of a possessor of five hides.'
Lastly, it is an interesting and curious fact that we owe to the five-hide unit such place-names as Fivehead, Somerset; Fifehead, Dorset; Fifield, Oxon; Fifield and Fyfield, Wilts; Fyfield, Hants; and Fyfield, Essex—all of them in Domesday 'Fifhide' or 'Fifehide'—as well as Fyfield, Berks, which occurs in Domesday as 'Fivehide'. Philologists will note the corruption and its bearing on the original pronunciation.
To the probable antiquity and origin of the five-hide system I must recur, after glancing at the evidence for the northern and eastern districts of England.
VII. THE SIX-CARUCATE UNIT
The subject that I now approach is one of the highest interest. I propose to adduce for my theory convincing corroborative evidence by showing that the part which is played in the hidated district of England by the five-hide unit is played in the Danish districts by a unit of six carucates. In other words, where we look in the former for 'v. hidæ', we must learn to look in the latter for 'vi. carucatæ terræ'.
Now in the peculiar district of which I am treating there occurs an important formula which covers Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Notts. Domesday has nothing like it for the other parts of England. Here are the three passages in which we find it recorded:
Lincolnshire Yorkshire Derby and Notts
Pax manu regis vel sigillo ejus data, si fuerit infracta, emendatur per xviii. hundrez. Unumquidque hundret solvit viii. libras. Duodecim hundrez emendant regi et vi. comiti.—i. 336b. Pax data manu regis vel sigillo ejus, si fuerit infracta, regi solummodo emendatur per xii. hundrez, unumquidque hundret viii. libras. Pax a comite data et infracta a quolibet ipsi comiti per vi. hundrez emendatur, unumquidque viii. libras—i. 298b. In Snotingehamscyre et in Derbin scyre pax regis manu vel sigillo data, si fuerit infracta, emendatur per xviii. hundrez, unumquidque hundret viii. libras. Hujus emendationis habet rex ii. partes, comes terciam. Id est xii. hundred emendant regi et vi. comiti—i. 280b.
For comparison with these three passages we may turn to the charter of immunities confirmed to York Cathedral by Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II. We there read:
As there were twelve carucates in the 'Hundred', so it paid twelve marcs, which, if we can trust the above explanation, themselves came to be termed a 'Hundred'. Moreover, the 'Hundreds' themselves were grouped in multiples of six. So too the Yorkshire thegn who held six Manors or less paid three marcs to the sheriff; if he held more than six, twelve marcs to the king (Domesday, i. 289b).
Car. Bov. Car. Bov. Car. Bov.
2 4 12 0 12 0
2 0 10 0 11 4
2 4 10 6 3 0
11 0 8 0 1 0
5 0 6 0 2 0
11 0 1 4 3 0
8 6 0 4 3 4
1 0
0 6
2 0
1 6
———— ———— ————
Here are the nineteen Wapentakes, with the number of Hundreds assigned to each, and the number of 'carucatæ terræ' that such Hundreds would imply:
West Trithing
Wapentake Hundreds Car. terr.
Manley [ ]½
Aslacoe 7½ 90
Lawress 12 144
Corringham 5 60
Axholme 4 48
Well 7 84
North Trithing
Walshcroft 8 96
Haverstoe 7½ 90
Bradley 3½144 [and 3 bov.] 42⅜
Ludborough 3 36
Yarborough 14 168
Bolingbroke 8 96
Gartree 6 72
South Trithing
Candleshoe 10 120
Calceworth 10 120
Wraghoe 9 108
Hill 6 72
Lothesk 10 120
Horncastle 6½ 78
All the above, it will be seen, are multiples of the six-carucate unit. That the aggregate of recorded 'carucatæ terræ' appears to differ, though slightly, from the totals here given only shows how vain is the argument that, because the recorded aggregates of Hundreds may often be uneven figures, there could therefore have been no system at work such as I contend there was. Clerical error and special alterations have both to be allowed for.
I shall now give some instances of Lindsey townships assessed on the basis of the six-carucate unit:
Car. Bov.
