diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-03 20:53:06 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-03 20:53:06 -0800 |
| commit | d641f9333dfe98ea01bf4addf00f899bfbf3d576 (patch) | |
| tree | b554be284ccdcc4463d138f02e5c8249af999a68 /44021-0.txt | |
| parent | 15ff5ce45d40a5bb111a7dbc0b1debb556131b5d (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to '44021-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 44021-0.txt | 26616 |
1 files changed, 26616 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44021-0.txt b/44021-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..296cf8e --- /dev/null +++ b/44021-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,26616 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44021 *** + +FEUDAL ENGLAND + +HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES + +BY + +J. H. ROUND + +FIRST PUBLISHED 1895 + +_Second impression 1909_ + +_Third impression 1909_ + + + + +PREFACE + + +The present work is the outcome of a wish expressed to me from more +than one quarter that I would reprint in a collected form, for the +convenience of historical students, some more results of my researches +in the history of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But to these I +have added, especially on Domesday, so much which has not yet seen the +light, that the greater portion of the work is new, while the rest +has been in part re-written. The object I have set before myself +throughout is either to add to or correct our existing knowledge of +facts. And for this I have gone in the main to records, whether in +manuscript or in print. It is my hope that the papers in this volume +may further illustrate the value of such evidence as supplementing +and checking the chroniclers for what is still, in many respects, an +obscure period of our history. + +As a foreign scholar has felicitously observed: + + Je lis avec plaisir le chroniqueur qui nous raconte les + événements de son époque. Les détails anecdotiques, les traits + piquants dont son [oe]uvre est parsémée font mes délices. Mais + comment saurai-je s'il dit la vérité si les pages qu'il me + présente ne sont pas un roman de pure imagination? Dans les + chartes, au contraire, tout est authentique, certain, précis, + indubitable. Leur témoignage est contradictoirement établi, + sous le contrôle de la partie adverse, avec l'approbation et + la reconaissance de l'autorité souveraine, en présence d'une + imposante assemblée de notables qui apposent leur signature. + C'est la plus pure de toutes les sources où il soit possible + de puiser un renseignement historique.[1] + +An instance in point will be found in the paper on 'Richard the +First's change of seal'. + +A collective title for a series of studies covering the period +1050-1200, is not by any means easy to find. But dealing as they do so +largely with the origins of 'Feudal England', I have ventured to give +them this title, which may serve, I hope, to emphasize my point that +the feudal element introduced at the Conquest had a greater influence +on our national institutions than recent historians admit.[2] Even +Domesday Book has its place in the study of feudalism, rearranging, as +it does, the Hundred and the Vill under Fiefs and 'Manors'. + +To those in search of new light on our early mediaeval history, I +commend the first portion of this work, as setting forth, for their +careful consideration, views as evolutionary on the Domesday hide and +the whole system of land assessment as on the actual introduction +of the feudal system into England. Although I have here brought into +conjunction my discovery that the assessment of knight-service was +based on a five-knights unit, irrespective of area or value, and my +theory that the original assessment of land was based on a five-hides +unit, not calculated on area or value, yet the two, one need hardly +add, are, of course, unconnected. The one was an Anglo-Saxon +system, and, as I maintain, of early date; the other was of Norman +introduction, and of independent origin. My theories were formed at +different times, as the result of wholly separate investigations. That +of the five-hides unit was arrived at several years ago, but was +kept back in the hope that I might light on some really satisfactory +explanation of the phenomena presented. The solution I now propound +can only be deemed tentative. I would hope, however, that the theories +I advance may stimulate others to approach the subject, and, above +all, that they may indicate to local students, in the future, the +lines on which they should work and the absolute need of their +assistance. + +Perhaps the most important conclusion to which my researches point +is that Domesday reveals the existence of two separate systems in +England, co-extensive with two nationalities, the original _five +hides_ of the 'Anglo-Saxon' in the south, and the later _six +carucates_ of the 'Danish' invaders in the north.[3] + +No one, I may add, is better qualified to carry further these +inquiries than Prof Maitland, whose brilliant pen has illumined for us +the origins of English law. Himself engaged on the study of Domesday, +he kindly offered to withhold his conclusions until my work should +have appeared.[4] + +Among the fresh points here discussed in connection with Domesday Book +will be found the composition of the juries by whom the returns were +made, the origin and true character of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, and +the marked difference of the two volumes compiled from the Domesday +returns. + +Of the six early surveys dealt with in conjunction with Domesday, I +would call attention to that of Leicestershire as having, it would +seem, till now remained absolutely unknown. It has long been a wish of +mine to deal with these surveys,[5] not only as belonging to a period +for which we have no records, but also as illustrating Domesday Book. +In 'The Knights of Peterborough' will be found some facts relating +to Hereward 'the Wake', which seem to have eluded Mr Freeman's +investigations, and even those of Mr Tout. + +In case it should suggest itself that these papers, and some in the +other portion of the work dwell at undue length on unimportant points, +I would observe that apart from the fact that even small points +acquire a relative importance from our scanty knowledge of the time, +there are cases in which their careful investigation may lead to +unforeseen results. At the last anniversary of the Royal Society, Lord +Kelvin quoted these words from his own presidential address in 1871: + + Accurate and minute measurement seems to the non-scientific + imagination a less lofty and dignified work than looking for + something new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of + science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement + and patient, long continued labour in the minute sifting of + numerical results. + +The same principle applies to the study of institutional history. +Whether we are dealing with military service, with the land, with +finance, or with the king's court, 'the minute sifting' of facts and +figures is the only sure method by which we can extend knowledge. + +To those who know how few are the original authorities for the period, +and how diligently these have been explored and their information +exhausted, the wonder will be not so much that there is little, as +that there was anything at all yet left to discover. + + * * * * * + +In a work dealing with the history of the eleventh and twelfth +centuries, a writer must inevitably find himself at times dealing with +the same subjects as the late Professor Freeman. Without in any way +disparaging the genius of that eminent man, one may deem it a duty to +correct the errors into which he fell, and conscientiously to combat, +as an obstinate and mischievous superstition, the conviction of his +pre-eminent accuracy and authority on matters of fact. It would be far +pleasanter to dwell only on his merits; but when one finds that, +in spite of the proofs I have been producing for years, Mr Herbert +Fisher, representing the Oxford school of history, can still declare +Mr Freeman to have reached 'the highest standard of scholarly +exactitude',[6] it is evident that the works of the Regius Professor +are still surrounded by a false glamour, and that one must further +expose his grave liability to error. I cannot suppose that any +competent scholar who may carefully peruse this work will in future +venture to deny that, in spite of his many and his splendid gifts, Mr +Freeman was as liable as any of us to error, or that however laudable +his intentions, he was capable of precisely the same inaccuracy and +occasionally of the same confusion as he denounced so bitterly in +others. + +It is, indeed, my contention, as I have already explained,[7] that +to these denunciations of the errors of others is largely due the +conviction of Mr Freeman's supreme accuracy. The question raised may +seem to affect the whole method of history, for if, as has been said, +it is the argument of the scientific historian that we ought to prefer +accuracy of fact to charm of presentment and to literary style, +the proof that his method fails to save him from erring like any +'literary' historian strikes at the root of his whole contention. + +Yet it is not the scientific method, but its prophet himself that was +at fault. + +Although I am here only concerned with inaccuracy in matters of fact, +I would guard myself against the retort that, at least, Mr Freeman's +errors are of little consequence as compared with that obliquity of +vision which led Mr Froude, at all hazards, to vindicate Henry +the Eighth. Without insisting on an absolute parallel, I trace a +resemblance even here. Just as his bias against the Roman church led +Mr Froude to vindicate Henry in order to justify the breach with Rome, +so Mr Freeman's passion for democracy made him an advocate on +behalf of Harold, as 'one whose claim was not drawn only from the +winding-sheet of his fathers'. I have elsewhere maintained, as to +Harold's election 'by the free choice of a free people', that Mr +Freeman's undoubted perversion of the case at this 'the central point' +of his history, gravely impairs his narrative of the Conquest, because +its success, and even its undertaking, can actually be traced to that +election.[8] Unless we realize its disastrous effect on the situation +both at home and abroad, we cannot rightly understand the triumph of +the Duke's enterprise. + +It had been my hope, in the present work, to have avoided acute +controversy, but the attitude adopted, unfortunately, by the late +Professor's champions has rendered that course impossible. One can +but rejoice that his accuracy should find strenuous defenders, as +it removes the reluctance one would otherwise feel in continuing to +criticize it now. A case is doubly proved when proved in the teeth of +opposition. But one expects that opposition to be fair, and the line +my opponents have taken throughout cannot, by any stretch of courtesy, +be so described. My difficulty, indeed, in dealing with their +arguments on the Battle of Hastings, is that they do not affect or +even touch my case. In spite of their persistent efforts to obscure a +plain issue, there is not, and there cannot be, any 'controversy' as +to Mr Freeman and the 'palisade'. For, while fully recognizing that +the _onus probandi_ lay on those who assert its existence, he failed, +on his own showing, to produce any proof of it whatever.[9] Mr Archer +has ended,[10] as he began,[11] by deliberately ignoring Mr Freeman's +words,[12] on which my case avowedly rests, and without suppressing +which he could not even enter the field. This, indeed, I have +explained so often, that I need not again have disposed of his +arguments had not Mr Gardiner, in the exercise of his editorial +discretion, allowed him to make certain statements,[13] and refused +me the right of exposing them. A typical example will be found on p. +273.[14] + +It is not only demonstrable error that justifies critical treatment; +no less dangerous, if not more so, is that subtle commixture of +guess-work and fact, which leaves us in doubt as to what is proved and +what is merely hypothesis. In his lecture on 'The Nature of Historical +Evidence', the late Professor himself well brought out the point: + + Many people seem to think that a position is proved if it + can not be disproved.... Very few see with Sir George + Lewis--though Sir George Lewis perhaps carried his own + doctrine a little too far--that in a great many cases we ought + to be satisfied with a negative result, that we must often put + up with knowing that a thing did not happen in a particular + way, or did not happen at all, without being furnished with + any counter-statement to put in the place of that which we + reject.[15] + +The question is whether a statement can be proved, not whether it can +be disproved. Cases in point will be found on pp. 291, 298, 331-3. + +It may, in view of certain comments, be desirable, perhaps, to +explain that the study on the origin of knight-service appeared in Mr +Freeman's lifetime,[16] and that my open criticism of his work began +so far back as 1882. It will be seen, therefore, that I challenged its +accuracy when he was himself able to reply. + +To those who may hold that in these studies excessive attention is +bestowed on Anglo-Norman genealogy, I commend the words, not of a +genealogist, but of the historian Kemble: + + It is indispensable to a clear view of the constitutional law + and governmental institutions of this country, that we should + not lose sight of the distribution of landed estates among + the great families, and that the rise and fall of these houses + should be carefully traced and steadily borne in mind.... + + Amidst all the tumult and confusions of civil and foreign + wars; throughout religious and political revolutions; from the + days of Arminius to those of Harald; from the days of Harald + to our own; the successions of the landowners and the + relations arising out of these successions, are the running + comment upon the events in our national history: they are at + once the causes and the criteria of facts, and upon them has + depended the development and settlement of principles, in laws + which still survive, in institutions which we cling to with + reverence, in feelings which make up the complex of our + national character.[17] + +The paper on 'Walter Tirel and his wife' may serve to show that in +this department there is still needed much labour before we can hope +for a perfect record of the great houses of the Conquest. + + * * * * * + +I have to thank Mr Murray for his kind permission to make use of two +of the articles I have contributed to the _Quarterly Review_. Some +of the studies have previously appeared in the _English Historical +Review_, and these are now republished with Messrs Longmans' consent. +Lastly, I would take the opportunity afforded by this preface of +acknowledging the encouragement my researches have derived from the +approval not only of our supreme authority--I mean the Bishop of +Oxford--but also of that eminent scholar, Dr Liebermann, whose name +one is proud to associate with a work on mediaeval history. + + J. H. ROUND + +[_Note_: I have not thought it needful to include in the index names +of persons or places only introduced incidentally in illustration of +arguments. The prefix 'Fitz', as in _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, has been +retained as a useful convention, whatever the actual name may have +been.] + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes + imprimés concernant l'histoire de la Belgique._ Par Alphonse + Wauters, vol. i, p. xxxi.] + + [Footnote 2: See pp. 198, 208, 404-5.] + + [Footnote 3: See p. 430.] + + [Footnote 4: Prof Maitland informs me that since the + appearance of his _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_, he has + discovered the earlier occurrence of the word 'leet' (see p. + 90).] + + [Footnote 5: See _Domesday Studies_.] + + [Footnote 6: _Fortnightly Review_, December 1894, pp. 804-5.] + + [Footnote 7: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892.] + + [Footnote 8: See _Quarterly Review_ as above. ] + + [Footnote 9: See pp. 263-9.] + + [Footnote 10: _English Historical Review_, July 1894.] + + [Footnote 11: _Contemporary Review_, March 1893, pp. 335-55.] + + [Footnote 12: _Norman Conquest_ (2nd Ed.), iii, 763-4.] + + [Footnote 13: _English Historical Review_, as above.] + + [Footnote 14: I have, therefore, been obliged to refer in some + detail to these statements, while for those I have already + disposed of I have given the references to the _Q.R._ and + _E.H.R._] + + [Footnote 15: _Methods of Historical Study_, p. 141.] + + [Footnote 16: _English Historical Review_, July 1891-January 1892.] + + [Footnote 17: _The Names, Surnames, and Nicknames of the + Anglo-Saxons._ Read at Winchester, September 11, 1845.] + + + + + CONTENTS + + + FOREWORD _page_ 7 + + PREFACE 9 + + + PART I. TERRITORIAL STUDIES + + DOMESDAY BOOK 17 + + Nature of the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._, 19--Criticism + of the Domesday text, 26--'Soca' and 'Theinland', 35--The + Domesday 'caruca', 40--The Domesday hide, 41--The five-hide + unit, 47--The six-carucate unit, 66--The Leicestershire + 'hida', 76--The Lancashire 'hida', 79--The Yorkshire unit, + 79--General conclusions, 82--The East Anglian 'Leet', + 88--The words _Solinum_ and _Solanda_, 91--The + 'Firma unius noctis', 96--'Wara', 100--The Domesday + 'juratores', 102--The _Inquisitio Eliensis_, 106--The + Ely Return, 114--First mention of Domesday Book, 120 + + THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE GELD-ROLL 124 + + THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH 131 + + THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I) 140 + + THE LINDSEY SURVEY (1115-18) 149 + + THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY (1124-29) 160 + + THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY (Hen. I-Hen. II) 175 + + THE INTRODUCTION OF KNIGHT SERVICE INTO + ENGLAND 182 + + The _cartae_ of 1166, 189--The 'servitium debitum', + 197--Scutage, aid, and 'donum', 209--The total number of + knights due, 228--The normal knight's fee, 231--The early + evidence, 232--The Worcester Relief, 241 + + + PART II. HISTORICAL STUDIES + + NORMANS UNDER EDWARD THE CONFESSOR 247 + + MR FREEMAN AND THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS 258 + + The name of 'Senlac', 259--The palisade, 264--Mr Freeman's + authorities for it, 265--My argument against it, 269--The + shield-wall, 273--The disposition of the English, 277--The + Norman advance, 284--The fosse disaster, 288--The great + feigned flight, 292--The relief of Arques, 294--Summary, + 297--Conclusion, 302 + + MASTER WACE 306 + + Wace's meaning, 306--Wace's authority, 309--Wace and his + sources, 313 + + NOTE ON THE PSEUDO-INGULF 321 + + REGENBALD, PRIEST AND CHANCELLOR 323 + + THE CONQUEROR AT EXETER 330 + + THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068) 347 + + ELY AND HER DESPOILERS (1072-75) 349 + + THE LORDS OF ARDRES 351 + + EARLY IRISH TRADE WITH CHESTER AND ROUEN 353 + + WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE 355 + + WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR 364 + + A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123) 366 + + THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES 370 + + THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147 373 + + THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163) 377 + + A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170) 381 + + THE FIRST KNOWN FINE (1175) 385 + + THE MONTMORENCY IMPOSTURE 392 + + THE OXFORD DEBATE ON FOREIGN SERVICE (1197) 398 + + RICHARD THE FIRST'S CHANGE OF SEAL (1198) 406 + + COMMUNAL HOUSE DEMOLITION 416 + + THE CINQUE PORTS CHARTERS 424 + + + ADDENDA 430 + + + INDEX 434 + + + + +PART I + + +TERRITORIAL STUDIES + + + + +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. 76_a_ 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). + +Mr Webb's discovery was known to Kelham, and duly referred to by him +in his _Domesday Book Illustrated_ (1788). It was also known to +Sir Francis Palgrave, strong in his acquaintance with manuscript +authorities, who alluded (1832) to the fact that 'fragments of the +original inquisitions have been preserved',[1] and described the MS. +Tib. A. VI, of which 'the first portion consists of the _Inquisitio +Eliensis_, extending, as above mentioned, into five counties; it +is followed by the inedited _Inquisitio_', etc.[2] It is, however, +undoubtedly ignored in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday Book_ (1833), +and 'even the indefatigable Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy', writes +Mr Birch,[3] 'has omitted all notice of this manuscript in his +_Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of Great +Britain and Ireland_, vol. ii. (1865)'. This, however, is not strictly +the case, for in his notice of the Domesday MSS. he observes in a +footnote: + + 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. + +It is certain, however, that Mr Freeman, most ardent of Domesday +students, knew nothing of this precious evidence, and remained +therefore virtually unacquainted with the _modus operandi_ of the +Great Survey. The pages, we shall find, of the _Inquisitio_ afford +information that no one would have welcomed more eagerly than himself. +Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton, +when editing this document for the Royal Society of Literature (1876), +should have supposed that it had been overlooked till then, or that +he was 'the first to bring its importance to light' (p. vi). It +is, however, much to be regretted that Mr De Gray Birch should have +strenuously insisted that Webb (whose paper he actually names) +and Kelham 'appear to have been strangely ignorant of the true and +important nature of this manuscript',[4] and should have repeated this +assertion[5] after I had shown at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) +that the honour of the discovery really belonged to Mr P. C. Webb. +One may claim that Webb should have his due, while gladly expressing +gratitude to Mr Hamilton for his noble edition of the _Inquisitio_, +which has conferred on Domesday students an inestimable boon.[6] + +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.' + +Exact definition is needful at the outset in dealing with this +document. The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, which is entered +on fos. 76-113 of Tib. A. VI, must be carefully distinguished from the +_Inquisitio Eliensis_ on fos. 38-68. Mr Hamilton doubted whether any +one before him 'had distinguished between' the two, but this, we have +seen, was a mistake. The distinction however is all-important, the two +documents differing altogether in character. One would not think it +necessary to distinguish them also from the so-called _Liber Eliensis_ +(which is not a survey at all) had not Mr Eyton inadvertently +stated that our document has been printed under the title of _Liber +Eliensis_.[7] + +The _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_ (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. + +Mr Hamilton describes his record at the outset as 'the Original Return +made by the _Juratores_ of the county of Cambridge in obedience to the +Conqueror's mandate, from which the Exchequer Domesday for that +county was afterwards compiled by the King's secretaries', and as 'the +original source from which the Exchequer Domesday for that county was +derived'. Mr Birch here again repeats the words, insisting 'that we +have in this very precious Cottonian MS. _the original source_ from +which the Exchequer Domesday of Cambridgeshire was compiled'.[8] + +Such a description is most unfortunate being not only inaccurate but +misleading. All that we are entitled to predicate of the document +is that it is _apparently a copy_ of the original returns from which +Domesday Book was compiled. For 'the original source' of both we must +look to the now missing returns of the jurors, the primary authority +from which Domesday Book and the _Inquisitio Com. Cant._ are +independently derived. This distinction is all-important, reducing, as +it does, the _Inquisitio_ from the rank of an 'original' to that of +a secondary authority on the same level with Domesday Book.[9] Mr +Hamilton, like Mr Webb before him, assigned the handwriting of the +_Inquisitio_ to about the close of the twelfth century. The copy of +the returns which it contains, therefore, was made about a century +later than the returns themselves. + +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. + +One of the postulates in the above argument is that the _Inq. Com. +Cant._ and the _Inq. Eliensis_ 'agree closely' in their versions. Here +is an instance in illustration:[10] + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + Meldeburna pro x. sol[idis] se Meldeburne pro x. hidis se + defendebat T.R.E. et modo pro defendebat in tempore R. ÆD. et + viii. Et de his x. hidis tenet modo pro viii. Et de his x. + predictus abbas ii. hidas et hun[dredis] tenet abbas de eli + I^{am.} virgam. v. carrucis est ii. hidas et i. v[irgam]. + ibi terra. Una carruca et dimidia, v. carucis ibi est terra. I. + et una hida et una virga in caruca et dimidia, et i. hida + dominio, et dimidia carruca et dimidia, in dominio, et + potest fieri. iii. Carucæ dimidia caruca potest fieri. + villanis. vi. villani, ix. iii. carucæ hominibus. vi. + bordarii, iii. cotarii, villani, ix. bordarii, iii. + dimidium molendinum de iii. cotarii. Pratum v. carucis. + solidis, et viii. denariis. i. molendinum de ii. solidis + Pratum v. carrucis. Pastura ad et viii. denariis. Pastura ad + pecora villæ, ccc. oves iii. pecora villæ. oves ccc., iii^{es.} + minus, xxxiiii. porci. Inter minus, et xxxiiii. porci. Inter + totum valet c. sol., et quando totum valet v. lib. Quando + recepit totidem. T.R.E. vi. lib. recepit v. lib. T.R.E. vi. + Hæc terra jacet et jacuit in lib. Hæc terra jacet et jacuit + ecclesia sancte Ædel. de eli in in ecclesia sancte Ædel' + dominio. ely in dominio. + + Et de his x. hidis tenet Wido de In eadem villa habet Guido de + Reb' curt de rege, &ca., &ca. 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. = in tempore R. ÆD. + predictus abbas = abbas de eli. + villanis = hominibus. + dimidium molendinum = i. molendinum. + c. sol. = v. lib. + totidem = v. lib. + de his x. hidis tenet = 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. + +But we will first examine the instances adduced by Mr Hamilton. Out of +ten examples in proof of its value, five are cases in which 'the want +of precision in Domesday' leaves the identity of the tenant-in-chief +'undefined'. It is difficult to comment on these statements, because +in all five cases the name is as carefully recorded in Domesday as in +the I.C.C. Mr Hamilton's error can only, it will be found, have +arisen from comparing the I.C.C. not with Domesday Book, but with the +extracts therefrom printed in his work, which, being torn from their +place, do not, of course, contain the tenant's full name, which in +Domesday itself is given at the head of the list from which they +are taken. Moreover, as it happens, this test demonstrates not +the inferiority, but (in one instance at least) the superiority of +Domesday, the I.C.C. (fo. 97, col. 2) reading 'Hanc terram tenuit +comes alanus' [_sic_], where Domesday has (rightly) 'Hanc terram +tenuit Algar comes'. The former must have wrongly extended the +abbreviated original entry.[11] + +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 ii. hidas et dimidiam + tenuerunt. [..................... et x. acras. Nec isti potuerunt + ................................. recedere absque licentia + ................................. abbatis. Et xix. sochemanni, + ................................. homines regis E., tenuerunt + ....]. Non potuerunt recedere ii. hidas. Non potuerunt + sine licentia. 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 bans de [Widone Tenet Radulfus de Widone iii^{ciam.} + de] rembercurt terciam partem partem i. virgatæ [Terra est i. + unius virge. I. bovi ibi est bovi], et ibi est bos. Valet et + terra, et est bos [.............. valuit ii. sol., et vendere potuit, + ................................. et iiii^{tam.} partem unius Avere + ................................. vicecomiti invenit. + ................................. + ................................. In Oreuuelle tenet eadem + ................................. æcclesia iiii^{tam.} partem unius + .......................] Valet et virgatæ. Terra est dimidio bovi + valuit semper xii. den.[13] 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) + + Eadiua unam hidam habuit et Tenuit Eddeua i. hidam et i. + unam virgam [.................. virgatam et Wluui homo ejus + ....] Socham huius habuit ædiua i. hidam et i. virgatam. Socam + T.R.E.[14] ejus habuit Eddeua. + +So, too, on fo. 100B(1): + + _I.C.C._ (p. 52) _D.B._ (I. 190A) + + XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani, XV. villani et xv. bordarii + xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol' cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi, + de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol' et i. molinus de xvi. denariis + de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi. et alii duo molini xxxii. + carrucis. 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. + +Omissions of another character are not infrequent. On fo. 95B (1) +an entire holding of a virgate (held by a sokeman of Earl Alan) is +omitted (p. 34). Another sokeman of Earl Alan (p. 32) has his holding +(1/4 virgate) omitted on the same folio (95A, 1), so is an entire +holding of Hardwin's (p. 36) on fo. 96A (2). A demesne plough ('i. +caruca') of Hugh de Port (p. 8) is omitted (78A, 1), and so are the +ploughs ('et iiii. villanis') of Aubrey's villeins (p. 9) a few lines +lower down. On fo. 90A (1) the words 'ibi est terra' are wanting +(p. 15),[15] and so are 'non potuit' on fo. 100 (A) 1.[16] The word +'recedere' is left out on fo. 103B (2),[17] and 'soca' just before +(103 (B) 1).[18] 'Odo' is similarly wanting on fo. 90A (1).[19] The +note also on the Abbot of Ely's sokeman at Lollesworth (p. 95), is +wholly omitted (fo. 113, B, 2), though found both in Domesday Book and +in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[20] + +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. Ipse Hugo tenet _de feudo + Pro v. hidis se defendebat T.R.E. episcopi baiocensis_ snellewelle. + et modo facit _de feudo episcopi Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat] + baiocensis_ (p. 3). semper. + + Tenuit Turbertus i. hidam sub Tenuit Turbern i. hidam de abbate. + abbate de eli. _Et in morte_ ita Non poterat separare ab æcclesia + quod non potuit dare neque extra firmam monachorum T.R.E. + separare ab ecclesia extra _nec in die mortis ejus_. + dominicam firmam monachorum + T.R.E. (p. 63). + + Abuerunt de soca S. Ædel' ii. Habuerunt ii. hidas et dimidiam + hidas et dimidiam virgam _de ely_ vir[gatam] de soca S. Ædeldride + T.R.E. (p. 65). _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 + +Among the omissions are, on i, 195 (_b_) 1, 'Item et reddebat viii. +den. vel aueram si rex in vicecomitatu venit' (p. 5). At Kirtling (p. +11), 'et v^{ta.} caruca potest fieri [in dominio]' is omitted (i. 202 +_a_). So is (p. 25) a potential demesne plough of John fitz Waleran +(i. 201 _b_). The Countess Judith's sokemen at Carlton (pp. 20, 21) +have their values omitted[25] (i. 202, _a_, 2). 'Habuerunt dimidiam +hidam, et,' is omitted (p. 28) in the entry of two sokemen of Godwine +(201, _b_, 2). On i. 196 (_a_) 1, 'Terra est i. bovi' is wanting (p. +79). More important, however, are the omissions of whole entries. +These are by no means difficult to account for, the process of +extracting from the original returns, the various entries relating to +each particular fief being one which was almost certain to result in +such omissions.[26] + +Moreover, two entries were occasionally thrown into one, a dangerous +plan for the clerks themselves, and one which may sometimes lead us +to think that an entry is omitted when it is duly to be found under +another head. Lastly, the compilers of Domesday Book had no such +invaluable check for their work as was afforded in the original by +entering first the assessment of the whole township, and then that of +each of its component Manors separately. But of this more below.[27] +The only wonder is that the omissions are, after all, so few. Perhaps +even of these some may be only apparent. Hardwin's half-hide +in _Burwell_ (p. 6) is wanting; so is Aubrey's half-virgate in +_Badburgham_, according to Mr Hamilton (p. 36), but the oversight is +his. A virgate held in Trumpington by a burgess of Cambridge (p. +51) would seem to be not forthcoming, but its position was somewhat +anomalous.[28] Guy de Rembercurt held a hide and a virgate in +_Haslingefield_ (p. 73), though we cannot find it in Domesday; and in +_Witewelle_ (Outwell) two hides which were held by Robert, a tenant of +Hardwin (p. 81), are similarly omitted, according to Mr Hamilton but +will be found under 'Wateuuelle' (198, _b_, 2). + +There are cases in which the I.C.C. corrects D.B., cases in which D.B. +corrects the I.C.C., and cases in which the I.C.C. corrects itself. +There are also several cases of discrepancy between the two, in which +we cannot positively pronounce which, if either, is right. A singular +instance of both being wrong is found in the case of Soham. The +assessment of this township was actually eleven hides, its four +component holdings being severally assessed at nine and a half hides +less six acres, half a hide, one hide, and six acres. The I.C.C. at +first gives the total assessment as eleven hides and a half, while +D.B. erroneously assesses the first of the four holdings at six hides +and forty acres in one place, and nine hides and a half in the other, +both figures being wrong. A most remarkable case of yet another kind +is found in _Scelford_ (Shelford). Here the entry in I.C.C. agrees +exactly with the duplicate entries found in D.B. Yet they both make +nonsense.[29] But on turning to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ we obtain +the correct version. As this is a very important and probably unique +instance, the entries are here given in parallel columns: + + _Inq. Eliensis._ _Inq. Com. Cant._ _D.B._ i. 198 _D.B._ i. 198 + (_a_) 2. (_a_) 2. + + i. hidam et dim. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii. Tenuerunt vii. + et vi. acras quas [_sic_] [_sic_] [_sic_] + tenuerunt vi. sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni + sochemanni de i. hidam et i. hidam et i. hidam et + socha abbatis dim. et vi. dim. et vi. dim. et vi. + ely, de quibus acras de soca acras de soca acras de soca + non potuerunt abbatis de ely. abbatis. Non[30] abbatis de ely. + dare nec Non potuerunt potuerunt Non potuerunt + recedere nisi recedere sed recedere cum recedere cum + iii^{cs.} virgas soca remanebat terra, sed soca terra, sed soca + absque ejus abbati. remanebat remanebat + licentia. æcclesia de ely. æcclesiæ Ely. + Et si alias + vendidissent + tres virgas, + predictus abbas + semper socham + habuit T.R.E. + +Here the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ version shows us that the estate had +two divisions held by different tenures. Three virgates the sokemen +were not free to sell; the other three they might sell, but if they +did, 'predictus abbas semper socham habuit'.[31] The two divisions of +the estate are confused in the other versions. But all three of these +correspond so exactly that we are driven to assign the error to the +original returns themselves. In that case the compiler (or compilers) +of the I.E. will have corrected the original return from his own +knowledge of the facts, which knowledge, I shall show, he certainly +possessed. + +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 + +Comparing the omissions and errors, as a whole, in these two versions +of the original returns, it may be said that the comparison is in +favour of the Domesday Book text, although, from the process of its +compilation, it was far the most exposed to error. No one who has not +analysed and collated such texts for himself can realize the extreme +difficulty of avoiding occasional error. The abbreviations and the +_formulæ_ employed in these surveys are so many pitfalls for the +transcriber, and the use of Roman numerals is almost fatal to +accuracy. The insertion or omission of an 'x' or an 'i' was probably +the cause of half the errors of which the Domesday scribes were +guilty. Remembering that they had, in Mr Eyton's words,[34] to perform +'a task, not of mere manual labour and imitative accuracy, but a task +requiring intellect--intellect, clear, well-balanced, apprehensive, +comprehensive, and trained withal', we can really only wonder that +they performed it so well as they did. + +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. + +The first of these conclusions has a special bearing on the theories +propounded by Mr Pell with so much ingenuity and learning.[35] I have +shown, in an essay criticizing these theories,[36] that the case of +Clifton, to which Mr Pell attached so much importance,[37] is nothing, +in all probability, but one of Domesday's blunders, of which I gave, +in that essay, other instances. So, too, in the case of his own Manor +of Wilburton, Mr Pell accepted without question the reading '_six_ +ploughlands', as representing the 'primary return',[38] although that +reading is only found in the most corrupt of the three versions of +the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, while the two better versions (B and C +texts) agree with Domesday Book, and with the abbreviated return at +the end of the A text itself (Tib. A. VI fo. 67, _b_, 1), in giving +the ploughlands as _seven_. Really it is nothing but waste of time to +argue from a reading which is only found in one out of five MSS., and +that one the most corrupt. + +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._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ _D.B._ + (p. 46) (p. 106) (I. 200, (_ibid._, (I. 191, + _a_, 2) in margin) _a_, 2) + + Et potuit Potuit Recedere Vendere Potuit + recedere recedere cum terra potuit, recedere sine + quo voluit cum terra sua sua potuit, sed soca licentia ejus, + sed soca absque ejus sed soca Abbati sed soca + remanebat licentia, remansit remansit. remansit + Harlestone. sed semper æcclesiæ. Abbati. + remansit + socha ejus + in ecclesia + sancte Ædel' + ut hund + testantur. + +The value of such collation as this ought to be self-evident. It is +not only that we thus find four out of five MSS. to be against the +reading '_Harlestone_' (which, indeed, to any one familiar with the +survey is obviously a clerical error), but that here and elsewhere we +are thus afforded what might almost be termed a bilingual inscription. +We learn, for instance, that the Domesday scribe deemed it quite +immaterial whether he wrote 'recedere cum terra ejus', or 'vendere' +or 'recedere sine licentia'. Consequently, these phrases were all +identical in meaning.[39] + +Considerable light is thrown by the I.C.C. on the origin of these +little known duplicate entries in Domesday. In every instance of +their occurrence within the limits of its province they are due to a +conflict of title recorded in the original return. They appear further +to be confined to the estates of two landowners, Picot, the sheriff, +and Hardwin d'Eschalers, the titles of both being frequently contested +by the injured Abbot of Ely. Why the third local offender, Guy de +Raimbercurt, does not similarly appear, it is difficult to say. He +was the smallest offender of the three, and Picot the worst; but it +is Hardwin's name which occurs most frequently in these duplicate +entries.[40] The principle which guided the Domesday scribes cannot be +certainly decided, for they duplicated entries in the original return +which (according to the I.C.C.) varied greatly in their statements of +tenure. Thus, to take the first three: + + _I.C.C._ _D.B._ + + fo. 79 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus + descalariis'.[41] { _sub abbate_'. + {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. + + + fo. 90 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus + _de abbate_'. { de Escalers _de abbate_'. + {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. + + + fo. 92 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 199 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus + _de rege_'. { _de abbate_'. + {I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. + +Here, whether the original return states Hardwin to hold (1) of the +abbot, (2) of the king, or (3) of neither, the scribes, in each of the +three cases, enter the estates (_A_) under the Abbot's land, as held +of the Abbot, (_B_) under Hardwin's land, as held _in capite_. And +it is singular that in all these three cases the entry of the estate +under the Abbot's land is the fuller of the two.[42] + +On the whole it would appear that the Domesday scribes did not +consistently carry out a system of duplicate entry, though, on the +other hand, these entries were by no means due to mere clerical +inadvertence, but were prompted by a doubt as to the title, which +led to the precaution of entering them under the names of both the +claimants. + +But the chief point of interest in these same entries is that they +give us, when we add the versions of the I.C.C. and the I.E., four +parallel texts. At some of the results of their collation we will now +glance. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ + (fo. 92, (p. 107) (I. 190, (I. 199, + _b_, 2) _b_, 2) _a_, 2) + + Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram + tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. tenuerunt iii. + sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni sochemanni. + homines sub predicto homines _Vendere_ + abbatis de ely. abbate ely. abbatis de ely. non potuerunt. + Non potuerunt Non potuerunt Non potuerunt + _recedere absque _vendere terram _dare nec + licentia ejus_. suam sine vendere absque + eius licentia_. ejus licentia + terram suam_. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ + (fo. 79, (p. 102) (I. 190, (I. 199, + _b_, 1) _b_, 2) _a_, 2) + + iiii. sochemanni Hanc terram Hanc terram Hanc terram + tenuerunt hanc tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii. tenuerunt iiii. + terram T.R.E. Et sochemanni sochemanni, sochemanni + non potuerunt T.R.E. de nec potuerunt abbatis de ely. + _recedere sine abbate ely. _recedere sine Non potuerunt + licentia Non potuerunt licentia _vendere_. + abbatis de ely_. _recedere vel abbatis_. + vendere sine + licentia + abbatis ely_. + +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 Terram suam tamen + licentia domini sui dare et vendere + terram suam. potuit. + + + (76, _b_, 2) (I. 199, _a_, 2) (p. 101) + Absque eius licentia Sine ejus licentia Potuerunt dare vel + dare terram suam poterant recedere vendere terram suam. + potuerunt, sed socham et terram suam dare Saca remansit abbati. + eorum habuit vel vendere, sed + archiepiscopus. soca remansit + Archiepiscopo. + + + (76, _b_, 2) (I. 196, _b_, 1) + Potuit dare cui Potuit absque[43] + voluit. ejus licentia + recedere. + + (77, _b_, 2) (I. 195, _b_, 1) + Potuerunt recedere Potuerunt recedere + cum terra ad quem sine licentia + dominum voluerunt. eorum. + + + (78, _a_, 1) (I. 190, _b_, 1) + Potuerunt recedere Dare et vendere + cum terra sua absque potuerunt. + licentia domini sui. + + + (90, _a_, 2) (I. 190, _b_, 2)\ (p. 102) + Non potuerunt Non potuerunt | Non potuerunt recedere + recedere sine recedere sine | vel vendere absque + licentia abbatis. ejus licentia. | eius licentia. + } + (I. 200, _a_, 2) | + Non potuerunt | + vendere sine | + ejus licentia. / + + (105, _a_, 2) (I. 200, _a_, 1) (p. 109) + Potuerunt dare et Terras suas vendere Potuerunt dare vel + vendere sine soca. potuerunt. Soca de vendere cui voluerunt, + viii. sochemannis sed saca eorum remansit + remansit in abbatia eidem abbati. + de ely. + + (113, _b_, 1) (201, _a_, 1) (p. 112) + Potuerunt recedere Terram suam vendere Potuerunt dare preter + sine soca. potuerunt. Soca licentiam abbatis + vero remansit et sine soca. + abbati. + +No one can glance at these passages without perceiving that _dare_, +_vendere_, and _recedere_ are all interchangeably used, and that +even any two of them (whether they have the conjunction 'et' or the +disjunction 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would +be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point. +Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque') +'ejus licentia' is immaterial, it being understood where not +expressed. So too with the words 'cui voluit'. In short, like the +translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday +scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and +paraphrase.[44] Our own conceptions of the sacredness of a text and of +the need for verbal accuracy were evidently foreign to their minds. + +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 Robertus filus W. hostiari, + rege ii. car. terræ in Howes. tenet de rege in Howes ii. + Terra est iii. carucis. In cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car. + dominio est i. caruca et iii. in dominio et iii. serv[os] et + servi, et viii. villani cum viii. villani cum i. bordario + i. bordario habent ii. car.... habentes ii. car.... + + Idem [Turstinus] tenet de R. Idem Turstinus tenet de Roberto + iiij. car. terræ in in Clachestone iiii. car. terræ + Clachestone. Terra est ii. et Tetbald[us] ii. car. terræ. + caruca. Has habent ibi iii. Ibi est in dominio i. caruca et + sochemanni cum ii. villanis iii. sochemanni et v. villani + et ii. bordariis. Ibi viii. et iiii. [_sic_] bordarii cum + acræ prati. Valuit et valet iii. carucis et i. servo. Ibi + x. solidos. xiii. acræ prati. Valuit et + valet totum xx. solidos. Has + Tetbald[us] tenet de Roberto terras tenuerunt T.R.E. Outi et + ii. car. terræ in Clachestone. Arnui cum saca et soca. + 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. + +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 Witelesf' h'd. + In histetone jacet Wara In histetune jac' Wara + de i. hida et dimidia de de hida et dimidia de + M. Cestreforde et est in Cestres' man. et est + Exsesse appreciata, hanc appreciata in Exexe. + terram tenuit Algarus Algar comes tenuit + comes (i. 189 _b_). (i. 190). + +The second entry has been deleted as a duplicate, but it serves to +show us that the scribes, even when free from error, were no mere +copyists.