Willoughton 3 5½
” 2 2½
— —
6 0
Faldingworth 2 4
” 1 0
” 2 4
— —
6 0
Reepham 0 4
” 0 6
” 4 6
— —
6 0
Thoresway 0 2
” 5 6
— —
6 0
Benniworth 2 4
” 3 4
— —
6 0
Thorganby 1 7
” 0 5
” 1 6
” 0 6
” 1 0
— —
6 0
Beelsby 4 4
” 1 0
” 0 4
— —
6 0
Riby 1 4
” 4 4
— —
6 0
Rigsby 3 6
” 2 2
— —
6 0
South Kelsey 4 4
Thornton le Moor 1 4
— —
6 0
These instances will illustrate the value of the Lindsey Survey in enabling us to group the fractional assessments which appear in Domesday Book. Here are some other varieties:
Car. Bov.
Dunholm 5 3
” 2 5
” 2 0
” 2 0
— —
12 0
Glentham 3 0
” 0 10
Glentham and Caenby 7 6
— —
12 0
Scotton 0 4
” 0 4
” 2 0
” 6 0
— —
9 0
Irby-on-Humber 1 4
” 1 0
” 0 4
— —
3 0
Somerby 2 4
” 0 6
— —
3 0
Barrow-on-Humber 11 0
” 1 0
— —
12 0
South Elkington 4 0
” 8 0
— —
12 0
Winteringham 11 0
” 1 0
— —
12 0
Nun Ormsby 2 2
” 4 4
” 2 2
— —
9 0
Croxby 0 3
” 0 5
” 1 0
” 1 0
— —
3 0
Worlaby 2 2
” 0 6
— —
3 0
Lastly, to complete the parallel with the Leicestershire Hundreds infra, we may take this case (cf. p. 63, note 122):
Claxby and Well 14
Claxby 10
—
24
Precisely the same system prevailed in Holland as in Lindsey, for the 'Testa de Nevill' preserves for us the constituents of a Holland Wapentake, that of 'Elhou':
Pinchbeck 12
Spalding 12
Weston 6
Moulton 6
Whaplode and Holbeach 18
Fleet 6
Gedney 8 12
Lutton 4
Sutton 9¾ 12
Tydd 2¼
—
84
The Lindsey Survey would describe such a Wapentake as containing 'Seven Hundreds'.
Crossing the border from Lincolnshire into Rutland (i.e. the Rutland of Domesday), we find the same system at work that meets us in the Lindsey Survey. We read:
In Alfnodestou Wapent' sunt ii. Hundrez. In unoquoque [sunt] xii. carucatæ ad geldum.... In Martinesleie Wap' est i. hundret, in quo xii. carucatæ ad geldum.—D.B., i. 293b.
Car. terræ Car. terræ
Archbishop 6 Archbishop 6
Osboldeuuic 6 Osboldeuuic 6
Stocthun 6 Stochetun 6
Sa'bura 3 Sa'bure 3
Heuuarde 6 Heuuorde 6
Ditto 3
Fuleford 10 Fuleforde 10
Round the City 3 Round the City 3
Cliftune 18 Cliftune 18
Roudclif 3 Roudeclif 3
Ouertun 5 Ouertune 5
Sceltun 9 Scheltune 9
Mortun 3 Mortune 3
Wichistun 1 Wichintun 3
— —
'84' '84'
Yorkshire presents other traces, in its Hundreds, of the same system. Thus the townships in the Hundred of 'Toreshou' follow one another in this order: 18, 18, 20, 6, 18, 8, 12, 12 (8+4), 6, 18, 8, 18, etc. (infra, p. 80).
It will be remembered that in the case of Cambridgeshire, I selected for my first two examples a Hundred of 50 hides, composed of 5 Vills assessed at 10 hides each, and a Hundred of 70 hides, composed of 7 Vills, assessed at 10 hides each. In Leicestershire, precisely in the same manner, I shall begin with the simplest forms and select Hundreds of 36 and 48 carucates, composed of Vills uniformly assessed at 12 carucates each.