[45] + + +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: + + Restituantur ecclesiæ terræ que in _dominio_ suo erant die + obitus Æduardi.... Qui autem tenent _theinlandes_ que procul + dubio debent teneri de ecclesia faciant concordiam cum abbate + quam meliorem poterint,... Hoc quoque de tenentibus _socam_ + et _sacam_ fiat.[46] + +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. + + In meldeburne ii. hidas et dim.[47] et dim. virg. + + Hoc est iiii. hidas et iii. virg. Ex his sunt i. virg. et dim. + _thainlande_ et iiii. hidas et dim.[48] _de soca_. + +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: + + De his ii. hidis et dimidia virga tenuit i. istorum _unam + virgam et dimidiam_. Non potuit dare nec vendere absque + licentia abbatis. Sed alii novem potuerunt recedere et vendere + cui voluerunt.[49] + +Here then we identify the virgate and a half of 'theinland'--though +held by a _sochemannus_--and this same distinction of tenure proves +to be the key throughout. Thus, for instance, in the same document +'Herchenger pistor' is recorded to have seized 'in Hardwic i. hidam +_thainlande_ et dim. hidam et vi. acras _de soca_' (p. 177). Reference +to the I.C.C., D.B., and the I.E. reveals that the former holding had +belonged to 'v. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely', and that 'isti +non potuerunt dare neque vendere alicui extra ecclesiam S. Edeldride +ely'.[50] But the latter holding had belonged to a _sochemannus_, of +whom it is said--'homo abbatis de ely fuit: potuit recedere, sed socam +ejus abbas habuit'.[51] + +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.' + +These terms are valuable for their definition of rights. Over +the holder of land 'de soco' the lord had (1) 'saca et soca', (2) +'commendatio et (3) servitium'. If the land was thegnland then the +Abbot received 'omnem consuetudinem' as well.[52] We will first +deal with the latter class, those from whom the Abbot received +'consuetudo', and then those who held 'de soca'. + +For contemporary (indeed, slightly earlier) evidence, we must turn +to the Ely _placitum_ of 1072-75.[53] The special value which this +_placitum_ possesses is found in its record of the services due from +_sochemanni_, and even from freemen. It thus helps to interpret the +bald figures of Domesday, to which it is actually anterior. The first +two instances it affords are these: + + 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. + + In Beuresham ten[uit] Ælfricus i. liber homo commed' S. + Ædel.[54] lx. acras pro manerio' (p. 165). + +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: + + Felteuuelle ... Huic manerio adjacebant T.R.E. xxxiiii. + homines cum omni consuetudine, et alii vii. erant liberi + homines,[55] qui poterant vendere terras, sed soca et + commendatio remansit S. Ædel. (p. 132). + + 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). + + In Nortuualde S. Ædel. xxxiiii. sochem [annos] ... S. + Ædel. [habuit] socam et commendationem et omnem consuetudinem + de illis xxx. tantum; et iiii. erant liberi homines, socam et + sacam et commendationem [super hos] S. Ædel. habebat[56] (p. + 139). + + 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). + + [Terre hugo de Munford.] In mareham xxvi. sochemanni + quos tenet [_sic_] S. Ædel. T.R.E.[57] ... hanc terram + receperunt[58] pro escangio, et mensurata est in brevi S. + Ædel. (p. 137). + +Here then we identify these four cases: Feltwell, with its 41 +_sochemanni_ (more accurately described as 34 s. and 7 _liberi +homines_) attached to one Manor and four to another--45 in all; +Northwold, with its 33 or 34;[59] Muddiford with 5 or 7;[60] and +Marham with its 26. + +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.' + +We have now examined the _consuetudines_ due from those 'qui vendere +non potuerunt', and may turn to the rights exercised over the other +class. Excluding 'servitium' (which is usually omitted as subordinate +or comprised in the others), these are: (1) 'commendatio' (2) 'saca et +soca'. The distinction between the two meets us throughout the survey +of the eastern counties. A man might be 'commended' to one lord while +another held his _soca_. Thus we read of Eadwine, a 'man' of the Abbot +of Ely: 'Potuit dare absque eius licentia, sed socam comes Algarus +habuit.'[61] That is to say, he was 'commended to the Abbot of Ely', +but Earl Ælfgar had the right of 'sac and soc' over him.[62] + +So too in the case of three 'liberi homines', commended to the Abbot +in Norfolk. He had no right over them, but such as commendation +conferred 'non habebat nisi commendationem', while their 'soca' +belonged to the King's Manor of Keninghall.[63] Conversely, the Abbot +of Ely had the 'soca' of a 'man' of Earl Waltheof,[64] and a 'man' of +John, Waleran's nephew.[65] 'Commendatio', of course, took precedence +as a right. Thus we read of the above three 'liberi homines'--'Hos +liberos homines tenet [tenuit] Ratfridus, postea W. de Scodies, et +abbas saisivit eos propter commendationem suam' (p. 133). + +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). + +In these cases the holder had only a life interest. Exactly parallel +with the second is the case of 'Eadward', citizen of London, who gave +lands to St. Paul's, reserving a life interest for himself and his +wife--'et mortua illa Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit'.[66] + +The above commendation of Edmund the priest ought to be compared with +that of 'unus liber homo S. Ædel. commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat +vendere terram suam sine licentia abbatis', and of 'i. liber homo S. +Ædel. Commendatus _ita quod_ non poterat vendere terram suam extra +ecclesiam (sed sacam et socam habuit stigandus in hersham)'.[67] Thus +both those who were free to sell and those who were not, might belong +to the class of 'liberi homines'. The essential distinction was one, +not of status, but of tenure. + + +IV. THE DOMESDAY CARUCA + +Yet more definite and striking, however, is the information on +the Domesday _caruca_ afforded by collating D.B. with the I.C.C. I +referred at the Domesday Commemoration (1886) to the problem raised by +the _caruca_,[68] and recorded my belief that in _Domesday_ the word +must always mean a plough team of _eight_ oxen. The eight oxen, as Mr +Seebohm has shown, are the key to the whole system of the carucate and +the bovate. In Domesday, as I argued, the _formula_ employed involves +of necessity the conclusion that the _caruca_ was a fixed quantity. +Such entries, moreover, as 'terra i. bovi', 'terra ad iii. boves', +etc., can only be explained on the hypothesis that the relation of +the _bos_ to the _caruca_ was constant. But as the question is one +of undoubted perplexity, and as some, like Mr Pell, have strenuously +denied that the number of oxen in the Domesday _caruca_ was fixed,[69] +the evidence given below is as welcome as it is conclusive: + + _I.C.C._ _D.B._ + + fo. 96 (_a_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce I. 202 (_a_) 2: 'Terra est. + est ibi terra.' iiii. bobus.' + fo. 103 (_a_) 2: 'iiii. bobus I. 190 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est + est terra ibi.' dimidiæ carucæ.' + fo. 103 (_b_) 2: 'Dimidiæ caruce I. 196 (_b_) 2: 'Terra est + est ibi [terra].' iiii. bobus.' + fo. 112 (_b_) 1: 'iiii. bobus I. 201 (_a_) 1: 'Terra est + est ibi terra.' dimidiæ caruce.' + fo. 112 (_b_) 2: 'iiii. bobus I. 202 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est + est ibi terra. iiii. bobus, et + Et ibi sunt. Pratum ibi sunt, et + dimidiae caruce.' pratum ipsis bobus.' + +It is absolutely certain from these entries that the scribes must +have deemed it quite immaterial whether they wrote 'dimidia caruca' +or 'iiii. boves'; as immaterial as it would be to us whether we +wrote 'half a sovereign' or 'ten shillings'. It is, consequently, as +absolutely certain that the Domesday _caruca_ was composed of eight +oxen as that our own sovereign is composed of twenty shillings. And +from this conclusion there is no escape.[70] + +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 I. 200 (_b_) 1: 'Terra est iii. + ibi est terra. Non sunt carruce carucis. Sed non sunt ibi nisi + nisi sex boves.' 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 + +Similar to its evidence on the Domesday 'plough' is that which the +I.C.C. affords as to the hide and virgate. In my criticism of Mr +Pell's learned paper, I strenuously opposed his view that the _hida_ +of Domesday was composed of a variable number of virgates, and I +insisted on the fact that the Domesday 'virgate' was essentially +and always the _quarter_ of the geldable 'hide'.[71] The following +parallel passages will amply prove the fact: + + _I.C.C._ _D.B._ + + fo. 102 (_a_) 1: i. hidam et i. hidam et iii. virgatas terræ.-- + dimidiam et unam virgam. i. 194 (_a_) 2. + fo. 102 (_a_) 1: dimidiam ii. virg' et dimidiam--i. 194 + hidam et dimidiam virg'. (_a_) 2. + fo. 103 (_a_) 1: dimidiam ii.^{as} virg' et dimidiam--i. 198 + hidam et dimidiam virg'. (_a_) 2. + fo. 103 (_b_) 1: i. hida et i. hida et ii. virg' et dimidiam-- + dimidia et dimidia virg'. i. 190 (_a_) 2. + fo. 103 (_b_) 2: i. hida et i. hida et iii. virg'--i. 198 + dimidia et i. virg'. (_b_) 1. + fo. 106 (_b_) 2: iiii. hidæ iv. hidæ et iii. virg'--i. 200 + et dimidia et una virg'. (_b_) 1. + fo. 112 (_a_) 2: xi. hidæ i. x. hidæ et iii. virg--i. 192 + virg' minus. (_b_) 1. + +These are only some of the passages of _direct_ glossarial value.[72] +Indirectly, that is to say by analysis of the township assessments, +we obtain the same result throughout the survey _passim_.[73] Here, +again, we are able to assert that two virgates must have been to the +scribes as obviously equivalent to half a hide as ten shillings with +us are equivalent to half a sovereign. For here, again, the point is +that these scribes had no knowledge of the varying circumstances of +each locality. They had nothing to guide them but the return itself, +so that the rule, in Domesday, of 'four virgates to a hide' must have +been of universal application. + +But not only were there thus, in Domesday, four virgates to a hide; +there were also in the Domesday virgate thirty Domesday acres. Mr +Eyton, though perhaps unrivalled in the study he has bestowed on the +subject, believed that there were only twelve such acres, of which, +therefore, forty-eight composed the Domesday hide.[74] It is, perhaps, +the most important information to be derived from the I.C.C. that _a +hundred and twenty_ Domesday acres composed the Domesday hide.[75] + +We have the following direct statements: + + _I.C.C._ _D.B._ + + fo. 105 (_b_) 2: 'una virg' i. 202 (_b_) 1: 'In dominio + et x. acre in dominio'. dimidia hida xx. acras minus.' + fo. iii. (_a_) 1: 'tenet i. 193 (_b_) 1: 'tenet comes + Rogerus comes xx. acras.' 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 2-1/2 0 9 \ + 7 Sokemen 1-1/2 0 6 } + 3 Sokemen 1/2 0 0 } T.R.E. + 'Alsi' 1/2 0 0 } + 2 Sokemen 1 7 } + 5 Sokemen 3-1/2 0 / + ----- ----- ---- + 6 1 7 + +fo. 79 (a) 2: 'Suafham pro x. hidis se defendit.' + + _H._ _V._ _ A._ + + Hugh de Bolebec 7-1/2 0 10 + Geoffrey 1 3 0 + Aubrey de Ver 1/2 0 20 + ----- -- -- + 10 0 0 + +fo. 90 (_a_) 'choeie et stoua pro x. hidis se defenderunt.' + + _H._ _V._ _A._ + + Odo 1 0 0 + Reginald 1/2 0 20[76] + Picot (1) 3 3 0 + Picot (2) 4-1/2 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 3-1/2 0 + Two Knights 1 0 22 + Ralf 'de scannis' 3 0 + Hardwin 10 + Picot 5 + Hardwin 1/2[77] 0 + A priest 1/2 0 + ----- ----- ----- + 5 0 22 + +fo. 107 (_a_) 2: 'Barentona pro x. hidis se defendit.' + + _H._ _V._ _A._ + + Robert Gernon 7 1-1/2[78] 0 + Chatteris Abbey 2 0 0 + Ralf 20 + Walter fitz Aubrey 40 + Picot 1/2 0 + ----- ----- ---- + 10 0 0 + +fo. 108 (_a_) 2: 'Oreuuella pro iiii. hidis se defendit.' + + _H._ _V._ _A._ + + Earl Roger 1 1-1/3 0 + Durand 3-1/3 0 + 'Sigar' 1-1/3 0 + Picot 3-1/4 5 + Walter fitz Aubrey 1 0 + Robert 1 0 + Ralf 'de bans' 1/3 0[79] + Chatteris Abbey 1/4 0[79] + --- ------ --- + 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 1/480. 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. + +Another class of exceptions is accounted for by the tendency of both +texts, as we have seen, to enter a virgate too much or too little, and +to confuse virgates with their fractions. Thus at 'Litlingetona' +our figures give us a virgate in excess of the assessment, while at +'Bercheham'[80] and again at 'Witlesforde' we have a virgate short +of the amount. At 'Herlestona' we have, similarly, half a virgate too +much, and 'Kingestona' half a virgate (15 acres) too little. Lastly, +at 'Wicheham', the aggregate of the figures is a quarter of a virgate +short of the amount. + +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 1/2 + The same 1/2 + 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 1-1/2 0 20 i. 190 _b._ + Hugh de Port 1-1/2 0 20 i. 199 _a._ + Earl Alan 40 i. 195 _b._ + ----- --- ---- + 10 0 0 + +Isleham, then, was a normal ten-hide township, and confirms, instead +of rebutting, the rule that the geldable hide contained 120 acres.[81] + +The remaining exceptions are 'Somm[er]tona' partly explained by the +omission of _terra Regis_, 'Bathburgeham' (Babraham) with 21 acres +short of an assessment of 7 hides, and Carlton, which fitly closes the +list of these exceptions. For here, on an assessment of 10 hides, we +have, according to the I.C.C., 27 acres short, but, according to D.B., +53-1/2 (27 + 20 + 6-1/2). A demonstrable blunder in Domesday Book and a +discrepancy between it and the I.C.C. are responsible, together, for +the difference.[82] Thus we see how wide a margin should be allowed, +in these calculations, for textual error. + +It is necessary to remember that there were three processes, in each +one of which error might arise: + +I. In the actual survey and its returns, 'by reason of the +insignificance of some estates, or by reason of forgetfulness, or +inaccuracy, or confusion, or doubt on the part of local jurors and +witnesses, or of the clerks who indited their statements'.[83] + +II. In the collection and transmission of the returns, by the loss of +a 'leaflet or rotulet of the commissioners' work'.[84] + +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. + +We may now quit this part of our subject, claiming to have settled, +by the aid of the I.C.C., a problem which has puzzled generations of +antiquaries, namely: 'What was the Domesday hide?'[85] We have shown +that it denoted a measure of assessment composed of four (geld) +virgates or a hundred and twenty (geld) acres. What relation, if any, +it bore to _area_ and to _value_ is a question wholly distinct, on +which the next portion of this essay may throw quite a new light. + + +VI. THE FIVE-HIDE UNIT + +It is one of the distinctive and valuable features of the _Inq. Com. +Cant._ that it gives us the total assessment for each Vill of which +it treats before recording the several Manors of which that Vill is +composed, the aggregate assessments of which Manors make up the total +assessment for the Vill. In this feature we have something which +Domesday does not contain, and which (independently of its checking +value),[86] gives us at once those Vill assessments which we could +only extract from the Domesday entries by great labour and with much +uncertainty. Let us see then if these Vill assessments lead us to any +new conclusions on the whole assessment system. + +The first point that we notice is this. The _five-hide unit_ is +brought into startling prominence. No careful student, one would +suppose, of Domesday, can have failed to be struck by the singular +number of Manors in the hidated portion of the realm, which are +assessed in terms of the five-hide unit, that is to say, which are +entered as of five hides or some multiple of five hides. This is +specially the case with towns, and some years ago, in one of my +earliest essays, I called attention to the fact, and explained its +bearing in connection with the unit of military service.[87] Yet no +one, it would seem, has been struck by the fact, or has seen that +there must be some significance in this singular preponderance of +five-hide Manors. Now what the _Inquisitio_ here does for us is to +show us that this preponderance is infinitely greater than we should +gather from the pages of Domesday, and that when the scattered Manors +are pieced together in their Vills, the aggregate of their assessments +generally amounts either to five hides or to a multiple of the +five-hide unit. Thus the rural townships are brought into line with +towns, and we learn that in both the assessment was based on 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 13-1/4 12 10 0 + Wilbraham 10 17 20 0 0 + Stow-cum-Quy 10 11 14 10 0 + -- ------ ------------ + 50 77-1/4 £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 13-1/4 12 15 0 + Borough Green + and Westley 10 17 17 1 4 + Carlton 10 19-1/2 18 10 0 + Weston 10 19-1/4 13 15 0 + Wratting 10 15-3/4 8 8 0 + Balsham 10 20 12 13 4 + -- ------- ------------- + 70 120-3/4 £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_ + + (T.R.E.) + + 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 24-1/2 24 5 0 + Duxford 20 20-1/4 27 5 0 + -- ------ --------- + 80 80-3/4 £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} 7 } + Barton 7} 20 12 } 32 + Grantchester 7} 13 } + + Haslingfield 20 22[88] + + Harlton 5} 7 } + Barrington 10} 20 15-3/8 } 27-7/8 + Shepreth 5} 5-1/2 } + + Ordwell 4} 5-5/16} + Wratworth 4} 5-3/8 } + Whitwell 4} 20 5 } 29-3/16 + Wimpole 4} 5 } + Arrington 4} 8-1/2 } + -- -------- + 80 111-1/16 + +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 8-1/3} 13-3/8 } + Kingston 8-1/3} 25 8-9/16 } 38-1/16 + Toft and Hardwick 8-1/3} 16-1/8 } + + Grandsen 5 } 25 9 } + Bourne 20 } [23 } 32-1/2 + + Gamlingay 20} + } + Hatley 4-1/4} 5} 25 + [Unnamed] 3/4} } + + Croxton 7 } } + Eltisley 3 } 10} + } + Caxton 10} 25 + } + Caldecot 1-3/4} } + Long Stow 3-1/4} 5} + -------- + 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 8-1/3 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 +8-1/3 hides. Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the 3/4 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_ _Ploughlands_ + + T.R.E. T.R.W. + + Morden (1) 10 8 20 + Tadlow 5 4 10-1/2 + Morden (2) 5 4 10-3/4 + Clopton 5 4 7 + Hatley 5 4 7 + Croydon 10 8 11-1/2 + Wendy 5 4 6-3/4 + Shingay 5 4 6 + Litlington 5 4 11 + Abington 5 4 3-3/4 + Bassingburne 10 8 22 + Whaddon 10 8 14-3/4 + Meldreth 10 8 20-1/2 + Melbourne 10 8 19-1/2 + --- -- ------- + 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. + +After this explanation I pass to the case of the above Hundred, in +which the evidence on the reduction is fortunately perfect. The first +point to be noticed is that in four out of the five Hundreds that we +have as yet examined, there is not a single instance of reduction, +whereas here, on the contrary, the assessment is reduced in every Vill +throughout the Hundred. That is to say, the reduction is _conterminous +with the Hundred_. Cross its border into the Hundred of Wetherley, +or of Triplow, and in neither district will you find a trace of +reduction. Observe next that the reduction is _uniform_ throughout the +whole, being 20 per cent in every instance. Now what is the inevitable +conclusion from the _data_ thus afforded? Obviously that the reduction +was made on the assessment of the Hundred _as a whole_, and that this +reduction was distributed among its several Vills _pro rata_.[89] +Further research confirms the conclusion that these reductions were +systematically made on _Hundreds_, not on Vills. There is a well +defined belt, or rather crescent, of Hundreds, in all of which the +assessment is reduced. They follow one another on the map in this +order: Erningford, Long Stow, Papworth, North Stow, Staplehow, and +Cheveley. Within this crescent there lies a compact block of Hundreds, +in no one of which has a single assessment been reduced. They are +Triplow, Wetherley (? Cambridge[90]), Flendish, Staines, Radfield, +Chilford and Whittlesford. Beyond the crescent there lie 'the two +Hundreds of Ely', in which, so far as our evidence goes, there would +seem to have been similarly no reduction. As the two horns of the +crescent, so to speak, are the Hundreds of Erningford and Cheveley, we +will now glance at the latter, and compare the evidence of the two. + + HUNDRED OF CHEVELEY + + (_Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. 9-11) + + _Hides_ + + T.R.E. T.R.W. _Ploughlands_ + + Silverley 6-1/2} 4} 8} + Ashley 3-1/2} 10 2} 6 4} 12 + Saxon Street 5 3 7[93] + Ditton 5 3[92] (or 4) 10 + Ditton 10 1 16 + Kirtling 10 6 21 + Cheveley 10[91] + -- + 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. + +And now for the reductions. As the Vill of Cheveley, unluckily, is +nowhere surveyed as a whole, we have in its case no evidence. But of +the five remaining Vills above (counting Ashley-cum-Silverley as one), +four we see had had their assessments reduced on a _uniform_ +scale, just as in the Hundred of Long Stow. Now this is a singular +circumstance, and it leads me to this conclusion. I believe that, +precisely as in the latter case, the assessment of the Hundred _as +a whole_ was reduced by twenty hides. This was equivalent to 40 per +cent, which was accordingly knocked off from the assessment of each +of its constituent Vills. One of the Dittons is clearly an exception, +having nine hides, not four, thus knocked off. I would suggest, as the +reason for this exception, that Ditton having now become a 'dominica +villa regis' (_Inq. Com. Cant._, p. 10), was specially favoured by +having a five-hide unit further knocked off its assessment, just as in +the case of Chippenham (_Ibid._, p. 2).[94] + +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: + + There can be no doubt that the organization of the Hundred had + a fiscal importance, not merely as furnishing the profits of + fines and the produce of demesne or folkland, but as forming a + rateable division of the county.[95] + +Now there are several circumstances which undoubtedly point to my +own conclusion. We know from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, that the Domesday +Commissioners held their inquiry in the Court of each Hundred, and had +for jurors the men of that Hundred. Now if the Hundred, as I suggest, +was assessed for geld as a whole, its representatives would be clearly +the parties most interested in seeing that each Vill or Manor was +debited with its correct share of the general liability. Again we +know from the _Inquisitio Geldi_ that the geld was collected and +paid through the machinery of the Hundred; and its collectors, in +Devonshire, are 'Hundremanni'. The Hundred, in fact, was the unit for +the purpose.[96] Further, we have testimony to the same effect in the +survey of East Anglia. But as that survey stands by itself, it must +have separate treatment.[97] + +I need not further discuss the collective liability of the Hundred, +having already shown in my 'Danegeld' paper how many allusions to it +are to be found in Domesday in the case of urban 'Hundreds'.[98] It +is only necessary here to add, as a corollary of this conclusion, that +the assessment of a single Manor could not be reduced by the Crown +without the amount of that reduction falling upon the rest of +the Hundred. Either therefore, that amount must have been allowed +('computatum') to the local collector as were _terræ datæ_ to the +sheriff, or (which came to the same thing) the assessment on the +Hundred must have been reduced _pro tanto_. + +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. + +We are enabled from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, to determine the +assessments of eleven Hundreds.[99] Nine out of these eleven Hundreds +prove to have been assessed as follows: + + _Hides_ + Erningford 100 + Long Stow 100 + Triplow 90 + Staplehow 90[100] + 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. + +I am anxious to explain that for the means of utilizing the +Bedfordshire evidence I am entirely indebted to the _Digest of the +Domesday of Bedfordshire_ by the late Rev. William Airy (edited by his +son, the Rev. B. R. Airy[101]). It was, most happily, pointed out +to the author by the Rev. Joseph Hunter 'that what we want is not +translations but analyses of the surveys of the several counties' (p. +viii). To this most true remark we owe it that Mr Airy resolved to +give us a 'digest' instead of that usual 'extension and translation', +which is perfectly useless to the Domesday student. It is easy to +take from the record itself such an instance as these Beauchamp +Manors entered in succession (213): Willington 10 hides, Stotford 15; +'Houstone' 5, Hawnes 5, 'Salchou' 5, Aspley 10, Salford 5; but it is +only Mr Airy's work that enables us to reconstruct the townships, and +to show how fractions--apparently meaningless--fit in, exactly as in +Cambridgeshire, with one another. His work is all the more valuable +from the fact that he had no theory to prove, and did not even add +together the factors he had ascertained. His figures therefore are +absolutely free from the suspicion that always attaches to those +adduced to prove a case. + + _Risely_ _Tempsford_ _Wymington_ + + _H._ _V._ _H._ _ V._ _H._ _V._ + + 7 0 1 1-3/4 0 3 + 1 0 1 1 3 0 + 1/2 0 4 1 4 0 + 1/2 0 2 0 1/2 0 + 1 0 1 1/4 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 7-1/2 0 4 0 + 0 1 1/2 0 1 0 + ------------ ------------ ------------ + 10 0 10 0 10 0 + + + _Northill_ _Portsgrove_ _Chicksand_ + + _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ + + 1-1/2 0 1 0 1/2 0 + 1-1/2 0 7-1/2 0 3-1/2 0 + 1/2 0 1 0 3 0 + 6-1/2 0 1/2 0 1 0 + ------------ ------------ ------------ + 10 0 10 0 10 0 + + + _Eyeworth_ _Holwell_ _Odell_ + + _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _ V._ + + 9 0 3-1/2 0 4-1/2 1/3 + 1 0 6-1/2 0 5 1-2/3 + ------------ ------------ ------------ + 10 0 10 0 10 0 + + _Pavenham_ _Houghton Conquest_ _Dean_ + + _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ + + 2-1/2 0 5 0 4 0 + 5 0 1/2 0 2 1/2 + 2-1/2 0 4-1/2 0 2 7-1/4 + 0 1/2 + ------------- ------------- ------------- + 10 0 10 0 10 0-1/4 + +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 1/2 0 0 1 + 1/2 0 1/2 0 + 0 1 10 0 + 3 0 + 1/2 0 + ------------- ------------- ------------- + 5 0 5 0 15 0 + + + _Marston_ _Roxton_ _Dunton_ + + _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ _H._ _V._ + + { 2 (less 1/2 virg.) 1 1 { 8 1 + 10{ 8 (plus 1/2 virg.) 0 4 10{ 1 3 + + { 1 1 1 { 5 0 + { 1/2 7-1/2 1 10{ 4-1/2 0 + 5{ 3 8 3 { 1/2 0 + { 1/2 + ------------- ------------- --------------- + 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 { 0 3 20 0 + 4 1 { 1 0 6 3 + 4-1/3 0 5{ 1-1/2 0 0 1-1/2 + 0 2/3 { 1/2 0 0 1/2 + 0 2/3 { 0 3-1/2 9 1 + { 0 1-1/2 0 5-1/2 + 2 0 2 1/2 + 0 3 0 1 + 1/2 0 + 0 1-1/2 + 1 0 + ------------- ------------- ------------- + 9 3-2/3 9 0-1/2 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. + +We will now cross the border into Huntingdonshire, and enter the great +Hundred of Hurstingston. This, which may be described as a _double_ +Hundred, was assessed, Domesday implies, at 200 hides. Quartering this +total, on the Cambridgeshire system, we obtain fifty hides, and this +quarter was the assessment allotted to the borough of Huntingdon.[102] +The total assessment of the Hundred was thus accounted for: + + _Hides_ + Huntingdon 50 + St. Ives (Slepe) 20 + Hartford 15 + Spaldwick 15 + Stukeley 10 + Abbots Ripton 10 + Upwood 10 + Warboys 10 + Calne 6 } + Bluntisham 6-1/2 } 20-1/2[103] + Somersham 8 } + Wistow[104] 9 + Holywell 9 + Houghton 7 + Wyton 7 + Broughton 4 + Catworth 4[105] + -------- + 200-1/2 + +Passing on into Northamptonshire, we come to that most curious +document, which I shall discuss below (_see_ p. 124), and which was +printed by Ellis (_Introduction to Domesday_, i. 187 _et seq._). +Ellis, however, can scarcely have read his own document, for he +speaks of it as a list 'in which every Hundred is made to consist of +a _hundred hides_'.[106] This extraordinary assertion has completely +misled Dr Stubbs, who writes: + + The document given by Ellis as showing that the Hundreds of + Northampton each contained a hundred hides seems to be a mere + attempt of an early scribe to force them into symmetry.[107] + +It is greatly to be wished that some one with the requisite local +knowledge should take this list in hand and work out its details +thoroughly. In capable hands it should prove a record of the highest +interest. For the present I will only point out that its contents are +in complete harmony with the results that I obtained on the Hundred in +Cambridgeshire; for it gives us Hundreds assessed at 150 (four), 100 +(nine), 90 (two), 80 (four), 60 (one), and 40 (one) hides, with a +small minority of odd numbers. This list throws further light on the +institution of the Hundred by its recognition of 'double' and 'half' +Hundreds. Note also in this connection the preference for 100-hide +and fifty-hide assessments, which here amount to thirteen out of the +twenty instances above, and in Cambridgeshire to four out of nine. +These signs of an endeavour to force such assessments into terms of a +fifty-hide unit will be dealt with below.[108] + +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 + { 5 1 + { 6-1/2 0 + Geoffrey de Bech { 1 1-1/2 + { 0 5-1/2 + { 0 3-1/2 + Peter de Valognes 0 1/2 + ----------------- + 25 0 + +If we now push on to Worcestershire, we find a striking case in +the Hundred (or rather the triple Hundred[109]) of Oswaldslow. Its +assessment was 300 hides;[110] and I am able to assert that of these +we can account for 299, and that it contained Manors of 50, 40, 35, +25 (two), and 15 hides.[111] We have also, in this county, the case of +the Hundred of Fishborough, made up to 100 hides, and remarkable for +including in this total the fifteen hides at which Worcester itself +was assessed. The special value of this and of the Huntingdon +instances lies in its placing the assessments of a borough on all +fours with the assessment of a rural Manor, as a mere factor in the +assessment of a rural Hundred. By thus combining town and country it +shows us that the assessments of both were part of the same general +system. This is a point of great importance. + +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: + + In Fisseberge hundred habet æcclesia de Euesham lxv. hidæ. Ex + his xii. hidæ sunt liberæ. In illo Hundredo jacent xx. hidæ de + dodentreu. et xv. hidæ de Wircecestre perficiunt hundred.[112] + +Now this entry is purely incidental, and its real meaning is this. +In the true Hundred of Fishborough (adjoining Evesham on the east), +Evesham Abbey held sixty-five hides (assessed value), of which +twelve were exempted from payment of geld, a statement which can be +absolutely verified from the details given. To this aggregate was +added the fifteen hides of Worcester (though in another part of +the county), together with twenty hides of the distant _Hundred_ of +Doddentree. A total of 100 hides was that arrived at. Now the Hundred +of Doddentree had itself made up to about 120 hides,[113] by +the addition of eighteen hides, which belonged to Hertford as to +'firma'.[114] A reduction, therefore, of twenty hides suggests a +complicated process of levelling the local Hundreds, which may remind +us how large a margin must be allowed for these arrangements. + +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} + Seaborough (1-1/2 + 1-1/2) 3} 15 + Hinton St. George 13} + In Crewkerne 12} 25 + -- + 40 + + HUNDRED OF WHITSTONE + + East Pennard (19 + 1) 20 + Baltonsborough 5 + Doulting (14 + 3-1/4 + 2-3/4) 20 + Batcombe (10-1/4 + 2 + 7-3/4) 20 + Ditcheat (5 + 5-1/2 + 6-1/2 + 5-1/2 + 1 + 7) 30-1/2 + Pilton (6-1/2 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 2) 21-1/2 + Stoke St. Michael 3 + ---- + 120 + +There are also abundant cases of _Manors_ which work out similarly +such as Walton and its group (4-1/2 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2-1/2 = 20), +Butleigh (7-1/2 + 8 + 2 + 1/2 + 2 = 20). Again, in the Hundred of +Frome we find eight Manors (Camerton, Englishcombe, Charterhouse +Hinton, Norton St Philip, Corston, Beckington, Cloford, and Laverton), +assessed at ten hides each, in addition to divided Manors, such as +Road (9 + 1), and Tiverton (7-1/2 + 2-1/2).[115] + +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 25-3/4, 9-1/4 +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. + +It will at once be observed that these assessments are, as nearly as +possible, on one half the scale of those we met with in Cambridgeshire +and Northamptonshire. But this must be taken in conjunction with the +fact that the Devon and Cornwall assessments are altogether peculiar. +'In Devon and Cornwall, where the scope of the gheld-hide was +enormous, it was necessary to introduce another quantity, intermediate +between the virgate and the acre. This was the Ferndel or Ferdingdel, +to wit, the fourth part of the next superior denomination, the fourth +part of the virgate.'[116] One might at first sight be tempted to +suggest that the hide was in these two counties a term of higher +denomination when we find Manor after Manor assessed at a fraction +of a hide, while in Cornwall the 'acra terræ' was clearly a peculiar +measure.[117] Yet in some Manors adjacent to Exeter or to the +neighbouring coast the assessment is much less abnormally low, though +even there moderate. There is much scope, here also, for intelligent +local research, although we may conclude, from the evidence of the +Pipe Rolls, that the hide represented the same unit here as elsewhere, +as it would seem did the Devonshire Hundred, in spite of its +singularly low average assessment. Indeed, it represented a larger, +not a smaller, area than usual. I shall deal with this phenomenon +below, and endeavour to explain its significance. For the present it +is only necessary to insist on the evidence that the Hundreds afford +of assessment on the five-hide system. + +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. + +The late Mr Eyton did much to destroy the old belief held by Kemble +and other well-known writers that the Domesday hide was an areal +measure and to substitute the sounder view that it was used as a +term of assessment, and Mr Chester Waters, in his _Survey of Lindsey_ +(1883), claimed that the 'key to the puzzle' had been thus finally +discovered. Canon Taylor, on the other hand, at the Domesday +Commemoration (1886), claimed that if his own most ingenious theory +of the relation of the geld-carucate to area could be more generally +extended, 'many volumes of Domesday exposition, including, among +others, Mr Eyton's _Key to Domesday_, may be finally consigned _al +limbo dei bambini_'.[118] Mr Pell's theories--the inclusion of which +at enormous length in _Domesday Studies_[119] cannot be too deeply +regretted--require a passing notice. According to him, the Domesday +hide was virtually an areal term; but the interests of truth and of +historical research require, as to his confident calculations, very +plain speaking. Although I devoted to the investigation of Mr Pell's +theories a deplorable amount of time and labour,[120] I would rather +state the inevitable conclusion in the words of that sound scholar, Mr +W. H. Stevenson: + + 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. + + The only abiding principle underlying Mr Pell's calculations + is that the figures in Domesday, or wherever found, have to + produce a certain total that Mr Pell has already fixed upon. + To do this, virgates may mean hides, carucates may mean + virgates, and, in short, anything may mean anything else.[121] + +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. + +The five-hide unit which lies at the root of my theory is found ever +to the front, turn where we will. In Oxon[122] we find entered in +succession the Bishop of Lincoln's Manors 90, 60, 40, 50, 50 hides, +while if we work through the southern extremity of the county (lying +south of Ewelme), following the bend of the Thames, we find the +assessments are as follows: Preston Crowmarsh, 5; Crowmarsh Gifford, +10; Newnham Murren, 10; Mongewell, 10; Ipsden, 5; North and South +Stoke, 20-1/4; Checkenden, 5; Goring, 20; Gethampton, 6-1/2; +Whitchurch, 10; Mapledurham, 10; Caversham, 20; Dunsden, 20; Bolney +(8) and Lashbrook (12) 20; Harpsden, 5; Rotherfield, 10; Badgemoor, 5; +Bix 5. So too on the western border we have in succession Churchill, +20; Kingham, 10; Foxcote (1) and Tilbury (14), 15; Lyneham, 10; +Fyfield, 5; Tainton, 10; Upton, 5; Burford (8) and Widford (2), 10; +Westwell, 5.[123] + +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, 3-1/2, 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. + +In Middlesex the five-hide unit is peculiarly prominent. We have only +to glance at the pages of Domesday to be struck by such assessments +as Harrow (100 hides), Fulham (50 hides[124]), Isleworth (70 hides), +Harmondsworth (30 hides), while on folios 129B-130, we have seven +Manors in succession of which the assessments are 15, 35, 30, 30, +7-1/2, 15, 10, representing 3, 7, 6, 6, 1-1/2, 3, 2, multiples of the +five-hide unit. But, here again, conspicuous as is this unit even in +the case of Manors, its prevalence would be still more apparent, if +we could reconstruct the Vills. Thus, for instance, in the Hundred of +Spelthorne we find these assessments: + + _Hides_ _Folio_ + Staines 19 128 + 'In Speletorne Hundred' 1 128_b_ + 'Hatone' 1-1/2 129 + 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' 1-5/6[125] 130 + 'Leleham' 8 130_b_ + 'In Hundredo de Spelethorne' 2/3[126] 130_b_ + 'Cerdentone' 5 130_b_ + +'Exeforde' is Ashford, which 'appears from a very early period till +after the dissolution of the monasteries to have been an appendage +of Stains'.[127] Thus we obtain an assessment of 20 hides for Staines +_cum_ Ashford. So too we have at once for Laleham an assessment of ten +hides, while that of East and West Bedfont was, we see, twenty hides. +The most striking case, however, is that of Hatton; for, if we add to +its two named Manors the nameless estates in the above list, the four +fit in like a puzzle, giving us an aggregate assessment of exactly +five hides. + +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 + +Let us now connect the territorial with the institutional unit. +Dealing in my 'Danegeld' essay with the evident assessment of towns in +terms of the five-hide unit, I traced it to the fact that 'five hides +were the unit of assessment for the purpose of military service'.[128] +The evidence I have adduced in the present paper carries further +its significance; but we must not allow its financial to obscure its +military importance. I appealed, at that time, to the Exeter instance: + + Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare serviebat hæc + civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ; + +and to the service of Malmesbury: + + Quando rex ibat in expeditione vel terra vel mari habebat de + hoc burgo aut xx. solidos ad pascendos suos buzecarlos aut + unum hominem ducebat secum pro honore v. hidarum.[129] + +Of course this brings us to the notoriously difficult question of the +thegn and his qualification. With this I am only concerned here so far +as it illustrates the prevalence of a five-hide unit. Mr Little, who +holds that Maurer, followed by Dr Stubbs, has gone too far, and that +'there is no proof of any general law or widely prevalent custom +which conferred on the owner of five hides pure and simple the title, +duties, and rights of a thegn',[130] sets forth his view thus: + + 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? + + An explanation may be hazarded: at the end of the seventh + century it was the normal and traditional holding of a royal + _thegn_.... It is not too much to infer from the parallelism + of the two wergelds, that five hides formed also the regular + endowment of a Saxon king's thegn.[131] + +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'. + +One must dissociate at the outset this six-carucate unit from the +'long hundred', or _Angelicus numerus_, with which Mr Pell confused +it. In Mr Stevenson's instructive article on 'The Long Hundred and +its use in England',[132] he has clearly explained that this reckoning +only applied to a whole hundred, which, if a 'long' hundred, was +really 120. Any lesser number was reckoned in our usual manner. This +is seen at once in the test passage at Lincoln (D.B., i. 336_a_), +where 1,150 houses are reckoned as 'novies centum et lxx.', because +'hic numerus Anglice computatur, id est centum pro cxx'.[133] The +persistence, in Lincolnshire, of the long hundred is well shown in +the _Inquisitiones post mortem_ on Robert de Ros, 1311, among those +printed by Mr Vincent.[134] We there read of 'c. acre terra arrabilis +per majorem centenam que valent per annum lx. s. prec' acre vj. den.', +at Wyville and Hungerton (on the border of Leicestershire); while at +Claxby and Normanby (in the north of the county) we have 'cc. acras +per minorem centenam et valent c. s. prec' acre vj. d.' Again, at +Gedney (in the south-east), we have 'cc. acre terre arrabilis per +majus centum et valent per annum xxiiij. li'. prec' acre ij. s. et +iiij^{xx.} acre prati et valet per annum viij. li., prec' acre ij. s. +Et cxiij. acre pasture per majus centum et valent per annum ix. li. +xix. s. vi. d. prec' acre xviij. d.' On the same property there were +due 'ccciiij^{xx.} opera autumpnalia cum falcis, et valent xxxvj. s. +viij. d., prec' operis j. den.', so that these also were reckoned by +the long hundred. + +Mr Stevenson was not aware of this evidence, but admitted that as the +Domesday passage refers to 'such a Danish stronghold as Lincolnshire, +it is not free from the suspicion of Danish influence'. His own +evidence from a sixteenth-century rental[135] is subject to a similar +criticism. For the general use, therefore, of the 'long hundred' in +England he is compelled to rely on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_ +and Howden's description of the new survey of 1198, the 'hide or +ploughland' being described in both cases as of a hundred acres, where +the 'hundred' must have meant 120. But I venture to think that the +use of this reckoning for the ploughland, or archaic 'hide', does not +establish its general employment. In Domesday, certainly, it is only +at Lincoln that we find it actually recognized, houses being reckoned +everywhere else on the usual system. + +I think, therefore, that we fairly may hold the _Anglicus numerus_, or +long hundred, to have specially prevailed in the 'Danish' districts, +which were also assessed, we shall find, in sums of six and twelve. +But what was the boundary of this Danish district? It was not the +border between Mercia and Wessex, for Mercia was itself divided +between the 'six' and the 'five' systems.[136] Of the two adjacent +Mercian shires, for instance, of Leicester and Warwick (afterwards +united under one sheriff), we find the latter decimal and the former +duodecimal. The military service of Warwick and Leicester was arranged +on the same method, yet Leicester sent _twelve_ 'burgesses' to the +fyrd where Warwick sent _ten_. But, it may be urged, the two shires +were divided by the Watling Street, the boundary (under the peace of +Wedmore) of Danelaw. Was then the Danelaw the district within which +the systems prevailed? No, for the Danelaw, under this treaty, +included all Cambridgeshire and other hidated districts. The answer, +therefore, which I propound is this: The district in which men +measured by carucates, and counted by twelves and sixes, was not the +district which the Danes _conquered_, but the district which the Danes +_settled_, the district of 'the Five Boroughs'. + +Dependent on these 'Five Boroughs' were the four shires of Leicester, +Derby, Nottingham, and Lincoln. For two of the Boroughs, Lincoln and +Stamford, both belonged to this last shire, which was, indeed, the +stronghold of the system.[137] Between Stamford and Cambridge we +have the same contrast as between Warwick and Leicester, for while +Cambridge was divided into _ten_ wards ('custodiæ'), Stamford was +divided into _six_. Lincolnshire, as I have said, was the stronghold +of the system, and it is in Lincoln itself that we find Domesday +alluding _eo nomine_ to the _Anglicus numerus_, the practice of +counting 120 as 100. + +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 Pax data manu regis In Snotingehamscyre + sigillo ejus data, vel sigillo ejus, et in Derbin scyre + si fuerit infracta, si fuerit infracta, pax regis manu vel + emendatur per regi solummodo sigillo data, si + xviii. hundrez. emendatur per xii. fuerit infracta, + Unumquidque hundret hundrez, unumquidque emendatur per xviii. + solvit viii. libras. hundret viii. libras. hundrez, unumquidque + Duodecim hundrez Pax a comite data et hundret viii. libras. + emendant regi et vi. infracta a quolibet Hujus emendationis + comiti.--i. 336_b._ ipsi comiti per vi. habet rex ii. partes, + hundrez emendatur, comes terciam. Id est + unumquidque viii. xii. hundred emendant + libras--i. 298_b._ regi et vi. comiti--i. + 280_b._ + +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: + + Si quis enim quemlibet cujuscumque facinoris aut flagitii + reum et convictum infra atrium ecclesiæ caperet et retineret, + universali judicio vi. _hundreth_ emendabit; si vero infra + ecclesiam xii. _hundreth_ infra chorum xviii. ... _In + hundreth_ viii. _libræ continentur_.[138] + +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. 289_b_). + +It is a special feature of the 'Danish' district that each +territorial 'Hundred' contained twelve 'carucatæ terræ'. This point +is all-important. Just as a 'Hundred' to an Anglo-Saxon suggested one +hundred 'hides', so to the Danes of this district it suggested twelve +'carucates'. Nay, to the men of Lincolnshire there could be no more +question that twelve carucates made a 'Hundred' than there could be +now, among ourselves that twelve pence make a shilling. If we turn to +the Lindsey Survey,[139] a generation later than Domesday, we obtain +proof to that effect. We find that Survey, in three instances, adding +up all the estates of a tenant within a Wapentake, and giving us the +result in 'Hundreds' and 'carucates'. Here are the actual figures: + + _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 + -------- -------- ---------- + H. 3 6 6[140] H. 4 0 6[141] H. 3 5 4[142] + +Now we must observe that these 'Hundreds' are not _districts_ with 'a +local habitation and a name'; they are merely sums of twelve carucates +produced by compound addition. We further find, at the head of the +survey of each Wapentake, a note that it is reckoned to contain so +many 'Hundreds', with the explanation, in some instances that in each +'Hundred' were 'xii. carucatæ terræ'.