Hundred of Scalford
Scalford 12 (11½ + ½)
Goadby 12 (6 + 6)
Knipton 12 (8¾ + 3¼)
—
36
Hundred of Kibworth
Kibworth (Beauchamp) 12
Kibworth (Harcourt) 12
'Bocton' 12
Carlton 12 (10 + 1¼ + ¾)
—
48
From these we may advance to other combinations:
Hundred of Harby
Harby and Plungar 18
Stathern 18
—
36
Hundred of Tong
Tong 12
Kegworth 15 18
Worthington 3
'Dominicum' 12
—
42
Hundred of Langton
Langton (1) 24 14½ (11¼ + 3¼)
Thorp (Langton) 3¾
Langton (2) 5¾
Tur Langton 24 12
Shangton 12 (10 + 2)
—
48
With these types as clues we are in a position to assert that where the total assessment of a Hundred varies but slightly from a multiple of six, there must have been some slight error in one of the figures. Thus Hundreds of 35½, 3413⁄16 carucates, etc., may be safely assumed to have been Hundreds of 36 carucates; those of 41, 43⅞, etc., would be of 42 carucates; those of 48⅞, 50, etc., would be of 48 carucates. These slight discrepancies, precisely as in Lincolnshire, are accounted for by Vills of 6 or 12 carucates, being entered as of 5⅞, 513⁄16, 6¾, or 11⅞, 13, etc. Thus:
Hundred of Eastwell
Vills Carucates
Eastwell 12 (2 + 6 + 4)
Eaton 12¼ (3¼ + 9⁄16 + 87⁄16)
Branston 12 (7½ + 4½)
—
36¼
It will have been seen by this Survey that the 'Vills', single or grouped, were assessed precisely as in Cambridgeshire, save that there the assessment was reckoned in fives and tens, while here it was in sixes and twelves.
VIII. THE LEICESTERSHIRE 'HIDA'
The first point to grasp is that this Leicestershire 'hida' was a term which, locally I mean, explained itself. It is used at least a dozen times in the Survey of Leicestershire without any mention of its contents. Those contents must have been, therefore, familiar and fixed. But what were those contents? Three incidental notices enable us to determine them:
231 (a), 2: 'Ibi est i. hida et iiiita. pars i. hidæ. Ibi sunt xxii. car' terræ et dimidia.'
236 (a), 1: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'
237 (a), 2: 'II. partes unius hidæ, id est xii. car' terræ.'
But to the rule I have established there is a single exception. We read of 'Medeltone' in this shire: 'Ibi sunt vii. hidæ et una carucata terræ et una bovata. In unaquaque hida sunt xiiii. carucatæ terræ et dimidia' (fo. 235b). The actual formula employed is unique for the shire, and the figures are specially given as an exception. But, with singular perversity, Domesday students have always been inclined to pitch upon the exceptions as representing the rule, forgetting that it was precisely in exceptional cases that figures had to be given. In normal cases they would have been superfluous.
I close this portion of my essay by applying my own theory to the case of 'Erendesbi' (Arnesby). The relative entries are:
'Episcopus Constantiensis tenet in Erendesber iiias. car[ucatas] terræ et dim. et unam bovatam (231).'
'W[illelmus] Pevrel tenet dim. hidam et iii. bovatas terræ in Erendesbi (235).'
Put into figures they work out:
Car. Bov.
Bishop of Coutances 2½ 1
William Peverel 9 3
——————
12 0
IX. THE LANCASHIRE 'HIDA'
There is one other case of a peculiar 'hide' in Domesday. This is that which is found in the land 'between Ribble and Mersey', that district of which the description offers so many peculiarities. We find it divided into six hundreds, and of the 'hides' in the first, that of (West) Derby, we read: 'In unaquaque hida sunt vi. carucatæ terræ' (i. 269b). Whether or not that explanation applies, as is believed, to the whole district, we have here again a 'Danish' place-name brought into direct relation with the six-carucate unit. On the opposite bank of the Mersey lay the Wirral peninsula, in which this system of assessment cannot be traced.
X. THE YORKSHIRE UNIT
We have seen that the unit of assessment for the carucated districts of England was 'vi. carucatæ terræ', just as five hides was the old unit in the south. We have also seen that the former reckoning extended over those districts which the Danish immigrants had settled. There remains the question whether the Danes had merely substituted six for five in the pre-existing arrangement, or had made a wholly new one for themselves based on actual area.