[143] But even here the real unit +is shown to be 'six carucates', for several Wapentakes contain an odd +'half-hundred', while in that of Horncastle this is actually entered +as 'six carucates'. + +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 []-1/2 + Aslacoe 7-1/2 90 + Lawress 12 144 + Corringham 5 60 + Axholme 4 48 + Well 7 84 + + North Trithing + + Walshcroft 8 96 + Haverstoe 7-1/2 90 + Bradley 3-1/2[144] [and 3 bov.] 42-3/8 + 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 6-1/2 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. + +It has never, so far as I know, been pointed out that these Lindsey +Trithings were so arranged as to contain an approximately equal number +of 'Hundreds'. So far as it is possible now to reckon them, the South +Trithing contained 51-1/2, the North Trithing 51-1/2, and the West +Trithing 49-1/2. Fifty 'Hundreds' would represent 600 _carucatæ_; and +it is, to say the least, a singular coincidence that, in the archaic +territorial list that has hitherto baffled investigation, the North +Gyrwa, South Gyrwa, and Spalda are reckoned each at 600 hides.[145] + +I shall now give some instances of Lindsey townships assessed on the +basis of the six-carucate unit: + + _Car._ _Bov._ + + Willoughton 3 5-1/2 + " 2 2-1/2 + -------------- + 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. 65, 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 9-3/4} 12 + Tydd 2-1/4} + ---- + 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. 293_b._ + +On analysing the contents of these Wapentakes, we find this statement +fully borne out, the former containing twenty-four, and the latter +twelve, 'carucatæ terræ'. These are carefully contrasted throughout +with the 'terra carucæ' or areal measure.[146] + +In Yorkshire, Notts and Derby, we have less direct evidence. Sawley, +in Derbyshire, has indeed been alleged to be entered in Domesday as +a Hundred of twelve carucates, but Domesday does not justify this +assertion being made.[147] I would rather trust to the notable +formula, which, as I explained at the outset, is common to these +counties for proof that they also were arranged in 'Hundreds' of +twelve carucates. + +The prevalence, however, of assessment by sixes, threes, and twelves, +meets us on every side, as does, in hidated districts, the assessments +by fives and tens. At the outset, for instance, of the survey of +Yorkshire we have the district 'gelding' with the city assessed at +eighty-four (12×7) carucates (which would be described in Lincolnshire +as seven 'Hundreds'). We have two lists of the details, which are +given here.[148] + + _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' + +These lists have a value independent of their illustration of the +arrangement in threes and sixes. They show how Domesday breaks down, +when it supplies a check upon its own evidence, by failing to make its +details agree with its total; and they further show by the discrepancy +between them how easily error may arise, and how rash it must be to +argue from a single case.[149] + +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). + +But my strong evidence is found in an invaluable survey of +Leicestershire, unknown till now to historians,[150] which does for +the carucated districts just what the _Inq. Com. Cant._ does for the +hidated ones. Here we find the townships grouped in small blocks +of from six to twenty-four 'carucatæ terræ', as a rule with almost +monotonous regularity. And these blocks are further combined in small +local Hundreds, of which the very existence is unknown to historians +and antiquaries,[151] and which are usually multiples, like the +Lincolnshire Wapentake, of the six-carucate unit. + +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 (11-1/2 + 1/2) + Goadby 12 (6 + 6) + Knipton 12 (8-3/4 + 3-1/4) + ---- + 36 + + HUNDRED OF KIBWORTH + + Kibworth (Beauchamp) 12 + Kibworth (Harcourt) 12 + 'Bocton' 12 + Carlton 12 (10 + 1-1/4 + 3/4) + ---- + 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) } { 14-1/2 (11-1/4 + 3-1/4) + Thorp (Langton) } 24 { 3-3/4 + Langton (2) } { 5-3/4 + + Tur Langton } { 12 + Shangton } 24 { 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 35-1/2, 34-13/16 carucates, etc., may be safely +assumed to have been Hundreds of 36 carucates; those of 41, 43-7/8, +etc., would be of 42 carucates; those of 48-7/8, 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 5-7/8, 5-13/16, 6-3/4, or 11-7/8, 13, etc. Thus: + + HUNDRED OF EASTWELL + + _Vills_ _Carucates_ + Eastwell 12 (2 + 6 + 4) + Eaton 12-1/4 (3-1/4 + 9/16 + 8-7/16) + Branston 12 (7-1/2 + 4-1/2) + ------- + 36-1/4 + +The most usual Leicestershire Hundreds are those of 36, 42, and 48 +carucates, which, be it observed, would be described in the language +of the Lindsey Survey as 'Wapentakes' of 3, 3-1/2, and 4 'Hundreds' +respectively. The name may be different: the thing is the same.[152] + +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 case of Leicestershire introduces us to a very curious point. +Leicestershire is not one of those counties to which the singular +formula that I discussed above refers. This suggests that it was not +arranged in 'Hundreds' of twelve carucates. The above Survey confirms +this, for it shows us Hundreds resembling in character those found in +the hidated districts. But although the twelve-carucate unit of +the 'Hundred' is not found in Leicestershire, we do find in it a +group-unit, and that unit is the _hida_. Just as we have seen the +Hundred used in two wholly different senses, so also was the 'hida'. +The quite peculiar way in which 'hida' occurs in Leicestershire (which +was not a hidated but carucated district) completely baffled Mr Eyton, +and was misunderstood by Mr Pell.[153] Both writers failed to observe +not only that the use of 'hida' is here of a peculiar character, but +also that the normal 'hida' of Domesday (from which they could not +emancipate themselves) would be quite out of place in this carucated +district. + +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 iiii^{ta.} 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.' + +Just as the 'Hundred' of Lincolnshire was a sum of twelve +carucates, so the 'Hide' of Leicestershire was a sum of _eighteen +carucates_.[154] Working in the light of this discovery (for as such +I claim it), we find that the other 'hides', thus interpreted, give +us an aggregate of 'carucates' obviously suitable to the recorded +ploughlands.[155] It may, however, be fairly asked why Domesday +should speak in one place of half a 'hide', and in another of nine +'carucates'; in one place of a hide and a third, and in another of +twenty-four carucates. The answer is that the singular love of variety +which distinguishes Domesday in Cambridgeshire (as we saw) is at +work here also. For instance, two equal estates are thus described: +'Willelmus iiii. car' terræ et dimidiam et iii. bovatas, et Rogerus +iiii. car' terræ et vii. bovatas' (fo. 234_a_). The same instinct +which led the scribe to enter these seven bovates as half a carucate +_plus_ three bovates, led him also to enter ten and a half carucates +as half a hide _plus_ a carucate and a half (fo. 237_a_). + +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. 235_b_). 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. + +Several years have elapsed since I wrote the above explanation, but +I have decided to publish it exactly as it originally stood. In the +meanwhile, however, Mr Stevenson has dealt with the subject in +an article on 'The Hundreds of Domesday: the Hundred of Land' +(1890).[156] He has advanced the ingenious theory that the +Leicestershire 'hida' was only a clerical error for H[undred], and +that it was really that 'Hundred' of _twelve_ carucates which we +meet with in the Lindsey Survey. To prove this, he reads an entry on +236_a_, 1, as 'Ogerus Brito tenet in Cilebe de rege ii. partes unius +hidæ, id est xii. car[ucatæ] terræ', and claims that this gloss +defines the 'hida' as a 'hundred' of twelve carucates. I confess that +to me such a rendering is in the highest degree non-natural. If we +speak of 'two-thirds of a yard, that is twenty-four inches', we +should clearly imply that the yard itself was thirty-six inches, not +twenty-four. Similarly, I claim to render the 'gloss' as implying that +the 'hida' itself contained eighteen carucatæ, not twelve.[157] If +I am right, Mr Stevenson's suggestion that this 'hida' was really a +'Hundred' also falls to the ground. + +After careful study of the Domesday Survey of Leicestershire, +I definitely hold that in that county 'carucata terræ' was the +geld-carucate and 'terra _x_ car[ucis]' the actual ploughlands.[158] +Now there are only three instances in which the Survey records the +assessment both in terms of the 'hida' and in 'carucatæ terræ', and in +all three the figures support my own theory. The Abbot of Coventry's +Burbage estate (231_a_, 2), where a 'hide' and a quarter equates +22-1/2 'carucatæ terræ', is a test-case, and Mr Stevenson there takes +refuge in a suggested 'beneficial hidation'. The exact formula, no +doubt, is peculiar, but reference to the text shows that 's[un]t' has +been interpolated between 'ibi' and 'xxii.' I suspect that the scribe +had written 'ibi' (from the force of habit) when he ought to have +written 'id est'. + +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 iii^{as.} + 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 2-1/2 1 + William Peverel 9 3 + ------------ + 12 0 + +So that Arnesby was a typical Vill assessed at twelve carucates.[159] + + +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. +269_b_). 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. + +Mr Green alluded to the Danish 'byes' as found, by exception, 'about +Wirral in Cheshire',[160] and held that Norsemen from the Isle of Man +had founded 'the little group of northern villages which we find in +the Cheshire peninsula of the Wirral'.[161] I cannot find them myself. +In his 'Notes on the Domesday Survey, so far as it relates to the +Hundred of Wirral'[162] (1893), Mr Fergusson Irvine, in a paper +which shows, though somewhat discursive, how much can only be done +by intelligent local research, has collated all the Domesday entries. +'Raby' is the one place I can there find in the peninsula with the +'bye' termination; while out of fifty-one entries twenty refer to +places with the English termination 'tone', and the Anglo-Saxon +test-words 'ham' and 'ford' are found in four others. There were, +doubtless, Norse elements in the peninsula, but they were not strong +enough to change the place-names or divide the land on their own +system. In the same way, Chester had its 'lawmen', though it was not +one of the Five Boroughs, nor is what I have termed the Scandinavian +formula applied to Cheshire in Domesday. So, too, there were lawmen at +Cambridge, and their heriot included eight pounds,[163] which occur in +the above formula as the twelve marcs of the Danish 'Hundred'. Yet the +whole system of Cambridgeshire was non-Danish. It was only, in short, +where the northern invaders had settled down as a people that they +were strong enough to divide the land anew and organize the whole +assessment on their own system. + + +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. + +It is _primâ facie_ not probable that they can have adopted the latter +course, for the uniformity of their assessment proves its artificial +character. Yet, in his remarkable paper on 'The Ploughland and the +Plough',[164] Canon Taylor has arrived at the conclusion that: + + The geldable carucate of Domesday does not signify what the + carucate usually signifies in other early documents. The + 'carucata ad geldum' is not as commonly stated by Domesday + commentators, the quantity of land ploughed in each year by + one plough, but it is the quantity tilled in one year _in one + arable field_ by one plough.[165] + +This 'novel and important proposition', as its author truly described +it, was probably the most notable contribution to our knowledge that +the Domesday Commemoration produced. The Canon's theory, which (so +far as his own East Riding is concerned) he certainly seems to have +established, is, at first sight, fatal to mine. But, on the other +hand, my own theory can be proved no less clearly for Leicestershire, +where the 'carucata terræ' and the ploughs are often connected in +about the same ratio as in Yorkshire.[166] This leads us to inquire +whether, even in the East Riding (where his theory works best), we may +not find traces of that assessment by the six-carucate unit which I +advocate myself. Such traces in Yorkshire we have already seen,[167] +but there is other and stronger evidence. + +If we take the modern Wapentake of Dickering (the first on Canon +Taylor's list) and examine its three Domesday Hundreds of Turbar, +Hunton, and Burton, we obtain these results:[168] + + 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 23-3/4 + Pochetorp 6 + Helmeswelle and Gartune 44 + + HUNTON HUNDRED + + Flaneburg and Siwardbi 24-1/2 + Marton 9 + Bredinton 18 + Hilgertorp 6 + Wivlestorp and Basingebi 12 + Frestintorp 9 } + Eleburne 1/2 } 29-1/2 + Eston 6 } + Bovintorp 14 } + Gerendele 12 + Ricton, Benton and Spetton 24 + Bocheton 12 + Fleuston 14 } + Stactone 6 } 27 + Foxhole 7 } + + BURTON HUNDRED + + Burton 12 + Grenzmore (4+2) 6 + Arpen (4+8) 12 + Chillon (30+11+7) 48 + Roreston (9+3) 12 + Logetorp (1-1/2+5-1/2) 7 } + Thirnon 7 } + Ascheltorp (4+2) 6 } 36 + Torp 3 } + Cherendebi 13 } + Caretorp (5+4+3) 12 + Rodestain (8+8+8) 24 + Twenc 17-1/4 + Suauetorp 9 + Fornetorp (4+14) 18 + Butruid 12 + Langetou (9+6) 15 } + Buitorp 5 } + Bruneton 3 } 42 + Galmeton 8 } + Binneton 6 } + Widlaueston 5 + +The evidence of this last Hundred is so overwhelming that it cannot be +gainsaid.[169] + +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 +(232_a_, 1): + + _Carucatæ_ _Ploughlands_ _Carucata_ _Ploughlands_ + + 1 2 12 8 + 1 1/2 11-1/8 7 + 2 1 9 4 + 5-5/8 4 7 6 + 2 1 6 5 + 2-5/8 4 2 4 + 1 1 10 7 + 6 4 9 6 + 8-7/8 6 5/8 1/2 + 1/2 1/2 6 4 (thrice) + 28 22 4-7/8 3 + +It is certainly difficult to discover any regular or consistent +assessment in a system where the ploughland was represented by +anything from 1/2 _carucata_ to 2-1/4 _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. + +Now if we follow the clue afforded by the Cambridgeshire evidence, +and hold that the assessment was originally laid not on the Manor, +nor even on the Vill, but on the Hundred as a whole,[170] it might +be suggested that the Hundred itself subdivided the amount among its +constituent elements. In practice, indeed, from the nature of the +case, this principle must have prevailed in every _town_ assessed at a +Hundred or Half-Hundred, for where an urban community was assessed +in 'hides' the burgesses must, as in later days, have settled among +themselves the proportion to be borne by individuals or individual +properties. If, then, they were able to do this, and if, as I hold, +town and country were assessed on the same principle, as part of the +same system, what was to prevent their neighbours, in the court of +the rural Hundred, similarly distributing among its constituents their +respective shares of the common burden? + +We might even be tempted to go far further than this, and to carry +our discoveries to a logical conclusion. If, as is asserted, direct +taxation ('geld') began in England with the need for raising money to +buy off the Danes, let us ask ourselves how the Witan would proceed +when confronted with a demand, let us say, for £10,000. As there had +been hitherto, _ex hypothesi_, no direct taxation, there would be no +statistical information at their disposal, enabling them to raise by +a direct levy the sum required. Their only possible resource, we might +hold, would be to apportionate it in round sums among the contributory +shires. Proceeding on precisely the same lines, the county court, +in its turn, would distribute the _quota_ of the shire among its +constituent Hundreds, and the Hundred court would then assign to each +Vill its share. As the Vills were represented in the Hundred court, +and the Hundreds in the Shire court, the just apportionment of the +Shire's _quota_ would be thus practically secured. The arrangement +would, moreover, be as satisfactory to the Witan as it was fair to the +contributors _inter se_; for, by this gradation of responsibility, the +payment of the whole was absolutely secured. This explanation is very +tempting, and, indeed, such a system of apportioning liability is to +be traced from time immemorial in the Indian village community.[171] +Moreover, if the ratio of 'hides' to ploughlands were found to vary to +any marked extent, according to county, the hypothesis that the quota, +in the first instance, was laid upon each county would duly explain +the ratio assessment being higher or lower in one county than in +another. + +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. + +The proportionate sums contributed by the several counties to the +Danegeld present a fruitful field of inquiry, but one, it would seem, +as yet unworked. Mr Eyton, it is true, observed that 'in Devon and +Cornwall the scope of the gheld-hide was enormous',[172] that is, in +other words, the assessment was strangely low, but it did not occur +to him to seek the cause of the phenomenon he observed. If, as was +the case, West Wales was assessed on quite a different scale to the +counties adjoining it on the east, it may suggest a conclusion no less +important than that, when the latter were originally assessed, +West Wales was not yet a portion of the English realm. But, before +concluding that the hide assessment is proved to be as ancient as +this, we must see whether it is possible to detect any principle at +work in the total assessments of the several counties, any relation +between their area and the sums they contributed to the geld as +entered in the Pipe Roll of 1130, our first evidence on the subject. + +For such an enquiry it is especially needful to insist on breadth of +treatment. In the first place, the modern area of the counties may +vary more or less from the original extent;[173] in the second we +have no proof that the assessment had always been the same, though the +tendency in early days, no doubt, was to stereotype such figures. We +must not, therefore attempt close or detailed investigation but if, +on a review of the whole evidence, we detect certain broad features, +uneffaced by the hand of time, we may fairly claim that we have in +these the traces of a principle at work, the witness to a state of +things prevailing in the distant past. + +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 2,119 302-5/7 330 3 2 + Suffolk 1,475 210-5/7 235 0 8 + Essex 1,542 220-2/7 236 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 820 117-1/7 114 15 0 + Sussex 1,458 208-2/7 209 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 885 126-3/7 128 12 6 + Worcestershire 738 105-3/7 101 5 7 + Gloucestershire 1,224 174-6/7 179 11 8 + Somerset 1,640 234-2/7 227 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 2/7) Actual Sum + + £ £ s d + + Buckinghamshire 745 212-3/7 204 14 7 + Oxfordshire 756 216 239 9 3 + Berkshire 722 206-2/7 200 1 3 + Wiltshire 1,354 386-6/7 388 13 0 + +Taking this group as a whole, it paid £1,032 18s 1d, a curiously close +approximation to the £1,021-4/7 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. + +On the other hand, the counties to the north-west of what I have +termed the Midland group are assessed at a rate singularly low. +Nottingham and Derby, with a joint area of 1,855 miles, contributed +only £108 8s 6d, representing one-seventeenth;[174] while +Staffordshire, with its 1,169 miles, is found paying £44 0s 11d, a +rate scarcely more than one twenty-seventh. Passing to the opposite +corner of the realm, we have Kent, always a wealthy county, assessed +at the phenomenally low rate of about one-fifteenth (£105 2s 10d, +as against 1,555 miles), rather less than half that of Essex to its +north, and Sussex to its west. + +It would seem impossible to resist the conclusion that in these widely +differing rates we have traces of a polity as yet divided, of those +independent kingdoms from which had been formed the realm. Kent, for +instance, which had so steadily maintained, first, its independent +existence, and then its local institutions, had succeeded in +preserving an assessment that its neighbours had cause to envy. In the +west, Cornwall similarly enjoyed a low, indeed a nominal assessment +while that of Devon, though higher than this, was so significantly +lower than those of Somerset and Dorset[175] as to remind us that +here, in part at least, the 'Welsh' long held their own. If the +incidence of geld were shown by shading a map of England, on the plan +so successfully adopted in Mr Seebohm's great work, it would show that +the heavily assessed counties were those which formed the nucleus of +the old West-Saxon realm.[176] All round this nucleus the map would +shade off sharply, another sudden change marking the Danish counties +on the north, the Jutish kingdom on the east, and the British district +in the south-west. It is, perhaps, worthy of remark that Shropshire +was assessed twice as heavily as the adjoining county of Stafford, +possibly because part of it was added, at a very early period, to the +kingdom of the West Saxons. If Mr Eyton was right in his reckoning +that Kesteven was assessed twice as heavily as Lindsey, and Lindsey, +in turn, twice as heavily as Holland, it would illustrate the survival +of local distinctions even within the compass of a modern county, as +well as the 'shading off' tendency of which I have already spoken. + +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. + +Another objection that may be raised to my hypothesis is that the +Hundred, as an area for police and rating, was a comparatively late +institution, and that if the artificial system of assessment were +as ancient as I suggest, it could not have operated, as we saw, in +Cambridgeshire, it did operate, through the 'Hundred'. It is, however, +admitted that the _thing_ represented by the 'Hundred' was, whatever +its original name, of immemorial antiquity, as the intermediate +division between the Vill and the Shire or kingdom. Approaching the +subject from the legal standpoint, Professor Maitland has pointed out +that the Hundred having a proper court, which the Vill had not, was +the older institution of the two, and has skilfully seized on the +differentiation of villages originally possessing one name in common +as a hint that some such subdivision may have been going on more +widely than is known. It seems to me to be at least possible that +the district originally representing a Hundred, and named, as we +are learning, in most cases from the primitive meeting-place of its +settlers, was reckoned as so many multiples of five or ten hides, +and that this aggregate was subsequently distributed by its community +among themselves.[177] + +If it be not presumption to touch on the controversies as to the +Hundred,[178] I would suggest that while agreeing with Dr Stubbs, +that the name of 'Hundred' may be traced to the ordinance of +Edgar[179]--which did not, however, create the district itself--I +cannot reconcile it with the view to which he leans in his +_Constitutional History_, that 'under the name of geographical +hundreds we have the variously sized _pagi_ or districts in which the +hundred warriors settled'; and that we should 'recognize in the name +the vestige of the primitive settlement, and in the district itself +an earlier or a later subdivision of the kingdom to which it +belonged'.[180] For my part, I have never been able to understand the +anxiety to identify the district known, in later days, as a 'Hundred' +with an original hundred warriors, families, or hides. The significant +remark on the 'centeni' by Tacitus, that 'quod primo numerus fuit, jam +nomen et honor est', would surely lead us to expect that by the +time of the migration the 'Hundred' had become, like the 'hide' of +Domesday, a term even more at variance with fact. Indeed, in his +masterly 'Introductory sketch', Dr Stubbs observed that the 'superior +divisions' made by the 'new-comers' would 'have that indefiniteness +which even in the days of Tacitus belonged to the Hundreds, +the _centeni_ of the Germans', and that their 'system' would be +'transported whole, at the point of development which it has reached at +home'.[181] + +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' + +In Norfolk and Suffolk we find Domesday recording assessed values not, +as everywhere else, at the outset of an entry, but at its close; not +in terms of hides and carucates, but in terms of shillings and pence. +Instead of saying that a Manor paid on so many 'hidæ' or 'carucatæ +terræ', Domesday, in the case of these counties, normally employs the +phrase: '_x_ denarii de gelto'. Its meaning is that to every _pound_ +paid by the Hundred as geld the Manor contributed _x_ pence.[182] +Thus, in the case of a Hundred assessed at a hundred hides, the +formula for a five-hide Manor would be here 'xii. denarii de gelto', +instead of the usual 'defendit se pro v. hidis', or some such phrase +as that. There is an exact parallel to this method of recording +assessed values in the case of fractions of knights' fees where +portions of land are entered as paying so much 'when the scutage is +forty shillings', instead of being assessed in terms of the knight's +fee.[183] This system would seem, however, to have been understood +imperfectly if at all. I may, therefore, point out that its nature is +clear from the case of the Suffolk Hundred of Thingoe. + +The case of this Hundred is singularly instructive. We find its +twenty 'Vills' grouped in _blocks_, precisely as in the Cambridgeshire +Hundreds, and these blocks are all _equal units of assessment_, like +the ten-hide groups of the hidated districts. But in this case we +can go further still, for we are not dependent on Domesday alone. The +portion of a special Survey executed about a century later (_circ._ +1185) for Abbot Sampson of St Edmund's, which relates to its Hundred, +is fortunately preserved, and gives us the name of the twelve 'leets' +into which this Hundred was divided.[184] + +Here are the divisions recorded in it, with the Domesday assessment +(in pence) of each Vill placed against its name. + + £ s d + + { Barrow 7 + I.{ Flemington 6 + { Lackford 6 + ------ + 19 0 1 7 + + II. Risby 20 0 1 8 + + { Saxham (_A_) 7 + III.{ Saxham(_B_) 7 + { Westley 6-1/2 + ------ + 20-1/2 0 1 8-1/2 + + IV.{ Hengrave 10 + { Fornham 10 + ------ + 20 0 1 8 + + { Ickworth 7-1/2 + V.{ Chevington 6-1/2 + { Hargrave 7 + ------ + 21 0 1 9 + + { Brockley 7 + VI.{ Rede 7 + { Manston 6 + ------ + 20 0 1 8 + + VII. Whepstead 20 0 1 8 + + VIII.{ Hawstead 13-1/2 + { Newton 6-1/2 + ------ + 20 0 1 8 + + IX. Horningsheath 20 0 1 8 + + X., XI., XII. Sudbury 60 0 5 0 + ---------- + £1 0 0-1/2 + +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'. + +Now Professor Maitland, in his Dissertation on the 'History of the +Word Leet',[185] pronounces this 'the earliest occurrence of the word' +that he has seen. But I can carry it back to Domesday itself. Though +not entered in the _Index Rerum_, we find it in such instances as +these: + + 'H[undredum] de Grenehou de xiv. letis' (ii. 119_b_). + + 'Hund[redum] et dim[idium] de Clakelosa de x. leitis' (ii. + 212_b_). + +I think it probable that in these cases the entry happened to stand +first on the original return for the Hundred, and so--as in the I.E., +where it is derived from the original returns--the general heading +crept in. Though Professor Maitland has to leave the origin of the +word unexplained, it seems to me impossible to overlook the analogy +between the Danish _lægd_, described by Dr Skeat as a division of +the country (in Denmark) for military conscription,[186] and the +East Anglian _leet_, a division of the country (as we have seen) for +purposes of taxation. + +Sudbury, it will be observed, was _a quarter_ of the Hundred of +Thingoe,[187] just as Huntingdon was a quarter of a Hundred,[188] and +Wisbech a quarter of a Hundred.[189] + +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 1-1/2d on the pound (i.e. £1 0s 1-1/2d). I group the Vills +_tentatively_, thus: + + _d_ + + I. Barton 27 + + II. {Fornham 6-1/2} 26-1/2 + {Rougham 20 } + + {Peckenham 13-1/2} + III. {Bradfield 5 } 26-1/2 + {Fornham St Genevieve 8 } + + IV. {Thurston 16 } 27 + {Woolpit 11 } + + V. {Rushbrook 7 } 27 + {Ratlesden 20 } + + {Hessett 18 } + VI. {Felsham 5 } 28 + {Bradfield 5 } + + {Gedding 5 } + VII. {Whelnetham 10 } 26 + {Drinkston 11 } + + {Ampton 7 } + VIII. {Tostock 10-1/2} 27-1/2 + {Staningfield 10 } + + IX. {Tinworth 14 } 26 + {Livermere 12 } + -------- + 241-1/2 (£1 0s 1-1/2d) + + +The same unit of 27 (x9)--or, which comes to the same thing, 13-1/2 +(x18)--was adopted in Risbridge Hundred. In this case no less than +five Manors are assessed at the same unit--13-1/2d. So, again, in the +Hundred of Blackbourn the units are 34-1/2d and 17-1/4d, 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. + +It is to be noted that 'twenty shillings'[190] represents ten hides +at two shillings on the hide (the normal Danegeld rate), and thus +suggests that in Norfolk, as in Cambridgeshire, the Hundreds were +normally assessed in multiples of ten hides. The point, however, that +I want to bring out is that the Hundred, not the Manor, nor even +the Vill, is here treated as 'the fiscal unit for the collection of +Danegeld'.[191] + + +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. + +Fortunately I have discovered an occurrence of the word _solanda_ +which conclusively proves that it meant an estate, such as a prebend, +and was not a unit of measurement. We have, in 1183, a 'grant by +William de Belmes, canon of St. Paul's, to the chapter of that church, +of the Church of St. Pancras, situate in his _solanda_ near London' +(i.e. his prebend of St. Pancras), etc.[193] This solves the mystery. +The three _solandæ_ at Tillingham were no other than the three +prebends--Ealdland, Weldland, and Reculverland--which that parish +actually contained.[194] + +Hale, however, misled Mr Seebohm, who in his great work on the +_English Village Community_ (p. 54), wrote of Tillingham: + + There was further in this Manor a _double hide_, called a + _solanda_, presumably of 240 acres. This double hide, called a + _solanda_, is also mentioned in a Manor in Middlesex [Sutton], + and in another in Surrey [Drayton][195]; and the term + _solanda_ is probably the same as the well-known '_Sollung_' + or '_solin_' of Kent, meaning a 'ploughland'. + +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: + + Of the _sulung_ I have spoken already. It is a full + ploughland, and 200 acres are commonly reckoned to belong + to it. The name is sometimes found out of Kent, in Essex for + instance. In Tillingham, a Manor of St. Paul's, of London, we + come across six hides 'trium solandarum'. The most probable + explanation seems to be that the hide or unit of assessment is + contrasted with the _solanda_ or _sulland_[196] (sulung), that + is with the actual ploughland, and two hides are reckoned as a + single _solanda_ (p. 255). + +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. + +Two issues--quite distinct--are involved. In the first place, Mr +Seebohm contends that Professor Vinogradoff must not argue from 'the +custom of Kent' to the rest of England, because (_inter alia_) Kent, +unlike the rest of England, was divided into _sulungs_, which points +to some difference in its organization.[197] This contention is sound, +and is actually strengthened if we reject the identity of _sulung_ and +_solanda_. But, in the second place, he endeavours to explain away +the Essex case of subdivision at Eadwulfsness, to which the Professor +appeals, by connecting it with the Kentish system through the term +_solanda_. This, as I have shown above, is based on a misreading of +the evidence, and is contrary to the facts of the case. + +Let us then look more closely at the Essex instance of subdivision. +It is taken from one Manor alone, the great 'soke' of Eadwulfsness, +in the north-east corner of the county. This 'soke' comprised the +townships of Thorpe 'le soken', Kirby 'le soken', and Walton 'le +soken' (better known as Walton-on-the-Naze). Such names proclaim +the Danish origin of the community, and it is noteworthy that the +'hidarii', on whom the argument turns, are found only at Thorpe +and Kirby, the very two townships which bear Danish names. This +circumstance points to quite another track. That the system in this +little corner of Essex was wholly peculiar had been pointed out by +Hale, and it might perhaps have originated in the superimposition of +hides on a previous system, instead of in the breaking up of the hide +and virgate system. But this is only a conjecture. The two facts on +which I would lay stress are that at Thorpe, according to Hale, +'the holders of the nine hides (in 1279) possessed also among them +seventy-two messuages', which, by its proportion of eight to the hide, +favours Mr Seebohm's views; and that the holdings of the 'hidarii' +were rigidly formed on the decimal system (such as 60, 30, 15, 7-1/2 +acres, or 40, 20, 10, 5 acres),[198] unlike the holdings of an odd +number of acres on the Kentish Manors of St. Augustine's. The reason +for the Essex system was clearly the necessity of keeping the holdings +in a fixed relation to the hide, that their proportion of the hide's +service might be easily determined. These two points have, perhaps, +I think, been overlooked by both of the eminent scholars in their +controversy. + +Before leaving the subject of the _sulung_, one should mention perhaps +that it was divided (as Mr Seebohm has explained) into four quarters +known as _juga_, just as the hide was divided into four virgates. Mr +Seebohm bases this statement on Anglo-Saxon evidence,[199] but it is +abundantly confirmed by Domesday, where we read of Eastwell (in Kent): +'pro uno solin se defendit. Tria juga sunt infra divisionem Hugonis, +et quartum jugum est extra' (i. 13). So far all is clear; but +Professor Vinogradoff, on the contrary, asserts that 'the yokes +(_juga_) of Battle Abbey (in Kent) are not virgates, but carucates, +full ploughlands' (p. 225). This assertion is based on a very natural +misapprehension. In the Battle Manor of Wye (Kent) we find that the +_jugum_ itself was divided into four quarters, called 'virgates' +which were each, consequently, the sixteenth, not, as in the hidated +district, the fourth of a ploughland. Professor Vinogradoff, naturally +assuming that the 'virgate' meant the same here as elsewhere, inferred +that four 'virgates' (that is, a _jugum_) must constitute a full +ploughland. But this change of denotation goes further still. The +Battle Cartulary records yet another 'virgate', namely, the +fourth (not of a ploughland, but) of an acre! This led me, on its +publication, to wonder whether we have here the clue to the origin +of the somewhat mysterious term 'virgate'. Starting from the acre, we +should have in the _virgata_ (rood) its quarter, with a name derived +from the _virga_ (rod) which formed its base in mensuration. The sense +of 'quarter' once established, it might be transferred to the quarter +of a _jugum_, or the quarter of a hide. This is a suggestion which, +of course, I advance with all diffidence, but which would solve +an otherwise insoluble problem. The relation of the bovate to the +carucate, and of the _jugum_ to the _sulung_, are both so obviously +based upon the unit of the plough-team that they raise no difficulty. +But the term 'virgate' does not, like them, speak for itself. If +we might take it to denote merely a 'quarter' of the hide, it would +become a term of relation only, leaving the 'hide' as the original +unit. Should this suggestion meet with acceptance, it might obviously +lead to rather important results. + +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: + + Nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit, _or_ nunquam geldavit: ideo + nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi.[200] + +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'. + +Mr Seebohm hints slightly at this _firma_ system,[201] but only speaks +of it as existing in Dorset. Nor does he allude to the significant +fact of such Manors having never been hidated. It would lead us far +afield to speculate on the origin of this system, or to trace its +possible connection with the Welsh _gwestva_.[202] Nor can we here +concern ourselves with the few scattered traces of it that we meet +with elsewhere in Domesday. Its existence in four adjacent counties, +with non-hidation as a common feature, is the point I wish to +emphasize. + +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 } + Chedder (with borough of Axbridge) 21 0 2-1/2} 100 10 9-1/2 + + North Petherton 42 8 4 } + South Petherton 42 8 4 } 106 0 10 + Curry Rivell 21 4 2 } + + Williton } + Carhampton } 105 17 4-1/2 + Cannington } + + Frome 53 0 5 } + Bruton 53 0 5 } 106 0 10 + + + Milborne Port (with Ilchester) 79 10 7 + [Bedminster[203] 21 0 2-1/2] + +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 6-1/2d, when the sum named is +£105 17s 4-1/2d, 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 'Reddebat T.R.E. dimidiam + firmam noctis et quadrantem' noctis firmam et unum quadrantem' + (Domesday). (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'. + + The probability is, then, that what we have called the + _enhanced ferm_, was enhanced by something less than the + gross profits we have instanced; that is, that a part of + those profits, say the Burgage rents, or some of them, + had contributed to the _dimidia firma noctis_ before the + commutation. + +All these ready assumptions, we must remember, are introduced to +account for a discrepancy which does not exist. + +Great masses of Mr Eyton's work consist of similar guesses and +assumptions. Now, if these were kept scrupulously apart from the +facts, they would not much matter; but they are so inextricably +confused with the real facts of Domesday that, virtually, one can +never be sure if one is dealing with facts or fancies. + +And far more startling than the case of Somerset is that of Dorset, +the 'Key to Domesday'. Mr Eyton here held that Dorchester, Bridport, +and Wareham paid a full _firma unius noctis_ each, the total amount +being reckoned by him at the astounding figure of £312 (p. 70)! +Exeter, which affords a good comparison, paid only £18 (as render), +though the king had 285 houses there: the three Dorset towns in which, +says Mr Eyton, the Crown had 323 houses, paid in all, according to +him, £312. The mere comparison of these figures is sufficient. +But further, Mr Eyton observes (p. 93), that in 1156 'Fordington, +Dorchester, and Bridport' were granted by Henry II to his uncle, 'as +representing Royal Demesne to the annual value of £60'. This is an +instructive commentary on his view that Dorchester and Bridport alone +rendered £208 per annum. Our doubts being thus aroused, we turn to +Domesday and find that it does not speak of any of these towns as +paying that preposterous _firma_. The right formula for that would be +'reddit firmam unius noctis' (p. 84). Instead of that, we only have +'exceptis consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad firmam unius noctis' (p. +70). The explanation is quite simple. Just as in Somerset, Mr Eyton +admits, Langport and Ilchester, although boroughs, were 'interned' in +groups of Royal demesne, paying the _firma unius noctis_, so in Dorset +the boroughs were 'interned' in groups of Royal demesne. Indeed one of +these groups was headed by Dorchester, and is styled by Mr Eyton the +'Dorchester group'. But he boldly assumed that 'Dorchester' must have +two different meanings: + + [A] We assume about 100 acres to have belonged to the Domesday + Burgh, and perhaps 882 acres to represent land, subinfeuded + at Domesday, and annexed to Dorchester Hundred. [B] It follows + that we assume about 429 acres, [to be that] ... which here + figures [fo. 75] under the name Dorchester. + +It is not too much to say that any one, who refers to pp. 70-3, 78-101 +of the _Key to Domesday_, will find that the singular misconception as +to the Dorset Boroughs makes havoc of the whole calculation. But here +again the point to be insisted on is not the mere mistake _per se_, +but the elaborate assumptions based upon it and permeating the whole +work.[204] + +Apart from the Manors grouped for a _firma unius noctis_, if we take +the comital Manors (_mansiones de comitatu_) of Somerset, which were +in the King's hands in 1086, we find their rentals given on quite a +different principle to those of the Manors in private hands. + +(1) They are entered as renders ('reddit'), not as values ('valet'). + +(2) The sums rendered are 'de albo argento'. + +(3) In at least ten out of the fifteen cases, they are multiples of +the strange unit £1 3s. + +As this fact seems to have escaped Mr Eyton's notice, I append a list +of these Manors, showing the multiples of this unit that their renders +represent: + + _£_ _s_ _d_ + + Crewkerne 46 0 0 40 + Congresbury 28 15 0 25 + Old Cleeve 23 0 0 20 + North Curry 23 0 0 20 + Henstridge 23 0 0 20 + Camel 23 0 0 20 + Dulverton 11 10 0 10 + Creech St Michael 9 4 0 8 + Langford 4 12 0 4 + Capton[205] 2 6 0 2 + +Whatever this strange unit represented, it formed the basis in these +Manors of a reckoning wholly independent of the 'hides' or ploughlands +of the Manor, and as clearly artificial as the system of hidation I +have made it my business to explain. + + +XV. 'WARA' + +The meaning of 'Wara' is made indisputable by the I.C.C. When land was +an appurtenance, _quoad_ ownership, of a Manor in one township, but +was assessed in another in which it actually lay, the land was said to +be in the former, but its 'wara' in the latter. As this 'wara' was an +integral part of the total assessment of the township, it had to +be recorded, under its township, in the I.C.C. Here are the three +examples in point: + + [HISTON.] De his xx. hidis jacet Warra de una hida et dimidia + in hestitone de manerio cestreford. Hanc terram tenuit comes + alanus [_sic_] et est appretiata in essexia (p. 40). + + [SHELFORD.] De his xx. hidis tenet petrus valonensis iii. + hidas de firma regis in neueport.... Hæc terra est berewica in + neueport, sed Wara jacet in grantebrigge syra (p. 49). + + [TRUMPINGTON.] De his vii. hidis [tenet] unus burgensis de + grenteburga i. virgam. Et Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra + in grantebrigga (p. 51). + +To these I may add a fourth instance, although in this case the name +_wara_ does not occur: + + [BATHBURGAM.] De his vii. hidis tenet Picotus in manu + regis dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virgam. Hæc terra jacet in + cestreforda et ibi est appretiata xxx. sol. in essexia (p. + 36). + +The lands at Histon and 'Bathburgam' were mere outlying portions of +the royal Manor of Chesterford in Essex, and those at Shelford were a +'berewick' of the royal Manor of Newport, also in Essex. But they were +all _assessed_ in Cambridgeshire, where they actually lay. + +So also we read under Berkshire (61_b_): 'Hæc terra jacet et +appreciata est in Gratentun quod est in Oxenefordscire, et tamen dat +scotum in Berchesire'. Again (203_b_) we read under Pertenhall: 'Hec +terra sita est in Bedefordsire, set geldum et servitium reddit in +Hontedunscyre'. A good instance of the same arrangement in another +part of England is found in those Worcestershire Manors which were +annexed as estates to Hereford, but which were assessed in those +Worcestershire Hundreds where they actually lay (see p. 61). + +A similar expression is applied to the possession of 'soca'. Thus +under Shelford we read: + + De hac terra adhuc tenuerunt iii. sochemanni dimidiam hidam + sub gurdo comite. Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia comitis + gurdi. Et soca jacebat in Witlesforda (p. 48). + +Here the land was in Shelford, but the jurisdiction (soca) was +attached to Earl Gyrth's Manor of Whittlesford. + +Prof Vinogradoff has dealt with 'the word _wara_' in his _Villainage +in England_ (i. 241-4), and asserts that the 'origin and use of the +term is of considerable importance'. But he does not allude to the +above evidence, and I cannot follow him in his argument. While rightly +disregarding Mr Pell's fanciful derivation from 'warectum', he asserts +that: + + We often find the expression 'ad inwaram' in Domesday, and it + corresponds to the plain 'ad gildam [_sic_] regis'. If a Manor + is said to contain seven hides _ad inwaram_, it is meant that + it pays to the king for seven hides.... The Burton cartulary, + the earliest survey after Domesday, employed the word 'wara' + in the same sense. + +One cannot disprove the first proposition without reading through all +Domesday for this purpose. I can only say that I do not remember +ever meeting in Domesday Book with such an expression. The +solitary instance of its use known to me is in the _Liber Niger_ of +Peterborough (p. 159), where we read: 'in Estona sunt iii. hidæ ad +in Waram'; and there the relevant entry in Domesday has no such +expression. Of the statement as to the Burton cartulary, one can +positively say it is an error. Its 'waræ' have quite another meaning +and are spoken of as virgates would elsewhere be. + +Collation with what I have termed the Northamptonshire geld-roll +renders it clear that 'wara', in Domesday, represents the old English +word for 'defence', in the sense of assessment, the 'defendit se' +formula of the great Survey leading even to the phrase of 'Defensio +x. acrarum', for assessment to Danegeld, which is found in the first +volume of Fines published by the Pipe-Roll Society. + + +XVI. THE DOMESDAY 'JURATORES' + +I now approach the subject of the Domesday _juratores_. + +The lists of these in the I.E. and in the I.C.C. afford priceless +information. The latter gives us the names for all but three of +the Cambridgeshire Hundreds, the former for all Cambridgeshire (one +Hundred excepted) and for three Hertfordshire Hundreds as well. +The opening paragraph of the I.E. tells us 'quomodo barones regis +inquisierunt, videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis scire et omnium +baronum et eorum francigenarum et tocius centuriatus presbyteri +prepositi vi. villani [_sic_] uniuscuiusque ville'.