Turbar Hundred
Hundemanebi 24
Ricstorp, Mustone, Scloftone, and Neuton 18
Flotemanebi 6
Muston and Neuton 6
Fordun and Ledemare 6
Burton, Fulcheton, and Chelc 30
Chelc (2), Ergone, Bringeham, Estolf, Fodstone, and Chemelinge 19
Nadfartone 23¾
Pochetorp 6
Helmeswelle and Gartune 44
Hunton Hundred
Flaneburg and Siwardbi 24½
Marton 9
Bredinton 18
Hilgertorp 6
Wivlestorp and Basingebi 12
Frestintorp 9 29½
Eleburne ½
Eston 6
Bovintorp 14
Gerendele 12
Ricton, Benton and Spetton 24
Bocheton 12
Fleuston 14 27
Stactone 6
Foxhole 7
Burton Hundred
Burton 12
Grenzmore (4+2) 6
Arpen (4+8) 12
Chillon (30+11+7) 48
Roreston (9+3) 12
Logetorp (1½+5½) 7 36
Thirnon 7
Ascheltorp (4+2) 6
Torp 3
Cherendebi 13
Caretorp (5+4+3) 12
Rodestain (8+8+8) 24
Twenc 17¼
Suauetorp 9
Fornetorp (4+14) 18
Butruid 12
Langetou (9+6) 15 42
Buitorp 5
Bruneton 3
Galmeton 8
Binneton 6
Widlaueston 5
I claim, therefore, that my theory holds good even in Canon Taylor's stronghold, but I do so without venturing to dispute the accuracy of his own. How far they can be reconciled I leave to others to decide.
There are certain difficulties, however, which his brilliant suggestion must raise. It is the essence of his theory that in a two-field Manor the ploughland of 160 acres (half fallow) was assessed at one 'carucata terræ', while in the three-field Manor the ploughland of 180 acres (a third fallow) was assessed at two. This would be an obvious and gross injustice. Again, remembering that, according to the Canon, the proportion of 'carucatæ' to ploughlands should be either 2 to 1 or 1 to 1, what are we to make of such figures as these, taken at a venture from a page of the Leicestershire Survey (232a, 1):
Carucatæ Ploughlands Carucata Ploughlands
1 2 12 8
1 ½ 11⅛ 7
2 1 9 4
5⅝ 4 7 6
2 1 6 5
2⅝ 4 2 4
1 1 10 7
6 4 9 6
8⅞ 6 ⅝ ½
½ ½ 6 4 (thrice)
28 22 4⅞ 3
It is certainly difficult to discover any regular or consistent assessment in a system where the ploughland was represented by anything from ½ carucata to 2¼ carucatæ. There is, however, in so many cases an approximation to an assessment of three carucatæ for two ploughlands, that there seems to have been some underlying idea, if we could only trace it out. But for this there is needed a special investigation of all the carucated counties, a work of great labour and requiring local co-operation. If we could have tables for each county, arranged Hundred by Hundred and Vill by Vill, showing in parallel columns the ploughland and the carucatæ ad geldum, we could then, and only then, venture to speak positively. Till that is accomplished we are not in a position to explain how a system of assessment, based on actual area, could result in aggregate assessments uniformly expressed in terms of the six-carucate unit.
XI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In seeking a clue to the origin of that artificial assessment, of which the traces, whether more or less apparent, linger on the pages of Domesday, I propose to exclude the carucated district, because we require, as I have said, more complete evidence as to the system pursued within it, and because, being associated with the settlement of the Danes it represents a later introduction, while the very name 'carucate', as I observed in Domesday Studies, has, unlike the mysterious 'hide', an obvious connection with the ploughland. Confining ourselves to the district assessed in terms of the 'hide', we seek to learn the origin of the system by which, as I contend, it was divided for the purpose of taxation into blocks, each of which was expressed in terms of the five-hide unit.
But such an hypothesis would imply that this assessment dated only from the days of Æthelred, or circ. 1000. Now the five-hide unit, on the contrary, was undoubtedly an old institution. Church lordships, the easiest to trace, appear to have retained their hidation unchanged from early times, and the 'possessio decem familiarum' of Bede seems to carry the decimal system back to very early days. Mr Seebohm, indeed—though, like others, he had failed to discover the existence of the five-hide system—saw in this 'possessio' of Bede a connecting link with the Roman decuria, just as he saw in the Roman jugatio the possible origin of English hidation. And we must, of course, trace its artificial arrangement (1) either to the Romans, (2) or to the Britons—assuming them to have had the same system as existed in Wales for the food-rents, (3) or to the English invaders.
Arrested at this point by the difficulty of assigning to the system I have described its real origin, I dropped these studies for some years in the hope that there might come from some quarter fresh light upon the problem. As I cannot, however, for lack of evidence, propound a solution capable of proof, I will content myself with indicating the line of research that offers, I venture to think, the most likelihood of success.
On comparing the contributions to a 'geld' at two shillings on the hide with the (modern) area of counties, we find that a rate of about a pound for every seven square miles prevailed widely enough to be almost described as normal.
The three eastern counties work out thus:
Square Miles (At 1⁄7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Norfolk 2,119 3025⁄7 330 3 2
Suffolk 1,475 2105⁄7 235 0 8
Essex 1,542 2202⁄7 236 8 0
In all three cases the proportion to the square mile is between a sixth and a seventh of a pound. In Cambridgeshire it is just under, in Sussex, just over, a seventh:
Square Miles (At 1⁄7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Cambridgeshire 820 1171⁄7 114 15 0
Sussex 1,458 2082⁄7 209 18 6
Most remarkable, however, is this Midland group:
Square Miles (At 1⁄7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Leicestershire 700 100 100 0 0
Warwickshire 885 1263⁄7 128 12 6
Worcestershire 738 1053⁄7 101 5 7
Gloucestershire 1,224 1746⁄7 179 11 8
Somerset 1,640 2342⁄7 227 10 4
It is remarkable, not only for this agreement inter se, but also for the sharp contrast it presents to the groups of counties, lying respectively to the south-east and the north-west of it. The former approximates a rate twice as high, namely, two-sevenths of a pound to the square mile:
Square Miles (At 1⁄7) Actual Sum
£ £ s d
Buckinghamshire 745 2123⁄7 204 14 7
Oxfordshire 756 216 239 9 3
Berkshire 722 2062⁄7 200 1 3
Wiltshire 1,354 3866⁄7 388 13 0
Taking this group as a whole, it paid £1,032 18s 1d, a curiously close approximation to the £1,0214⁄7 which my suggested rate of 2⁄7 would give. Middlesex was so exceptional a county, that one hardly likes to include it, but there also the rate was a little over two-sevenths.
The point I have here endeavoured to bring out is that if the system of artificial assessment were of Roman or British origin, we should expect to find it fairly uniform over the whole country, whereas we find, on the contrary, the very widest discrepancies. It might be urged, perhaps, that these were due to the differing conditions of particular counties, to their more or less partial reclamation, for instance, of the date when they were assessed. But this would not account for the grouping I have traced, and would imply that each county ought to differ indefinitely. Nor would it explain the case of Kent, where a county that must have been foremost in early development and prosperity enjoyed a phenomenally low assessment.
The suggestion I have made as to the origin of the five-hide system is tentative only, and must remain so until we have at our disposal for the whole hidated region that complete and trustworthy analysis of assessment, on the need of which I again insist, at the risk of wearisome iteration.
XII. THE EAST ANGLIAN 'LEET'
Here are the divisions recorded in it, with the Domesday assessment (in pence) of each Vill placed against its name.
£ s d
I. Barrow 7
Flemington 6
Lackford 6
—
19 0 1 7
II. Risby 20 0 1 8
III. Saxham (A) 7
Saxham (B) 7
Westley 6½
—
20½ 0 1 8½
IV. Hengrave 10
Fornham 10
—
20 0 1 8
V. Ickworth 7½
Chevington 6½
Hargrave 7
—
21 0 1 9
VI. Brockley 7
Rede 7
Manston 6
—
20 0 1 8
VII. Whepstead 20 0 1 8
VIII. Hawstead 13½
Newton 6½
—
20 0 1 8
IX. Horningsheath 20 0 1 8
X., XI., XII. Sudbury 60 0 5 0
————
£1 0 0½
The two records—Domesday and the Inquest—thus confirm one another, and their concurrent testimony establishes the fact not only that the Suffolk Hundred was divided into blocks of equal assessment, but that these blocks were known by the name of 'leets'.