[206] Careful +reading of this phrase will show that the 'barones regis' must have +been the Domesday Commissioners. The difficulty is caused by the +statement as to the oaths of the sheriff, the tenants-in-chief +(_barones_), and their foreign (? military) under-tenants +(_francigenæ_). The lists of _juratores_ contain the names of many +_francigenæ_ in their respective hundreds, but, so far as I can find, +of no tenants-in-chief. The sheriff, of course, stands apart. His name +indeed in the I.C.C. is appended to the list of jurors for the first +Hundred on the list, but is not found in the I.E. Moreover, it should +be noted that the above formula speaks of all the tenants-in-chief, +but only of a single Hundred court. Two hypotheses suggest themselves. +The one, that the sheriff and _barones_ of the county made a +circuit of the Hundreds, and then handed in, on their oaths, to the +commissioners a return for the whole county; the other, that the +circuit was made by the commissioners themselves, attended by the +sheriff and _barones_. In the former case it is obvious that the +commissioners would fail to obtain at first hand that direct local +information which it was their object to elicit: and further, when we +find the sheriff and _barones_ charged with wrongdoing in these very +returns, it is, to say the least, improbable that they were their own +accusers, especially in the case of such a sheriff as Picot, at once +dreaded and unscrupulous. + +It seems, therefore, the best conclusion that the Domesday +commissioners themselves attended every Hundred court, and heard the +evidence, sometimes conflicting, of 'French' and 'English'.[207] + +The _order_ in which the Hundreds occur must not be passed over, +because their sequence distinctly suggests a regular circuit of the +country. Here is the sequence given in our three authorities: the +I.C.C., the I.E., and the list of jurors prefixed to the latter: + + Staplehow Staplehow Staplehow + Cheveley Cheveley Cheveley + Staines Staines Staines + Radfield Flammenditch Erningford + Flammenditch Childeford Triplow + Childerford Radfield Radfield + Whittlesford ([208]) Flammenditch + Triplow Triplow Whittlesford + Erningford Erningford Weatherley + Weatherley Weatherley Stow + Stow Stow Papworth + Papworth Papworth Northstow + Northstow Northstow Chesterton + Chesterton Ely + Ely + +On comparing the first two of these lists it will be found that +(except in the case of three contiguous Hundreds, which does not +affect the argument) the Hundreds are taken in a certain sequence, +which is seen, on reference to the valuable map prefixed to Mr +Hamilton's book, to represent a circuit of the southern portion of the +county from north-east to north-west, followed by an inquest on the +district to its north, the 'two Hundreds' of Ely. + +The third list, on the other hand, misplaces the Hundreds of Triplow +and Erningford altogether, and wholly omits that of Childeford. The +transposition and omission are both notable evidence that the B and C +texts, as I shall urge, were derived from some common original which +contained these defects. + +The essential point, however, is that a circuit was made of the county +whether merely by the sheriff, or, as seems most probable, by +the Domesday Commissioners themselves--the 'barones regis' of +the record--who must have attended the several Hundred-courts in +succession. + +But when we speak of the Hundred-court it is necessary to explain at +once that the body which gave evidence for the Domesday Inquest was +of a special and most interesting character. It combined the old +_centuriatus_--deputations of the priest, reeve, and six villeins from +each township (_villa_)--with the new settlers in the Hundred, the +_francigenæ_. A careful investigation of the lists will prove that +half the _juratores_ were selected from the former and half from the +latter. This fact, which would seem to have been hitherto overlooked, +throws a flood of light on the compilation of the Survey, and +admirably illustrates the King's policy of combining the old with the +new, and fusing his subjects, their rights and institutions, into one +harmonious whole. Conquerors and conquered were alike bound by their +common sworn verdicts.[209] + +We have the lists, in all, for eighteen Hundreds, fifteen in +Cambridgeshire and three in Herts, of which two were 'double'. There +were, practically, for each Hundred exactly eight _juratores_, half +of them 'French' and half 'English'. But the two 'double' Hundreds had +sixteen each, half of them 'French' and half 'English'. Although it is +recorded that 'alii omnes franci et angli de hoc hundredo juraverunt', +it is obvious that the eight men always specially mentioned were, in +a special degree, responsible for the verdict. Their position is +illustrated, I think, by the record of a Cambridgeshire _placitum_ +found in the Rochester chronicles. This is the famous suit of +Bishop Gundulf against Picot the sheriff in the County Court of +Cambridgeshire,[210] which affords a valuable instance of a jury being +elected to confirm by their oaths the (unsworn) verdict of the whole +court: + + Cum illis (i.e. omnes illius comitatus homines) Baiocensis + episcopus, qui placito præerat, non bene crederet; præcepit + ut, si verum esse quod dicebant scirent, ex seipsis duodecim + eligerent, qui quod omnes dixerant jure jurando confirmarent. + +Now we read of this jury: + + Hi autem fuerunt Edwardus de Cipenham, Heruldus et Leofwine + saca de Exninge, Eadric de Giselham, Wlfwine de Landwade, + Ordmer de Berlincham, et alii sex de melioribus comitatus. + +Investigation shows that the names mentioned are local. The land in +dispute was a holding in Isleham in the Hundred of Staplehoe. One +juror, Eadric, came from Isleham itself, two from Exning, one from +Chippenham, one from Landwade, while the sixth, Ordmer, was an +under-tenant of Count Alan, in the Manor from which he took his name +(Badlingham), and was a Domesday juror for the Hundred. These six, +then, were clearly natives chosen for their local knowledge. The +other six, chosen 'de melioribus comitatus', were probably, as at the +Domesday inquest, Normans (_Franci_). Thus the double character of the +jury would be here too preserved, and the principle of testimony from +personal knowledge upheld. + +So again in the Dorset suit of St. Stephen's, Caen (1122),[211] the +men of seven Hundreds are convened, but the suit is to be decided +'in affirmatione virorum de quatuor partibus vicinitatis illius +villæ'.[212] Accordingly, 'sexdecim homines, tres videlicet de +Brideport, et tres de Bridetona, et decem de vicinis, juraverunt se +veram affirmationem facturos de inquisitione terræ illius'. The +names of the jurors are carefully given: 'Nomina vero illorum qui +juraverunt, hæc sunt'. Again in the same Abbey's suit for lands in +London, 'per commune consilium de Hustingo, secundum præceptum +regis, elegerunt quatuordecim viros de civibus civitatis Londoniæ qui +juraverunt'. And in this case also we read: 'Hæc sunt nomina illorum +qui juraverunt.... Et hæc sunt nomina eorum in quorum præsentia +juraverunt.'[213] + +This corresponds, it will be seen, exactly with the writ to which the +_Inquisitio Eliensis_ was, I hold, the return: 'Inquire ... qui eas +(terras) juraverunt et qui jurationem audierunt' (_infra_, p. 114). + +Enough has now been said to show that the names of the Domesday jurors +recorded for each Hundred represent a jury of eight, elected to swear +on behalf of the whole Hundred, and composed of four foreigners and +four Englishmen, in accordance with the principle that the conflicting +interests ought to be equally represented.[214] + +We may take, as a typical set of _juratores_, those for the Hundred of +Erningford, the survey of which, in Mr Hamilton's book, occupies pp. +51-68. I give them in their order: + + [_Francigenæ_] [_Angli_] + + Walterus Monachus Colsuenus + Hunfridus de anseuilla Ailmarus eius filius + Hugo petuuolt Turolfus + Ricardus de Morduna Alfuuinus odesune + +All four _francigenæ_ can be identified in the Hundred. Walter held +a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai' from the wife of Ralf Tailbois; +Humfrey, a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai', from Eudo dapifer;[215] +Hugh, a hide and a half in 'Melrede', from Hardwin de Scalers; and +Richard, three virgates in 'Mordune', from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Of +the _Angli_, Colsuenus was clearly Count Alan's under-tenant at three +townships within the Hundred, holding in all two hides; 'Ailmarus', +his son, was, just possibly, the 'Almarus de Bronna', who was a +tenant of Count Alan in two adjacent townships, holding two hides and +three-eighths; 'Turolfus' and 'Alfuuinus' cannot be identified, and +were probably lower in the social scale. + +It will be observed that Colsweyn belongs to a special class, +the English under-tenants. He is thus distinct at once from the +_Francigenæ_, and from the villeins of the township. He and his peers, +however, are classed with the latter as jurors, because they are both +of English nationality. In the great majority of cases the English +_juratores_ cannot be identified as under-tenants, and may therefore +be presumed to have belonged to the township deputations. + + +XVII. THE 'INQUISITIO ELIENSIS' + +The record known by this name has long been familiar to Domesday +students, but no one, so far as I know, has ever approached the +questions: Why was it compiled? When was it compiled? From what +sources was it compiled? These three questions I shall now endeavour +to answer. + +First printed by the Record Commission in their 'Additamenta' volume +of Domesday (1816), its editor, Sir Henry Ellis, selected for his +text the most familiar, but, as I shall show, the worst of its three +transcripts (Cott. MS., Tib. A. VI), though he knew of what I believe +to be the best, the Trin. Coll. MS., O. 2, 1, which seems to be the +one styled by him 68 B 2.[216] In his introduction he thus described +it: + + The _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is a document of the same kind with + the Exeter Domesday; relating to the property of the Monastery + of Ely recorded afterwards in the two volumes of the Domesday + Survey (p. xiv). + +From this it would seem that Ellis believed the _Inquisitio_, at any +rate, to be previous to Domesday Book, but he practically left its +origin altogether in doubt. + +Sixty years later (1876) the _Inquisitio_ was published anew, +but without any further solution of the points in question being +offered.[217] For this edition three MSS. were collated, with +praiseworthy and infinite pains, by Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton. Taking +for his text, like Ellis, the Cottonian MS. Tib. A. VI, which he +distinguished as A, he gave in footnotes the variants found in the +MSS. at Trinity College, Cambridge, viz.: O. 2, 41 (which he termed +B), and O. 2, 1 (which he distinguished as C). In Mr Hamilton's +opinion (p. xiv) the 'C' text 'appears to have been derived from the +"B" MS. rather than the Cottonian' ('A'). From this opinion, it will +be seen, I differ wholly. + +A careful analysis of the three texts has satisfied me beyond question +that while C is the most accurate in detail, it is marred by a +peculiar tendency to omission on the part of its scribe. This, indeed, +is its distinctive feature. Now B cannot be derived from C, because +it supplies the latter's omissions. On the other hand, C cannot be +derived from B, because it corrects, throughout, B's inaccuracies. +Consequently they are independent. More difficult to determine is +the genesis of A, the worst of the three texts; but as it virtually +reproduces all the inaccuracies found in B (besides containing many +fresh ones), without correcting any, it can only be inferred that B +was its source. Thus we have on the one hand C, and, on the other B +(with its offspring A), derived independently from some common source. +And this conclusion agrees well with the fact that a long catalogue of +lands abstracted from the House of Ely is found in C, but not in A +or B,[218] and with the circumstance that the famous rubric ('Hic +subscribitur inquisitio'), which heads the inquisition in A and B, is +placed by C at the end of the lists of jurors.[219] + +Starting from this conclusion, let us now proceed to ask, what was the +document from which B and C copied independently? Clearly, it was +not Domesday Book, for outside the eastern counties they record the +returns in full, like the _Inq. Com. Cant._ itself. Were they then +taken from the original returns, or at least from the copy of those +returns in the _Inq. Com. Cant._? This point can only be determined +by close analysis of the variants; if we find B and C containing +occasionally the same errors and peculiarities, although copied +independently, it follows that the document from which they both +copied must have contained those same errors and peculiarities. Let +us take the case of Papworth. The right reading, as given both in +Domesday and the _Inq. Com. Cant._, I have placed on the left, and the +wrong reading, in B and C, on the right: + + [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et iii. [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et dim. + virgas et dim. [virgam]. virgam et[220] iii. virgas. + I. hida et i. virga et dimidia I. hida et dimidia virga et una + [virga] in dominio. virga[221] in dominio. + +Here are some further illustrations of errors in the I.E.: + + _D.B. and I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + VIII. hidas et dimidiam et VIII. hidis et dimidia et dimidia + dimidiam virgam.... In dominio virga ... iii. hidæ et dimidia + iii. hidæ et dimidia (p. 18). _et dimidia virga_ in dominio + (p. 104). + II. carruce in dominio. Et IIII^{or.} carruce ... in + tercia potest fieri (p. 21). dominio. + I. hida _et dimidia_ et xii. I. hida et xii. acræ in dominio + acræ in dominio (p. 87). (p. 110). + tenet Radulfus de Picot (p. 85). Rod[bertus] tenet de vicecomite + (p. 110). + Johannes filius _Waleranni_ Johannem filium + (p. 27). _Walteri_ (p. 103). + +Again, the clause 'Tost[222] pro viii. hidis et xl. acris', which +ought to head the Hardwick entries, is wrongly appended in the I.E. +(p. 110) to a Kingston entry with which it had nothing to do. So too, +'hoc manerium pro x. hidis se defendit [_sic_] T.R.E. et modo pro +viii. hidis', which belongs to Whaddon, is erroneously thrown back by +the I.E. (p. 107), into Trumpington, a Manor in another Hundred. It +is singular also that all the MSS. of the I.E. read 'iii. cotarii' (p. +101), where D.B. and the I.C.C. have 'iii. bordarii' (p. 3), and 'x. +cotarii' (p. 101), where they have 'x. bordarii' (p. 6): conversely, +the former, in one place, read 'xv. bordarii' (p. 107), where the +latter have 'xv. cotarii' (p. 63). + +In comparing the text of the I.E. with that of the I.C.C., we +shall find most striking and instructive variants in the lists of +_juratores_ for the several Hundreds. Take, for instance, the lists +for the Hundreds of Cheveley and Staines, which follow one another in +both MSS. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + CAUELEIE CAUELAI[223] + + Ric[ardus] Ric[ardus] _prefectus huius + hundreti_. + Euerard[us] filius Brientii Æduuard[us] _homo Alb[er]ici de + uer_ + Radulfus de hotot Radulfus de hotot + Will[elmu]s de mara Will[elmu]s de mara + Stanhardus de seuerlei Standard[224] de seuerlaio + Frauuin[us] de Curtelinga Frawinus[225] de quetelinge[226] + Carolus de cauelei _Brunesune_ Carlo de cauelaio[227] + Vlmar[us] homo Wigoni _et Wlmar' homo Wighen[228] + o[mne]s alii franci et + angli juraverunt_ + +The second name on these lists can be conclusively tested. For the +relative entry in the I.C.C. is 'Esselei tenet euerard[us][229] filius +brientii de Alberico'. This proves that the I.C.C. is right in reading +'Euerard[us]', while the I.E. is right in adding 'homo Alb[er]ici de +uer'. + +These are the lists for Staines Hundred. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + STANE STANAS + + Harold[us] Alerann[us] + Roger[us] Rogger[us] _homo Walt[er]i + giffardi_[230] + Aleranus _francigena_ + Ric[ardus] fareman Ric[ardus] _p[ræ]fectus hui[us] + hundreti_ Farmannus + Huscarl de suafham[231] Huscarlo de suafham[231] + Leofuuin[us] _de bodischesham_ Leofuuin[us] + Harald _homo Hard[uuini] de + scalariis_ + Alric[us] de Wilburgeham _et_ Aluric[us] de Wiburgeham _et + _omnes franci et angli_. alii omnes franci et angli + de hoc hundreto_. + +In these two lists the points to strike us are that Harold is placed +first on one list and seventh on another; Aleran third on one list and +first on another; and 'Fareman' distinguished more clearly in the I.E. +than in the I.C.C. as a separate individual. + +If we now collect from the other Hundreds some instances of +instructive variants, we shall obtain important evidence. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + Rob[ertus] de Fordham Rob[er]tus _angli[cus]_ de Fordham + Picotus vicecomes [Omitted][232] + Walterus Monac[us] Walt[erus][233] + Gerardus Lotaringus _de Girardus lotherensis _Herveus de + salsintona_ salsitona_ + Pagan[us] homo hardeuuini Paganus _dapifer_ Hard' + Rad[ulfus] de _scannis_ Radulfus de _bans_[234] + Fulco _Waruhel_ Fulcheus _homo vicecomitis_ + Rumold[us] _de cotis_ Rumold _homo comitis Eustachio_ + Will[elmu]s Will[elmus] _homo picoti vice + comitis_ + Wlwi _de doesse_ Wlwi de _etelaie_ + Godlid de _stantona_ Godliue + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + FLAMENCDIC FLAMMINGEDICH + + Robert[us] de Hintona Rodb[er]t[us] de Histona + Fulcard[us] _de Dittona_ Osmundus parvus + Osmund[us] parvulus Fulcold _homo abbatis de + Ely_ + Baldeuuinus _cum barba_ Baldeuuinus _cocus_ + Æduuin[us] presbyter Æduuinus presbyter + Ulfric[us] de teuersham Wlfuric de teuersham + Silac[us] _eiusdem villæ_ Syla + Godwun[us] _nabesone_ Goduuine _de fulburne_ + +It is impossible to examine the italicized variations in these +parallel texts without coming to the conclusion that they must have +been independently derived from some common original, an original +containing more detail than either of them. On the other hand, the +comparatively close agreement between the texts of the actual returns +in the I.C.C. and the I.E. leads one to infer that these were copied +with far more exactitude than the comparatively unimportant surnames +of the jurors. For us the value of these variations in the jurors' +lists lies in the evidence afforded to the origin of the existing MSS. + +The object of this careful scrutiny has been to prove that as certain +errors and peculiarities are found in two independent MSS., they must +have existed in the original document from which both were copied, +and which was neither the I.C.C. transcripts nor the original Domesday +returns. What then was this document? It was, and can only have been, +the true _Inquisitio Eliensis_, the date and origin of which I +shall discuss below. Further, I should imagine this document to +have probably been a roll or rolls, which--on its contents being +subsequently transcribed into a book for convenience--was allowed, +precisely as happened to the Domesday rolls themselves, to disappear. +In perfect accordance with this view we find the whole contents of the +_Inquisitio_ arranged for a special purpose, and no mere transcript of +the Domesday returns. Thus, after abstracting all the entries relating +to the Cambridgeshire estates, and subjoining a list of houses held in +Cambridge itself, it proceeds to add up all the items independently, +and record their total values to the Abbey. This analysis is carried +out for several counties (pp. 121-4), and is, of course, peculiar +to the _Inquisitio_, although inserted between the abstracts of the +Domesday returns for Cambridgeshire and Herts. So too the breviate +or short abstract of the estates (pp. 168-173), which was part of the +original document--for it is found in all the derived MSS.--must have +been specially compiled for it, and so also was the _Nomina Villarum_ +(pp. 174-83). + +Another peculiarity of the _Inquisitio_ is the care with which it +records the names of sokemen on the Abbey estates when omitted in the +I.C.C. and D.B. This may lead us to ask whether its compilers supplied +these names from their personal knowledge. We might think not, for in +some cases they are recorded by the D.B. and the I.C.C., while in +one (p. 106) the I.E. actually omits the name, reading only 'quidam +sochemanus', where the other two documents (p. 46) supply his name +('Fridebertus'). From this we might infer that the names were probably +recorded in the original returns, but deemed of too slight importance +to be always copied by the transcriber. Yet the balance of evidence +leads me to believe that the I.E. did supply names from independent +knowledge. With the values, however, the case is clearer. The +I.E. contains special and exclusive information on the value of +socman-holdings, and must, I think, have derived it from some other +source than the original Domesday returns. Here are some instances in +point. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + III. sochemanni fuerunt ... In Erningetone fuit quidam + secundus homo abbatis de Ely sochemannus, _Ædwardus_, et + tenuit ii.[235] hidas ... habuit i. hidam. Homo abbatis + Potuerunt Eli fuit in obitu regis Ædwardi, + recedere (p. 83). sed terram suam vendere potuit; + sed soca semper S. Ædeldrede + remansit (p. 110). + + X. sochemanni ... et i. istorum In Ouro fuit quidam sochemannus + homo abbatis de Ely fuit. _nomine Standardus_, qui dimidiam + Dimidiam hidam habuit. Non hidam habuit sub abbate ely. Non + potuit dare neque vendere, et potuit ire ab eo nec separare ab + ii. istorum, homines predicti ecclesia _et valet viginti + abbatis, iii. virgas habuerunt, solidos_. Et modo habet + vendere potuerunt; soca remansit Hardwinus. Et alii ii. sochemanni + abbati (p. 91). iii. virgatas habuerunt. + Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine + soca cui voluerunt et modo tenet + Hardwinus. _Et valet_ xv. + _solidos_ (p. 112). + + Et x^{us} [sochemannus] homo Quidam sochemannus sub abbate + abbatis de ely fuit. i. hidam et eli i. hidam et dim. tenuit + dim. habuit. Et omnes isti T.R.E. potuit dare sine licentiam + recedere potuerunt; et vendere [_sic_] eius, sine socha. Et modo + terram suam cui voluerunt Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub + (p. 95). abbate ely. _Valet_ x. _sol_. + (p. 113). + +This last passage, of itself, is full of instruction. Firstly, +the I.E. alone gives the value of the holding. Secondly, the I.E. +preserves the 'sine socha' which qualifies the holder's right. Now +D.B. gives the last clause as: + + Hi omnes terras suas vendere potuerunt. Soca tantum hominis + abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ. + +This qualification corresponds with the 'sine socha' of the I.E., and +is, we should observe, wholly omitted in the I.C.C. Thirdly, the +three versions of the original return employ three different words +to express the same one--'recedere', 'vendere', 'dare'. Fourthly, the +superiority of the C text of the I.E. over B (which makes two blunders +in this passage) and of B over its offspring A (which adds a third) is +here well illustrated. Fifthly, the phrase 'Picot vicecomes tenet +eam sub abbate ely' differs notably from Domesday, which assigns the +estate to Picot unreservedly, and still more from the I.C.C. which +reads 'tenet Robertus de Picoto vicecomite in feudo regis'. + +The next example is taken from the township immediately preceding. + + _I.C.C._ _I.E._ + + V. istorum (sochemannorum) Fuerunt quinque sochemani + homines abbatis de Ely fuerunt. Et T.R.E. unus istorum _sugga + unus istorum i. virg. et dim. habuit. nomine_ habuit una virg. et + Non potuit recedere. Et alii iiii. dim. sub abbate ely. + habuerunt v. hidas et i. virg. Non potuit recedere. + Potuerunt recedere sine soca (p. 95). _Et valet_ x. _sol._ + Et alii iiii^{or} + sochemani v. hidas + et i. virg. tenuerunt de + abbate eli. Potuerunt + dare preter licentiam + abbatis et sine socha et modo + tenet eam Picot vicecomes + de abbate ely _et valet_ + iii. _lib._ (p. 112). + +I have said that in all these cases it might perhaps be held that +the additional details found in the I.E. were not due to special +information possessed by its compilers, but were derived from the +original returns, though omitted by their other transcribers. It is +possible, however, to put the matter to the test. If, anticipating for +a moment, we find that we have, for the eastern counties, in Domesday +the actual materials from which the compilers of the I.E. worked, we +can assert that any additional details must have been supplied from +their own knowledge. An excellent instance in point is afforded by +Tuddenham, in Suffolk: + + _D.B._ _I.E._ + + In Tudenham Geroldus i. lib' In Tudenham i. li. homo Ælfric' + hominem ... comend' Saxæ de commend' S. Ædel' xii. ac' et iii. + abbate T.R.E. xii. ac' pro man', b. et i. c. et iii. ac' prati et + iii. bord' Semp' i. car. ii. ac' val. viginti iii. s. + prati ... val. iii. sol.; et in + eadem ii. liberi homines comend' In eadem i. l. ho' hedric'[236] + i. sancte Æ. et alter comend' commend' S. Ædel' viii. ac' et val' + heroldi x. ac', et dim. car. et xx. den. Hoc tenet R. de Raimes + val. ii. sol. Hoc tenet Geroldus (p. 151). + de R. [de Raimes] (ii. 423_b_). + +One knows not, truly, which blunder is the worst, that of the Domesday +scribe, who has converted a probable 'S. æ',[237] i.e. Ely Abbey, into +'Saxæ', or that of the compiler of the I.E., who, by interpolating the +word 'viginti', has converted three shillings into three-and-twenty. +But the point is that the latter could name the Abbot's sokeman +(nameless in Domesday) and could supply his acreage and the value of +his holding. The actual details seem to have been: + + Acres Pence + + Abbot's sokeman 8 20 + Harold's sokeman 2 4 + --------------- + 10 24 + +Domesday records the totals only. + +Enough has now been said of the twelfth century transcripts in which +alone are preserved to us the contents of the _Inquisitio_. We have +seen that they point to the existence of some common original, which, +while closely parallel with Domesday, as a record of the Abbey's +possessions, contained certain special features and additional +information. Why, when, and from what sources that original was +compiled, I shall now endeavour to explain. + + +XVIII. THE ELY RETURN + +The theory I propound for the origin of the so-called _Inquisitio +Eliensis_ is that it was the actual return ordered by that writ of the +Conqueror,[238] of which a copy is given in all three MSS. (A, B, C) +and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book, on p. xxi (No. VIII). +I give the wording of the writ, followed by the heading to the +_Inquisitio_ with which it should be closely compared. + + Willelmus Rex Anglorum Lanfranco archiepiscopo salutem.... + Inquire per episcopum Constantiensem et per episcopum + Walchelinum et per ceteros qui terras sanctæ Ædeldrede + scribi et jurari fecerunt, quomodo jurate fuerunt et qui eas + juraverunt, et qui jurationem audierunt, et qui sunt terre, + et quante, et quot, et quomodo vocate [et] qui eas tenent. His + distincte notatis et scriptis fac ut cite inde rei veritatem + per tuum breve sciam. Et cum eo veniat legatus abbatis. + + + RETURN + + Hic subscribitur inquisicio terrarum, quomodo barones regis + inquisierunt,[239] videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis + scire et omnium baronum et eorum francigenarum, et tocius + centuriatus, presbiteri, prepositi, vi. villani [_sic_] + uniuscujusque ville; deinde quomodo vocatur mansio, quis + tenuit eam tempore R.E., quis modo tenet, quot hide, quot + carruce[240] in dominio, quot hominum, quot villani, quot + cotarii, quot servi, quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni, + quantum silve, quantum prati, quot[241] pascuorum, quot + molendina, quot piscine, quantum est additum vel ablatum, + quantum valebat totum simul,[242] et quantum modo, quantum + quisque liber homo vel sochemannus habuit vel habet. Hoc totum + tripliciter, scilicet tempore regis Æduardi, et quando Rex + Willelmus dedit et qualiter modo sit, et si potest plus haberi + quam habeatur. + + Isti homines juraverunt, etc., etc. + +Especially important is the fact that the return contains the jurors' +names, in accordance with the express injunction to that effect in the +Conqueror's writ. + +Now if this theory meet with acceptance, and the writ be taken to +refer, as I suggest, to the Domesday Inquest itself, it follows that +the Bishop of Coutances and Bishop Walchelin were the heads of the +Domesday Commission for this district. This, of course, has been +hitherto unknown; but it adds to the presumption in favour of the +facts that Bishop Walchelin is not mentioned in any of the Ely writs +as taking part in the _placita_ concerning the Abbey's lands, +and that, therefore, the only Inquest in which he could have been +concerned was the Domesday Inquest itself. It should be added, +however, that these two Bishops may have been, respectively, the heads +of two distinct commissions for adjoining groups of counties. + +The heading to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is so well known, and has +been so often quoted by historians, that it is a gain to fix its +_status_, the more so as it has been loosely described as the +'official' instructions for the Survey itself. We may also determine +the date of the writ as the very close of the Conqueror's reign. For +it must have been issued between William's departure from England, +_circ._ September 1086, and his death (September 1087). + +And now, how was the return compiled? It deals, we find, with six +counties, arranged in this order: Cambridgeshire, Herts, Essex, +Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hunts. For _Cambridgeshire_ it copies, clearly, +from the original returns. For Herts it must have done so also, +because it gives full details, which are not found in Domesday Book. +This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, for these two counties, +it gives the jurors' names (for the hundreds dealt with), which it +could only have obtained from those original returns. For _Essex_, +_Norfolk_, and _Suffolk_, on the contrary, it simply gives the same +version as the second volume of Domesday Book, and omits accordingly +the jurors' names. The case of the four Manors in _Hunts_ I leave in +doubt, because the version in the _Inquisitio_ (pp. 166-7) has more +details than that of Domesday, though the latter is here exceptionally +full, and because it places first the Manor which comes fourth in +Domesday (i. 204). The additional details (as to live-stock) are such +as we might expect to be derived from the additional returns; but the +names of the witnesses for the Hundred are not recorded, a fact to be +taken in conjunction with the belated entry of these Huntingdonshire +Manors not following, as they should, those in Cambridgeshire and +Herts. + +In addition to the _Inquisitio_ itself, as printed by the Record +Commission, there is a record, or collection of records, which follows +it in all three MSS., and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book (pp. +168-89). Although its character is not there described, it can be +determined. For in the _Inquisitio_ there are three references to +the 'breve abbatis de ely' (pp. 123-4), all three of which can be +identified in the above record (pp. 175-7). It is noteworthy that the +record in question is only complete in C, which confirms my view that +B and its offspring A were independent of C. + +Though the word _Breve_ in Domesday Book normally means the king's +writ, there are passages which seem to have been overlooked, and in +which it bears another and very suggestive meaning. One of them is +found at the end of the Survey of Worcestershire and was foolishly +supposed by the compilers of the index volume (pp. 250, 315) to relate +to lands held by 'Eddeva' and entered immediately before it. The +passage is an independent note, running thus: + + In ESCH Hund' jacent x. hidæ in Fecheham et iii. hidæ in + Holewei et scriptæ sunt in _brevi de Hereford_. + + In DODINTRET Hund' jacent xiii. hidæ de Mertelai et v. hidæ de + Suchelei quæ hic placitant et geldant, et ad Hereford reddunt + firmam suam, et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178). + +All four places are found on fo. 180_b_, 'Feccheham' and 'Haloede' +[_sic_][243] together (under 'Naisse' Hundred[244]) as paying a +joint ferm--'Merlie' (Martley) under 'Dodintret' Hundred and Suchelie +(Suckley), now in Herefordshire, as 'in Wirecestrescire' (cf. i. 172). + +It is clear then that Domesday here uses 'breve' of a return, not of +a writ, and I venture to think the word may refer to the abbreviated +entries made in Domesday Book itself as distinct from those _in +extenso_ found in the original returns.[245] + +This usage is found in both volumes. We read of land at Marham, +Norfolk, held by Hugh de Montfort; 'est mensurata in brevi Sanctæ +Adeldret' (ii. 238), where the reference is to the 'Terra Sanctæ +Adeldredræ' (ii. 212), and of Hurstington Hundred, Hunts, 'Villani +et sochemanni geldant secundum hidas in brevi scriptas' (i. 203). The +reference, in both cases, is to the text itself. + +The former of these two phrases is repeated in the _Inquisitio +Eliensis_,[246] a fact of some importance if, as I venture to think, +it is there meaningless. The point is worth labouring. We see that +the phrase cannot have occurred in the original returns, where all +the entries relating to Marham would have come together. But if it +was only applicable to Domesday Book itself--where the fiefs were +separated--then must the I.E. have copied from Domesday Book. + +This, indeed, is the point to which I am working. For Essex, Norfolk, +and Suffolk, I believe, the compilers of the _Inquisitio_ (1086-7) +must have worked from the second volume of Domesday as we have it now. +We see it _firstly_, in the order of the counties; _secondly_, in the +absence of the jurors' names; _thirdly_, in the system of entering the +lands. With a fourth and minute test I have dealt just above. + +But to make this clearer, we must briefly analyse the return. The +Cambridgeshire portion extends from p. 101 to p. 120. It extracts +from the original returns, Hundred by Hundred, all that relates to +the Abbey of Ely. Following this is a note of its possessions in +the Borough of Cambridge[247] (pp. 120-1), and then summaries of the +Abbey's estates, in _dominium_ and _thainland_ and _socha_, in all +six counties, and of the lands held by Picot the Sheriff, Hardwin +d'Eschalers and Guy de Raimbercurt, to which it laid claim as its own +(pp. 121-4). Then we resume with Hertfordshire, the extracts from +the original returns (pp. 124, 125). Both the Cambridgeshire and +Hertfordshire portions close with the words, 'De toto quod habemus', +etc., referring to the totals worked out by the Abbey from the entries +in the original returns. + +With Essex, we enter at once on a different system. This portion, +which extends from p. 125 to p. 130 (line 8), is arranged not by +Hundreds but by fiefs. It first gives the lands actually held by the +Abbey (as coming first in Domesday), and then those of which laymen +were in possession. To the latter section are prefixed the words: 'Has +terras calumpniatur abbas de ely secundum breve regis'. From Essex we +pass to Norfolk, the entries for which, commencing on p. 130 with +the words 'In Teodforda', end on p. 141 at 'Rogerus filius Rainardi'. +These again are divided into two portions, namely, the lands credited +to the Abbey in Domesday (pp. 130-6), and those which it claimed but +which Domesday enters under other owners (pp. 137-41). Between the two +comes the total value of the former portion and a list of the Norfolk +churches held by the Abbey. Last of the Eastern counties is Suffolk, +which begins on p. 141 at 'In Tedeuuartstreu hund.', and ends on p. +166. This also is in two portions, but the order seems to be reversed, +the alleged aggressions on the Abbey's lands coming first and its +uncontested possessions last. The latter portion begins on p. 153, +where the B text inserts the word 'Sudfulc'. + +The following parallel passages are of interest as showing how closely +the I.E. followed D.B. even when recording a judicial decision. + + _D.B._ _I.E._ + + In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. + liberi homines I car. terræ ex lib. homines I car. terre ex + quibus habuit sca. Al. commend. quibus habuit S. Ædel. sacam et + et socam T.R.E. Tunc vi. car. socam et commend. T.R.E. Tunc + modo ii., et iii. acre prati, vi. car. modo ii., et iii. acre + et val. xx. sol. prati, et val. xx. + Rogerus bigot[us] tenet de abbate, sol. R. bigot tenet de Abbate + quia abbas eam derationavit super quia Abbas eam dirationavit + eum coram episcopo de sancto super eum coram episcopo + Laudo, sed prius tamen tenebat de constantiensi. Sed prius + rege (ii. 383). tamen tenuit de rege (p. 157). + +The one variation, the Bishop's style, has a curious parallel in +Domesday Book (i. 165), where under the rubric 'Terra Episcopi +Constantiensis' we read 'Episcopus de Sancto Laudo tenet', etc. + +We may take it then that the compilers of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ +worked for Cambridge and Herts from the original returns, but, for +the eastern counties, from the second volume of Domesday. What are the +corollaries of this conclusion? They used, for some reason or other, +the second volume of Domesday, but not the first--if, indeed, it then +existed. Speaking for myself, I have always felt not a little uneasy +as to the accepted date for the completion of Domesday Book.[248] Mr +Eyton went so far as to write: + + Imperial orders have gone forth that the coming Codex, the + Domesday that is to outlive centuries, is to be completed + before Easter (April 5th, in that year [1086]), when King + William himself expects to receive it in his Court and Palace + of Winchester (_Notes on Domesday_, 15). + +And he explicitly stated that: + + On any hypothesis as to the time taken by the different + processes which resulted in Domesday Book, the whole, that + is the survey, the transcription, and the codification, were + completed in less than eight months, and three of the eight + were winter months. No such miracle of clerkly and executive + capacity has been worked in England since.[249] + +But was it worked then? All that the chronicle says of the King is +that the '_gewrita_ wæran gebroht to him', a phrase which does not +imply more than the original returns themselves. + +Of course, the chief authority quoted is the colophon to the second +volume: + + Anno millesimo octogesimo sexto ab incarnatione Domini + vicesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ipsa descriptio non + solum per hos tres comitatus sed etiam per alios. + +It seems to have been somewhat hastily concluded that because the +Survey ('Descriptio Angliæ') took place in 1086, Domesday Book (which +styles itself _Liber de Wintonia_), was completed in that year. The +phrase 'per hos tres comitatus' proves, surely, that 'descriptio' +refers to the Survey, not to the book.[250] + +I have never seen any attempt at a real explanation of the great +difference both in scope and in excellence between the two volumes, +or indeed any reason given why the Eastern counties should have had +a volume to themselves. For a full appreciation of the contrast +presented by the two volumes, the originals ought to be examined. Such +differences as that the leaves of one are half as large again as those +of other, and that the former is drawn up in double, but the latter in +single column, dwarf the comparatively minor contrasts of material +and of handwriting. So, too, the fullness of the details in the second +volume may obscure the fact of its workmanship being greatly inferior +to that of the first. Of its blunders I need only give one startling +instance. The opening words of the Suffolk Survey, written in bold +lettering, are 'Terra Regis de Regione' (281_b_). I have no hesitation +in saying that the last words should be 'de _Regno_'. Indeed, the +second formula is found on 289_b_, as 'Terra Regis de Regno', while on +119_b_ under 'Terra Regis', we read 'hoc manerium fuit de regno'. So +also in the Exon Domesday 'Terra Regis' figures as 'Dominicatus regis +ad regnum pertinens'.[251] The muddled order of the tenants-in-chief +for Norfolk and for Suffolk--where laymen precede the church[252]--is +another proof of inferiority, but only minute investigation could show +the hurry or ignorance of the scribes. + +Now, all this might, I think, be explained if we took the so-called +second volume to be really a first attempt at the codification of the +returns. Its unsatisfactory character must have demonstrated the need +for a better system, which, indeed, its unwieldy proportions must have +rendered imperative. So drastic and so successful, on this hypothesis, +was the reform, that while these three counties had needed a volume +of 450 folios, the rest of England that was surveyed--some thirty +counties--was compressed into a single volume of 382 folios, and on +a system which rendered consultation easier and more rapid. In every +respect the first volume is a wonderful improvement on the second, but +the authorities may have shrunk from ordering the latter to have been +compiled _de novo_, when the work, though unsatisfactory, had once +been done. + +This, it must of course be remembered, is all hypothesis, a hypothesis +suggested by the facts. If it were proved that at the time when the +Ely return was made, the 'second' volume had been compiled, and the +'first' had not, I should have established my case. But it might be +urged that the 'first' volume did exist at the time, and that the +Ely scribes used the returns instead, because they contained fuller +information. To this I reply, so far as the details of the estates are +concerned, that neither the terms of the writ nor the heading of the +_Inquisitio_ involved the inclusion of such details as Domesday +Book omitted. If the scribes inserted them, it must have been merely +because they inserted everything they found in the records from which +they copied. It might still be urged that they went to the returns for +the names of the _juratores_; but why, if so, did they not do so for +the three eastern counties? It certainly seems to me to be the most +satisfactory explanation that the materials supplied for compiling +this return, as being the recognized official records, were the +so-called 'second' volume of Domesday, and (for the rest) the original +returns. + + +XIX. FIRST MENTION OF DOMESDAY BOOK + +No one nowadays should require to be told that the pseudo-Ingulf's +dealings with Domesday are devoid of all authority. Some, however, may +still believe in the tale found in that 'Continuatio' of his chronicle +which is fathered on Peter of Blois. It is there that Ellis found +(putting Ingulf aside) the only case of an appeal to its witness +before the reign of John.[253] + +With the 'Continuatio' I shall deal below,[254] but I would observe, +while on the subject, that the 'pseudo-Ingulf' (charters and all) +was, I believe, largely concocted by the help of hints gathered from +Domesday Book. + +The absence of any authoritative mention, in its early days, of our +great record gives a special importance to an entry in the _Chronicle +of Abingdon_ (ii. 115-6), where we read that Abbot Faritius was +impleaded by certain men: + + Sed is abbas in castello Wincestre coram episcopis + Rogero Saresberiensi, et Roberto Lincolniensi, et Ricardo + Londoniensi, et multis regis baronibus, ratiocinando ostendit + declamationem eorum injustam esse. Quare, justiciarorum regis + judicio obtinuit ut illud manerium, etc. ... sed quia rex tunc + in Normanniâ erat, regina, quæ tunc præsens erat, taliter hoc + sigillo suo confirmavit. + +Then follows the Queen's writ, announcing the decision of the plea +held in the royal 'Curia', together with the names of the 'barons' +present. These names enable us to determine a certain limit for the +date of the plea. 'Thurstinus Capellamus', for instance, implies that +it was previous to his obtaining the See of York in 1114, while the +presence of Richard, Bishop of London, places it subsequent to July +26, 1108. It must, therefore, have been held during the King's absence +between July 1108 and the end of May 1109; or in his later absence +from August 1111 to the summer of 1113. + +The action of the Queen in presiding over this _placitum_ illustrates +a recognized practice, of which we have an instance in Domesday +itself (i. 238_b_), where it is stated that Bishop Wulfstan, +'terram deplacitasse coram regina Mathilde in presentia iiii^{or.} +vicecomitatuum'. The Queen's description of the _Curia Regis_ as +'curia domini mei et mea' should be compared with the phrase employed +by the Queen of Henry II, who, similarly acting in her husband's +absence, speaks of the Great Justiciar as 'Justicia Regis et mea'. + +But the essential portion of the passage before us is this: + + Sciatis quod Faritius abbas de Abendona in curia domini mei et + mea, apud Wintoniam in thesauro ... _per Librum de Thesauro_, + diratiocinavit quod, etc. + +The court was held 'in castello Wincestre', says the narrative, 'apud +Wintoniam in thesauro', says the record. Both are right, for the Royal +Treasury was in Winchester Castle.[255] + +But what was the 'Liber de Thesauro'? I contend that it was Domesday +Book, and can have been nothing else. For, passing now to the +_Dialogus de Scaccario_ (_circa_ 1177), we there read in reply to an +inquiry as to the nature of Domesday Book (which 'in thesauro servatur +et inde non recedit'): '_liber ille_ de quo quæris sigilli regii comes +est individuus _in thesauro_' (I. XV.). The connection of the Book +with the Treasury is brought out strongly in the _Dialogus_, and leads +to the presumption, as Mr Hall perceived, that the Treasury being +originally at Winchester, the Book was there also--as indeed we see +it was under Henry I.[256] On the date of its removal to Westminster, +there has been much discussion between my friend Mr Hall and +myself.[257] Mr Hall relies mainly on the _Dialogus de Scaccario_, and +on the inferences he draws from it, for the early removal of Domesday +to Westminster, and the establishment there of the royal Treasury. +For myself, I claim for the Winchester Treasury greater importance +and continuity than he is willing to admit. The leading records, of +course, were stored there as well as treasure. We find William +Rufus speaking of 'meis brevibus ... qui sunt in thesauro mea +Wyntoniæ';[258] and we read that, on his father's death, 'pergens apud +Wincestre thesaurum patris sui ... divisit: erant autem in thesauro +illo lx. m[ille] libræ argenti excepto auro et gemmis et vasis et +palliis.'