'H[undredum] de Grenehou de xiv. letis' (ii. 119b).
'Hund[redum] et dim[idium] de Clakelosa de x. leitis' (ii. 212b).
Having thus obtained from the Hundred of Thingoe the clue to this peculiar system, we can advance to more difficult types. The Hundred of Thedwastre, for instance, was divided not into twelve blocks, each paying twenty pence in the pound, but into nine blocks, each paying twenty-seven. This assessment allowed a margin of 3d for every pound (i.e. £1 0s 3d); but in the case of Thedwastre the total excess was only 1½d on the pound (i.e. £1 0s 1½d). I group the Vills tentatively, thus:
d
I. Barton 27
II. Fornham 6½ 26½
Rougham 20
III. Peckenham 13½ 26½
Bradfield 5
Fornham St Genevieve 8
IV. Thurston 16 27
Woolpit 11
V. Rushbrook 7 27
Ratlesden 20
VI. Hessett 18 28
Felsham 5
Bradfield 5
VII. Gedding 5 26
Whelnetham 10
Drinkston 11
VIII. Ampton 7 27½
Tostock 10½
Staningfield 10
IX. Tinworth 14 26
Livermere 12
——
241½ (£1 0s 1½d)
The same unit of 27 (x9)—or, which comes to the same thing, 13½ (x18)—was adopted in Risbridge Hundred. In this case no less than five Manors are assessed at the same unit—13½d. So, again, in the Hundred of Blackbourn the units are 34½d and 17¼d, one Manor being assessed at the former, and five at the latter sum. Such is the key to the peculiar system of East Anglian assessment.
XIII. THE WORDS 'SOLINUM' AND 'SOLANDA'192
Several years ago I arrived at the conclusion that the identity of these two words was an unsupported conjecture. So long as it remained a conjecture only, its correction was not urgent; but since then, as is so often the case, the result of leaving it unassailed has been that arguments are based upon it. There appeared in the English Historical Review for July 1892 a paper by Mr Seebohm, in which that distinguished scholar took the identity for granted, as his no less distinguished opponent, Professor Vinogradoff, has done in his masterly work on Villainage in England.
I believe the alleged identity was first asserted by Archdeacon Hale, who wrote in his Domesday of St. Paul's (1858), p. xiv:
The word solanda, or, as it is written at p. 142, scolanda, is so evidently a Latinized form of the Anglo-Saxon sulung, or ploughland, and approaches so near to the Kentish solinus, that we need scarcely hesitate to consider them identical.
Let us start from the facts. In the Domesday of Kent we find the form solin, or its Latin equivalent solinum, used for the unit of assessment, like the hide and the carucate in other counties. In the Kent monastic surveys it is found as sullung or suolinga. But when we turn to the Domesday of St. Paul's, we find—first, that instead of being universal, as in Kent, it occurs only in three cases; secondly, that the form is solande, solanda, scholanda, scolanda, or even (we shall see) Scotlande; thirdly, that it is not employed as a unit of assessment at all.
The three places where the term occurs in the Domesday of St. Paul's are Drayton and Sutton in Middlesex, and Tillingham in Essex. Hale would seem to have arrived at no clear idea of what the word meant. At p. xiv he wrote that 'a solanda consisted of two hides, but probably in this case the hide was not of the ordinary dimension'. At p. lxxviii he inferred, from a reference to 'la Scoland' in a survey of Drayton, that '"ploughed land" would seem to be opposed to "Scoland"'. At p. cx he was led by the important passage—'De hydis hiis decem, due fuerunt in dominio, una in scolanda, et vii. assisæ'—to suggest that it 'appears to denote some difference in the tenure'. This last conjecture seems the most probable. If we take the case of Sutton and Chiswick, we read in the survey of 1222:
Juratores dicunt quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem pro tribus hidis preter solandam de Chesewich que per se habet duas hidas, et sunt geldabiles cum hidis de Sutton.