[259] Heming's Cartulary describes the Domesday returns +as stored 'in thesauro regali', and Henry of Huntingdon states that +'inter thesauros reposita usque hodie servantur'.[260] Now, as the +Treasury was in Winchester Castle at the time of the above suit, and +as it had been in 1100[261] and 1087, so it was still at the accession +of Stephen in 1135, and at the triumph of Matilda in 1141. This is +absolutely certain from the Chronicles, nor do they ever mention +any other Treasury. Moreover, the contents of this Treasury in +1135--'erant et vasa tam aurea quam argentea'--correspond with those +described by the _Dialogus_ forty years later: 'vasa diversi generis +aurea et argentea'. Lastly, there is a piece of evidence which has not +yet been adduced, namely, that in his _Expugnatio Hibernica_ (1188), +Giraldus, speaking of that ring and letters which John of Salisbury +declared had been brought by him from the Pope, and were 'still stored +in the Royal Treasury', writes of + + Annulum aureum in investituræ signum ... qui statim simul cum + privilegio _in archivis Wintoniae_ repositus fuerat. + +Giraldus certainly must have looked on the Royal Treasury at +Winchester as the only recognized repository for all such objects as +these. + +Mr Hall, indeed, has gradually modified his original position +that 'Ingulphus saw the Domesday register, as it now exists, at +Westminster', and that it was sent there for good from Winchester +'early in the reign of Henry I',[262] but he still places the +establishment of 'the' Treasury at Westminster, in my opinion, too +early. It is the gradual decay of Winchester as the capital and seat +of administration that makes it difficult to say positively when or +how the national records, Domesday Books among them, were transferred +to Westminster. We have seen at least that, in its early days, the +'Liber de Wintonia', as it styles itself, had its home within the +walls of the Royal castle of Winchester; and I cannot but think, +now as at first, that it began by visiting Westminster for Exchequer +sessions only.[263] + +In any case, we have seen its witness appealed to on a far earlier +occasion than had hitherto been known. In my paper on 'An Early +Reference to Domesday',[264] I quoted an even earlier mention of the +'Descriptio Angliæ', but here again the reference seems to make rather +to the Domesday Survey itself than to Domesday Book, the 'Liber de +Thesauro'. + +As an appendix to this paper, I give the pedigree of the Domesday MSS. +according to the views I have expressed.[265] + + Original Returns + ________________________|_________________________ + | | | | + Domesday Domesday 'Inquisitio 'Inquisitio[266] + Book, vol. II Book, vol. I Eliensis', Comitatus + | _quoad_ Camb. Cantabrigiensis' + | and Herts (Tib. A. VI.) + | | + | | + 'Inquisitio ______|________ + Eliensis', | | + _quoad_ Essex, C text B text + Norfolk, Suffolk | + ______|______ A text + | | (printed by + C text B text Ellis) + | + A text + (printed by + Ellis) + + + + + [Footnote 1: _English Commonwealth_, II, ccccxliv.] + + [Footnote 2: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 3: _Domesday Book_, p. 42.] + + [Footnote 4: _Athenæum_, 1885, I, 472, 566-7; _Domesday Book_, + 1887, p. 44.] + + [Footnote 5: _Domesday Studies_ (1891), II, 488.] + + [Footnote 6: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis._ Cura N. + E. S. A. Hamilton, 1876.] + + [Footnote 7: _Notes on Domesday_ (1877), reprinted 1880, p. + 15.] + + [Footnote 8: The italics are his own, _Domesday Book_, p. 42. + Cf. _Domesday Studies_, II, 486-7.] + + [Footnote 9: It is not even _proved_ that the I.C.C. is copied + from the original returns themselves. There is the possibility + of a MS. between the two. See _Addenda_.] + + [Footnote 10: These extracts are _extended_ and _punctuated_ + to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed + within square brackets.] + + [Footnote 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.] + + [Footnote 12: The references to pages are to those of Mr + Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets + are the passages omitted.] + + [Footnote 13: In this instance the omission is so gross that + it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnote + 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'.] + + [Footnote 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.] + + [Footnote 15: 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.'] + + [Footnote 16: 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p. + 50).] + + [Footnote 17: 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'--p. + 62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).] + + [Footnote 18: 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).] + + [Footnote 19: 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).] + + [Footnote 20: 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit + æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).] + + [Footnote 21: The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the + right one because confirmed by I.E.] + + [Footnote 22: This, like the similar cases where D.B. is + given as the authority for the second reading, is proved + arithmetically (_vide infra_).] + + [Footnote 23: The I.C.C. enumerates only _three_, which is the + number given in D.B.] + + [Footnote 24: The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just + before, and are here wrongly repeated.] + + [Footnote 25: 'Inter totum valent et valuerunt xii. den.' This + was _exclusive_ of the value of the Manor, which by the way + the I.C.C. gives as sixteen pounds and D.B. at six pounds, one + of those cases of discrepancy which have to be left in doubt, + though D.B. is probably right.] + + [Footnote 26: Mr Eyton, in his _Notes on Domesday_ (p. 16), + called attention to this. 'The result,' he wrote (of the + Lincolnshire Domesday), 'as to arrangement, is in certain + instances just what might have been expected from some haste + of process.... The hurried clerks were perpetually overlooking + entries which they ought to have seen.'] + + [Footnote 27: Mr Eyton (_ibid._, pp. 17, 18), while ignoring + this valuable and most important feature, notes the employment + of a similar device in Domesday Book itself in the case of + Yorkshire. 'Against such errors and redundancies a very simple + but effective precaution seems to have been adopted by some + clerk or clerks employed on the Yorkshire notes. Before + transcription was commenced an index was made of the loose + notes of that county. This index gave the contents of each + Wapentac or Liberty in abstract under the appropriate title; + then the measure in carucates and bovates of each item of + estate; and lastly (interlined) some hint or indication to + whose Honour or fief each item belonged. This most clerkly + device will have saved the subsequent transcribers much + trouble of roll-searching and a world of confusion in their + actual work.'] + + [Footnote 28: 'Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in + grantebrigga.'] + + [Footnote 29: To say that the sokeman 'non potuerunt recedere + _sed_ soca remanebat abbati', is nonsense, because if they + were not able 'recedere', the question of 'soca' could not + arise. The formula 'sed soca', etc., is only used in cases + where there _was_ a right 'recedere'.] + + [Footnote 30: In this case the 'n[on]' has been added by + interlineation.] + + [Footnote 31: The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly + expressed, 'alias' being, seemingly, put for 'illas'.] + + [Footnote 32: This error arose thus: The original return + (_see_ I.C.C.) ran: 'De his v. hidis' (i.e. in 'Campes') tenet + Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam.' The Domesday scribe + read this hurriedly as implying that Norman's half hide was + part of Aubrey's estate here (two and a half hides), whereas + it was reckoned and entered as a _separate_ estate.] + + [Footnote 33: Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which + agree with each other.] + + [Footnote 34: _Notes on Domesday_, p. 16.] + + [Footnote 35: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 227-363, 561-619.] + + [Footnote 36: 'Domesday Measures of Land' (_Archæological + Review_, September 1889; iv, 130).] + + [Footnote 37: _Domesday Studies_, 188, 354.] + + [Footnote 38: 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See _Addenda_.] + + [Footnote 39: Compare the equivalent tenure recognized in + William of Poitier's charter to Bayonne: 'Le _voisin_ qui + voulait abandonner la cité sans esprit de retour avait le + droit de vendre librement tout ce qu'il possédait maisons, + prairies, vergers, moulins.'] + + [Footnote 40: We have three separate statements (of which more + anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's + lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-7 of Mr Hamilton's + book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin, + all but one or two can be identified as the subject of + duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in + 'Melrede', though not mentioned in this list, is also entered + in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de + Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of + those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in + duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance + of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a + virgate (D.B., i, 199, _b_, 2, gives it erroneously as half + a hide, but D.B., i, 190, _a_, 1, rightly as half a virgate), + which Picot, as sheriff had regained for the king against the + 'invading' Aubrey.] + + [Footnote 41: The I.E. adds 'sub abbate ely' in each case, but + is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.] + + [Footnote 42: This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for + instance, the entry under Hardwin's land is the fuller. It is + noteworthy also that in this case the _later_ entry (i. 198, + _b_, 1) is referred to ('Hæc terra appreciata est cum terra + Hardwini') in the _earlier_ one (i. 191, _a_, 2).] + + [Footnote 43: This same change of phrase is repeated four + times on two pages (pp. 4, 5).] + + [Footnote 44: So, for instance: + 'de appulatione navis' (I.C.C.) = 'de theloneo retis' (D.B.). + 'ferarum siluaticarum' (I.C.C.) = 'bestiarum siluaticarum' (D.B.). + 'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' (D.B.).] + + [Footnote 45: Compare the I.C.C. version on p. 100, _infra._] + + [Footnote 46: _Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. xviii, xix.] + + [Footnote 47: 'Et dimidiam' [hidam] is omitted in B, and + (oddly enough) in Domesday itself.] + + [Footnote 48: All three MSS. err here, as the reading should + clearly be 'dim. _virg._'] + + [Footnote 49: b. 65. This distinction between the one and the + nine, but not the size of the holding, is preserved in D.B.; + while the I.E., though preserving it, gives the numbers as two + and eight.] + + [Footnote 50: This is the I.E. and D.B. version. For 'extra + ecclesiam', the I.C.C. substitutes 'sine ejus [abbatis] + licentia'.] + + [Footnote 51: 'Soca _remansit abbati_' is the D.B. and I.E. + version. It should be noted that the I.E. and _Breve Abbatis_ + give 'herchenger pistor' as the despoiler, while the I.C.C. + and D.B. record him only as a 'miles' of Picot the sheriff. + This is a case which certainly suggests special local + knowledge in the compiler of the former documents, who also + gives the sokeman's name--Siward.] + + [Footnote 52: Thus 'In Branmmeswelle ... lxx. liberi homines + unde abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendatio _et omnes + consuetudines_ ... In eadem villa iiii. liberi homines[*] unde + abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendationem' (p. 161).] + + [Footnote *: 'Commend' abbati' (D.B., ii 387 _b_).] + + [Footnote 53: _Inq. Com. Cant._, 192-5. see paper on it, + _infra_.] + + [Footnote 54: 'In soca et commendatione abbatis de eli' + (D.B., ii. 441).] + + [Footnote 55: 'Soca et commendatione tantum' (D.B.).] + + [Footnote 56: 'iiii. liberi homines soca et commendatione + tantum' (D.B.).] + + [Footnote 57: 'T.R.E. ad socham' (D.B.).] + + [Footnote 58: 'Recep'' (D.B., ii. 238).] + + [Footnote 59: The _Breve Abbatis_ records 34.] + + [Footnote 60: _Ibid._, 7.] + + [Footnote 61: I.C.C., fo. 110 (_b_) 1. Cf. D.B., I. 199 (_a_) + 2, and I.E., p. 110.] + + [Footnote 62: 'Socam comes Algarus habuit' = 'soca remansit + comiti Algaro'. See, for instance, the similar case in which + a 'man' of Earl Waltheof 'terram suam dare vel vendere potuit, + sed abbas de Rameseia socam habuit' (I.C.C., fo. 122, _b_, + 2), where D.B. has: 'dare potuit, sed soca remansit abbati de + Ramesy' (i. 202, _b_, 1).] + + [Footnote 63: 'Et in eadem villa iii. liberi homines ... + de quibus abbas non habebat nisi commendationem: soca in + kanincghala regis.'] + + [Footnote 64: 'Hanc terram tenuit godmundus homo comitis + Waltevi; soca vero remansit abbati ely' (p. 115).] + + [Footnote 65: 'Unum liberum hominem unde abbas habet sacam et + socam tantum' (p. 140).] + + [Footnote 66: _Domesday Studies_, p. 556.] + + [Footnote 67: _Inq. El._, pp. 140, 141.] + + [Footnote 68: _Domesday Studies_, p. 209.] + + [Footnote 69: _Domesday Studies_, p. 187.] + + [Footnote 70: It is essential to bear in mind that the + Domesday scribes had nothing to guide them but the bare words + of the return, so that if they thus equated these expressions, + they can only have done so because the rule was of universal + application.] + + [Footnote 71: _Archæological Review_, vol. i, p. 286.] + + [Footnote 72: Compare also the Exon. Domesday, where + 'Stoches', which is entered 'pro. ii. virgatis et dim.' + appears in D.B. as 'dim. hida et dim. virga'.] + + [Footnote 73: See below, and _ante_, p. 17, note.] + + [Footnote 74: _Key to Domesday_, p. 14.] + + [Footnote 75: It is to this evidence that I made allusion + in _Domesday Studies_ (p. 225). Similar evidence as to the + Domesday carucate is found in the _Inq. El._ (Ed. Hamilton, + pp. 156, 178) where 'lx. acre' equate 'dim. c[arucata]'.] + + [Footnote 76: D.B. erroneously reads 'xxx.' (30) by the + insertion of an 'x' too many. The I.C.C. correctly reads 'xx.' + (20), its accuracy here being proved by the above arithmetic. + Thus the I.C.C. corrects a reading which (1) would, but for + it, appear fatal to the belief that 30 acres = a virgate; (2) + would upset the above arithmetic. This ought to be clearly + grasped, because it well illustrates the element of clerical + error, and shows how apparent discrepancies in our rule may be + due to a faulty text alone.] + + [Footnote 77: Here, as in the preceding instance, Domesday is + in error, reading 'one virgate' ('I virgata') where the I.C.C. + correctly gives us half a virgate ('dimidiam virgam'). The + remarks in the preceding note apply equally here.] + + [Footnote 78: Here, again, Domesday is in error, reading _two_ + and a half virgates, where the I.C.C. has _one_ and a half.] + + [Footnote 79: These two entries are by a blunder in the + I.C.C. (see above, p. 23) erroneously rolled into one (of 1/3 + virgate). In this case it is Domesday Book which corrects the + I.C.C, and preserves for us the right version.] + + [Footnote 80: The I.C.C, which is very corrupt in its account + of this township, gives us a deficiency of 1 hide 0-1/2 + virgates.] + + [Footnote 81: The apparent exception was caused by the _Inq. + Com. Cant._ reading 'pro iiii. hidis', and omitting the words + 'xl. acras minus', the true assessment of the Manor, when the + king's estate was excluded, being 'three hides _less forty + acres_'.] + + [Footnote 82: The _blunder_ consists in treating 6-1/2 (geld) + acres as part of the Countess Judith's estate, whereas they + had been reckoned separately; the _discrepancy_ is due to D.B. + reading 'ii. acras', where the I.C.C. has 'xxii. acras'.] + + [Footnote 83: Eyton's _Notes on Domesday_, p. 12.] + + [Footnote 84: _Ibid._, p. 13.] + + [Footnote 85: Dr Stubbs' remarks 'on the vexed question of + the extent of the hide' will be found in a note to his _Const. + Hist._, vol. i (1874), p. 74. Mr Eyton (_Key to Domesday_, p. + 14) asserted that the _Domesday_ hide contained 48 geld-acres. + Prof Earle in his _Land Charters and Saxonic Documents_ (1888) + reviews the question of the hide, but leaves it undetermined + (pp. lii-liii, 457-461).] + + [Footnote 86: See above, p. 27.] + + [Footnote 87: _Antiquary_, June 1882, p. 242. See also + _Domesday Studies_, vol. i, p. 119.] + + [Footnote 88: The I.C.C. _omits_ the king's Manor (7-1/4 + hides, 8 ploughlands).] + + [Footnote 89: I do not here discuss the cause of the + reduction. Indeed, this would be hard to discover; for the + original assessment was distinctly low, whether we compare it + with the aggregate of ploughlands or of valuation. It is true + that the total of _valets_ which had been £235 0s 4d T.R.E., + and was £203 8s 4d at the time of the survey, had fallen so + low as £161 18s 4d, when the grantees received their lands, + but, even at the lowest figure, the assessment was still + moderate.] + + [Footnote 90: 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se + defendebat.'--_D.B._, i. 189.] + + [Footnote 91: This figure is arrived at by adding to the 'hida + et dimidia et xx. acræ' of Domesday, and the _Inq. Com. Cant._ + the 'viii. hidæ et xl. acræ', which the latter omits, but + which Domesday records. The sum is exactly ten hides.] + + [Footnote 92: Domesday reads 'iii.', and _Inq. Com. Cant._ + 'iiii.'] + + [Footnote 93: I.C.C. reads 'x.'] + + [Footnote 94: 'Per concessionem ejusdem regis' (Domesday). + Compare also the five hides knocked off the assessment of + Alveston by Henry I, and another ten hides off that of Hampton + (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 99, 103).] + + [Footnote 95: _Const. Hist._, i, 105.] + + [Footnote 96: See below, p. 87.] + + [Footnote 97: See also _Domesday Studies_, i, 117.] + + [Footnote 98: _Domesday Studies_, i, 122-30.] + + [Footnote 99: The fragments of the Hundred of Papworth and + North Stow, which it contains, are too small to enable us to + speak with certainty.] + + [Footnote 100: Correcting the _Inq. Com. Cant._ by adding from + Domesday the royal Manors in Isleham and Fordham.] + + [Footnote 101: Bedford, 1881.] + + [Footnote 102: 'Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum + regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L. + hidis.'--_Domesday_, i, 203.] + + [Footnote 103: Adjoining Manors held by the Abbot of Ely.] + + [Footnote 104: I have not attempted to group these six Manors, + as we have not sufficient information to warrant it. They + would, however, form two groups of twenty hides each, or one + of twenty-five and another of fifteen.] + + [Footnote 105: There are five entries relating to Catworth + (fos. 205_b_, 206, 206_b_, 217_b_), which, by the addition + of 11 hides (1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1), would bring up its + assessment to 15; but as they are all credited in Domesday to + other Hundreds, and as there are _two_ Catworths surveyed, I + have adhered to the above figure.] + + [Footnote 106: _Introduction to Domesday_, i, 134. The italics + are his own.] + + [Footnote 107: _Const. Hist._, i, 99.] + + [Footnote 108: This point brings further into line the towns + and the rural Hundreds, through the 100-hide and the 50-hide + assessments of the former. (_See_ my 'Danegeld' Essay in + _Domesday Studies_.)] + + [Footnote 109: Edgar spoke of it as three Hundreds.] + + [Footnote 110: 'Unum hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslaw in quo + jacent ccc. hidæ.'--_D.B._, i., 172_b._] + + [Footnote 111: It also contained one 23-hide and two 24-hide + Manors, which were once perhaps, of 25 hides. The Church + of Worcester, also possessed, outside this Hundred, Manors + (_inter alia_) of 20, 15, 10, and 5 hides. (_See_ below, p. + 143.)] + + [Footnote 112: D.B., i. 175_b._] + + [Footnote 113: I make the aggregate 118-1/2 hides.] + + [Footnote 114: 'Quæ hic [Dodintret hundred] placitant et + geldant et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam.' It would + have been said in Cambridgeshire that their 'wara' was in + Doddentree Hundred.] + + [Footnote 115: Eyton's _Somerset Survey_, ii, 25.] + + [Footnote 116: Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, p. 14.] + + [Footnote 117: I drew attention in the _Archæological Review_ + (vol. 1) to a Cornish survey of 21 Ed. I. (_Testa de Nevill_, + p. 204), in which every Cornish acre contains a Cornish + carucate.] + + [Footnote 118: _Domesday Studies_, p. 172.] + + [Footnote 119: 'A New View of the Geldable Unit of Assessment + of Domesday.' _Ibid_., pp. 227-363, 561-619.] + + [Footnote 120: _Archæological Review_, i, 285-95; iv, 130-40, + 391.] + + [Footnote 121: _Ibid._, iv, 325.] + + [Footnote 122: A curious hint of the grouping of Vills is + afforded in Oxfordshire by Adderbury and Bloxham. Domesday + first gives us an assessment of 34-1/2 hides in the two, and + then 15-1/2 hides in Adderbury, making in all, for the two, 50 + hides, the same as Banbury.] + + [Footnote 123: This evidence is rendered available by the + useful _Notes on the Oxfordshire Domesday_, published by the + Clarendon Press in 1892.] + + [Footnote 124: 40 + 5 + 5.] + + [Footnote 125: 'Unam hidam et iii^{es.} virgatas et iii^{ciam.} + partem de i. virgata.'] + + [Footnote 126: 'Dimidiam hidam et iii^{ciam.} partem dimidiæ + hidæ.'] + + [Footnote 127: Lysons. So also Domesday: '_soco vero jacebat + in Stains_'.] + + [Footnote 128: _Domesday Studies_, i. 120. See also _supra_, + p. 45, and the case of Northampton, _infra_.] + + [Footnote 129: _Domesday_, i. 64_b._] + + [Footnote 130: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 729.] + + [Footnote 131: _English Historical Review_, 1889, iv. 728-9.] + + [Footnote 132: _Archæological Review_, iv. 313-27.] + + [Footnote 133: Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe + on Canon Taylor's 'Carucate' remarks in the _New English + Dictionary_. Strictly, no doubt, the Canon was mistaken, with + Mr Pell, in reckoning 120 as 144 'by the English number'; but + the evidence in his paper on 'the plough and the ploughland' + seems to establish a practice of counting by twelve instead of + ten.] + + [Footnote 134: _Genealogist_, N.S., vi. 160-1.] + + [Footnote 135: _Archæological Review_, iv. 322.] + + [Footnote 136: On this point one may compare with profit + 'the making of the Danelaw' (858-78), by the late Mr Green + (_Conquest of England_, pp. 114-29), who had devoted to this + subject much attention. He discusses the limits of Eastern + Mercia, the district of the Five Boroughs, in the light of + local nomenclature (_ibid._, pp. 121-2), and includes within + it, on this ground, Northamptonshire, while observing that the + country about Buckingham, which formed the southern border of + the 'Five Boroughs', has no 'byes'. My own evidence is wholly + distinct from that of local nomenclature, and defines more + sharply the district settled and reorganized by the Danes. + The hidation of Northamptonshire is peculiar, a unit of + four (reminding one of the Mercian shilling) coming into + prominence. Still, it was not carucated, but retained its + assessment in hides.] + + [Footnote 137: Stamford is assigned to Lincolnshire by + Domesday, but is now in Rutland. The 'Rutland' of Domesday + (the northern portion of the county as at present constituted) + was included, we shall find, in the carucated district by + which it was surrounded on the north.] + + [Footnote 138: Reg. Mag. Alb. at York, pars. ii. 1. Quoted + by Canon Raine, in his edition of John of Hexham (who applies + these _formulæ_ to Hexham itself), p. 61.] + + [Footnote 139: _Vide infra_, p. 149, _et seq._] + + [Footnote 140: 'Suma iii. hundr' et vi. car. et vi. bov.'] + + [Footnote 141: 'Suma iiii. hundr' et x. car.' (a wrong + total).] + + [Footnote 142: 'Summa iii. hundr' et v. car. et iiii. bov.'] + + [Footnote 143: See also on these Hundreds Mr Stevenson's + remarks in _English Historical Review_, v. 96, which have + appeared since I made these researches.] + + [Footnote 144: This appears to be a clerical error. The actual + figures represent 'Hundreds'.] + + [Footnote 145: The Northern division by threes and sixes is + responsible, of course, for the six 'sheaddings' of the Isle + of Man. On their connection with the 'scypfylleth' of three + Hundreds see Vigfusson in _English Historical Review_, ii. + 500.] + + [Footnote 146: The aggregate of these _areal_ measures does + not bear out the statement of Domesday regarding them, the + former Wapentake containing eighty-four ploughlands, where + Domesday allows it only forty-eight.] + + [Footnote 147: The entry is far more suggestive of the + 'Hundreds' (_vide infra_) in Leicestershire, on the border of + which Sawley stood. This remark applies also to the entry (i. + 291_b_) that Leake (Notts) 'jacet in Pluntree Hund'.] + + [Footnote 148: See D.B., i. fos. 298, 298_b_, and fo. 379.] + + [Footnote 149: As Mr Pell did in the case of Clifton.] + + [Footnote 150: _Vide infra_, p. 160.] + + [Footnote 151: 'There is no trace of any,' writes Canon Taylor + (_Domesday Studies_, i. 74).] + + [Footnote 152: As with _maenols_ and _trevs_ in North and + South Wales.] + + [Footnote 153: Mr Pell tried to explain it by assuming that + the Leicestershire _carucates_ were really small virgates of + the _hida_ in question!] + + [Footnote 154: This at once shows the absurdity of taking + these eighteen carucates to be eighteen 'virgates' of a normal + hide, and of all the reasoning based thereupon.] + + [Footnote 155: See more below on this point.] + + [Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, v. 95.] + + [Footnote 157: Mr Stevenson, moreover, should surely, + to obtain the meaning he wants, have extended _car_ as + 'car[ucatarum]'.] + + [Footnote 158: I also hold the formula 'T.R.E. erant ibi _x_ + car[ucæ]' to refer to ploughs, not ploughlands.] + + [Footnote 159: Note that the assessment of 2-5/8 carucates + represented 2-1/2 ploughlands, and that of 9-3/8 carucates + only 7 ploughlands. No relation, therefore, can be traced + here.] + + [Footnote 160: _Conquest of England_, p. 121 note.] + + [Footnote 161: _Ibid._, p. 276.] + + [Footnote 162: _Chester Archæological Journal_, vol. v.] + + [Footnote 163: 'De harieta Lagemanorum habuit isdem picot + viii. lib,' etc. (i. 189).] + + [Footnote 164: _Domesday Studies_, i. 143-86.] + + [Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 157.] + + [Footnote 166: According to Canon Taylor's ingenious theory, + the ratio should be 1 to 1 (for two-field Manors), or 2 to + 1 for three-field Manors. But in Leicestershire there is a + remarkable prevalence of the 3 to 2 ratio, which his theory + can, at best, only explain as exceptional.] + + [Footnote 167: _Supra_, p. 74.] + + [Footnote 168: The figures are taken from the 'Index' to the + Hundreds at the close of the first volume of Domesday Book, + and the names are arranged in the same order as they are there + found.] + + [Footnote 169: There is plenty of similar evidence elsewhere + in the shire. Thus we find the Craven Manors assessed at 6, + 6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 6, 10, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, + 3 carucates. These assessments would give us + 24 (6 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 3) + 24 (4 + 6 + 10 + 2 + 2) + 18 + (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) + 11 (2 + 3 + 3 + 3).] + + [Footnote 170: _Supra_, pp. 51, 62.] + + [Footnote 171: Compare the 'Reparto de la contribucion', + found in the Spanish village communities, the members of which + apportioned the assessment among themselves.] + + [Footnote 172: _Key to Domesday_: Dorset, p. 14.] + + [Footnote 173: The anomalous position of Rutland also was, of + course, a disturbing element.] + + [Footnote 174: This low assessment is equally obvious in that + of the several Manors.] + + [Footnote 175: Probably 1/27, as against about 1/6 for + Somerset and Dorset jointly.] + + [Footnote 176: See Mr Green's maps in his work, _The Making of + England_, and Mr Freeman's map of 'Britain in 597', in vol. + i. of his _Norman Conquest_. The figures for Hampshire, + unfortunately, are wanting in the roll of 1156, as in that of + 1130.] + + [Footnote 177: Even if such assessment were not required, at + first, for financial reasons, it might be necessary for such + obligations as eventually formed the 'trinoda necessitas'.] + + [Footnote 178: See Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 67-9, and + _Const. Hist._, i. 96-9.] + + [Footnote 179: Select Charters, p. 67.] + + [Footnote 180: Vol. i., pp. 98, 99. Cf. _Select Charters_, p. + 67: 'It is sometimes stated that the Hundred is a primitive + subdivision consisting of a hundred hides of land, or + apportioned to a hundred families, the great objection + to which theory is the impossibility of reconciling the + historical Hundreds with any such computation.'] + + [Footnote 181: _Select Charters_, p. 6.] + + [Footnote 182: Thus, the first entry for East Anglia (ii. + 109_b_) has 'de xx. solidis reddit xvi. d. in gelto.'] + + [Footnote 183: Compare also the very curious system of + 'purses' adopted by the Cinque Ports. The 'purse' was £4 + 7s, and to every 'purse' Sandwich, for instance, paid twenty + shillings, while, whenever it paid twenty such shillings, its + four 'members' were assessed to pay three and fourpence apiece + towards it.] + + [Footnote 184: 'In hundredo de Tinghowe sunt xx. villæ ex + quibus constituuntur ix. lete, quas sic distinguimus.' Gage's + _Suffolk_, p. xii.] + + [Footnote 185: _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_ (Selden + Society), I., lxiii.--lxxvi.] + + [Footnote 186: _Ibid._, p. lxxvi.] + + [Footnote 187: 'De gelto v. sol'' (D.B., ii. 286_b_). Sudbury + was an outlying portion of the Hundred of Thingoe, in which + is situated Bury St Edmunds, of which we read (D.B., ii. 372): + 'quando in hundredo solvitur ad geldum i. libra, tunc inde + exeunt lx. d. _ad victum monachorum_.' This substitution, + apparently, of Sudbury (as three leets) for Bury St + Edmunds (of which the monks received the geld) deserves + investigation.] + + [Footnote 188: See p. 58.] + + [Footnote 189: 'Wisbeche, quæ est quarta pars centuriatus + insulæ' (_Liber Eliensis_ p. 192).] + + [Footnote 190: 'In Sparle et in Pagrave, xviii. d. quando + hundret scotabat xx. solidos et in Acra vi. d. et in pichensam + xii. d. quicunque ibi teneat' (ii. 119_b_). See also note + 182.] + + [Footnote 191: See _Domesday Studies_, p. 117.] + + [Footnote 192: Reprinted from the _English Historical Review_, + October 1892.] + + [Footnote 193: Ninth Report on Historical MSS., App. I, 38.] + + [Footnote 194: _Domesday of St. Paul's_, p. iv.] + + [Footnote 195: This is a slip. Drayton was in Middlesex, and + the words (which Mr Seebohm quotes) are 'cum _una_ hida de + solande'.] + + [Footnote 196: I know of no authority for this form.] + + [Footnote 197: The '_Lathes_' of Kent of course point in the + same direction.] + + [Footnote 198: Professor Vinogradoff states, on the contrary, + that 'all are irregular in their formation'.] + + [Footnote 199: _English Village Community_, pp. 54, 139, 396.] + + [Footnote 200: The phrase 'quot hidæ _sint_ ibi' is of + importance because such _formulae_ as 'T.R.E. geldabat pro ii. + hidis, sed tamen _sunt_ ibi xii. hidæ', have sometimes been + understood to imply two geldable, but twelve arable hides, + whereas both figures refer to assessment only.] + + [Footnote 201: _English Village Community_, 212 note.] + + [Footnote 202: We might also compare the _droit de gîte_ on + the other side of the Channel.] + + [Footnote 203: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr + Eyton's work.] + + [Footnote 204: It is a further and fundamental error that + Mr Eyton speaks of the _firma unius noctis_ as 'borough + taxation', whereas it was essentially of the nature of rent, + not taxes.] + + [Footnote 205: I am indebted for these identifications to Mr + Eyton's work.] + + [Footnote 206: We should perhaps read this as explaining + the composition of the centuriatus, viz.: 'the priests, the + reeves, and six villeins from each Vill'.] + + [Footnote 207: Of this conflict there is a good instance, + almost at the outset of the Cambridgeshire survey (p. 3): + 'Hanc terram posuit Orgarus in vadimonio ... ut homines + Goisfridi dicunt. Sed homines de hundredo neque breve + aliquid neque legat' R.E. inde viderunt, neque testimonium + perhibent.'] + + [Footnote 208: Whittlesford omitted, because in this Hundred + no lands were held or claimed by the Abbey.] + + [Footnote 209: Compare Wilkins, 125 (quoted by Palgrave, + _English Commonwealth_, i. 464) on English and 'Welsh' in + Devon: 'Disputes arising between the plaintiffs and defendants + of the two nations were to be decided by a court of twelve + "lawmen"--six English and six Welsh--the representatives of + the respective communities. And it may be observed that + the principle which suggested this dimidiated tribunal was + generally adopted in our border law.'] + + [Footnote 210: Wharton's _Anglia Sacra_, i. 339.] + + [Footnote 211: Palgrave's _Commonwealth_, ii. 183.] + + [Footnote 212: This seems of great importance as a very early + instance of the _quatuor villatæ_ system, on which see Gross's + 'The Early History and Influence of the Office of Coroner' + (_Political Science Quarterly_, vol. vii, No. 4), where the + researches of Prof Maitland and others are summarized.] + + [Footnote 213: Only four, however, of the fourteen actually + swore: 'reliquos vero decem quietavit Willelmus abbas, qui + parati erant jurare'.] + + [Footnote 214: The number eight perhaps, is unusual for + the jury of a Hundred but we have an instance in 1222, of a + 'jurata per octo legales cives Lincolniæ et præterea per octo + legales homines de visneto Lincolnie' (_Bracton's Note-book_, + ii. 121); and see Addenda.] + + [Footnote 215: His surname is there omitted, but his identity + is proved by Humphrey 'de Anslevilla' occurring elsewhere as + an under-tenant of Eudo.] + + [Footnote 216: So I conclude from his _Introduction to + Domesday_, i. 22, note 2.] + + [Footnote 217: _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, pp. 97 + _et seq._] + + [Footnote 218: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 184-9.] + + [Footnote 219: _Ibid._, pp. 97, 101.] + + [Footnote 220: C omits 'et'.] + + [Footnote 221: Here the scribe of C, puzzled by the + evident corruption of the text from which he copied, read + 'inv[enit]'.] + + [Footnote 222: 'Toft' (rightly) in C.] + + [Footnote 223: Chauelæi, C.] + + [Footnote 224: Stanhard[us], B, C.] + + [Footnote 225: Frauuis, C.] + + [Footnote 226: Chertelinge, C.] + + [Footnote 227: Cheleia, C.] + + [Footnote 228: Wigeni, C. This was 'Wigonus de mara' (I.C.C.) + or 'Wighen' (D.B.) Count Alan's under-tenant at Ditton.] + + [Footnote 229: Eurard[us] in D.B.] + + [Footnote 230: 'Juraverunt homines scilicet Alerann[us], + Rogger[us] homo Walteri Giffardi' omitted in C.] + + [Footnote 231: A sokeman of the Abbot of Ely at Suafham.] + + [Footnote 232: Staplehoe Hundred.] + + [Footnote 233: This is a noticeable case because 'mo' has + been interlined in B text of I.E., and because this man can + be identified in I.C.C. and D.B. as an under-tenant in the + Hundred.] + + [Footnote 234: The I.E. version ('bans') is the right one.] + + [Footnote 235: Rectius 'I. hidam'.] + + [Footnote 236: C text.] + + [Footnote 237: Commend' 'S. ae.' is found on 386_b_, _ad + pedem_.] + + [Footnote 238: From internal evidence I hold this writ to have + been sent from over sea. It cannot have been issued by William + Rufus, for the Bishop of Coutances rebelled against him in + 1088, and William Rufus did not go abroad till later in his + reign.] + + [Footnote 239: This is usually quoted 'inquirunt', which is + the wrong reading.] + + [Footnote 240: The right reading.] + + [Footnote 241: Quantum in C text.] + + [Footnote 242: The text here seems to be corrupt, C reading + 'tunc' for 'simul'. As the 'tunc' and 'modo' formula is + represented in the next clause, it seems more probable that + 'simul' is the right reading, and refers to the totals entered + in the _Inquisitio_. In that case the words 'et quantum modo' + are an interpolation.] + + [Footnote 243: Hallow near Worcester.] + + [Footnote 244: Note, Ash--'Esch'--'Naisse'.] + + [Footnote 245: Compare the heading of the 'breve abbatis': + 'Hic imbreviatur quot carucas', etc., etc. The returns of the + Norman barons in 1172 were styled 'breves'.] + + [Footnote 246: Ed. Hamilton, p. 137.] + + [Footnote 247: This also seems to have been taken from the + detailed original returns.] + + [Footnote 248: So far back as 1887 I raised this question, + writing: 'Indeed, heretical though the view may be, I see no + _proof_ whatever that Domesday Book was itself compiled in + 1086' (_Antiquary_, xvi. 8).] + + [Footnote 249: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 526, 626.] + + [Footnote 250: The most erroneous date that has been suggested + for Domesday is the year 1080. Ellis wrote, referring to + Webb's 'short account', that 'the Red Book of the Exchequer + seems to have been erroneously quoted as fixing the time of + entrance upon it as 1080' (i. 3). Mr Ewald,[*] following in + his footsteps, has repeated his statement (under 'Domesday + Book'), in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; and, lastly, Mr + de Gray Birch asserts on his authority that 'this valuable + manuscript' is not responsible for that date (_Domesday Book_, + p. 71). All these writers are mistaken. The _Diologus de + Scaccario_, indeed, does not mention a year, but Swereford's + famous Introduction, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, does + give us, by an astounding blunder, the fourteenth year of the + Conqueror (1079-80) as the date of Domesday (see below, p. + 210).] + + [Footnote *: Author of _Our Public Records_.] + + [Footnote 251: I am not sure that even the 'pertin[ent] ad + rege[m]' of the 'first' volume (100_b_) is not a mistake for + 'regnum'.] + + [Footnote 252: On fo. 17 is a curious deleted list of church + fiefs in Essex, which has no business there.] + + [Footnote 253: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 354.] + + [Footnote 254: _Vide infra_, p. 154.] + + [Footnote 255: Henry, says Orderic, in 1100, 'concito cursu + ad _arcem Guentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur_, + festinavit'.] + + [Footnote 256: This account of the Winchester placitum is + taken from my second article on 'The Custody of Domesday Book' + (_Antiquary_, xvi. 9-10).] + + [Footnote 257: _Academy_, November 13, 1886; _Domesday + Studies_, p. 537 note; and Mr Hall's _Antiquities of the + Exchequer_, chap. i.] + + [Footnote 258: _Mon. Ang._, iii. 86.] + + [Footnote 259: _Hen. Hunt._, 211; Richard of Hexham says + of Henry I's charter of liberties that 'in ærari suo apud + Wintoniam [eam] conservari præcepit' (p. 142).] + + [Footnote 260: _Domesday Studies_, 546-7.] + + [Footnote 261: _Supra_, note 255.] + + [Footnote 262: _Athenæum_, November 27, 1886.] + + [Footnote 263: See also _Domesday Studies_, 547 note^{2}.] + + [Footnote 264: _Domesday Studies_, 539 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 265: It will be observed that I do not touch the + _Liber Exoniensis_.] + + [Footnote 266: Possibly at second-hand, see p. 20 note + (Footnote 9, above), and Addenda.] + + + + +THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE GELD-ROLL + + +This remarkable document was printed by Sir Henry Ellis (1833) in +his _General Introduction to Domesday_ (i. 184-7) from the fine +Peterborough Cartulary belonging to the Society of Antiquaries (MS. +60). I shall not, therefore, reprint it here, but will give the +opening entry as a specimen of its style: + + This is unto Suttunes (Sutton) hundred, that is an hundred + hides. So it was in King Edward's day. And thereof is + 'gewered' one and twenty hides and two-thirds of a hide, and + [there are] forty hides inland and ten hides [of] the King's + ferm land, and eight and twenty hides and the third of a hide + waste. + +We have seen (_supra_, p. 59) that Ellis not only erred, but even led +Dr Stubbs into error, as to the character of the 'hundreds' enumerated +in this document. Except for that, I cannot find any real notice taken +of it, although it has been in print over sixty years. It appears to +be not even mentioned in Mr Stuart Moore's volume on _Northamptonshire +in Domesday_; and no one, it seems, has cared to inquire to what date +it belongs, or what it really is.[1] + +Now, although written in old English, it is well subsequent to the +Conquest, for it mentions _inter alia_ 'Rodbertes wif heorles', +who, we shall find, was Maud, wife of the Count of Mortain. It also +mentions William and Richard Engaine, Northamptonshire tenants in +Domesday. On the other hand, it cannot be later than 1075, for it +speaks of lands held by 'the lady, the King's wife'; and this was +Edith, Edward's widow, whose Northamptonshire lands passed to King +William at her death in 1075. Of the very few names mentioned, one +may surprise and the other puzzle us. The former is that of 'the Scot +King', holding land even then in a shire where his successors were to +hold it so largely: the other is 'Osmund, the King's writer', in whom +one is grievously tempted to detect the future Chancellor, Saint and +Bishop. But, apart from his identity, his peculiar style, exactly +equating, as it does, the Latin 'clericus regis', emboldens me to make +the hazardous suggestion that we possibly have in this document an +English rendering of a Latin original, executed in the Peterborough +_scriptorium_. + +For what was the purpose of the document? It may be pronounced without +hesitation to be no other than a geld-roll, recording, it would seem, +a levy of Danegeld hitherto unknown.[2] There are three features which +it has in common with the rolls of 1084: it is drawn up hundred by +hundred; it records the exemption of demesne; and it specifies those +lands that had failed to pay their quota.[3] + +Its salient feature is one that, at first sight, might seem to impugn +its authenticity. This is the almost incredible amount of land lying +'waste'. If we confine our attention to the land liable to geld +represented by the first and fourth columns in my analysis below, we +see that by far the larger proportion of it is entered as 'waste': +yet this witness to a terrible devastation is the best proof of its +authenticity; for it sets before us the fruits of those ravages in the +autumn of 1065, which are thus described by Mr Freeman, paraphrasing +the English chronicle: + + Morkere's Northern followers dealt with the country about + Northampton as if it had been the country of an enemy. They + slew men, burned corn and houses, carried off cattle, and + at last led captive several hundred prisoners, seemingly as + slaves. The blow was so severe that it was remembered even + when one would have thought that that and all other lesser + wrongs would have been forgotten in the general overthrow of + England. Northamptonshire and the shires near to it were for + many winters the worse. + +Mr Freeman, had he read it, would have eagerly welcomed our record's +striking testimony to the truth of the Chronicle's words. + +The devastation that our roll records had been well repaired at the +time of Domesday; but we obtain a glimpse of it in the Rockingham +entry: 'Wasta erat quando rex W. jussit ibi castellum fieri. Modo +valet xxvi. sol.' (i. 220). + +But it is not only that the entries of 'waste' on our roll are thus +explained: they further prove it to be, as I have urged, a 'Danegeld' +roll. For, when we compare it with the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II (1156), +we find the latter similarly allowing for the non-receipt of geld from +land 'in waste'; and it is specially noteworthy that the portion thus +'waste' is in every case, as on our roll, entered after the others. +The fact that the geld was remitted on land that had been made 'waste' +is now established by collation of these two records. + +Incidentally, it may be pointed out that as our document bears witness +to the devastation of Northamptonshire in 1065, so the first surviving +roll of Henry II illustrates the local range of devastation under +Stephen. In Kent, which had been throughout under the royal rule, +the waste was infinitesimal; in Yorkshire it was slight; but in +the Midlands, which had long been the battle-ground of rival feudal +magnates, it was so extensive that, as here in Northamptonshire after +the Conquest, there was more land exempted as 'waste' than there was +capable of paying. + +Before leaving this subject I briefly compare the cases of +Northamptonshire and of East Sussex. In the former, we have seen, it +is only our document that preserves for us evidence of the ravages in +1065; Domesday does not record them, because they had then (1086) +been repaired. But in East Sussex, the entries are fuller; and as was +observed by Mr Hayley, an intelligent local antiquary: + + It is the method of Domesday Book, after reciting the + particulars relating to each Manor, to set down the valuation + thereof, at three several periods, to wit, the time of King + Edward the Confessor, afterwards _when the new tenant entered + upon it_, and again at the time when the survey was made. Now + it is to be observed in perusing the account of the Rape of + Hastings in that book, that in several of the Manors therein + _at the second of these periods_, it is recorded of them that + they were waste, and from this circumstance it may upon good + ground be concluded what parts of that Rape were marched over + by, and suffered from the ravages of the two armies of the + Conqueror and King Harold; and indeed, the situations of those + Manors is such as evidently shows their _then_ devastated + state to be owing to that cause.[4] + +Mr Freeman's treatment of this theory was highly characteristic. In +the Appendix he devoted to the subject[5] he first contemptuously +observed of the allusion to Harold's army: + + This notion would hardly have needed any answer except from + the sort of sanction given to it by the two writers who quote + Mr Hayley. I do not believe that any army of any age ever + passed through a district without doing some damage, but to + suppose that Harold systematically harried his own kingdom + does seem to me the height of absurdity. + +And he, further, indignantly denied that such a King as Harold was +'likely to mark his course by systematic harrying'. Now, Mr Hayley +had never charged him with 'systematic harrying'; he had merely traced +with much ingenuity, the approach of his army to Senlac by the damage, +Mr Freeman admits, its passage, when assembled, must have caused. + +The fact is that Mr Hayley had, and Mr Freeman had not, read his +Domesday 'with common care'.