Hale (p. 119) believed that this Solande de Chesewich was no other than the Scotlande thesaurarii of 1181, namely the prebend of Chiswick. The above passage should further be compared with the survey of Caddington (1222):
Dicunt juratores quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem pro x. hidis ... preter duas prebendas quæ sunt in eadem parochia.
The formula is the same in both cases, and a solanda was clearly land held on some special terms, and was not a measure or unit of assessment at all. Indeed Hale himself admitted that it could not be identified with one or with two hides.
Hale, however, misled Mr Seebohm, who in his great work on the English Village Community (p. 54), wrote of Tillingham:
Proceeding further (p. 395), Mr Seebohm wrote:
Generally in Kent, and sometimes in Sussex, Berks and Essex, we found, in addition to, or instead of, the hide or carucate, or 'terra unius aratri', solins, sullungs, or swullungs, the land pertaining to a 'suhl', the Anglo-Saxon word for plough.
Unfortunately no reference is given for the cases of Sussex and Berks, and I know of none myself.
Turning now to the learned work of Professor Vinogradoff, we find him equally misled:
Lastly, we come to Mr Seebohm's reply to Professor Vinogradoff (ante, pp. 444-465). Here the identity is again assumed:
Along with parts of Essex, the Kentish records differ in phraseology from those of the rest of England. Their sullungs of 240 acres occur also in the Manors of Essex belonging to St. Paul's, and the custom of gavelkind and succession of the youngest child mark it off as exceptional. Mr Vinogradoff ... shows that in the Kentish district, and in Essex, where the sullung or solanda takes the place of the hide, and where gavelkind prevailed, the unity of the hides and virgates was preserved only for the purposes of taxation and the services; whilst in reality the holdings clustered under the nominal unit were many and irregular.
I yield to no one in admiration for Mr Seebohm's work, but the question raised is so important that accuracy as to the fact is here essential. (1) Sullung is nowhere found in Essex, but only solanda; (2) Solanda does not occur 'in the Manors' referred to, but at Tillingham alone; (3) In Essex it nowhere 'takes the places of the hide', as it does in Kent; (4) The Essex instance adduced by Professor Vinogradoff is taken from a Manor where solanda does not occur.
Mr Elton, in his well-known Tenures of Kent, attaches considerable importance to a list, 'De Suylingis Comitatus Kanciæ et qui eas tenent', in the Cottonian MS., Claud. C. IV, which he placed little subsequent to Domesday. Having transcribed it for collation with the Survey, I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently trustworthy for publication, for the names, in my opinion, involve some anachronism. The feature of the list is that it shows us as tenants-in-chief, the leading tenants of Bishop Odo; and the change of most interest to genealogists is the succession of Patrick 'de Caurcio' to the holding of Ernulf de Hesdin.
XIV. THE 'FIRMA UNIUS NOCTIS'
The curious and evidently archaic institution of the firma unius noctis was clearly connected with the problem of hidation. In Somerset the formula for a Manor contributing to this firma was:
Nunquam geldavit nec scitur quot hidæ sint ibi (i. 85).
In Dorset it ran:
Nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi quia non geldabat T.R.E. (i. 75).
In Wiltshire we read:
In all these entries the 'hide' is recognized as merely a measure of assessment quite independent of area.
Hampshire affords us, in a group of Manors, a peculiarly good instance in point. Of Basingstoke, Kingsclere, and 'Esseborne', we read:
Rex tenet in dominio Basingestoches. Regale manerium fuit semper. Numquam geldum dedit, nec hida ibi distributa fuit....
Clere tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit, et pertinet ad firmam diei de Basingestoches. Numerum hidarum nescierunt....
Esseborne tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit. Numerum hidarum non habent....
Hæc tria maneria, Basingestoches, Clere, Esseborne, reddunt firmam unius diei (39).
Other Manors are found about the county displaying the same peculiarity.
Ipse rex tenet Bertune. De firmâ Regis E. fuit, et dimidiam diem firmæ reddidit in omnibus rebus.... Nunquam in hid(is) numeratum fuit.... Numerum hidarum non dixerunt.
Ipse rex tenet Edlinges in dominio. Hoc manerium reddidit dimidiam diem firmæ tempore Regis E. Numerum hidarum nesciunt (38).
Manors, such as Andover, not hidated, clearly belonged to the same system, though neither their value nor their render is given.
Thus, then, within the limits of Wessex, in the four adjacent counties of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hants, we find surviving, at the time of the Conquest, an archaic but uniform system of provision for the needs of the Crown by the assignment of certain estates or groups of estates, the render of which was expressed in terms of the 'firma noctis' or 'firma diei', and which, unlike the country around them, had never been assessed in 'hides'.
The system of grouping townships in the west for the payment of a food-rent (firma unius noctis) was exactly parallel to the grouping in the east for the payment, not of rent but of 'geld'. We can best trace this parallel in Somerset, because the firma unius noctis of the days before the Conquest had been there commuted for a money payment at the time of Domesday. Turning to the Cambridgeshire hundred of Long Stow, we find one of its 'blocks' (of twenty-five hides) divided into three equal parts, while another is divided into three parts, of which one is half the size of the two others. And so in Somerset we have Frome and Bedminster combined in one group for the payment of this firma, and the two Perrotts similarly combined with Curry. Frome and Bedminster are each assigned the same payment, but in the other group the contribution of one is half that of the two others.
Here are the Somerset groups of demesne, each charged with the render of a firma unius noctis.
Commutation £ s d
Somerton (with Borough of Langport) 79 10 7 100 10 9½
Chedder (with borough of Axbridge) 21 0 2½
North Petherton 42 8 4 106 0 10
South Petherton 42 8 4
Curry Rivell 21 4 2
Williton 105 17 4½
Carhampton
Cannington
Frome 53 0 5 106 0 10
Bruton 53 0 5
Milborne Port (with Ilchester) 79 10 7
[Bedminster203 21 0 2½]
Of these two last, Milborne Port is entered as having paid three-quarters of a firma noctis under the Confessor, while Bedminster—though in the midst of this group of firma Manors—is alone in having no render T.R.E. assigned to it. One is tempted to look on the two as originally combined in one firma (like Somerton and Chedder), save that the whole width of the county divides them, while in the other cases the constituents are grouped geographically.
The Wiltshire Manors, each of which rendered a firma unius noctis, were:
Ploughlands Valets
Calne 29
Bedwin 79
Amesbury 40
Warminster 40
Chippenham 100 £110
'Theodulveshide' 40 £100
From the figures given for Somerset and Wilts, it may fairly be concluded that, in this district, the value of the 'firma' was about £105. In Somerset, however, there was clearly a special sum, £106 0s 10d, on which calculations were based.
An examination of Mr Eyton's statements on the firma unius noctis in Somerset and Dorset would prove a peculiarly conclusive test of his whole system.
In the case of Somerset one need not dwell on his giving its amount for the Williton group as £105 16s 6½d, when the sum named is £105 17s 4½d, although absolute accuracy is, in these matters, essential. We will pass at once to the bottom of the page (ii. 2), and collate his rendering of Domesday with the original:
'T.R.E. reddebat dimidiam firmam noctis et quadrantem' (Domesday). 'Reddebat T.R.E. dimidiam noctis firmam et unum quadrantem' (Eyton).
Domesday gives the payment (in a characteristic phrase), as three-quarters [a half and a quarter] of a firma noctis. Mr Eyton first interpolates a 'unum', and then overlooks the 'quadrantem', with the result that he represents the due T.R.E. as a firma dimidiæ noctis (i. 77). So far, this is only a matter of error per se. But Domesday records the commutation of the due T.R.W. at £79 10s 7d. This proves to be three-quarters of the commutation, in two other cases, for a whole firma noctis (£106 0s 10d). Mr Eyton, however, imagining the due to have been only half a firma set himself to account for its commutation at so high a figure (i. 77-8). This he found no difficulty in doing. He explained that 'this was not a mere commutation', but 'was doubtless a change which took into consideration the extra means and enhanced value of Meleborne'.