[6] The latter started from the hasty +assertion that: + + the lasting nature of the destruction wrought at this time is + shown by the large number of places round about Hastings which + _are returned in Domesday_ as 'waste'. + +Hence he argued, Harold, even had he been 'Swegen himself'-- + + could not have done the sort of lasting damage which is + implied in the lands being returned as 'waste' _twenty years + after_. The ravaging must have been something thorough and + systematic, like the ravaging of Northumberland a few years + later. + +The whole argument rests on a careless reading of Domesday. It was on +passages such as these that Mr Hayley had relied: + + Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xx. lib. Et _post vasta fuit_. + Modo xviii. lib. et x. sol. + + Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xiiii. lib. _Postea vastatum + fuit._ Modo xxii. lib. + + Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat cxiiii. sol. Modo vii. lib. + _Vastatum fuit._[7] + +Thus, so far from being returned in 1086 as 'waste', these Manors, we +see, had already recovered from their devastation at the Conquest, and +had even, in some cases, increased their value. And so Mr Freeman's +argument falls to the ground. + +But as he was eager to vindicate Harold from a quite imaginary charge, +I will try to clear William from Mr Freeman's very real one. Having +wrongly concluded that the ravages were 'lasting', and must therefore +have been 'systematic', Mr Freeman wrote: + + There can be little doubt but that William's ravages were + not only done systematically, but were done with a fixed and + politic purpose (p. 413) ... there can be little doubt that + they were systematic ravages done with the settled object of + bringing Harold to a battle (p. 741). + +Possibly the writer had in his mind the harrying of the lands of the +Athenians, as described in the pages of Thucydides: but how can it +have been politic for William, not only to provoke Harold, but to +outrage the English people? It was Harold with whom his quarrel lay; +and as to those he hoped to make his future subjects, to ravage their +lands wilfully and wantonly was scarcely the way to commend himself +to their favour: it would rather impel them, in dread of his ways, to +resist his dominion to the death. + +But if William's policy be matter of question, Domesday at least is +matter of fact; and Mr Freeman's followers cannot be surprised at the +opposition he provoked, when we find him thus ridiculing a student +for a charge he never made, and proved to have himself erred from his +careless reading of Domesday. + +I now append an analysis of the roll, showing the proportion of land +'gewered',[8] of 'inland', of _terra regis_, of land which had not +paid (in square brackets), and of 'waste'. The totals in square +brackets are those given in the document; the others are those +actually accounted for. + + Inland Terra Waste Total + Regis + + Sutton 21-2/3 40 10 28-1/3 100 [100] + Warden 17-3/4 40 41-1/4 99 [100] + Cleyley 18 40 42 100 [100] + Gravesend 18-1/2 35 5 41-1/2 100 [100] + 'Eadbolds Stow' 23-1/2 45 5 26-1/2 100 [100] + 'Ailwardsley' 16-1/2 40 [6-1/2] 37 100 [100] + Foxley 16 30 21 33 100 [100] + Wyceste 19[9] 40 20 21 100 [100] + Huxlow 8 15 39 62 [62] + Willybrook 7 11 31 13 62 [62] + Upton Green 50 27 [3-1/2]29-1/2[10] 110 [109] + Neuesland [80-1/2][11] 59 [8] 12-1/2 [160] + Navisford 15 14 33 62 [62] + Polebrook 10 20 32 62 [62] + Newbottlegrove 44-7/8 72 33-1/8 150 [150] + Gilsborough 16 68 66 150 [150] + Spelho 20-1/2 [Borough 25] [16] 28-1/2 90 [90] + Wiceslea W. 10 40 30 80 [80] + Wiceslea E. 15 34 31 80 [80] + 'Stotfald' 9-1/8 40 50-1/8 99-1/4 [100] + Stoke 18 [10] 12 [40] + Higham 49-1/2 44 56 149-1/2 [150] + 'Malesley' 12 30 8 30 80 [80] + Corby 8-1/2 12-1/4 12-1/4 [?4] 10-3/4 47-3/4 [47] + Rothwell 10 20 7-1/2 [7-1/2] 45[12] [60] + 'Andwertheshoe' [?26][13] 25 39 [90] + Ordlingbury 29-1/2 24-1/2 21 80 [80] + 'Wimersley' 41 60 49 150 [150] + + +The persons mentioned as not having paid can in most cases be +identified. Thus 'Robert the Earl's wife' is one of those in Rothwell +Hundred, whose land was 'unwered'. This was clearly Maud, wife of +Count Robert of Mortain, who had been given lands by her father, Roger +of Montgomery, at Harrington in this Hundred. Domesday, it is true, +where it figures as 'Arintone', knows it only as 'Terra æcclesiæ de +Grestain' (222 _b_); but a charter of Richard I (_per Inspeximus_) +confirms to the Abbey 'ex dono Matildis Comitisse Moreton ... xxxii. +hidas terre quas dederat ei pater suus Rogerus de Montegomerico, +scilicet apud Haxintonam [_sic_] viii. hidas, etc.'[14] As the lands +had first been given to Roger, then by him to his daughter, and, +finally, by her to the Abbey, I cannot think our document earlier, at +any rate, than 1068. Edith, whose name proves it not to be later than +1075, is entered as 'the lady, the King's wife', holding eight hides +in Neuesland Hundred, and again as a holder in Rothwell Hundred, under +the name of 'the King's wife'. Both entries, doubtless, refer to her +wide-spreading Manor of 'Tingdene' (I. 222), parts of which lay in +both the above Hundreds. Of the other holders we may notice 'Urs' (? +Urse d'Abetot), and 'Witeget the priest'; but these are quite eclipsed +by Richard and William Engaine, of whom the former occurs twice and +the latter thrice on the roll. In Spelho Hundred 'Richard' seems to +be credited with ten hides at 'Habintune' on which 'nan peni' had been +paid. In Domesday his holding at Abintone is given as _four_ hides (i. +229). In the same Hundred, William's land at 'Multune' is in default. +Moulton is not entered under his fief in Domesday, but under that of +Robert de Buci we find a 'William' holding of him a hide and a virgate +and a half in Moulton. This was William Engaine, as was the 'William' +of our roll; and in the Hen. I-Hen. II survey,[15] we find land in +Moulton entered as of Engaine's fee. Still more interesting is it to +note that so late as 25 Ed. I. more than two centuries after Domesday, +John Engayne is found holding half a fee in Moulton of Ralf Basset, +and Basset of the King _in capite_. For, as our Leicestershire survey +shows,[16] the Domesday fief of Robert de Buci had passed to Basset, +of whose heir, therefore, Engayne held, as his ancestor had held of +Robert de Buci, in the days of William the Conqueror. + +It is particularly instructive to follow out the Northamptonshire +fief of William Engaine. In Domesday (i. 229) he is entered only as +'Willelmus' holding 3-1/2 hides in Pytchley (_Piteslea_), and Laxton +(_Lastone_), worth at that time, £3 10s. 'Vitalis' Engaine was his +heir in 1130, for the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I (p. 82) records +his discharge of a debt to the crown 'ut rehabeat terram suam de +Laxetona'. And this is confirmed by the survey of 1125 in the _Liber +Niger_ of Peterborough, where we read under 'Pihtesle' (p. 162): 'Et +Vitalis reddit iii. solidos pro i. virga', this being the 'i. virga' +assigned to him in the list of Peterborough knights (_ibid._, p. 169). +The 'Rotulus de Dominabus' (1185) shows us the 'Piteslea' estate in +the hands of Margaret Engaine, makes it worth £6, and mentions that +her heir was Richard Engaine (p. 14). The 'Testa de Nevill' (p. 37) +enters Richard 'de Angayne' as holding five carucates of land in +'Pettesle' and 'Laxeton' worth £6 a year. It tells us, further, +that he held them by serjeanty--'et est venator leporum, et facit +servitium'. From the nature of this return I assign it to the inquest +of 1198, in which case it is of some value, as identifying five +carucates under the new assessment with the 3-1/2 hides recorded in +Domesday.[17] Fulc de Lisures, on the other hand--the heir of the +Richard Engaine of Domesday--returned himself in 1166, as the King's +forester in fee and attending the King's person, with his horn hanging +from his neck.[18] + +The association of Pytchley with hunting is carried back even further +still. For Richard and William Engaine had for their predecessor in +title, Ælfwine the huntsman ('venator'), who owned their lands when +King Edward sat upon the throne. + +Among the lands deducted we observe in Spelho Hundred 'fif and xx. +hida byrigland'. This represents the assessment in hides of the +Borough of Northampton, and, so far as I know, is the only mention of +that assessment to be found. In my paper on 'Danegeld and the Finance +of Domesday', I pointed out that Bridport and Malmesbury were assessed +at five hides each, Dorchester, Wareham, and Hertford at ten hides, +Worcester at fifteen, Bath and Shaftesbury at twenty, etc.[19] +Northampton (we now see) was assessed in the same manner, and Chester +and Huntingdon at no less than fifty hides each. Thus they admirably +illustrate assessment in terms of the five-hide unit. We find this +primitive system obsolete in 1130, when a borough gave an 'auxilium' +where its county paid Danegeld. But our roll implies that, here at +least, it was already obsolete in the early days of the Conquest; for +the twenty-five hides of 'byrigland' are, for the payment of 'geld', +deducted from the Hundred. + +From the date I have assigned to this document (_ante_-1075), it +may fairly claim to represent our earliest financial record. Its +illustrative value for Danegeld and the Hundred, and consequently for +Domesday Book, will be obvious to every student. + + + + + [Footnote 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.] + + [Footnote 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).] + + [Footnote 3: It was connected, I find, by Mr Cockayne with + military service, not with _Danegeld_.] + + [Footnote 4: Quoted in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday_, i. + 315-6.] + + [Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii, 741-2.] + + [Footnote 6: The phrase employed by Mr Freeman in criticizing + Professor Pearson.] + + [Footnote 7: See Ellis, _ut supra_.] + + [Footnote 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.] + + [Footnote 9: Wrongly given by Ellis and Cockayne as 'xviii'.] + + [Footnote 10: Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx'.] + + [Footnote 11: The MS. reads, 'thus micel is gewered ... viiii. + and xx. hida and i. hida and viiii. and fifti hida inland'. + The text is clearly corrupt.] + + [Footnote 12: There is no entry for 'waste' in this hundred, + so that possibly the words 'xv. hida westa' are omitted.] + + [Footnote 13: There are clearly some words omitted here in + the Peterborough transcript. We must read: 'and thereof is + "gewered" [? 26 hide and] five and twenty hides inland'.] + + [Footnote 14: _Monasticon_, vi. 1090.] + + [Footnote 15: _Infra_, p. 175.] + + [Footnote 16: _Infra_, p. 173.] + + [Footnote 17: See my paper on 'The great carucage of 1198' + (_English Historical Review_, iii, 501 _et seq._).] + + [Footnote 18: 'Et ego ipse custodio forestagium Regis de feodo + meo; et debeo ire cum corpore Regis in servitio suo paratus + equis et armis, cornu meo in collo meo pendente.'--_Lib. + Rub._, i, 333.] + + [Footnote 19: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 117-9.] + + + + +THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH + +(_Temp._ HENRY I) + + +The interesting 'Descriptio militum de Abbatia de Burgo' is found in +the same MS. as the Northamptonshire Geld-roll.[1] It was printed +by Stapleton in the appendix to his _Chronicon Petroburgense_ (pp. +168-75),[2] but no attempt was made to date it. The name of Eudo +Dapifer proves that it cannot have been compiled later than 1120. On +the other hand, it cannot well be earlier than 1100, for some of the +Domesday tenants had been succeeded by their sons--Robert (?) Marmion, +for instance, by Roger, and Coleswegen by Picot--while the mention +of 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi', possibly the son of Richard of +'Wodeford' (i. 224_b_), points in the same direction. As the majority +of names, however, seem to be those of Domesday tenants, it is +probable that the list is not later than the Lindsey survey itself, +if, indeed, it is not earlier. The first entry it contains is a good +specimen of its value: + + Asketillus de Sancto Medardo tenet de abbatia de Burch + in Hamtonascira x. hidas et iii. partes i. virgæ, et in + Lincolnescira iii. carrucatas et inde servit se vi. milite. + Et de feudo hujus militis dedit rex Willelmus senior Eudoni + Dapifero in Estona hidam et dimidiam et mandavit de Normannia + in Angliam Episcopo Constantiarum et R. de Oilli per breves + suos ut inde darent ei excambium ad valens in quocumque vellet + de iii. vicinis comitatibus; sed abbas noluit. + +We duly find 'Anschitillus' in Domesday, holding 'Witheringham', +Northants and 'Osgodeby', Linc., of the Abbot (i. 221_b_, 345_b_). In +the same way we are enabled to identify the 'Rogerius Infans' of our +list with 'Rogerius' who held 'Pilchetone', according to Domesday (i. +221_b_), of the Abbot, 'Ascelinus de Waltervilla' with the 'Azelinus' +of Domesday (_ibid._), 'Gosfridus nepos Abbatis', with 'Goisfridus' +who held in 'Sudtorp' (_ibid._), and 'Rogerius Malfed' with that +'Rogerius' who held of the Abbot at Woodford (i. 222). 'Rogerus', on +the other hand, who held in Domesday two hides at Milton, Northants +(i. 221_b_), and seven bovates at Cleatham, Linc. (i. 346), is +represented in our list by the entry: + + Turoldus de Meletona ii. hidas in Hamtonascira, et in + Lindeseia vi. bovatas, et inde servit se altero milite (p. + 171). + +The chief lesson taught us here is the rashness of assuming the +identity of tenants happening to bear the same name. For even among +the few who are named as holding of the Abbot of Peterborough, we have +found three Rogers quite distinct from one another. + +The entries which follow are of value as absolute proofs of +succession: + + DOMESDAY DESCRIPTIO MILITUM + + In Dailintone tenet Ricardus de Rodbertus filius Ricardi iiii. + abbate iiii^{or.} hidas (i. 222). hidas in Hamtonascira, et inde + servit se altero milite (p. 175). + + In Risun habuit Elnod iiii. Picotus filius Colsuaini habet + bovatas terre ad geldum ... Nunc dimidiam carrucatam in Rison, + habet Colsuan de abbate Turoldo quam abbas dedit patri suo tali + (i. 345_b_). servicio quod esset ad placita + abbatis et manuteneret res suas + et homines suos in scira et in + aliis locis (p. 175). + +This second entry not only records a peculiarly interesting +enfeoffment, but identifies 'Colsuan', the Abbot's under-tenant +at Riseholme, with no less a person than the conqueror's 'English +favourite Coleswegen, ... an Englishman who, by whatever means, +contrived to hold up his head among the conquerors of England'.[3] + +As sons, in such cases as these, have succeeded their fathers, it need +not surprise us that our list comprises some names that are found in +the _Liber Niger_ survey of 1125.[4] Vivian, whom, it tells us, Abbot +Turold had enfeoffed at Oundle (p. 175) occurs there in that survey +(p. 158), as does Robert d'Oilli at Cottingham (pp. 159-73).[5] +Vitalis ('Viel') Engaine had succeeded William (Engaine) at Pytchley +both in our list and in the survey of 1125 (cf. _ante_, p. 129). + +One of the most interesting and important points in this list of +knights is the gleam of new light it throws on Hereward 'the Wake'. In +it we read: + + Hugo de Euremou iii. hidas in dominio et vii. bovatas in + Lincolneshira, et servit pro ii. militibus. + + Ansford iii. carucatas et servit pro dimidia hida [_sic_]. + +Now Hugh de Euremou is the name of the man who, according to the +pseudo-Ingulf, married Hereward's daughter. Here we have proof of his +real existence, and are enabled moreover to detect him, I claim, +in that Hugh who, as a 'miles' of the Abbot, held three hides at +'Edintone' [Etton, Northants] in Domesday (i. 222). Mr Freeman +speaking of the vacancy at Bayeux in 1908, wrote: + + William at once bestowed the staff on Turold, the brother of + Hugh of Evermont [_sic_], seemingly the same Hugh who figures + in the legend of Hereward as his son-in-law and successor.[6] + +But the French editors of Ordericus, in a note to the passage from +which this statement was taken (iv. 18), speak of our man as 'Hugue +d'Envermeu, donateur du prieuré de St. Laurent d'Envermeu à l'Abbaye +de Bec'.[7] + +Turning for a moment from Hugh to Ansford, we read in the Lincolnshire +'Clamores': + + Terram Asford in Bercham hund' dicit Wapentac non habuisse + Herewardum die quo aufugiit (D.B., i. 376_b_). + +About this entry, as Mr Freeman observed, 'there can be no doubt'. +But as the result of his careful inquiry,[8] he limited 'our positive +knowledge', from Domesday, to this entry and to two in the text of the +Lincolnshire survey (364_b_-377). It is strange that he did not follow +up the clue the 'Clamores' gave him. The relevant entry in the text of +the Survey is duly found under the Peterborough fief: + + In Witham et Mannetorp et Toftlund habuit _Hereward_ xii. + bovatas terræ ad geldum.... Ibi Asuert [_sic_] homo abbatis + Turoldi habet, etc.... + + Berew[ita] hujus M. in Bercaham et Estou i. carucata terræ ad + geldum. ... Ibi Asford habet, etc.... + + In Estov Soca in Witham iiii. bovatæ terræ et dimidia ad + geldum.... Ibi Asfort de abbate habet, etc.... (i. 346). + +This is the 'terra Asford' referred to in the 'Clamores', and, as +amounting to 3-1/16 carucates, it is clearly the 'iii. carucatas' +assigned in our list to 'Ansford'. Thus, through his successor +Ansford, we have at last run down our man; Hereward was, exactly as is +stated by Hugh 'Candidus', a 'man' of the Abbot of Peterborough; +and his holding was situated at Witham on the Hill,[9] not far from +Bourne, and, at Barholme-with-Stow a few miles off, all in the extreme +south-west of the county. This is the fact for which Mr Freeman sought +in vain, and which has eluded Professor Tout, in his careful life of +the outlaw for the _Dictionary of National Biography_. + +We are now in a position to examine the gloss of Hugh 'Candidus', +showing how 'Baldwin Wake' possessed the holdings both of Hugh and of +Ansford:[10] + + Primus Hugo de Euremu. Baldwinus Wake tenet in Depinge, + Plumtre, et Stove feoda duorum militum.... Et præterea dictus + Baldewinus tenet feodum unius militis in Wytham et Bergham + de terra Affordi. Et prædictus Baldewinus de predictis feodis + abbati de Burgo debet plenarie respondere de omni forensi + [servitio]. + +Here we see how the legendary name and legendary position of Hereward +were evolved. The Wakes, Lords of Bourne, held among their lands some, +not far from Bourne, which had once been held by Hereward. Thus arose +the story that Hereward had been Lord of Bourne; and it was but a +step further to connect him directly with the Wakes, by giving him +a daughter and heir married to Hugh de Evermou, whose lands had +similarly passed to the Lords of Bourne. The pedigree-maker's crowning +stroke was to make Hereward himself a Wake,[11] just as Baldwin fitz +Gilbert (de Clare) is in one place transformed into a Wake.[12] The +climax was reached when the modern Wakes revived the name of Hereward, +just as 'Sir Brian Newcome of Newcome' set the seal to his family +legend by giving his children 'names out of the Saxon calendar'. + +Returning to Hereward himself, we find Mr Freeman writing (of the +spring of 1070): + + At this moment we hear for the first time of one whose + mythical fame outshines all the names of his generation, and + of whom the few historical notices make us wish that details + could be filled in from some other source than legend.... Both + the voice of legend and the witness of the great Survey agree + in connecting Hereward with Lincolnshire, but they differ + as to the particular spot in the shire in which he is to be + quartered. Legend also has forgotten a fact which the document + has preserved, namely, that the hero of the fenland did + not belong wholly to Lincolnshire, but that he was also a + landholder in the distant shire of Warwick. But the Survey has + preserved another fact with which the legendary versions of + his life have been specially busy. Hereward, at some time it + would seem, before the period of his exploits, had fled from + his country.[13] + +Let us first dismiss from our minds the alleged fact as to +Warwickshire. There is absolutely nothing to connect the Count of +Meulan's tenant there with the Lincolnshire hero; indeed Mr Freeman +admits in his appendix 'that the Hereward of these entries may be some +other person' (p. 805). Legend had an excellent reason for ignoring +this alleged 'fact' as had 'romances' for having 'perversely +forgotten' to mention the deeds or the fate of William Malet in the +Isle (_ibid._, p. 473). We must also dismiss the 'fact'--'undoubted +history' though it be (_ibid._, p. 805)--of Hereward's 'banishment' +at some time between 1062 and 1070. For the Survey gives no date; it +merely speaks of 'die quâ aufugiit' (i. 376_b_), which phrase, in the +absence of evidence to the contrary, must be referred to his escape +from the 'Isle',[14] when (1071) in the words of Florence, 'cum paucis +evasit'. This at once explains the Domesday entry (_ante_, p. 160), +for he would, of course, have forfeited his holding before that date. + +'But leaving fables and guesses aside,' in Mr Freeman's words, 'we +know enough of Hereward to make us earnestly long to know more' (p. +456). My proof that the English hero was a 'man' of the Abbot of +Peterborough explains why 'Hereward and his gang', as they are termed +in the Peterborough Chronicle, 'seem', Mr Freeman is forced to admit, +'to be specially the rebellious tenants of the Abbey', as distinct +from the Danes and the outlaws (p. 459). And the vindication, on this +point, of Hugh Candidus' accuracy makes one regret that Mr Freeman, +though eager for information as to Hereward, ignored so completely +that writer's narrative. It is in absolute agreement with the +Peterborough Chronicle, Mr Freeman's own authority, but records +some interesting details which the Chronicle omits.[15] These place +Hereward's conduct in a somewhat different light, and suggest that he +may really have been loyal to the Abbey whose 'man' he was. His plea +for bringing the Danes to Peterborough was that he honestly believed +that they would overthrow the Normans, and that the treasures of the +church would, therefore, be safer in their hands. He may perfectly +well have been hostile to the Normans, and yet faithful to the Abbey +so long as Brand held it; but the news that Turold and his knights +were coming to make the Abbey a centre of Norman rule against him[16] +would drive him to extreme courses. Professor Tout has made some use +of Hugh, but says, strangely, that 'the stern rule of the new Abbot +Turold drove into revolt the tenants', when his rule had not yet +begun. + +Again, there is now no doubt where Hereward ought 'to be quartered'. +Two other places with which the Domesday survey connects him are +Rippingale and, possibly, Laughton to the north of Bourne. Living thus +on the edge of the fenland, he may well have been a leader among +'that English folk of the fenlands' who rose, says the Peterborough +Chronicle, in the spring of 1070, to join the Danish fleet and +throw off the Norman yoke. And the prospect of being ousted from his +Peterborough lands by a follower of the new French abbot would have +added a personal zest to his patriotic zeal. + +Mr Freeman, followed by Professor Tout,[17] holds that the story in +the false Ingulf is not to be wholly cast aside, as it may contain +some genuine Crowland tradition;[18] but he has not accurately given +that story. It might hastily be gathered, as it was by him, that it +was Hereward's mother-in-law who 'very considerately takes the veil +at the hands of Abbot Ulfcytel', whereas it was, according to the +_Gesta_, his wife who did this. The _Gesta_ version, he writes, 'of +Turfrida going into a monastery to make way for Ælfthryth is plainly +another form of the story in Ingulf, which makes not herself but her +mother do so'. But if the _Historia Ingulphi_ (pp. 67-8) be read with +care, it will be seen that 'mater Turfrid_æ_' should clearly be 'mater +Turfrid_a_', the reading that the sense requires. So there is here no +opposition, and Ingulf merely follows the _Gesta_ version. + +As for the honour of Bourne, it can be shown from the _carta_ of Hugh +Wac in 1166, from our list of knights, and from the Pipe-Roll of 1130, +to have been formed from separate holdings and to have descended as +follows: + + ------------------------------ + | | + William Richard + de Rullos, de Rullos + Lord of Bourne (see p. 161) + _temp._ Hen. I. | + Baldwin fitz Gilbert, = Adelina + Lord of Bourne, | + _jure uxoris_, | + Founder of | + Bourne Priory, | + 1138[19] (see p. 359) | + --------------------------------- + | | + Roger Emma = Hugh Wac, + | Lord of + ------- Bourne, + | _jure uxoris_ + Baldwin in 1166 + Wac, + Lord of Bourne + + +The Psuedo-Ingulf's version runs: + + Leofric, = Edith + Lord of Bourne, | + 1062 | + ------------- + | + Hereward, = Turfrida + Lord of Bourne | + --------------- + | + a daughter, = Hugh de Evermou + heiress of Bourne | Lord of Depyng (p. 67) + ---------- + | + a daughter, = Richard de Rullos. + heiress of living _temp._ Will. I. + Bourne and (pp. 77-8; + Depyng pp. 95, 99, 118) + +It will be seen how skilfully the author of this famous forgery brings +in the names of real people while confusing their connection and their +dates. Richard de Rullos, for instance, was living shortly before +1130, yet is here described as living under the Conqueror, though +represented as marrying the great granddaughter of a man who was +himself in the prime of life in 1062. The whole account of him as an +ardent agriculturist, devoted to the improvement of live-stock and the +reclamation of waste, is quaintly anachronistic; but the fact of his +being a friend and benefactor to Crowland is one for which the writer +had probably some ground. For my part, I attach most importance to +his incidental statement that the daring deeds of Hereward the outlaw, +'adhuc in triviis canuntur', an allusion, perhaps unnoticed, to a +ballad history surviving, it may be, so late as the days when the +forgery was compiled. + +But, leaving Hereward, no entries in this list are more deserving of +notice than those which bring before us the famous name of Nevile: + + Gislebertus de Nevila [tenet] ii. carrucatas in Lincolnescira, + et servit Abbatiæ pro ii. hidis et inde inventi i. militem (p. + 171). + + Radulfus de Nevila [tenet] x. carrucatas in Lincolnescira + et i. hidam et dimidiam in Hamtonascira et servit se tercio + milite (p. 175). + +Hugh Candidus wrote of the former: + + Heres Galfridi de Nevile tenet in Lincolnescire, scilicet in + Waletone [_sic_] justa Folkingham, et Yoltorpe duas carrucatas + terra et inde facit plenum servitium unius militis (p. 59). + + +With this clue we are enabled to detect Gilbert de Nevile in that +'Gislebertus homo Abbatis', who held of the Abbot (D.B., i. 345_b_) at +'Walecote' (Walcot near Folkingham). So also Hugh 'Candidus' writes of +the other Nevile fee: + + Heres Radulfi de Nevile tenet decem carrucatas terræ + in Lincolnshire, scilicet in Scottone Malmetone; et in + Norhamtonscire unam hidam et dimidiam, scilicet in Holme, + Rayniltorp, et inde facit plenum servitium trium militum (p. + 55). + +It is, then, Ralf de Nevile that we have in that 'Radulfus homo +Abbatis', who held of him at 'Mameltune', and 'Rageneltorp' with +'Holm' in Domesday (i. 345_b_, 346)--Manton, with Raventhorpe and +Holme (near Bottesford, co. Linc.)--for Hugh, of course, has blundered +in placing the two latter places in Northamptonshire.[20] The _Testa_, +more exact, enables us to add Ashby to Holme and Raventhorpe as part +of one estate, held as a single knight's fee. Scotton, in the same +neighbourhood, was held by 'Ricardus' in Domesday, but, in the hands +of Nevile's heirs, represented a fee and a third. + +Between Ralf and Gilbert de Nevile on fo. 346 we find 'Gislebertus +homo Abbatis' holding ten bovates at Hibaldstow. This was the +'Gislebertus Falvel' of our return, not Gilbert de Nevile. + +The last Domesday name I shall identify is that of the Abbot's +under-tenant 'Eustacius', who held of him at Polebrook, Clapton +(Northants), and Catworth (Hunts). He was, I believe, the same as that +Eustace who held land, as a tenant-in-chief, at Polebrook, Northants, +and with that Eustace the sheriff ('Vice-comes') who held (at +Catworth, Hunts) also _in capite_. Indeed the abbot's tenant +is identified with the latter in the story of the foundation of +Huntingdon Priory (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 78), where, as in our list, we +find that his two knights' fees soon passed to Lovetot.[21] + +We may learn from this identification that two different +tenants-in-chief and at least one under-tenant may prove to be all one +man, just as, on the other hand, we found three distinct Rogers among +the Domesday under-tenants of the Abbot. An additional conclusion +is suggested by the name 'Eustachius de Huntendune', given to this +sheriff in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[22] For we find Picot, the +Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, similarly styled in Domesday (i. 200), +'Picot de Grentebrige'. 'Ilbert de Hertford', I think, was the Sheriff +of Hertfordshire,[23] and Hamo, a contemporary sheriff of Kent, +attests a charter as 'Hamo de Cantuaria'. Turold, sheriff of +Lincolnshire, is found as Turold 'of Lincoln' (see p. 255), and Hugh, +sheriff of Dorset, as Hugh of 'Wareham', while Walter and Miles 'of +Gloucester', Edward and Walter 'of Salisbury', are also cases in +point. Hugh 'of Leicester' was sheriff of Leicestershire _temp._ Henry +I, while Turchil 'de Warwic' (D.B., i. 240_b_) may possibly have owed +that appellation to the fact that his father Ælfwine was sheriff of +Warwickshire. Enough, in any case, has been said to show that it was +a regular practice for sheriffs to derive, as often did earls, their +styles from the capital town of their shire. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60.] + + [Footnote 2: Ed. Camden Society.] + + [Footnote 3: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 219. We know _aliunde_ + that 'Picot filius Colsuani' was the son of Colswegen of + Lincoln. It would seem to be of this estate that we read in + the 'Clamores': 'Abbas de Burg clamat iiii. bov. terræ in + Risun terra Colsuani, et Wap' testatur quod T.R.E. jacuerunt + in æcclesia Omnium Sanctorum in Lincolia.'] + + [Footnote 4: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60. Printed by + Stapleton _ut supra_.] + + [Footnote 5: But possibly the Robert d'Oilli of our list may + be the _first_ Robert (who, as 'Robertus' in Domesday, held + Cranford of the Abbot), while the tenant of that name in 1125 + may be the _second_ Robert, entered in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, + and living _temp._ Stephen.] + + [Footnote 6: _William Rufus_, i. 571. He makes it 'Evermouth' + in the _Norman Conquest_.] + + [Footnote 7: Envermeu lay on the coast some 19 miles to the + east of Dieppe.] + + [Footnote 8: 'The legend of Hereward' (_Norman Conquest_, iv. + [1st Ed.], 805).] + + [Footnote 9: With its hamlet of Manthorpe and Toft with + Lound.] + + [Footnote 10: Ed. Sparke _Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores_ + [1723].] + + [Footnote 11: Professor Tout throws out the unlucky + suggestion: 'the _Wake_, i.e. apparently the watchful one'.] + + [Footnote 12: See the new _Monasticon_ on Deeping Priory, and + the rubric to Baldwin's charter. The true parentage of Baldwin + fitz Gilbert will be shown _infra_ in the paper on 'Walter + Tirel and his wife'.] + + [Footnote 13: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 455-6.] + + [Footnote 14: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 484. Professor + Tout, however, follows Mr Freeman, and accepts an earlier + 'flight from England' as a fact. One must therefore insist + that 'the whole story has no historical basis'.] + + [Footnote 15: I am tempted, indeed, to suggest that Hugh may + have had before him that lost local 'account of Hereward's + doings', which was inserted (but, according to my own view, in + an abbreviated form) into the earlier chronicle, according + to Professor Earle (see _Norm. Conq._, iv. 461, note 3). This + solution would explain everything, and would, if accepted, + greatly increase the importance of Hugh's chronicle.] + + [Footnote 16: Cf. William of Malmesbury _in loco_.] + + [Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_.] + + [Footnote 18: Appendix on 'the Legend of Hereward', _ut + supra_.] + + [Footnote 19: The names of the churches he bestowed on the + Priory illustrate the constituents of the Honour of Bourne.] + + [Footnote 20: The name of Ralf de Nevilla occurs in full in + the Lincolnshire 'Clamores' (i. 376_b_), annihilating the + old assertion that this famous surname is nowhere found in + Domesday. (See my letter in _Academy_, xxxvii. 373.)] + + [Footnote 21: It is specially interesting to trace his holding + at Winwick, Hunts, which then lay partly in Northants. As + 'Eustachius' he held _in capite_ at 'Winewincle' (i. 228), + as 'Eustachius Vicecomes' at 'Winewiche' (i. 206), and as + 'Eustacius', a tenant of the Abbot, at 'Winewiche' (i. + 221). In the first two cases his under-tenants are given as + 'Widelard[us]' and 'Oilard[us]', doubtless the same man. For + 'Winewincle' we should probably read 'Winewicke'. See also p. + 222, _infra_.] + + [Footnote 22: _Inq. Com. Cant._, Ed. Hamilton, p. 111.] + + [Footnote 23: _Ibid._, 56, 192.] + + + + +THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY + +(_Temp._ HENRY I) + + +We have, in the case of the see of Worcester, the means of testing +some of the changes which took place among its tenants within a +generation of Domesday. This is a survey of that portion of its lands +which lay within the county of Worcester. Although printed by Hearne +in his edition of Heming's Cartulary (fos. 141, 141_d_), it escaped +notice, I believe, till I identified it myself in _Domesday Studies_ +(p. 546). As it follows immediately on the transcript of the Domesday +Survey of the fief, the fact that it represents a later and distinct +record might, at first sight, be overlooked. + +In spite of the importance of Heming's Cartulary in its bearing on the +Domesday Survey, the documents of which it contains the transcripts +have been hopelessly confused and misunderstood. Professor Freeman, +dealing with them, came to utter grief,[1] and as for Mr De Gray +Birch, he not only took this Survey _temp._ Henry I to be a portion +of Domesday itself, which 'should be collated with the original MS. at +the Record Office',[2] but even repeated Ellis's blunder,[3] that the +names in a document _temp._ Bishop John [1151-7][4] represent 'the +list of jurors for the Hundred of Oswaldeslaw' at the Domesday +Survey.[5] + +From a writ entered on fo. 136 we may infer that there had been some +dispute between the Sheriff and the Church of Worcester as to the +number of hides in the county for which the latter should be rated.[6] +This Inquest or Survey was the consequence of that dispute, and +resulted in the issue of the writ. Its date is roughly determined +by the facts that Urse d'Abetot was dead when it was made, while the +Count of Meulan is entered as a tenant, so that we may probably date +it as later (at the earliest) than 1108, and previous to the death of +the Count of Meulan in July 1118.[7] + +Let us now compare, Manor by Manor, the earlier with the later Survey: + + DOMESDAY SURVEY _temp._ HENRY I + + _Chemesege_ _Kemesige_ + + Bishop [13] Bishop 13 + Urso 7 Walter de Beauchamp 9 + Roger de Laci 2 + Walter Ponther 2 Hugh Puiher 2 + ---- ---- + 24 24 + + _Wiche_ _Wike_ + + Bishop 3-3/4 Bishop 3 + Urso 9-3/4 Walter de Beauchamp 10-1/2 + Robert Despenser 1/2 Nicholas (de Beauchamp?) 1/2 + Osbern fitz Richard 1 Hugh fitz Osbern 1 + ------ ------ + 15 15 + + _Fledebirie_ _Fledebyri_ + + Bishop 7 Bishop 3 + Bishop of Hereford 5 Bishop of Hereford 5 + Urso 12 + Robert Despenser 5 Walter de Beauchamp 22 + Alricus archid[iaconus] 1 + Roger de Laci 10 Hugh de Laci 10 + ---- ---- + 40 40 + + _Breodun_ _Bredune_ + + Bishop 10 Bishop 13 + Monks 4 Monks 4 + Ælricus Archd. 2 + Urso 16 Walter de Beauchamp 16 + Durand 2 Gile (? bertus) 1 + Brictric fil' Algar King 1 + (in king's hands) 1 + ---- ---- + 35 35 + + _Rippel et Uptun_ _Rippel et Uptun_ + + Bishop 13 Bishop 14 + Ordric 1 + Siward 5 + Roger de Laci 3 Hugh de Laci 3 + Urso 1 + Ralph de Bernai + (in king's hands) 1 Walter de Beauchamp 6 + Brictric fil' Algar + (in king's hands) 1 King 2 + ---- ---- + 25 25 + + _Blochelei_ _Bloccelea_ + + Bishop 25-1/2 Bishop 22 + Richard 2 Bishop 2 + Ansgot 1-1/2 Walter de Beauchamp 5 + Stephen fil' Fulcred 3 'Dæilesford' 3 + Hereward 5 'Eunilade' 5 + Monks 1 Monks 1 + ------ ---- + 38 38 + + _Tredingtun_ _Tredintun_ + + [Bishop 17] Bishop 17 + Monks 2 Monks 2 + Gilbert fil' Thorold 4 'Langedun' 4 + --- --- + 23 23 + + _Norwiche_ _Northewike_ + + Bishop 3-1/2 Bishop 6-1/2 + Urso 7-3/4 Walter de Beauchamp 10 + Ordric 4-1/4 + Alric Arch' 1 + Walter Ponther 7-1/2 Hugh Puiher 7-1/2 + Herlebaldus 1 King 1 + --- --- + 25 25 + + _Ovreberie cum Penedoc_ _Werebyri et Penedoc_ + + The Church of Worcester 6 6 + + _Seggesbarne_ _Segesberewe_ + + The Church of Worcester 3 3 + + _Scepwestun_ _Scepwestune_ + + The Church of Worcester 2 2 + + _Herferthun cum Wiburgestoke_ _Herfortune cum Wiburga Stoke_ + + The Church of Worcester 3 3 + + _Grimanleh_ _Grimeleage_ + + The Church of Worcester 2 2 + Robert Despencer 1 Walter de Beauchamp 1 + --- --- + 3 3 + + _Halhegan cum Bradewesham_ _Hallhagan cum Bradewasse_ + + The Church of Worcester 1 [The Church of Worcester 1] + Duo Radmanni 2 Walter de Beauchamp 1-1/2 + Roger de Laci 3-1/2 Roger de Laci 3-1/2 + Walter de Burh 1/2 Count of Meulan 1 + Hugh de Grentmesnil 1/2 + ------- ------- + 7-1/2 7 + + _Cropetorn cum Neothetune_ _Croppethorne_ + + Church of Worcester 14 Monks 15 + Robert Despencer 11 Walter de Beauchamp 9 + Urso 6 Robert Marmion 7 + Abbot of Evesham 9 Abbot of Evesham 9 + [_Ibid._ 10] _Ibid._ 'quiete a geldo' 10 + --- --- + 50 50 + + + _Total for Oswaldslaw Hundred_ + + HIDES TENANTS HEMING'S TOTAL + + (_ut supra_) (_ut supra_) 'He sunt ccc. hide ad + 24 Bishop 93-1/2 Osuualdes lauues hundret.' + 15 + 40 Monks 39 + 35 Walter de Beauchamp 90 'Episcopus habet in + 25 King 4 dominio' xciiii. + 38 Hugh Puher 9-1/2 'Monachi' xl. + 23 Hugh de Laci 13 } 'Walterus de Bealcamp' xx.[8] + 25 Roger de Laci 3-1/2 } + 24 Robert Marmion 7 } 'Alii barones' lxiii. + 50 Bishop of Hereford 5 } 'Rex' iii. + -- Abbot of Evesham 19 } + 299 Hugh fitz Osbern 1 } 72-1/2 + Count of Meulan 1 } + Gile (?bertus) 1 } + Alii 12 } + Nicholas (? de } 'Quiete apud Hamtun + Beauchamp) 1/2 a geldo' x. + ------- ---- + 299 230 + + _Huerteberie_ _Heortlabyri_ + + Church of Worcester 20 Bishop 15 + Walter de Beauchamp 5 + --- + 20 + + _Vlwardelei_ _Wlfwardile_ + + Church of Worcester 5 Monks 5 + + _Stoche_ _Stoka_ + + Church of Worcester 10 Monks 10 + + _Alvievecherche_ _Ælfithe cyrce_ + + Church of Worcester 13 Bishop 13 + + _Clive cum Lenc_ _Clive cum Leng_ + + Church of Worcester 10-1/2 Monks 10 + + _Fepsetenatun_ _Fepsintune_ + + Church of Worcester 5 Monks 1 + Walter Ponther 1[9] Hugh Puiher 1[9] + Roger de Laci 5 Hugh de Laci 5 + --- --- + 11 7 + + _Hambyrie_ _Heanbyri_ + + Church of Worcester 14 Bishop 13-1/2 + Walter de Beauchamp 1/2 + ------ + 14 + + _Ardolvestone et Cnistetone_ _Eardulfestun et Cnihtetun_ + + Church of Worcester ('de Monks 15 + victu monachorum') 15 + + _Total_ _'Summa in Kinefolka'_ + + Bishop 41-1/2 'Episcopus in dominio xli.' + Monks 41 'Monachi xli.' + Walter de Beauchamp 5-1/2 'Walterus de Bealcamp vi.' + Hugh de Laci 5 'Hugo de Laci v.' + Hugh Puiher 1 'Hugo Puiher i.' + ------- ----- + 94 94 + + In Oswaldeslaw 299 + Outside ditto 94 + --- + 393 + + Summa hidarum, quas episcopus habet in toto vicecomitatu est + ccc. et quater xx. et xvii. cum his quas Abbas de Evesham + tenet de OSWALDES LAUUE.[10] + + +It will be seen that of these 397 hides only 393 are accounted for +above. The explanation is this. Of the five hides held in 'Fepsintune' +by the Church of Worcester in Domesday, only one is entered in the +above list, the other four being wholly omitted, both in the list +itself and in the total. These four omitted hides bring up the 393 to +397, the exact sum that we have to account for. + +If the Manors in the above Survey are examined with care _seriatim_, +it will be found that they bear manifest witness to the aggressions of +Urse d'Abetot, who, we may gather from this Cartulary, was the _bête +noire_ of the Church of Worcester. The various extensions of his +Domesday holdings, as at 'Fledebyrie', where twelve hides had been +increased to twenty-two, were partly due to the accession of the lands +he inherited from his brother, but partly also to his absorption of +the lands of other tenants and of portions of the episcopal demesne. +All the benefit of these accessions passed to his son-in-law and +successor, Walter de Beauchamp. + +But perhaps the most important information that this Survey gives +us is to be found in the light it throws on the succession to Robert +'Dispensator'. That he was brother to Urse d'Abetot is, of course, +generally known. His relationship to the Marmions is the _crux_. +I deal with it under the Lindsey Survey,[11] which shows us his +Lincolnshire fief in the hands of Roger Marmion. In the present +Survey we find that of the seventeen hides and a half which Robert +Dispensator had held, at the time of Domesday, from the Bishop, only +seven were held by Robert (not Roger) Marmion when this document was +compiled, the rest being held by Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn +that here, as in Leicestershire, the fief had been divided between the +two.[12] + +But this Survey further tells us--if we may trust the text--that, in +this succession, Roger Marmion had been preceded by Robert. One may +throw it out as a possible suggestion that, in addition to the wife of +Walter de Beauchamp, Urse d'Abetot may have had a daughter who +married Robert Marmion.[13] On the forfeiture of his son Roger, such a +daughter would have pressed her claim, and, though the inheritance of +Urse himself may, by special favour, have been regranted to Walter, +she may have obtained a share of the fief of her uncle, Robert +'Dispensator'. But this can only be conjecture. + +Of the other points of family history on which this Survey throws +light, one may mention that Hugh 'Puher' had succeeded Walter +'Ponther', that Osbern fitz Richard (of Richard's Castle) had been +succeeded by his son, Hugh fitz Osbern; and that though, as in +1095,[14] the name of Hugh de Laci supplants that of his brother +Roger, yet that, if we can trust the text, Roger had in one Manor been +allowed to retain his holding, in accordance with a policy which +is believed to have been practised, namely, that of keeping a hold, +however small, on the forfeited. The name of the Count of Meulan +also, the supplanter of Grentmesnil, will be noticed, and that of +a 'Nicholas', whom, as the successor in a small holding of Robert +Despencer, one might perhaps be tempted to identify with the +mysterious Sheriff of Staffordshire, Nicolas de Beauchamp. + +There are fragments of two other early surveys relating to +Worcestershire, which, as they contain the names of Walter and of +William de Beauchamp respectively, may be roughly assigned to the +reigns of Henry I and of Stephen. The first, which is found in an +Evesham Cartulary,[15] is mainly an abstract of Domesday, but +contains a later and valuable analysis of Droitwich, with an important +reference to the Exchequer. The other[16] begins in the middle of a +survey of what seems to be the Church of Worcester's fief, records the +lands held, as under-tenant, by William de Beauchamp, and shows us the +Domesday fief of Ralf de 'Todeni' in the hands of his heir, Roger de +'Toeni'. + + DROITWICH + + Hee sunt x. hidæ in Wich'. De Witton' petri corbezun ii. + hidas. De feodo sancti Dionysii Ricardus corvus et Willelmus + filius Oueclini tenent i. hidam. De sancto Guthlaco Willelmus + filius Ricardi tenet i. hidam. De Johanne de Suthlega + Ricardus filius Roberti tenet i. hidam. De Pagano filio + Johannis Godwi tenet dimidiam hidam. De Waltero de bello campo + Theobaldus et petrus tenent dimidiam hidam. De la Berton' de + Gloucestra [see Glouc. Cartu.] Randulf filius Ringulfi tenet + dimidiam hidam. De monachis Gloucestrie Baldwinus et Lithulfus + dimidiam hidam. De Comite Warewice Randulfus et Essulf filii + Ringulf tenent iii. virgatas. De Waltero del Burc Randulf + et Essulf dimidiam hidam. De Westmonasterio Theobaldus et + Walterus fil' Thorald i. hidam. De Almega fil' Aiulfi et mater + ejus i. hidam. De Battona Aiulfus presbyter i. virgatam. De + Wichebold Rogerus de Bolles i. virgatam. De monachis fil' Grim + tenet i. virgatam. De Kinefare et Douerdale i. virgatam. Alewi + caure et socii ejus dimidiam virgatam.[15] + + H[oc] debet computari ad Scacarium Regis vicecomiti + Wirecestrie. Habes x. hidas ad Danegeld et Wasto forestæ ii. + hidas. + + Et in Ederesfeld vi hid[æ]. Et in happeworda i. hid[a]. Et in + Biselega i. hid[a]. Et in Burlega i. hyda. + + + FRAGMENT OF A SURVEY SUBSEQUENT TO 1130 AND PERHAPS + _circa_ 1150 + + (_Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.) + + ... manerio de hambyry. Estona Ric' dimidiam hidam. In hundredo de + Camele. In Waresleia v. hidæ de manerio de hertlebery. Summa + quater xx. et xiii. hidæ. + + In hundredo de persora habet ecclesia de Westmustier has + terras quas tenet Willelmus de bello campo. Hekintona iii. + hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Chaddesleia ii. hidæ. Langeduna Osmundi + i. hida et dimidia. Colleduma iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ. + Graftona Ebrandi i. hida et iii. virgatæ. Flavel et pidelet + v. hidæ. Newentona x. hidæ. Broctona Inardi iii. hidæ. Pidelet + radulfi iii. hidæ. Berford v. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. + Wicha Inardi iii. hidæ. Burlingeham ii. hidæ et i. virgata. + Cumbrintona ii. hidæ. Poiwica Willelmi de bello campo i. hida. + Newebolt i. hida. Medeleffeld i. hida de poiwica. Ad bergam i. + hida. Olendene i. hida. Arleia i. virgata. Poiwica Inardi i. + hida. Summa lx. hidæ et dimidia. + + In predicto hundredo de persora feudum Abbatis persore. Belega + xxi. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. Wadberga iii. hidæ et dimidia. + Cumbrintona i. hida et dimidia. Lega Ricardi dimidia hida. + Walecote et torendune i. hida et dimidia. + + In hundredo de Leisse tenet idem Willelmus Chirchlench iiii. + hidas de abbatia de Evesham. Croulega v. hidas de feudo + Osberti filii hugonis. + + In hundredo de Clent. Belua viii. hidæ de feudo folwi + paganelli. Salawarpa v. hidæ de feudo Rogeri Comitis. Item + Salawarpa i. hida de feudo episcopi Cestrie. Chaluestona i. + hida de feudo Roberti filii Archembaldi. Apud Wich dimidiam + hidam Gunfrei. Item apud Wich i. hidam de terra Sancti + Guthlaci quam Rodbertus filius Willelmi tenet. Item ibidem + dimidiam hidam de Cormell' quam Gilebertus tenet. Cokehulla + ii. hidæ et dimidiam de feudo regis. Hactona iii. hidæ de + feudo episcopi baiocensis. Escreueleia i. hida. Summa tocius + cclxiiii. hidæ et dimidia et dimidia virgata. + + Terra rogeri de toeney. Esla iii. hidæ. Bertona iii. hidæ et + iii. virgatæ. Alcrintona ii. hidæ. Linda ii. hidæ et ad halac + i. hida. Mora hugonis i. hida et dimidia. Werueslega ii. hidæ + et dimidia. Alboldeslega ii. hidæ et dimidia. Rudmerlega i. + hida et dimidia. Estlega i. hida Geldans et una hida quieta. + Sceldeslega i. hida. Almelega Ricardi de portes xi. hidæ. + +In the former of these two fragments we recognize in John of Sudeley +the younger son of Harold, son of Earl Ralf. It would be of interest +if we might identify his tenant, Richard fitz Robert, with the younger +son of his brother, Robert. The succession in the tenancy of the +Crowland hide (St Guthlac's) needs explanation. In Domesday (176) +Urse held Dunclent of Nigel the physician, who held both here and +at Droitwich under Crowland Abbey. It must have been through him at +Droitwich also that William fitz Richard became tenant, for Robert +fitz William (who was clearly the latter's son) held here of Walter de +Beauchamp in the second fragment. + +It is in tracing William de Beauchamp's succession, as under-tenant +to his grandfather Urse, that we find the chief interest of the second +fragment. He has succeeded him, for instance, as tenant to the Abbeys +of Westminster, Pershore, and Coventry (the fief of the last having +now become that of 'the Bishop of Chester'). At Wadborough, however, +it was Robert 'Dispensator' whom he had succeeded as tenant of +Pershore. In one case we find him holding of Robert fitz Erchembald, +whose Domesday predecessor we thus learn was William Goizenboded +(177_b_). We may also note his tenure of Madresfield (now Lord +Beauchamp's seat)--the earliest mention, I think, of the place--as a +limb of Powick. Fulk Paynell, of whom William held at Beoley, had now +succeeded to the Domesday fief of William fitz Ansculf, whose tenant +'Robert' may have been Robert 'Dispensator'. Osbern fitz Hugh had +similarly succeeded to the Richard's Castle fief held, in Domesday, by +his grandfather. + +I append a partial comparison of Domesday with the Henry I survey so +far as concerns Droitwich, where property, owing to its value, was +divided among many owners. + + DROITWICH + + DOMESDAY _Temp._ Henry I + + H. H. + + Willelmus filius Corbucion Petrus Corbezun (de Witton) 2 + (Witone) 2 + Church of St Denis 1 'De feodo sancti Dionysii + Ricardus corvus et + Willelmus filius Oueclini' 1 + De Sancto Guthlaco Nigellus De Sancto Guthlaco Willelmus + Medicus 1 filius Ricardi 1 + Heraldus filius Radulfi De Johanne de Suthlega + Comitis 1 Ricardus filius Roberti 1 + De Pagano filio Johannis + Godwi 1/2 + Urso tenet Witune in Wich et } De Waltero de Bello Campo + Gunfrid de eo 1/2} Theobaldus et Petrus 1/2 + Æcclesia sancti Petri de } De la Berton de Gloucestra + Glou. 1/2} Randulf filius Ringulfi 1/2 + In Wich est dimidia hida De monachis Gloucestrie + quæ pertinet ad aulam de Baldwinus et Lithulfus 1/2 + Glou. 1/2 + De Comite Warewice + Randulfus et Essulfus + filii Ringulf 3/4 + De Waltero del Burc + Randulf et Essulf 1/2 + Ibi duo presbyteri [de De Westmonasterio + Westmonasterio] tenet i. Theobaldus et Walterus + hidam que nunquam geldavit 1 fil' Thorald 1 + Isdem [Radulfus] tenent in De Almelega fil' Aiulfi + Wich i. hidam de x. hidis et mater ejus 1 + [geldantibus] 1 + + + + + [Footnote 1: See my paper 'An early reference to Domesday' + (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 542-4).] + + [Footnote 2: _Domesday Studies_, p. 513; _Domesday Book_ + (S.P.C.K.), p. 305.] + + [Footnote 3: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 19.] + + [Footnote 4: _Domesday Studies_, p. 547.] + + [Footnote 5: _Domesday Book_ (S.P.C.K.), pp. 78, 305.] + + [Footnote 6: There was a similar dispute about the same time + in the case of Abingdon Abbey and its possessions in Berkshire + (_Abingdon Cart._, ii. 1600).] + + [Footnote 7: This, however, as I have elsewhere shown must + remain a presumption, as it is possible that, owing to the + youth of his heir, he may have been entered as nominal tenant + for some time after his death (see p. 155).] + + [Footnote 8: MS. now destroyed here.] + + [Footnote 9: 'Non geldat.'] + + [Footnote 10: p. 116.] + + [Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 149 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 12: We are enabled by this Survey, and by the + division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the + original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great + Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of + Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot, + had seized an estate of five hides (_Heming's Cartulary_ fo. + 125_b_). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other + 'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (_ibid._). In + Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in + Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that + the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in + 'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to + the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly + the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus + learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this + calculation is confirmed by the entry in the _Testa_ (p. 41): + 'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij. + hidas.'] + + [Footnote 13: It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday, + both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.] + + [Footnote 14: See p. 244 _infra_.] + + [Footnote 15: _Harl. MS._, 3,763, fo. 80.] + + [Footnote 16: _Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.] + + + + +THE LINDSEY SURVEY + +(1115-18) + + +This 'invaluable Survey', as Mr Stevenson has termed it,[1] might be +described as a miniature Domesday for each of the Wapentakes in the +three trithings into which Lindsey was divided. For although drawn up, +Wapentake by Wapentake, as is the Leicestershire Survey, Hundred by +Hundred, the lands within each Wapentake described are grouped under +the names of the holders of fiefs, instead of being entered Vill by +Vill. It was doubtless compiled, like other surveys, in connection +with the assessment of the 'geld'.[2] + +Remarkable from a palaeographic standpoint, as well as from the nature +of its contents, the record, which is found in a Cottonian MS. +(Claud. C. 5), has been singularly unfortunate in its editors. As Mr +Greenstreet truly observed: + + The indefatigable Hearne, seeing that the manuscript related + to a very ancient period of our history, and recognizing its + great importance, printed it in the Appendix to his 'Liber + Niger', but he does not appear to have properly examined + either the question of the date of the writing, or the + internal evidence.... As a natural consequence of his + superficial examination, he associates it wrongly with the + reign of Henry II. + +Stapleton, of course, knew better than this, and assigned the +survey at one time to _circ._ 1108,[3] but in his _Rotuli Scaccarii +Normanniæ_[4] to 1106-20. It was subsequently investigated and +analysed with great care by Mr Eyton, whose note-books, now in the +British Museum, show that he adopted the sound method of comparing it +in detail with Domesday Book. After his death Mr Chester Waters issued +(1883) an annotated translation of the text, with an introduction, +analysis, etc., in which the place-names were carefully identified, +and the same system of comparison with Domesday adopted.[5] + +It is, unfortunately, necessary to explain that Mr Waters in the +table of contents described his translation as 'from the Cotton MS., +Claudius C. 5', and wrote on the opposite page: + + This MS. engaged the attention of Thomas Hearne, the + antiquary, who has printed it amongst the additaments to his + edition of the _Liber Niger Scaccarii_; but Hearne was one + of those industrious but uncritical antiquaries who had no + conception of the duties of an editor of the importance of + accuracy. + +Knowing the high opinion entertained of Mr Waters' works,[6] I +accepted his translation in all good faith as 'from the Cotton +MS.' and was, I confess, not a little startled to discover from Mr +Greenstreet's facsimiles that it was made not from the Cotton MS., but +from that inaccurate edition by Hearne, which Mr Waters had mentioned +only to denounce. On fo. 4_b_ a whole line, containing three entries, +was accidentally omitted by Hearne, and is, consequently, absent also +from Mr Waters' version. On collating the two, however, I found, to +my great surprise, that matters were even worse than this, and +that Hearne's text was far less inaccurate than Mr Waters' own, the +erroneous figures found in the latter being almost always correctly +given by the 'uncritical' Hearne. As for the version given by Mr +Waters, even in the very first Wapentake, there are three serious +errors, five carucates being given as three, nine as seven, and +eleven as two! And for Bradley Wapentake (p. 27), his figures are so +erroneous that, according to him, 'Radulf Meschin alone had 42 cars. +6 bovs. in this Wapentake', though his real holding was only fifteen +cars. three bovs. With another class of resultant errors I shall have +to deal below. + +To the enterprise of Mr Greenstreet scholars were indebted for +an _édition de luxe_ of the record in facsimile, which made its +appearance shortly after the treatise of Mr Waters. Unfortunately, no +attempt was made in the appended literal translation to identify the +names of places or persons, while such a word as '[ap]pendiciis', +which occasionally appears in the survey, is mistaken for a place-name +'Pendicus'. The book enjoys, however, the great advantage of an index. + +The identification of places and of persons in Mr Waters' treatise +shows extraordinary knowledge; but both Mr Eyton and Mr Waters had the +provoking habit of making important assertions without giving their +authority. I expressed a wish in the _Academy_, at the time, that Mr +Waters would give us some clue as to his sources of information, but +as he did not think fit to do so, we have to test his statements as +best we can for ourselves. Now we learn from him on p. 36 that 'Walter +fitz William', a tenant at South Willingham, was 'brother of Simon +mentioned above', namely of 'Simon fitz William (ancestor to the Lords +Kyme)'. This is impressive until we discover that the actual words +in the survey (as indeed in Hearne's text) are 'Walt[erius] fil[ius] +Walt[eri]i' (fo. 11 _b_).[7] To an expert such a test as this will +prove significant enough. But to turn from an actual misreading of the +text to cases in which are incorporated interlineations, not part of +the original text, but written in later times, we find Mr Waters--like +other antiquaries who had followed Hearne's text--stating that 'Ranulf +[Meschin] is twice styled in the Roll Earl of Lincoln, but there is no +record of his creation, and no other authority for possession of the +earldom' (p. 8). The difficulty vanishes when we discover that this +supposed style was a mere interlineation made by a much later hand.[8] +So again we read on p. 30: + + Richard, Earl [of Chester], has 6 cars. in Barnetby-le-Wold, + where [William], the constable of Chester, is his tenant [as + his father was Earl Hugh's in Domesday]. + +But on turning to Mr Greenstreet's facsimiles, we find that the survey +had nothing about 'the constable of Chester', the words 'constabularia +[_sic_] Cestrie' being only a faint interlineation by a later hand. + +And even where a reference to the true text does not at once dispose +of the matter, these statements of Mr Waters are, on other grounds, +open at times to question. He assumes, for instance, that Hugh fitz +Ranulf, who occurs as a landowner in the survey, was a younger son of +Ranulf Meschin, afterwards Earl of Chester (p. 12). No such son would +seem to be known; and this assumption, moreover, does violence to +chronology. For the pedigree it involves is this: + + Roger (1) Lucy (2) Ranulf + fitzGerold = = Meschin + | |-------..... + | | . + William Ranulf, Hugh + de Roumare, Earl of fitz Ranulf + Earl of Lincoln Chester + +Now William de Roumare was not old enough to claim his inheritance +from the King till 1122, and his half-brother, Ranulf, was some +years younger than he was, as the words of Orderic imply in 1140. +Consequently Hugh, the youngest brother, can have been only a boy in +1122. How then could he, as Mr Waters alleges, have held a fief in +right of his wife so early as 1115 or thereabouts? + +In this assumption, however, he only follows Stapleton, to whom +he here refers, and who relied on an abstract in the cartulary of +Spalding (fol. 416 _a_, _b_). This abstract which cannot, from its +form, preserve the wording of the original charter, runs: + + Sciant tam presentes quam futuri quod Hugo frater Rannulfi + comitis Cestrie et Matild' uxor ejus, fil' filia [_sic_] + Lucie comitisse concesserunt, etc., etc. + +Stapleton boldly rendered the obviously corrupt words as 'son and +daughter-in-law of the countess Lucia',[9] and hence pronounced this +Hugh to be 'a married brother of the whole blood' to the _second_ +Randulf, Earl of Chester.[10] As he only knew their gift to Spalding +to be 'prior to 1141', no chronological difficulty was caused by this +view; but the occurrence of Hugh's name in the Lindsey Survey, as +already in possession of his small fief, at once raises the difficulty +I have explained. The solution that occurs to me is that the Hugh fitz +Ranulf of our survey, and the 'Hugo frater Ranulfi Comitis Cestrie' +of the Spalding charter, was a brother, not of the second but of the +_first_ Earl Ranulf, and that the words 'fil' filia Comitisse Lucie' +were introduced in error by the compiler, whose head was full of the +Countess Lucy, and who had here confused the two Earls Randulf. + +Stapleton, Mr Waters has justly observed, was '_facile princeps_ of +Anglo-Norman genealogists'.[11] Yet I venture to think that, as he +here mistook a brother of the first Earl Ranulf for a son, so he +confused William Meschin, another and better known brother, with +William de Roumare, the Earl's stepson, afterwards Earl of Lincoln. +William Meschin was not merely a considerable landowner in Lindsey, +but had also estates in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, as our +survey of those counties show.[12] Stephen, according to Stapleton, +created him Earl of Cambridge. + +Remembering the _dictum_ of Dr Stubbs that 'Stephen's earldoms are +a matter of great constitutional importance', it is worth while to +examine this earldom of Cambridge. + +In one of Stapleton's greatest essays, that on Holy Trinity Priory, +York,[13] he writes of this William Meschin, that + + By King Stephen he was made Earl of Cambridge, as we learn + from the following extract from a charter of Alexander, Bishop + of Lincoln, in 1139, founding the nunnery of Haverholm, in + the parish of Ruskington, of the order of St. Gilbert of + Sempringham. 'But this donation ... we have confirmed ... by + the testimony of Rannulph, Earl of Chester, and of William, + Earl of Cambridge, his brother' (p. 34). + +The words in the original are: + + Testimonio Rannulfi comitis Cestriæ et Willelmi comitis + Cantebrigiæ fratris ejus (_Mon. Ang._, v. 949). + +Now, though Stapleton is positive on the point, speaking again of +'William Meschin, Earl of Cambridge' (p. 35), and though this learned +paper well sustains his reputation, yet he has here beyond question +gone astray. Earl Randulf, first of his name, appears as deceased +in the Pipe Roll of 1130. He could not therefore have been the Earl +Randulf of 1139, who was his son and namesake. Therefore the latter's +'brother', the Earl of Cambridge, could not have been William Meschin, +who was his father's brother.[14] A short chart pedigree will make the +matter clear: + + Randulf, + _Vicomte_ of the Bessin + ____________|______________ + | | + Roger (1) Lucy (2) Randulf William + fitzGerold = = Earl of Chester, Meschin + | dead 1130 + | | + William Randulf + de Roumare, 'de Gernon', + Earl of Lincoln Earl of Chester + ('Earl of Cambridge') living 1139 + +The pedigree shows my solution of the mystery. The two brother-earls +of 1139 are those who are found so constantly together, and who were +jointly concerned, next year, in the surprise of Lincoln, but who +were really only _half_-brothers, though they spoke of one another as +'frater'. + +The identity of the 'Earl of Cambridge' is thus clearly established; +but there of course remains the question why he is not here styled +'Earl of Lincoln'. Every mention of him as Earl of Lincoln is later, +if this charter be rightly dated, so that he may possibly have changed +his style. It is really strange that precisely as William, Earl of +Lincoln, is here once styled Earl of Cambridge, so William, Earl +of Arundel, is twice styled Earl of Lincoln, as I have shown in my +_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 324), though in that case also the fact +had never been suspected. It is most tempting, if rash, to suggest +that the reason why the Earl of Lincoln was at first Earl of Cambridge +is that the Earl of Arundel (Sussex) was at first Earl of Lincoln, and +thus kept him out of that title. + +In any case an error has now been corrected, and one of Stephen's +alleged earls disposed of. + + +The question of the date of this interesting survey is no less +puzzling than important. Mr Greenstreet held that 'there is hardly any +room for doubting' that it was previous to 1109. This conclusion +was based on a misapprehension, and Mr Waters claimed to have +'established' the date as 'between March 1114 and April 1116' (pp. +2-4). In this conclusion he would seem to have been anticipated by +Mr Eyton, as is shown by that writer's note-books,[15] but I cannot +accept the identical and somewhat far-fetched argument on which they +relied. They obtained their limit on the one hand from a passage in +'Peter of Blois', and on the other from the fact that Robert, the +King's son, is entered in the roll as 'filius Regis', and 'was +therefore not yet Earl of Gloucester', whereas he was certainly Earl, +they say, 'before Easter, 1116', when he witnessed as Earl, a charter +they both assign to that date. + +Of the latter date I disposed in my paper 'The Creation of the Earldom +of Gloucester',[16] in which I showed that Robert did not become +Earl till several years later. The other evidence, if it cannot be +disproved, cannot at least, be relied on. For, without asserting that +the chronicle assigned to 'Peter of Blois' is so daring a forgery as +the 'Historia Ingulphi', of which it is a 'continuatio', it must be +plainly described as absolutely untrustworthy. Apart from the passage +on Cambridge University,[17] we have a description 'Inclyti Comitis +Leycestriæ Roberti tunc validissimi adolescentis, burgensiumque suæ +dictæ civitatis' in 1113, and of his presence, with his knights, +at the laying of the Abbey foundation stones next year.[18] Now the +future Earl of Leicester was some nine years old at the time, and his +father, the Count of Meulan, lived till 1118. So also, about the year +1114 we meet with 'Milonis Comitis Herfordensis', who did not become +Earl of Hereford till 1141, and whose father, Walter of Gloucester, +was living long after 1114; while on the next page we find the +notoriously false Countess Lucy legend, with the additional blunder +of converting her son, the Earl of Lincoln, into her husband's +brother![19] It is in the midst of all this that we have the vital +passage on which Mr Waters relies: + + We know from the _Continuator_ [_sic_] _of Peter of Blois_ + (p. 121) that Stephen and his elder brother Theobald were on a + visit to Henry I, at Oxford, at some period between March 7th + and August 1st, 1114, when Theobald is described as Count of + Blois, and Stephen as 'pulcherrimus adolescens dominus postea + rex Anglorum'. It is manifest that at this date Stephen was + not yet Count of Moreton, so the Roll must be later than March + 7th, 1114 (p. 3). + +The fact that this alleged visit is connected by 'Peter' with +intervention in favour of the Abbot of Crowland, will not lessen the +suspicion under which the evidence must lie. Crowland was guilty of +'hiring', Dr Stubbs has severely observed, 'Peter of Blois, or some +pretended Peter who borrows an illustrious name, to fabricate for her +an apocryphal chronicle'.[20] + +The actual proof of the survey's date is minute, no doubt, but +conclusive. In the Lindsey Survey, 'the sons of Ragemer' (himself the +Domesday under-tenant) are found holding of Walter de Gant; therefore +their father, at the time of the survey, had been succeeded by them in +this holding. But, as 'Rachmar, son of Gilbert', he is found attesting +a charter of Maud, Walter de Gant's wife, to Bridlington Priory, which +is addressed to Thurstan, Archbishop of York, and which therefore +must be later at the very least than his election, August 15, 1114. +Therefore Ragemer was alive after that date, and the survey, at the +time of which he was dead, can consequently scarcely be earlier than +1115. On the other hand, we can scarcely place it later than the death +of the great Count of Meulan in the summer of 1118,[21] though, as I +have urged in the _Genealogist_, the lands he had held might still be +assigned to 'the Count of Meulan', till his fiefs were divided among +his sons, who were boys at the time of his death. On the whole we +may safely assign the survey to 1115-1118, and in any case it cannot +possibly be later than the close of 1120. + +As, according to Stapleton, the best authority, it is in this survey +that the name of Marmion first appears in England, it may not be +inopportune to examine here the accepted pedigree of that house. In +the Roger Marmion of our survey we have its undoubted ancestor, but of +Robert Marmion, who appears on its opening folio as a tenant of Walter +de Gant at Winteringham, one cannot speak so positively. In Domesday +Winteringham, as 12 carucates, was held of Gilbert de Gant by +'Robertus homo Gilberti' (354_b_): in our Survey eleven[22] of these +carucates were held of Gilbert's son Walter by Robert Marmion, and the +twelfth _in capite_ by Roger Marmion. Mr Waters (p. 17) identifies the +former with the Domesday under-tenant, which is a tempting solution, +were not the Domesday Robert also under-tenant at Risby (which was +held in our survey not by Marmion, but by Walter de St Paul). It seems +to me more probable that Robert, the under-tenant in our survey, was, +as Mr Waters, contradicting himself, elsewhere observes (p. 14), the +son and heir of Roger. Yet of Roger Marmion's estate at Fulstow, Mr +Waters writes (p. 27): 'Roger's father, Robert Marmion, was tenant +there in Domesday of Robert Dispenser.' This would give us an +interesting clue. But on turning to Domesday (363_b_), we find that it +is only one more mistake of Mr Waters, its 'Robertus' being no other +than Robert Dispenser himself.[23] + +Stapleton, who worked out the descent, held that Roger's son Robert, +who had succeeded by 1130, and who was slain in 1143, was father of +the Robert who died in 1218. I would rather interpolate another Robert +between the two: + + Roger + Marmion, + of the Lindsey Survey + | + | + Robert = Millicent + Marmion, | + in possession 1130, | + slain 1143 | + |____________________________| + | + [Robert + Marmion], + living 1155 + | + | + Maud = Robert = Philippa + de Beauchamp, | Marmion | + living 1181 | d. 1218 | + (Stapleton) | | + | | + ___________| |________________ + | | | + Robert Robert William + Marmion, Marmion, Marmion, + 'senior,' junior clerk + d. _circ._ 1242 + |________________ + | + Philip + Marmion, + died _circ._ 1292, + last of his line + + +The pedigree really turns on the charter of Henry III in 1249, to +Philip Marmion, confirming the royal charters to his ancestor. Mr +Stapleton declares that Henry inspected and confirmed + + The charter which King Henry, his great-great-grandfather, had + made to Robert Marmyon, great-grandfather of Philip Marmyon, + of having warren in all his land in the county of Warwick, and + especially at Tamworth; and likewise of the charter of + King Henry, his uncle ['Avunculus noster' is the reading + transcribed on the rolls, obviously in error of 'atavus + noster'], which he had made to the said Robert of having + warren in all his land of Lindesay (_Rot. Scacc. Norm._, II. + cvi.). + +This abstract is strangely inaccurate, considering that Stapleton had, +clearly, examined the Inspeximus[24] for himself. Henry VI inspected +and confirmed: + + (1) The charter of Henry I, granting Robert Marmion freewarren + in Warwickshire (specially at Tamworth) as his father had. + + (2) The charter of Henry II (confirming the above charter), + 'T. Tom. Canc. apud Brugiam', and therefore granted in 1155. + + (3) The charter of Henry III, who had inspected-- + + (_a_) 'Cartam quam Henr' rex avus [_sic_] noster [_i.e._ Henry II] + fecit Roberto Marmyon proavo Philippi Marmyun'; + + (_b_) 'Cartam Henrici regis avunculi nostri quam fecit Roberto'; + and confirmed them as the charters, 'H. Regis avi nostri et H. regis + avunculi nostri', to Philip Marmion. + +It is clear then that Henry III inspected the charter of his +grandfather ('avus') Henry II (not, as Mr Stapleton wrote, his +great-great-grandfather'), in 1155, to Robert Marmion, '_proavus_' of +Philip. This, it will be seen, could only be the Robert whom I have +inserted in the pedigree. Nor can Mr Stapleton's 'atavus' assumption +be accepted in view of the facts. The 'avunculus' and namesake of +Henry III would duly have been the 'young king' Henry (crowned 1170). +If 'avunculus' is a clerical error, the word to substitute is 'avus'; +but the careful way in which the charter distinguishes the King's two +predecessors is quite opposed to the idea that they were in both cases +his grandfather. + +As against the evidence afforded us by the charter of Henry III, +we have the statements and documents relating to Barbery Abbey, a +daughter of Savigny. It is alleged that the house was first founded in +1140[25] by that Robert Marmion who was slain at Coventry in 1143.[26] +Stapleton accepted this without question. Yet, so far as documents are +concerned, we have only the charter of Robert Marmion (1181), in which +he speaks of his father Robert as beginning the foundation.[27] If +that father were indeed the Robert who was slain in 1143, Stapleton's +pedigree is duly proved as against that which I derive from Henry the +Third's charter. But for this identification we have only, it would +seem, the _obiter dictum_ of the 'Gallia Christiana' editors, while +the fact that the first Abbot was appointed about 1177,[28] combined +with the fact that Robert Marmion, in 1181, was avowedly completing +that foundation which his father's death had arrested, certainly seems +to point to his father's benefaction being then recent, and little +previous to the said appointment of the first Abbot. In that case his +father would be not the Robert who died in 1143, but a Robert who, as +I suggest, came between the two.[29] + +Leaving now this question of pedigree, there is a theory as to the +name of Marmion which one cannot pass over in silence, because it has +received the sanction even of Stapleton. Writing on the date of the +Lindsey Survey, that eminent authority observes: + + Robert Le Despenser [_Dispensator_] was brother of Urso de + Abbetot, whose other surname, Marmion, is equivalent in Norman + French to the Latin word Dispensator; and as Robert Marmion + died in 1107, it was probably in the following year that this + catalogue was written.[30] + +His meaning, though clumsily expressed, as was sometimes the case, +is that the Latin 'Dispensator' represented the name 'Marmion'. +This theory would seem to be derived from the word 'Marmiton' (not +'Marmion') which means not a 'Dispensator', but a scullion, the most +despised of the menials employed in the kitchen. There was indeed in +old French a rare word 'Marmion', but according to Godefroy, it +was equivalent to 'Marmot', the name of the Marmoset. In any case, +therefore, this illustrious surname, immortalized by Scott + + They hailed him Lord of Fontenaye, + Of Lutterworth and Scrivelbaye, + Of Tamworth tower and town + +had nothing to do with 'Dispensator', but meant either a scullion or +a monkey, and was one of those nicknames that the Normans loved to +inexorably bestow on one another. + +What was the actual relation of the Marmions to Robert 'Dispensator' +is a problem as yet unsolved. Mr Waters wrote: + + It is generally believed that Scrivelsby and the rest of the + Honour of Dispenser came to the Marmions through the marriage + of Roger Marmion's grandson,[31] Robert Marmion, who was the + husband of Matilda de Beauchamp, the grand-daughter of Urso + de Abitot, and grand-niece of Robert Dispenser. But the Roll + proves that Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert + Dispenser (p. 14). + +I know of no such general belief. Stapleton, to whom one would +naturally turn, had pointed out long before, in his 'Rolls of the +Norman Exchequer', that this survey proves Roger Marmion to have held +the Lincolnshire fief of Robert 'Dispensator',[32] while those who +have identified the latter magnate with Robert 'Marmion' have traced +the descent of Scrivelsby in the Marmions even from the Conquest.[33] + +In any case, as I wrote in my _Ancient Charters_ (1888) of a document +there published: + + The succession of Urse [de Abetot] to this [Lincolnshire] fief + is a genealogical discovery which throws a wholly new light + on the very difficult problem of the relation of Marmion to + Despenser, and is fatal to the assertion of Mr Chester + Waters that 'Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert + Dispenser'. + +Moreover, in the Leicestershire Survey,[34] and still more in that +of Worcestershire,[35] we have evidence that Robert's inheritance +was shared between Beauchamp and Marmion which points there also to +descent through Urse de Abetot. In my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (pp. +313-5) I have suggested that in their rivalry for Tamworth,[36] the +Marmions embraced the cause of Stephen, and the Beauchamps that of +Maud, their variance being terminated under Henry II by a matrimonial +alliance. Such a compromise was common enough. It was agreed on in the +case of Grantmesnil; it was carried out at this very period in that of +Fitzharding and Berkeley; it was again resorted to at a later stage in +the history of the house of Berkeley; it was arranged in the case +of Hastings; and it was repeated in that of Boleyn, where the Butler +inheritance was at stake.[37] + + + + + [Footnote 1: _English Historical Review_, v. 96.] + + [Footnote 2: I have discussed above (pp. 69-72) the bearing + of its evidence on the problem of Domesday assessment, so need + not recur to the subject here.] + + [Footnote 3: See note 31 below.] + + [Footnote 4: Vol. II. p. xcvi.] + + [Footnote 5: _A Roll of the Owners of Land in the parts + of Lindsey_ ('Reprinted from the Associated Architectural + Societies Reports and Papers').] + + [Footnote 6: In consideration of which he received a pension + on the Civil List.] + + [Footnote 7: There is a similar error on fo. 13, where the + 'William fitz Aubrey' of Mr Waters proves to be 'filius + _Albrede_' (not _Alberici_).] + + [Footnote 8: Hearne duly prints it as an interlineation.] + + [Footnote 9: _Rolls of the Norman Exchequer_, II. clvi.] + + [Footnote 10: He further hazarded the erroneous conjecture + that Roheis, Countess of Lincoln, was his daughter.] + + [Footnote 11: _Gundrada de Warrenne_, p. 9.] + + [Footnote 12: See pp. 171, 179, _infra_.] + + [Footnote 13: pp. 1-237. Bound up in the York volume of the + Royal Archæological Institute.] + + [Footnote 14: Stapleton indeed exposed himself unconsciously + by stating on the very same page that William Meschin's lands + had passed to his heirs 'prior to 1138', so that he could not + be the Earl of 1139.] + + [Footnote 15: See on this point the important letters of Mr + Greenstreet and Mr J. A. C. Vincent to the _Athenæum_, May 9 + and June 27, 1885.] + + [Footnote 16: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 420 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 17: Ed. Gale, pp. 114, 115.] + + [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, pp. 118, 119.] + + [Footnote 19: _Ibid._, pp. 124, 125.] + + [Footnote 20: _Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History_, p. + 148.] + + [Footnote 21: _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 2.] + + [Footnote 22: Mr Waters, in error, states _two_.] + + [Footnote 23: It is an illustration of the ignorance prevalent + on early genealogy that even Mr Freeman could write of + 'Mr Chester Waters, than whom no man better deserves to be + listened to on any point of genealogy, especially of the + Norman genealogy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries' + (_English Historical Review_, iii. 690).] + + [Footnote 24: Rot. Pat. 27 Hen. VI, part I, _m_ 30.] + + [Footnote 25: _Neustria Pia_, 683.] + + [Footnote 26: _Gallia Christiana_ (1874), xi. 452.] + + [Footnote 27: _Neustria Pia_, 881; _Gall. Christ._, xi., + Instr. 86.] + + [Footnote 28: _Gall. Christ._, xi. 452.] + + [Footnote 29: Since this was written I have found that Mr C. + F. R. Palmer, in his admirable little treatise on the Marmion + family (1875), duly inserts this intermediate Robert. Mr + Palmer has shown himself by far the best authority on the + subject, and has printed a valuable charter of Stephen to + Robert Marmion.] + + [Footnote 30: Paper on 'Holy Trinity Priory, York', p. 208 + note. This identification is accepted by no less an authority + than Mr A. S. Ellis (_Domesday Tenants of Gloucestershire_, p. + 69).] + + [Footnote 31: i.e. according to Stapleton's pedigree.] + + [Footnote 32; And Mr Palmer independently had done the same in + his _History of the Marmions_ (1865).] + + [Footnote 33: Lodge's _Scrivelsby: the Home of the + Champions_.] + + [Footnote 34: See p. 174.] + + [Footnote 35: See p. 174.] + + [Footnote 36: It is certain that Tamworth originally belonged + to Robert 'Dispensator', and equally certain that it was held + successively by Roger and Robert Marmion under Henry I.] + + [Footnote 37: See my _Early Life of Anne Boleyn_, pp. 25-7.] + + + + +THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY + +(1124-29). + + +Asserting the importance of the Lindsey Survey, Mr Chester Waters +observed that 'this is the sole record of its kind which deals with +the interval between the completion of Domesday in 1086, and the +compilation of the Pipe-Roll of 1129-30, and that no similar return +of the landowners of any other county is known to exist' (p. 2). And, +indeed, it would seem that the survey to which I now address myself +has hitherto remained unknown. It is found in the form of a late +transcript on an unidentified roll in the Public Record Office.[1] + +Comprising the whole of Gosecote Wapentake, and in part those of +Framland and Gartree, it retains for these divisions the Domesday name +of Wapentake--they are now 'Hundreds'--while subdividing them into +small 'Hundreds', of which the existence seems to have been hitherto +unsuspected. Proceeding, like the I.C.C., 'Hundred' by 'Hundred', and +Vill by Vill, it enables us, like that document, to reconstitute the +aggregate assessments, and thus affords priceless evidence on 'the +six-carucate unit'.[2] But apart from this, it is invested with no +small importance from that 'great want of documentary evidence' for +the reign of Henry I which Mr Hunter rightly lamented in his elaborate +introduction to the first great roll of the Pipe (p. ii). It affords +us new and trustworthy evidence on the many vicissitudes of the great +fiefs, and enables us, while tracing the fortunes of their owners, +to see how the first Henry provided for his _novi homines_, showering +escheats and royal demesne on the trusty officials he had raised +'from the dust', as well as on his favourite nephew, Stephen, Count of +Mortain. + +The date of this survey is thus determined. The frequent mention of +'Rex D[avid]' places it subsequent to his accession to the throne in +April 1124. On the other hand, the name of Ralf Basset (the justiciar) +shows it to be anterior to his death; and he was dead before Mich., +1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I). Moreover, it speaks more than once of +Hugh de Leicester as 'Vicecomes', and Hugh's shrievalty seems from the +Pipe-Roll to have terminated at Mich., 1129. We may therefore place +this survey between the spring of 1124 and the autumn of 1129, with a +likelihood of its having been compiled nearer the latter date. + + +TEXT OF THE SURVEY + + ... 'Comes Lerc[estri]æ vj. car. + + _H[undredum] de[3] Langeton'_.--In eadem villa Comes + Lerc[estriæ] xj. car. et j. virg. Ibidem Ric[ardus] Basset + iii. car. et. j. virg. In thorp Eustaci[us] iij. car. et. + iij. virg. In alia Langeton' Abbas de Burg' iiij. car. et iii. + virg. Ibidem Henricus de pport j. car. In thurlington idem + Henricus xij. car. In sscanketon' Comes Lerc[estriæ] x. car. + Ansch' ij. car.[4] + + _H[undredum] de Chiburd'_.--In eadem villa xii. car. de feodo + Ansch'. In alia chiburd' Walt[erus] de Bell' campo xj. car., + Ricardus Basset j. car. In bocton Comes Leicestriæ xij. car. + In carleton' idem Comes x. car. Et Monachi Sancti Arnulphi v. + virg. Et de ssoch' Regis iij. virg.[5] + + _H[undredum] de Knossinton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. de + Honore de Blida. Et Henricus de ferr' iij. car. et. iij. + virg. In Osolinstona Rex D[avid] vij. car. In Picwell et in + Lucerthorp de feudo Rogeri de Moubray xv. car. In Neubotel + Robertus de ferr' j. car. et dim. In Burg' Marm' iij. car. + In Balbegrave vj. car. iij. bov. minus de Soch[a] Regis. In + Mardefeud iij. car. de eadem Soch[a]. In alia Mardefeud iij. + car.[6] + + + GOSECOTE WAP' + + _H[undredum] de Lodinton[e]_, in Sceftinton[e] Norm[annus] de + Verdun viij. car. et dim. Ricardus Bass[et] iij. car. et dim. + In Gokebia Normannus de Verdun vj. car. In Adelacston[e] v. + car. et j. virg. de feodo Regis David. Et de Soch[a] Regis + iij. virg. In Ludinton[e] Ricardus Basset xii. car. In Thorp + et in Twyford Ricardus de Roll[os] ix. car. j. bov. minus. + Ibidem Henricus de ferr[ariis] ix. car. j. bov. minus. Et de + Soch[a] Regis v. car. Ex hiis Grimbaldus tenet dim. car. et + Rex D[avid] j. car. In Norton[e] x. bov. Walter de Bello campo + vj. car. Et Roger de Moubray iiij. car. et iij. virg.[7] + + _H[undredum] de[8] Tilton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. j. bov. + minus de Soch[a] Regis. Ibidem Walt[erus] de Bello campo iij. + car. Archiepiscopus[9] j. car. In Neuton[e] Walter de Bello + campo iiij. car. Roger de Moubray viii. car. In Lousebia Rex + David xij. car. In Watebergia Dominicum Regis iiij. car. In + Hallested Normannus de Verdun iij. car. j. virg. minus.[10] + + _H[undredum] de bebia_.--In eadem villa Abbas de Croyland xij. + car. In Cahiham iiij. car. de Soch[a] Regis. Comes Lercestrie + ij. car. In Hung'ton ix. car. In Siglebia ix. car. et. vj. + bov. et dim. de[11] Comite Lercestriæ. Ibidem Comes Cestrie + iij. car. Ibidem Ricardus Basset ij. car. Robertus de + ferrer[iis] v. bov.[12] + + _H[undredum] de Barkbia_.--In eadem villa v. car. de feodo de + Belvar[o]. In Hamelton' et in thorp vi. car. de eodem feudo, + et de feodo Comitis Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. In Thormedeston + Canonici iij. car. In Crocheston[e] ij. car. et j. bov. et + dim. de Soch[a] Regis. In Neubold[e] Robertus de ferer[iis] + j. car. et dim. In Barnesby Rex iij. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem + Comes Lercestriæ xiij. bov. In Gadesby [t]erra[13] Reg[is] + viij. car. et dim. et dim. et dim. [_sic_] bov. Ibidem + Episcopus Lincolniensis viij. bov. Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et + dim. bov. Ricardus Basset dim. car. Rex D[avid] ij. car.[14] + + _H[undredum] de Essebia_.--In eadem villa Rex David v. car. + Ibidem Hugo de Lerc[estria] j. car. In Humberstay Roger de + Ram[is] viij. car. Ibidem Walter de Mustere j. car. Rad[ulfus] + de Martinwast iij. car. In Mardegrave Comes Lercestriæ xij. + car. In thurmedeston idem Comes car. [_sic._] Idem in Burstall + ix. car. Idem in Anlepia vij. car. Idem in Anesting[e] vj. + car.[15] + + _H[undredum] de Resebia_.--In eadem villa Ricardus Basset v. + car. Ibidem Comes Cestrie ij. car. et dim. Rex David iiij car. + et dim. In Quenburg[o] xij. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In + Siefton[e] Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In Brokesbya Comes + [_sic_] Cestrie v. car. Rex David j. car. quam Pip[er]d + tenet. In Quenebia vj. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In + thurketleston[e] de feodo Comitis viij. car. In Cropeston[e] + iiij. car. In Rodeleia terra Regis v. car.[16] + + _H[undredum] de Magna Dalbia_.--In eadem villa Episcopus + Lincolniensis ix. car. et dim. Radulfus Basset j. car. et iij. + bov. Ibidem Wil[elmus] Gam[erarius] j. car. In frisebia Comes + Cestrie iij. car., et de Soch[a] Regis viij. car. In Rederbia + Comes cestrie vi. car. In Asfordebia Comes Lercestriæ xiij. + car. In Wartnadeby de Soch[a] Regis vi. car.[17] + + _Hundredum de Dalbia super Wald'_.--In eadem villa ix. car. de + feodo Edwardi de sar[esbiria], Comes Lercestrie iij. car. In + Grimestona de Soch[a] Regis iij. car. j. bov. et dim. minus. + Ricardus Basset iij. car. In Saxebia Comes Lercestrie v. car. + et de Soch[a] Regis j. car. In Siwaldebia Comes Lercestrie + vj. car. In Cosinton[e] Comes Cestrie vj. car. In Horton[e] + Robertus de Jor' ij. car.[18] + + _H[undredum] de Turstanestona_.--In eadem villa Thomas x. car. + et iij. virg. Ibidem Roger de Moubray xiiij. bov. In Wileges + ij. car. de eodem feudo. In Rachedal[e] vj. car. de eodem + feudo. In Houbia vij. car. et j. virg. de feodo Thome. Ibidem + de feodo Albemarl' iiij. car. et iij. virg.[19] + + _H[undredum] de tunga_.--In eadem villa cum appendiciis xij. + car. de feodo Roberti de ferr[ariis]. In Caggworth Comes + Cestrie xv. car. In Wrdintona iij. car. secundum cartam Regis + et s[uper] dictum[20] hominum hundredi xij. car.[21] + + _H[undredum] de[22] Luaeb'_.--In eadem villa j. H[ida] et + xiij. car. cum appendiciis. In cherlega vj. car. et dim. In + Dixeleia et in Geroldon et in Thorp ix. car. In Hantirna est + dim. H[ida].[23] + + _H[undredum] de Beltona_.--In eadem villa Normannus de + Verdon vj. car. In Overton[e] Ricardus Basset iiij. car. In + Wrdinton[e] j. car. In alia Overton[e] Robertus de ferr[ariis] + ij. car., ibidem Comes Cestrie j. car. In Stanton Robertus de + ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Normannus de Verdon iij. car. In + Dailescroft Philippus de Bello Campo Maresc[allus] j. car. In + Doninton Comes Cestrie cum appendiciis xxij. car. et dim. In + Witewic Comes Lercestrie j. car. et dim. Ibidem Robertus de + ferr[ariis] j. car. et dim.[24] + + _H[undredum] de Dichesword_.--In eadem villa Robertus de + ferr[ariis] vj. car. et j. virg. Comes cestrie vj. car. Ibidem + Comes iij. car. et dim. Normannus de Verdon j. car. et ij. + bov. In Hanthirn[e] ix. car. In Widesers iij. car. Willelmi + de Gresel[e]. Idem in Lintona j. car. In blakefordeb[ia] Comes + Lercestriæ iij. car. In Culverteb[ia] ij. car. et Robertus de + ferr[ariis] j. car. In Wodete Robertus de ferr[ariis] j. car. + et dim. In Alton[e] Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. Idem in + Raveneston[e] j. virg. et dim. Ibidem Comes Cestrie iij. virg. + et dim. Et Comes War' ij. car. In Suipestona Hugo vic[ecomes] + ij. car.[25] + + _H[undredum] de Seyla_.--In eadem villa Robertus de + ferr[ariis] vij. car. In alia Seyla idem vj. car. Idem in + Bocthorp j. car. Idem in appelbia j. car. et j. bov. Idem in + Strecton j. car. et dim. Idem in Durantestorp ij. car. quas + Walkelinus tenet. Idem in Swepeston[e] vj. car. In Neuton ij. + car. In Actorp dim. car. In Chilteston Comes cestrie j. car. + Idem in Alpelbia dim. car. In Assebia Comes Lercestriæ iij. + car. In Pakinton Hugo Vicecomes v. car. Idem in Osgodesthorp + dim. car. In scegla Henricus de Alben[eio] ij. car. que + pertinent ad defencionem de Swepeston[e].[26] + + _H[undredum] de Shepesheved_.--In eadem villa Comes [ ][27] + et in wacthon[e] et in Lokinton et in Aminton ij. h[idas] et + dim. et iiij. car. In Wacton[e] Normannus de Verdon ij. car. et + ij. bov.[28] + + + FRAMELAUND WAP' + + _H[undredum] de caleverton[e]_.--In eadem villa xij. car. + de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. In Someredebia Robertus de + ferr[ariis] v. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Ibidem + Robertus Marm[ion] iij. car. et in Burg[o] iij. car. In Dalbia + Robertus de ferr[ariis] v. car. et j. bov. de feodo tessun. + Ibidem Roger de Moubray xv. bov. In Wittok Walt[erus] de bello + campo j. car. et dim. In Gillethorp Roger de Moubray iij. car. + Idem in Burg[o] j. car. In Neubold Robertus de ferr[ariis] j. + car. et dim.[29] + + _H[undredum] de Estwell_.--In eadem villa Robertus de + ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Robertus + de insula iiij. car. In aitona idem Robertus iij. car. et ij. + bov. Et de Belvero dim. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem Robertus + de insula viij. car. et iij. bov. et dim. In Branteston[e] + Episcopus Lincolniensis vij. car. et dim. Robertus de Insula + iiij. car. et dim.[30] + + _H[undredum] de Melton[e]_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray + xv. car. Idem in Burton[e] xj. car. et vij. bov. Et de Honore + blide iij. car. Robertus de ferr[ariis] ix. bov. In Fredebia + ix. car. et ij. bov. et dim.[31] + + _H[undredum] de Chirchebia_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray + xxiiij. car. Idem in chetlebia viiij. car. In Sixtenebia iiij. + car. et dim. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Rex D[avid] iiij. car. et + dim. In alebia ix. car. de feudo Rogeri. Ibidem Rex David iij. + car.[32] + + _H[undredum] de Droctona_.--In eadem villa Comes de Moretonio + xij. car. In thorp Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In brantingbia + vj. car. de eodem feodo. In Ringolfestorp ij. car. et ij. bov. + de eodem feodo. Robertus de ferrer[iis] j. car. et vj. bov. + In Wyfordebia iiij. car. et dim. de blide. Roger de Moubray + j. car. et dim. In chetelby et Holewell[e] ix. car. de feodo + Basset. Episcopus Lincolniensis j. car.[33] + + _H[undredum] de Scaldeford_.--In eadem villa Rex David xj. + car. et dim. Ricardus Basset dim. car. In Goutebia Roger de + Moubray vj. car. In Knipton Comes de Moriton[io] viij. car. et + vi. bov., et Willelmus de Alben[eio] iij. car. et ij. bov.[34] + + _H[undredum] de[35] Waltham_.--In eadem villa Comes Lercestriæ + xvj. car. et dim. Alanus de creon ij. car. et dim. In + Stonesbia idem Alanus viij. car. In Caston Robertus de + ferr[ariis] ix. car.[36] + + _H[undredum] de Barcheston_.--In eadem villa Willelmus de + Alben[eio] xxiij. car. G. Camerarius j. car. In Saltebia + et berthaldebia xx. car. de feodo Peuerelli. In Garthorp + Willelmus Mesch[in] vij. car.[37] + + _H[undredum] de Sproxcheston[e]_.--In eadem villa Rex David + viij. car. Alanus de Creon ij. car. Ibidem filius Gilberti ij. + car. In Bucheminest[re] et in Seustern[e] ix. car. et dim. de + feodo Episcopi Lincolniensis. Ibidem Robertus de ferer[iis] + dim. car. Willelmus Mesch[in] v. car. In Sessebia Rex David + iij. car. Robertus de ferrer[iis] iij. car.[38] + + _H[undredum] de Claxton[e]_.--In eadem villa xvi. car. et dim. + et dim. bov. Ibidem Henricus Tuchet xj. car. j. bov. minus. In + Houwes de feodo de Beluer vij. car. et dim.[39] + + _H[undredum] de Stapelford_.--In eadem villa x. car. de feodo + Roberti de ferrer[iis]. In Wymundeham et in thorp xxvij. car. + et dim. de eodem feodo. Ricardus Basset iij. car. et dim.[40] + + _H[undredum] de Herdebia_.--In eadem villa et in plungar xvij. + car. de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. Ibidem Ricardus Basset + j. car. In Stacthirn Willelmus de Alben[eio] viij. car. et + dim. Ibidem Roger de Moubray viij. car. Robertus de Insula j. + car. et dim.[41] + + _H[undredum] de Botlesford_.--In eadem villa et Moston et + Normanton[e] Willelmus de Alben[eio] xxxij. car. Ibidem Agnes + de Gaunt ij. car. In Moston[e] Robertus de Insula j. car. et + dim.[42] + + _[H]undredum de crocstona_.--In eadem villa Comes Maur[itonii] + xxiiij. car. In Harestan idem Comes xij. car.'[43] ... + +[FINIS.] + +The work of identifying the places named in this survey is difficult, +not only from the corruption of the text, but also from the fact +that many of them are only obscure names, needing, for their perfect +ascertainment, local knowledge. A careful study of the map will show +that these Leicestershire 'Hundreds', unlike those to which we are +accustomed in the hidated districts, were strangely intermingled among +themselves. Another of their peculiarities is that just as we find +the reconquered 'shires' named each after its capital town, so these +'Hundreds' were each named after one of their Vills instead of after +some natural object--probably the meeting-place of the primitive +moot[44]--as so often in the south of England. + +It is important to observe that, except for this survey, we should +not even have known of the existence of these 'Hundreds' in +Leicestershire. And when we compare the entry on our roll--'Framelaund +Wap'. Hundredum de Calevertone. In eadem villa xii. car.'--with that +in the Derbyshire Domesday: 'Morelestan Wepentac. Salle Hundred. In +Salle et Draicot et Opewelle ... xii. car.' (i. 273), it is scarcely +possible to resist the conclusion that, in this passage relating to +Sawley, divided only by a river from Leicestershire, we have a glimpse +of the same system existing in Derbyshire also. That is to say, +that Sawley was not a 'Hundred' of twelve carucates,[45] as has been +suggested,[46] but was the _caput_ of a 'Hundred' similar to those +of Leicestershire. I believe, indeed, that in our survey we see the +system on which these counties were surveyed in 1086. The original +returns will have been drawn up Wapentake by Wapentake, and 'Hundred' +by 'Hundred'. But when transcribed into Domesday Book the entries were +arranged under Wapentakes alone, and the headings of the 'Hundreds' +omitted. In the case of Sawley alone the heading slipped in, +immediately preceding the entry of the Manor, as it must have done +on the original return. It is thus that I account for the mention of +'leets' slipping into the Norfolk Domesday, in two cases, from the +original return;[47] just as, in Cambridgeshire, the total assessments +of Impington and Chatteris have slipped, from the original returns, +into the _Inq. Eliensis_,[48] though duly omitted in Domesday Book. + +One more point should be noticed. The somewhat mysterious entry of +land belonging 'ad defensionem de Swepestone' is at once made clear +when we compare it with that 'Defensio x. acrarum', to which I have +appealed[49] in discussing 'Wara', and which, like the 'wered' of the +Northamptonshire geld-roll,[50] refers to assessment for Danegeld. + +We will now collate some of our 'Hundreds' with the relative entries +in Domesday. + + LODINGTON HUNDRED + + (1086) (1124-29) + + _Skeffington_ + + Rex 12 Norman de Verdon 8-1/2 + Richard Basset 3-1/2 + + _Tugby_ + + Rex 6 Norman de Verdon 6 + + _Allexton_ + + Countess Judith 6 King David's fee 5-1/4 + Rex 3/4 + + _Lodington_ + + Robert de Buci 12 Richard Basset 12 + + _Twyford_ + + Rex 4-1/2 Richard de Rullos 8-3/4 + + _Thorpe Sackville_ + + Henry de Ferrers 8-3/4 + + _East Norton_ + + [?Rex 3] [Richard Basset] 1-1/4 + Robert dispensator 4-1/2 Walter de Beauchamp 6 + Geoffrey de la Guerche 4-1/2 Roger de Mowbray 4-3/4 + ------- ------ + 12 12 + + TILTON HUNDRED + + _Tilton_ + + Rex 2 Rex 1-3/4 + Robert Despencer 3 Walter de Beauchamp 3 + Archbishop of York 1 Archbishop 1 + --------- -------- + 6 5-3/4 + + _Newton Burdet_ + + Geoffrey de la Guerche 6 Walter de Beauchamp 4 + Hubert _serviens_ 1/2 Roger de Mowbray 8 + + _Loseby_ + + Countess Judith 9 King David 12 + + _Whadborough_ + + Rex 3 Rex 4 + + _Halsted_ + + Rex 2-3/4 Norman de Verdon 2-3/4 + + BEBY HUNDRED + + _Beby_ + + Crowland Abbey 10-1/2 Crowland Abbey 12 + + _Keyham_ + + Rex 4 Rex 4 + + _Hungerton_ 9 + + _Sileby_ + + Hugh de Grantmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 9-13/16 + Earl of Chester 3 + Rex 3-1/4 Richard Basset 2 + Robert de Ferrers 1-1/4 + + BARKBY HUNDRED + + _Barkby_[51] + + Robert de Todeni 18 'Belvoir' 5 + + _Hambleton_ + + 'Belvoir' 6 + + _Barkby Thorpe_ + + Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1-1/2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/2 + + _Thurmaston_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 10 + {Canons [of St Mary de + Hugh de Grentmesnil 3-1/2 {Castro, Leicester][52] 3 + + _Croxton_ + + Rex 2-3/16 + + _Newbold Folvile_ + + Henry de Ferrers 1 Robert de Ferrers 1-1/2 + + _Barnesby_ + + Rex 4-5/8 Rex 3-1/16 + Earl of Leicester 1-5/8 + + _Gaddesby_ + + Rex 8-3/8 Rex 8-9/16 + Rex 1 Bishop of Lincoln 1 + Countess Judith 2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/16 + Richard Basset 1/2 + King David 2 + + HUNDRED OF ASHBY + + _Ashby Folvile_ + + Countess Judith 4[53] King David 5 + Countess Judith 1-1/2 Hugh of Leicester 1 + Humfrey _camerarius_ 1[54] + + _Humberston_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil? Roger de Ramis 8 + Walter de Mustere 1 + Ralf de Martinwast 3 + + _Belgrave_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 7 Earl of Leicester 12 + Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1 + + _Thurmaston_ + + Earl of Leicester [10] + + _Burstall_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 6 Earl of Leicester 9 + + _Wanlip_ + + 'In manu Regis' 4 Earl of Leicester 7 + Hugh de Grentmesnil 2 Earl of Leicester 6[55] + + REARSBY HUNDRED + + _Reresby_ + + Robert de Buci 1-3/4 Richard Basset 5 + Rex 1-7/8 Earl of Chester 2-1/2 + Countess Judith 2-1/2 King David 4-1/2 + + _Queneborough_ + + Geoffrey de la Guerche 9 'Belvoir' 12 + + _Syston_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earl of Leicester 12 + + _Brooksby_ + + Earl of Chester 2 Earl of Chester 5 + Countess Judith 3/4 King David 1 + + _Quenby_ + + Robert de Todeni 2 'Belvoir' 6 + Robert de Todeni (in + South Croxton) 4 + + _Thurcaston_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earls [of Leicester] 8 + + _Cropston_ + + + _Rothley_ + + Rex 5 Rex 5 + + DALBY HUNDRED + + _Great Dalby_ + + Bishop of Lincoln 8 Bishop of Lincoln 9-1/2 + Robert de Buci 1 Ralf Basset 1-3/8 + Humfrey Cam. 1 William 'Gam' 1 + + _Frisby_ + + Rex (Barrow) 1 Earl of Chester 4 + Rex 8 Rex 8 + + _Retherby_ + + Rex (Barrow) 2-3/4 Earl of Chester 6 + + _Ashfordby_ + + Rex (Rothley) 12 Earl of Leicester 13 + Radulfus Framen 3-1/2 + + _Wartnaby_ + + Rex 6 Rex 6 + + HUNDRED OF DALBY ON THE WOLDS + + _Dalby on the Wolds_ + + Ralf fitz Hubert 9 Edward of Salisbury 9 + Earl of Leicester 3 + + _Grimston_ + + Rex 2-13/16 Rex 2-13/16 + Robert de Buci 3 Richard Basset 3 + + _Saxelby_ + + Rex 1 Rex 1 + Earl of Leicester 5 + + _Sileby_ + + Hugh de Grentmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 6 + + _Cossington_ + + Earl of Chester 6 Earl of Chester 6 + + _Hoton_ + + Robert de Lorz 4 Robert de Jor' 2 + + _Thrussington_ + + Guy de Raimbercurt 12 Thomas 10-1/4? + Guy de Raimbercurt [18] Roger de Mowbray 1-3/4? + + '_Wilges_' + + Robert de Buci 2 Roger de Mowbray 2 + + _Ragdale_ + + Robert de Buci 6 Roger de Mowbray 6 + + _Hoby_ + + Thomas 7-1/4 + Dru de Bevrere 4-1/4 'Albemarle' 4-3/4 + + HUNDRED OF TONG + + _Tong_ + + Henry de Ferrers 21-1/2 Robert de Ferrers 12 + + _Kegworth_ + + Earl of Chester 15 Earl of Chester 15 + + _Worthington_ + + Henry de Ferrers 4 3 or 12 + +In the case of this last Hundred our survey records a conflict of +testimony and, in so doing, mentions incidentally (as would Domesday) +the witness of the Hundred-court. Henry de Ferrers in the Domesday +Survey, is credited with 21-1/2 car. in 'Tunge cum omnibus +appendiciis', and with four in 'Werditone' (i. 233). But here Tong, +'cum appendiciis', is reckoned at twelve car. only. There remained, +therefore, to be accounted for a large balance of car., and these +the men of the Hundred assigned to his Manor of Worthington. It +is desirable to analyse some of the fiefs in our survey, and, by +comparison with Domesday, to trace their descent or origin. + + _Roger de Mowbray's fief_ + + (1124-29) (1086) + + car [Geoffrey de la Guerche] + Picwell and Lucerthorp 15 Pichewelle and Luvestorp 14 + East Norton 4-3/4 East Norton 4-1/2 + Newton Burdet 8 Newton Burdet 6 + Thrussington 1-3/4 + [Robert de Buci] + Wileges 2 Wilges 2 + Rachedale 6 Ragendele 6 + [Geoffrey de la Guerche] + Somerby 6 Dalby 4 + Dalby 1-7/8 Dalby 2-1/2 + Gillethorp 3 Godtorp 3-1/2 + Burg 1 Burg 1 + Eastwell 6 Eastwell 6 + Melton 15 Melton + Burton 11-7/8 Burton 11-7/8 + [Fredebie 9-5/16 Fredebie 10] + Chirchebia 24 Cherchebi (17 + 7) 24 + Kettleby 9(?) Chettlebi 8 + Sixtenebia 4-1/2 Sistenebi (2-1/2 + 2) 4-1/2 + Alebia 9 Alebia 7-3/4 + Wyfordebia 1-1/2 Wordebia 1-1/2 + Goutebi 6 Goutebi 6 + Stacthirn 8 Stachetone 8-1/4 + + + _Anschitel's fief_ + + car car + Scanketon' 2 Scantone 2 Robert de Veci. + Chiburd 12 Chiborne 12 Robert de Veci. + + _Edward of Salisbury's fief_ + + Dalby on the } + Wolds } 9 Dalbi 9 Ralf fitz Hubert. + + _William Meschin's fief_ + + Seustern 5 Seustern 5 William Lovet. + + _Henry de Albini's fief_ + + Scegla 2 Sela 2 Nigel de Albini. + + _Gilbert's son's fief_ + + Sproxcheston 2 Sprotone 2 Godfrey de Cambrai. + + _William Chamberlain's fief_ + + Great Dalby 1 Dalby 1 {Hunfridus Camerarius. + + _Thomas's fief_ + + car car + Thrussington 10-3/4} + Hoby 7-1/4} 18 Thrussington 18 Guy de Raimbercurt. + + _Count of Mortain's fief_ + + Broctone 12 Broctone 12 Rex. + Knipton 8-3/4 Cnipeton 8-3/4 Rex. + Croxton 24 Croxton 24 Rex. + Harestan 12 Horstan 12 Rex. + + _Alan de Craon's fief_ + + Stoneby 8 Stoneby 8 Guy de Craon. + Waltham 2-1/2 Waltham 2-1/2 Guy de Craon. + Sproxton 3 Sproxton 2 Guy de Craon. + + _William de Albini's fief_ + + Cold Overton 12 Cold Overton 12 Dru de Bevrere. + Knipton 3-1/4 Knipton 3-1/4 Robert de Todeni. + Herdebi and + Plungar 17 Herdeby 17 Robert de Todeni. + Stacthirn 8-1/2 Stacthirn 9-3/4 Robert de Todeni. + Bottlesford 32 Bottlesford 24(?) Robert de Todeni. + + _Henry Tuchet's fief_ + + Claxton 10-7/8 Claxton 6 } Robert Hostiarius. + }10-1/2 + Howes 4-1/2} Robert Hostiarius + + _Richard Basset's fief_ + + Langton 3-1/4 + Chiburd 1 + Skeffington 3-1/2 Skeffington 3-1/2 Rex. + Lodington 12 Lodington 12 Robert de Buci. + Sileby 2 Sileby 2-1/4 Rex. + Gaddesby 1/2 + Reresby 5 Reresby 1-3/4 Robert de Buci. + Grimstone 3 Grimstone 3 Robert de Buci. + Overton 4 Overton 4 Robert de Buci. + Kettleby and } Holwell 5 } + Holwell } 9 Kettleby 6 } Robert de Buci. + Goatby 6 Goatby 6 Robert de Buci. + Scaldeford Scaldeford 1/2 Robert de Buci. + Wymondham } + and Thorpe } 3-1/2 Wymondham 3-1/2 Robert de Buci. + Hardebi 1 Hertebi 1 Robert de Buci. + + +The fief of Richard Basset is that of a typical man, of one of those +trusted officials who flourished under Henry I. We know not the fate +of Robert de Buci, a Domesday baron in Leicestershire and Northants; +but as two, at least, of his Leicestershire estates passed, we have +seen, to Mowbray, it was, we may infer, forfeiture or escheat that +brought his fief into the king's hands, and enabled him to divide it +among his own favourites. We learn from the evidence to which I am +coming that the eight carucates in Swinford and Walcote, and the two +in little Ashby which Robert de Buci had held in 1086, were in the +hands of Geoffrey Ridel ninety years later. We may then infer, though +they are not included in the sphere of our survey, that they had been +obtained, like the rest, by Basset _temp._ Hen. I.[56] + +The elaborate fine made at Leicester, June 31, 1176,[57] has an +important bearing on the Bassets' Leicestershire possessions. Not only +does it specify the lands they held at Swinford (with Walcote), Ashby, +and Fleckney, but it mentions their fee of Madeley, Staffordshire. Now +the descent of this Staffordshire fee can be traced by charters on the +same roll.[58] One of these (No. 12) is a confirmation, by Robert +de Stafford, of Madeley to Geoffrey Ridel, to be held as his +'antecessores' had held it. This was Geoffrey, son of Richard Basset, +by Maud Ridel, as is shown by the fact that the first witness to the +charter is Hervey de Stretton, who held two knights' fees of Stafford +in 1166,[59] and that another is Robert Bagot, who held a quarter of +a fee,[60] while Geoffrey Ridel himself then held one, namely, +Madeley.[61] But the enrolling scribe confused him with his (maternal) +grandfather and namesake (d. 1120), and thus wrongly assigned this +charter to the reign of Henry I, and threw the whole descent into +utter confusion. The right clue is found in a charter of Robert 'de +Toni' (_i.e._ de Stafford), 'conceding' Madeley to Robert 'de Busa' +(_alias_ 'de Busci'), 'per servitium unius militis'.[62] This fee, +therefore, must have come to the Bassets with the rest of the Buci +estates; and we thus learn that this must have been late in the reign +of Henry I, for the names of the witnesses to this charter prove that +it must be subsequent to 1122.[63] + +As Robert de Buci was then in possession, it cannot have been, here at +least, till later that Basset succeeded him. + +Among the points to be observed in the descent of the above fiefs are +Edward of Salisbury's succession to that of Ralf fitz Hubert,[64] +the appearance of Henry de Albini, founder of the Cainho line, as +successor to Nigel, and the portions of the great Belvoir fief, held +in Domesday by Robert de Todeni, now owned by Robert de L'Isle and +William de Albini 'Brito'. In the midst of great but vanished names, +it is pleasant to meet with one, at least, still surviving in the male +line: William de Gresley, holder of Linton (a Derbyshire hamlet close +to Gresley), had succeeded, there and at 'Widesers', Nigel, a tenant +of Henry de Ferrers in 1086 (D.B., i. 233_b_).[65] In this 'Nigel', +therefore, it would seem, we have Nigel de Stafford, Lord of Drakelow +(D.B., i. 278). + +I will close with the names of those who had succeeded the Domesday +tenants-in-chief. + + HEIRS + + Count of Meulan Earl of Leicester + Earl Aubrey (Escheat) + 'Countess' Godgifu + 'Countess' Ælfgifu Earl of Chester (Donnington) + Earl of Chester Earl of Chester + Hugh de Grentmesnil Earl of Leicester + Henry de Ferrers Robert de Ferrers + Robert de Todeni William de Albini + Robert de Veci [Anschitil] + Roger de Busli [Honour of Blyth] + { Walter de Beauchamp + Robert Dispensator { Robert Marmion + { Henry Tuchet (10-7/8) + Robertus Hostiarius, (10-1/2) + Ralf Mortimer + Ralf fitz Hubert Edward of Salisbury + Guy de Raimbercurt [Thomas] + Guy de Craon Alan de Craon + William Peverel Honour of Peverel + William Buenvaslet Comes War'? + William Loveth Will. Meschin + Geoffrey Alselin + Geoffrey de 'Wirce' [Escheat] + Godfrey de Cambrai the son of Gilbert + Gunfrid de Cioches + Humfrey Camerarius Willelmus Camerarius + Drogo de Bevrere Albemarle + Nigel de Albini Henry de Albini + 'Countess' Judith King David + + + + + [Footnote 1: Q.R., Misc. Bdle. 558, I.P.R., 8113; Knight's + Fees, Com. Leic.] + + [Footnote 2: See pp. 75-6.] + + [Footnote 3: MS. 'in'.] + + [Footnote 4: Langton, Thorpe Langton, Tur Langton, Shangton.] + + [Footnote 5: Kibworth, Burton Overy, Carlton Curlieu.] + + [Footnote 6: Knossington, Owston, Picwell and Leesthorpe, + Newbold, Burrow, Baggrave, Marefield.] + + [Footnote 7: Skeffington, Allexton, Thorpe and Twyford, East + Norton.] + + [Footnote 8: MS. 'in'.] + + [Footnote 9: MS. 'Archid'.] + + [Footnote 10: Tilton, Loseby, Whadborough, Halstead.] + + [Footnote 11: Interlined.] + + [Footnote 12: Beeby, Keyham, Hungerton, [? Sileby].] + + [Footnote 13: MS. injured here.] + + [Footnote 14: Barkby, Hambleton, Thorpe, Thurmaston, South + Croxton, Barsby, Gaddesby.] + + [Footnote 15: Ashby, Humberstone, Belgrave, Thurmaston, + Birstall, Wanlip, Ansty.] + + [Footnote 16: Rearsby, Queensborough, Syston, Brooksby, + Rothley, Thurcaston, Cropston.] + + [Footnote 17: Great Dalby, Frisby, Rotherby, Asfordby, + Wartnaby.] + + [Footnote 18: Dalby on the Wolds, Grimston, Saxelby, Sileby, + Cossington, Hoton.] + + [Footnote 19: Thrussington, Ragdale, Hoby.] + + [Footnote 20: MS. illegible.] + + [Footnote 21: Tong, Kegworth, Worthington.] + + [Footnote 22: MS. 'in'.] + + [Footnote 23: Loughborough, Charley, Dishley, Garendon, + Thorpe, Hathern.] + + [Footnote 24: Belton, [? Coleorton], Worthington, Staunton + Harold, Castle Donington, Whitwick.] + + [Footnote 25: Diseworth, Hathern, Linton (Derby), Blackfordby, + Ravenstone, Snibston.] + + [Footnote 26: Seal (Nether and Over), Bogthorpe, Appleby, + Stretton on le Field, Donisthorpe, Swepston, Oakthorpe, Ashby, + Pakington, Osgathorpe.] + + [Footnote 27: Blank in MS.] + + [Footnote 28: Sheepshed, Whatton, Lockington.] + + [Footnote 29: Cold Overton, Somerby, Burrow, Dalby, Withcote, + Newbold.] + + [Footnote 30: Eastwell, Eaton, Branston.] + + [Footnote 31: Melton Mowbray, Burton Lazars, Freeby.] + + [Footnote 32: Kirby Bellars, Abkettleby, Sysonby.] + + [Footnote 33: Nether Broughton, Thorpe, Brentingby, Wyfordby, + Abkettleby, Holwell.] + + [Footnote 34: Scalford, Goadby, Knipton.] + + [Footnote 35: MS. 'in'.] + + [Footnote 36: Waltham, Stonesby, Coston.] + + [Footnote 37: Barkstone, Saltby, [? Bescoby], Garthorpe.] + + [Footnote 38: Sproxton, Seustern, Buckminster, Saxby.] + + [Footnote 39: Clawson, Hose.] + + [Footnote 40: Stapleford, Wymondham, Edmondthorpe.] + + [Footnote 41: Harby, Plungar, Stathern.] + + [Footnote 42: Bottesford, Muston, Normanton.] + + [Footnote 43: Croxton, Harston.] + + [Footnote 44: See the valuable list, for Dorset, in Mr Eyton's + _Key to Domesday_, p. 143.] + + [Footnote 45: The Lincolnshire 'Hundred'.] + + [Footnote 46: Waters' _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 5; _Eng. Hist. + Rev._, v. 100; _supra_, p. 73.] + + [Footnote 47: _Supra_, p. 90.] + + [Footnote 48: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 113, 116.] + + [Footnote 49: _Supra_, p. 101.] + + [Footnote 50: _Supra_, p. 127.] + + [Footnote 51: Including Hambleton and Hungerton (6) in + Domesday.] + + [Footnote 52: By grant of Robert, Count of Meulan.] + + [Footnote 53: In Newbold.] + + [Footnote 54: In Barnsby.] + + [Footnote 55: Given (as 24 virgates) to Leicester Abbey.] + + [Footnote 56: See also _supra_, p. 130.] + + [Footnote 57: _Infra_, p. 388.] (See T.N. at end) + + [Footnote 58: _Sloane Cart._, xxxi. 4.] + + [Footnote 59: _Liber Rubeus_, Ed. Hall, p. 266.] + + [Footnote 60: _Ibid._, p. 268.] + + [Footnote 61: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 62: _Sloane_, xxxi. 4, No. 10.] + + [Footnote 63: They are 'Nigellus de Aubeni, Ran[ulfus] Comes + Cestrie, Galfridus Cancellarius, Simon decanus Lincolnie, + Willelmus fil' Reg', Thomas de Sancto Johanne, Willelmus + de Aubeny Brito, Unfridus de Bohun et alii.' The Dean's + occurrence so late is worth noting.] + + [Footnote 64: Compare 'The Barons of Criche' (_Academy_, June + 1885).] + + [Footnote 65: That William was his son is proved by the + Ferrers _Carta_ (1166), which enters 'Willelmus filius + Nigelli' as the tenant of four fees under Henry I, and as + succeeded, in 1166, by his son Robert.] + + + + +THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY + +(HEN. I-HEN. II) + + +This 'Hydarium' of Northamptonshire is found in a Peterborough +Cartulary (Cott. MS. Vesp. E. 22, fo. 94 _et seq._). It is drawn up +Hundred by Hundred, like the surveys of Leicestershire and of Lindsey, +and is, therefore, probably connected with the assessment of Danegeld. +Although it is of special value for reconstituting the Domesday Vills, +the assessment it records so often varies from that which is found in +Domesday that we cannot institute a close comparison. The introduction +of a 'parva virgata' further complicates the reckoning. That the +original document was written on a roll is shown by the use of the +phrase 'per alium rotulum'. The statement on fo. 97_b_ that +there ought, at one place, to be half a hide more 'per rotulos +Wyncestr[ie]', would seem to refer to Domesday; but on the next page +we read: + + In Pytesle Abbas de Burgo v. hid. [et] dim. set tamen in + Rotulis Wyncestr[ie] vi. hid. et iii. parvas virgatas. + +Since Domesday records this holding as 'v. hid. et una virgata terræ', +the reference (if the text of the survey is right) must clearly be to +some other record preserved in the national treasury. + +I append about a fifth of the Survey as a specimen of the whole. + + + HOKESLAWE + + Twywell. Albr[icus] camerar[ius] ii. hidas de feudo Abbatis + de Thorneya. Ibidem de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem de feudo + Abbatis Burgi i. magnam virgatam. + + In Slipton i. hidam et unam virgatam de feudo Will'i de Corcy. + Ibidem Ricardus filius Hugonis ii. partes unius hidæ de feudo + Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus nepos Abbatis tertiam partem unius hidæ + de eodem feudo. + + In Suburc [Sudboro'] ii. hidas [et] dim. de feudo + Westmonaster'. + + In Lofwyc [Luffwick] Th----[1] i. hidam et unam virgatam de + feudo de Deneford. Ibidem Radulfus Fleming i. virgatam et + dim. de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem Wydo frater ejus i. magnam + virgatam de feudo de Thorneya. + + In Drayton Albr[icus] camerar[ius] dimidiam hidam de feudo + R[egis]. + + In Yslep [Islip] idem Albri[cus] de feudo Regis. Ibidem + iiii^{or.} sokemanni Regis i. hidam de feudo Westmonaster'. + + In Audewyncle [Aldwinkle] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hidas [et] + dimidiam quas Ascelinus de Waterville tenet. Ibidem Galfridus + de Glynton i. magnam virgatam de feudo Glovernie pertinens ad + Barton. Ibidem Ricardus filius Wydonis iii. hidas dim. virg. + minus de feudo Regine [_sic_]. + + Item in Benifeld [Benefield] Willelmus le Lisurs iii. magnas + virg. de feudo Regis. + + In Bernewelle [Barnwell] Robertus de ferariis vi. hidas et i. + magnam virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne vi. + hidas de feudo de Rammeseye. + + In Lilleford Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo Regis Scotie. + + + NAUEFORD + + In Tytheni [? Tichmarsh] Robertus de Ferr[ers] x. hid. Ibidem + Ascelinus de Waterville iii. hid. et i. virg. et tres partes + dim. hid. de Burgo. + + In Thrapston Radulfus fil. Oger ii. hid. et i. virg. de feudo + de Brunne. Ibidem Robertus filius Edelinæ i. hid. et i. virg. + de feudo de Clare. + + In Torpe et Achirche Ascelinus de Waterville vi. hid. [et] + dim. de feudo Burgi. + + In Clopton Walterus i. hid. et i. virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem + iii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi. Ibidem Ascelinus dim. hid. + de feudo Burgi. + + Wadenhowe [Wadenhoe]. Albricus de Ver ii. hid. et i. virg. de + feudo Regis David. Ibidem Wymunt de Stok[e] i. virg. de feudo + Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Infans ii. parvas virg. de eodem feudo. + Ibidem Wivienus de Chirchefelde dim. hid. de eodem feudo. + Ibidem Galfridus de Gonthorp ii. hid. de eodem feudo. In + Catteworthe i. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi. + + + POKEBROC + + In Pokebroc Robertus de Cauz i. hid. et. i. virg. de feudo + Regis. Ibidem Walterus de Clopton ii. hid. et dim. de feudo + Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Marmium i. hid. et i. virg. de eodem + feudo. + + In Armeston [Armston] de Burgelay ii. hid. [et] dim. de eodem + feudo. Ibidem Turkil i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Wydo + Maufee i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Galfridus de Gunthorp + ii. partes dim. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Tedrik' iii. + partes de dim. hid. de eodem feudo. + + In Pappele [Papley] i. hid. + + In Lillington [Lutton] i. hid. + + In Hennington Berengerus le Moyne ii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo + de Rammes[eye]. Ibidem Ricardus filius Gilberti i. hid. et i. + virg. et dim. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Wydo Maufe dim. hid. et + dim. virg. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne dim. + hid. et dim. virg. de eodem feodo. + + In Kynesthorp [Kingsthorp] Walterus de Lodington i. hid. et i. + virg. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Willelmus de Chirchetot dim. hid. + de feodo Regis. + + In Therninge [Thurning] Rogerus Marmioun iii. parvas virg. de + feodo Burgi. + + In Ayston [Ashton] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hid. in dominico. + Ibidem Papilun dim. hid. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Leuenoth dim. + hid. de eodem feodo. + + In Undele [Oundle] Abbas in dominico vi. hid. Ibidem Vivien i. + parvam virg.[2] + + + DUO HUNDRED DE NASSO + + In Stinton Willelmus de Lisurs ii. hid. + + In Bernak Fulco paynel iii. hid.[3] + + In Wirthorpe Abbas Croylaund ii. hid. Ibidem de feodo Eudonis + Dapiferi i. virg. + + In Eston [Easton] Simon i. hid. [et] dim. + + In Peychirche [Peakirk]. In Etton. In Northburgo dim. virg. + + In dominico Abbatis de Burgo sancti Petri lxx. hid. et iii. + virg. et dim. + + + HUNDRED DE SUTTON + + In eadem villa [King's Sutton] Dominus Rex habit in dominico + iiii. hid. + + In eadem villa Willelmus de Quency i. hid. [et] dim. et parvam + virg. terre de Comitat[u] Leycestr[ie]. Ibidem Alfredus viii. + parvas virg. de Gilberto de Pinkeny. Ibidem Paganus i. hid. + et dim. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] Leycestri[ie], + Robertus filius Osberti tenuit. + + In Evenle i. hid. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] + Leyc[estrie]. + + In Preston dim. hid. de feodo Comit[is] Leyc[estrie]. + + In Croulton [Croughton] iiii{^or.} parvas virg. de feodo + Comit[is] Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Sewar' i. hid. et ii. parvas + virg. de feodo Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Brien filius Comitis i. + hid. [et] dim. et ii. parvas virg. de feodo de Walinford. + + In Neubottle Regis [_sic_] de Reynes vi. hid. et i. parvam + virg. de feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie], Willelmus de Lepyn + tenuit. + + In furningho [Farningho] iiii. hid. de feodo Comitis + Leyc[estrie]. + + In Cherlington [Charlton] Maynardus i. hid. [et] dim. et i. + parvam virg. Ibidem Simon Chendut i. hid. [et] dim. de feodo + de Berkamstede et i. parvam virg. Ibidem Odo dapifer viii. + parvas virg. de feodo de Colescestra. + + In Gremesbir' [Grimsbury] Aunsel' de Chokes ii. hid. et iiii. + parvas virg. scil. quarta pars ii. hid. + + In Middleton Willelmus Me[s]chin i. hid. et dim. et i. parvam + virg. de feodo Willelmi de Curcy. + + In alia Middleton [Middleton Chenduit] Simon Chendut ii. hid. + de feodo de Berkamstede. + + In Thayniford [Thenford] Mainfenn de Walrentone i. hid. Ibidem + Robertus Basset i. hid. de feodo de Walingford. + + In Ayno [Aynho] Willelmus de Mandeville iii. hid. + + In Middelton monachi de sancto Eu'ald[4] ii. hid. + + In Walton i. hid. cum ii. virg. in Sutton quas Suouild tenuit. + + In Gildeby i. hid. et vii. parvas virg. de feodo de Mortal' + [_sic_]. + + + HUNDRED DE ALBODESTOWE + + In Chacombe iiii. hid. de feodo Episc. Lincoln. + + In Evenle ii. hid. et [_sic_] i. parvam virg. minus quas Alouf + de Merke tenuit. + + In Thorpe [Thorpe-Mandeville] ii. hid. + + In Stanes [Stene] Gilbertus de Pinkeny ii. hid. + + In Colewyth [Culworth] Willelmus ii. hid. et iiii. parvas + virg. Ibidem Otuer i. hid. + + In Stotebyr[e] [Stotesbery] ii. hid. quas monachi Norht'[5] + tenent. + + In Rodestone [Radston] ii. hid. de feodo Comitis Cestr[ie]. + + In Wytefeld [Whitfield] Gilbertus de Monte ii. hid. et ii. + virg. in dominico. + + In Merston [Merston St Lawrence] Radulfus Murdac iiii. hid. de + feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie]. + + In Siresham Thomas Sorel i. hid. [et] dim. Ibidem Comes + Leyc[estrie] i. parvam virg. Ibidem Gilo dim. hid. Ibidem + Willelmus filius Alui' [? Alan] iiii. parvas virg. + + In Helmendene [Helmedon] Willelmus de Torewelle iiii. hid. de + feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie]. + + In Chelverdescote dim. hid. Idem. Comes Leyc[estrie]. + + In Brackle et Hausho [Hawes] idem Comes vii. hid. [et] dim. + + + HUNDRED DE WARDON + + In Wardon Ricardus foliot[6] ii. hid. [et] dim. et i. magnam + virg., scilicet quarta pars i. militis de feodo Regis in + capite. + + In Estone [Aston] et Apeltreya [Apeltre] Willelmus de Bolonia + vii. hid. de feodo Comitis de Mandeville. + + In Bottolendon [Boddington] Fulco Paynel[7] ii. hid. una ex + illis de feodo Cestr[ie]. Ibidem Willelmus Meschin i. hid. + Ibidem i. hid. de feodo Episcopi Lincoln. + + +The only writer, it would seem, who has used this important survey is +Bridges, who refers to it throughout in his _Northamptonshire_ as of +the time of 'Henry II'. A good instance of the confusion caused by +this assumption is seen in the remarks of Bridges as to Barnack (ii. +491), where he is puzzled by our record, giving as its lord, not +Gervase Paynell, but Fulc Paynell (who was really his grandfather). +To refute his conclusion, it is sufficient to refer to the first name +entered--that of 'Albricus Camerarius'. This was no other than Aubrey +de Vere, a trusted minister of Henry I, who was made by him +Great Chamberlain in 1133, and who was slain in May 1141.[8] His +Northamptonshire estate descended to his younger son, Robert, who, +as 'Robertus filius Albrici Camerarii', made his return as a +Northamptonshire 'baron' in 1166.[9] There can, therefore, be no +confusion between Aubrey the Chamberlain (d. 1141) and his eldest son +and namesake. Yet if, from the occurrence of his name, we pronounced +the date of this survey to be 1133-41, we should be in error. There +are names belonging to an earlier, as to a later, date than this. + +Among the earliest are 'Ricardus filius Wydonis', the son and +successor of Guy de Raimbercurt, a great Domesday tenant-in-chief; +Walter fitz Winemar, whose father was both a tenant _in capite_ and +under-tenant in Domesday; and Ralf fitz Oger, whose name illustrates +the value of these early surveys; for the entry proves that Oger, the +Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 228), was identical with +Oger 'Brito', the Lord of Bourne, Linc. (i. 364_b_), and that the son +and successor of this Oger was Ralf. We also recognize Roger Marmion, +who was succeeded, under Henry I, by Robert; Nigel de Albini, the +founder of the house of Mowbray; Michael de Hanslape, who died under +Henry I; and 'Robertus filius Regis', who became Earl of Gloucester +_circ._ 1122. Other tenants, living _temp._ Hen. I, are William +de Mandeville,[10] William Meschin, Richard Basset, Viel (Vitalis) +Engaine, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, and Brian fitz Count. As for Ascelin +de Waterville and Alouf de Merke, they are found as under-tenants in +Domesday itself. On the other hand, such a name as 'Comes Warenn de +Morteyn' points to the latter years of Stephen's reign, or to the +early days of that of Henry II; while the mention of the earldoms of +Arundel, Ferrers (Derby) and Essex preclude, of course, an earlier +date than 1140. + +After careful examination, I propound the solution that this survey +was originally made under Henry I, and was subsequently corrected here +and there, to bring the entries up to date, down to the days of Henry +II. The late transcriber, to whom we owe the survey in its present +form, has incorporated these additions and corrections in a single +text with the most bewildering result. We trace exactly the same +process in the Red Book of the Exchequer. In the Black Book the +later additions that were made to the barons' _cartae_ of 1166 are +distinguished by the difference in handwriting. But in the Red Book +these interpolations are found transcribed in the same hand as the +genuine original returns. To the uninitiated this has been the cause +of no small confusion. So, too, in the above list of Peterborough +knights (p. 157), the very first entry, made _temp._ Hen. I, has +been carried on by a later hand to the time of Henry III. But there +Stapleton, who transcribed the list, carefully discriminated between +the two.[11] It is probable that the lists of Abingdon knights, +published in the Abingdon cartulary, are rendered untrustworthy in +places from the same cause of error. + +The transcriber's ignorance is clearly shown by such a name as 'Comes +Mauricius', which is evidently his erroneous extension of an original +'Comes Maur'', _i.e._ Count of Mortain! So also we are enabled to +detect proof of the theory I advance in such an entry as 'Willelmus +Meschin de feodo Wellelmi de Curcy'; for William de Curcy held, +_temp._ Henry II, the barony held by William Meschin (his maternal +grandfather, according to Stapleton[12]) _temp._ Henry I. Thus, the +original entry will have run 'William Meschin', while a later hand, +in his grandson's days, will have added, by way of substitution, 'De +feodo William de Curcy'.[13] Our transcriber, combining the two, has, +of course, made nonsense of the whole. The same explanation applies to +the entry, 'Robertus filius Regis de feodo Glovernie', where the first +three words represent the original entry, while the others were added, +probably under Henry II, to connect the holding with the fief of [the +Earl of] Gloucester. 'Brien filius Comitis de feodo de Wallin[g]ford' +is another instance in point, and so, I suspect, is 'Odo [_sic_] +dapifer de feodo de Colcestra'; for I take it that the entry was +originally made in the lifetime of Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120) and that, as +his 'honour' passed into the King's hands, the 'de feodo de Colcestra' +was added at a later time.[14] + +I have given sufficient of the survey to prove that, in spite of +confusion and corruption, it possesses a real value. If we take, for +instance, Polebrook ('Pochebroc'), a township of five hides, we find +that in Domesday (221_b_, 228) Eustace ('the Sheriff') held a hide and +a quarter _in capite_ and three hides and three quarters as a tenant +of Peterborough Abbey (see p. 138). Now our survey shows us the former +holding in the hands of Robert de Cauz, while the other has been +broken up, two-thirds of it passing to Walter 'de Clopton' and +one-third to Roger Marmion. + +Just below, in the case of Hemington, also a Vill of five hides, which +was equally divided between the Abbeys of Peterborough and Ramsey, +we read in Domesday that 'iii. milites' held the Peterborough +half (221_b_). Our survey enables us to distinguish their +tenancies--Richard fitz Gilbert holding a hide and three-eighths; Guy +Maufe, five-eighths of a hide, and Reginald le Moyne the same.[15] But +we can go further and identify the first, from his holding, as the son +of Gilbert Fauvel, the Domesday tenant (see p. 138); while the second +was the heir, and probably the son of Roger Malfed (see p. 132). + +One more instance may be given. Our survey reckons Clapton +('Cloptone') as five and a quarter hides, of which 'Walter' held one +and a quarter _in capite_. Here again he had succeeded Eustace, whose +Domesday estate at 'Dotone' (228) ought, as Bridges conjectured, to +have been entered 'Clotone'.[16] On the other hand, his tenancy of the +Abbot at 'Clotone' had been broken up, half a hide of it passing to +Ascelin de Waterville. All this goes to show that the fief of Eustace +the Sheriff did not, as has been alleged, descend to his heirs. + +Such an entry as 'In Lilleford, Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo +Regis Scotiæ' is peculiarly suggestive. It reminds us that David +Holyfard, godson of King David of Scotland, and his protector in +1141, was the founder of the house of Oliphant; and in the family's +possession of Lilford (which was held of the Countess Judith in 1086) +we see the origin of their Scottish connection. William 'Olifard' +was of Northamptonshire, and Hugh 'Olifard' of Huntingdonshire in +1130;[17] while Hugh 'Olifart' (of Stoke) was a knight of the Abbot of +Peterborough in rather earlier days. The earliest member of the house, +however, it would seem, on record is Roger Olifard, who witnessed +(doubtless as his tenant) Earl Simon's charter to St. Andrew's, +Northampton, granted, probably, not later than 1108. This, of course, +is but one of the cases in which the son of a Norman house settled in +Scotland through its King's connection with the earldoms of Huntingdon +and Northampton. + +At the close of the survey I have here discussed there is a list +of the knights of Peterborough (fos. 99_b_, 100) holding in +Northamptonshire. It ought to be carefully compared with the one +I have examined above (p. 131), being, it seems probable, about a +generation later. Such entries as these, at least, are conclusive for +the holding to which they refer: + + Paganus de Helpestun terciam Roger fil[ius] Pagan[i] in + partem unius militis Helpestun terciam partem i. + (_Chronicon Petroburgense_, militis (Vesp. E. xxii., + p. 171). fo. 100). + +In the same way, Roger Marmion had been succeeded by Robert. This +second list is of special value from the fact that the Peterborough +_carta_ of 1166 gives no particulars of the knights or of their fees. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Or Sh----.] + + [Footnote 2: See _Chronicon Petroburgense_, p. 158.] + + [Footnote 3: See Bridges' _Northamptonshire_, ii. 491.] + + [Footnote 4: St. Evroul, Grantmesnil's in Domesday.] + + [Footnote 5: St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.] + + [Footnote 6: The heir of Guy de Raimbercurt.] + + [Footnote 7: Clearly Fulk Paynel the first, Founder of Tykford + Priory.] + + [Footnote 8: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 81.] + + [Footnote 9: See also as to Twywell itself. _Mon. Ang._, ii. + 603: + + 'Ego Albericus, regis camerarius terram de Twiwell quamdiu vixero + de domino abbate Guntero et monachis de Thorneya per talem + conventionem teneo adfirmam.' + + 'Ego Robertus filius Albrici camerarii regis terram de Twiwelle + quamdiu vixero de domino abbate Roberto et monachis de Thorneia + per eandem conventionem in feodi firmam teneo per quam + conventionem pater meus ante me tenuit.' + + The Great Chamberlain occurs again on fo. 97_b_, where we + read: + + 'In alia Adington Albric[us] Camerar[ius], ii. hid. de feodo + Regis.'] + + [Footnote 10: If, as probable, the son of the Domesday Baron.] + + [Footnote 11: _Chronicon Petroburgense_, pp. 168-9.] + + [Footnote 12: _Holy Trinity Priory, York_, p. 35.] + + [Footnote 13: Since this was written I have come across + a curious confirmation of the hypothesis advanced. In the + Lindsey Survey (Ed. Greenstreet), an entry on fo. 20, in the + original ran: 'Comes Odo [tenet] in Aldobi', above which a + later hand has interlined, 'De feodo Comitis Albemerle'. It + is curious that in the same survey another later + interlineation--'Comes Lincoln'--was, though distinguished by + Hearne, incorporated with the text by Mr Waters (see p. 151).] + + [Footnote 14: Eudo was identified with Colchester.] + + [Footnote 15: Giving a total of 2-5/8, instead of 2-1/2--a + trivial discrepancy.] + + [Footnote 16: It is singular that in Sussex the 'Cloninctune' + of Domesday is, conversely, an error for 'Doninctune'. The + source of the error in both cases must have been the likeness + of 'cl' to 'd' in the original returns, on which these names + cannot have begun with a capital letter.] + + [Footnote 17: _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.] + + + + +THE INTRODUCTION OF KNIGHT SERVICE INTO ENGLAND[1] + + 'The growth of knighthood is a subject on which the greatest + obscurity prevails; and the most probable explanation of its + existence in England, the theory that it is a translation into + Norman forms of the thegnage of the Anglo-Saxon law, can only + be stated as probable.'--STUBBS, _Const. Hist._, i. 260. + + +In approaching the consideration of the institutional changes and +modifications of polity resulting from the Norman Conquest, the +most conspicuous phenomenon to attract attention is undoubtedly the +introduction of what it is convenient to term the feudal system. +In the present paper I propose to discuss one branch only of that +process, namely, the introduction of that military tenure which +Dr Stubbs has termed 'the most prominent feature of historical +feudalism'. + +In accordance with the anticataclysmic tendencies of modern thought, +the most recent students of this obscure problem have agreed to adopt +the theory of gradual development and growth. The old views on +the subject are discredited as crude and unhistorical:[2] they are +replaced by confident enunciation of the theory to which I have +referred.[3] But when we examine the matter closely, when we ask for +details of the process by which the Anglo-Saxon thegn developed into +the Norman knight, we are met at once by the frank confession that +'between the picture drawn in Domesday and the state of affairs which +the charter of Henry I was designed to remedy, there is a difference +which the short interval of time will not account for'.[4] To meet +this difficulty, to account for this flaw in the unbroken continuity +of the series, a _Deus ex machinâ_ has been found in the person of +Ranulf Flambard. + +Now this solution of the difficulty will scarcely, I venture to think, +bear the test of investigation. It appears to have originated in Dr +Stubbs' suggestion that there must have been, between the days of +Henry I and of William I, 'some skilful organizing hand working with +neither justice nor mercy'[5]--a suggestion subsequently amplified +into the statement that it is to Ranulf Flambard 'without doubt that +the systematic organization of the exactions' under William Rufus +'is to be attributed',[6] and that by him 'the royal claims were +unrelentingly pressed', his policy being 'to tighten as much as +possible the hold which the feudal law gave to the king on all +feudatories temporal and spiritual'.[7] There is nothing here that can +be called in question, but there is also nothing, be it observed, to +prove that either 'feudal law' or 'military tenure' was introduced by +Ranulf Flambard. Indeed, with his usual caution and unfailing sound +judgment, our great historian is careful to admit that 'it is not +quite so clear' in the case of the lay as of the church fiefs 'that +all the evil customs owed their origin to the reign of William +Rufus'.[8] And, even if they did, they were, it must be remembered, +distinctly abuses--'evil customs', as Henry I himself terms them in +his charter--namely (in the matter we are considering), '_excessive_ +exactions in the way of reliefs, marriages and wardships, debts to +the crown, and forfeiture. In the place,' we are told, 'of _unlimited_ +demands on these heads, the charter promises, not indeed fixed +amercements, but a return to ancient equitable custom'.[9] All this +refers, it will be seen, to the abuse of an existing institution, +not to the introduction of a new one. The fact is that Ranulf's +proceedings have been assigned a quite exceptional and undue +importance. Broadly speaking, his actions fall under a law too often +lost sight of, namely, that when the crown was strong it pressed, +through the official bureaucracy, its claims to the uttermost; +and when it found itself weak, it renounced them so far as it was +compelled. Take, for instance, this very charter issued by Henry I, +when he was 'playing to the gallery', and seeking general support: +what was the value of its promises? They were broken, says Mr Freeman, +to the Church;[10] they were probably broken, says Dr Stubbs, to +the knights;[11] and they were certainly broken, I may add, to the +unfortunate tenants-in-chief, whom the Pipe-Roll of 1130 shows us +suffering from those same excessive exactions, of which the monopoly +is assigned to Ranulf Flambard, and which 'the Lion of Justice' had so +virtuously renounced. I might similarly adduce the exactions from the +Church by that excellent king, Henry II (1159), 'contra antiquum morem +et debitam libertatem'; but it is needless to multiply examples of +the struggle between the interests of the crown and those of its +tenants-in-chief, which was as fierce as ever when, in later days, it +led to the provisions of the Great Charter. What the barons, lay and +spiritual, complained of from first to last, was not the feudal system +that accompanied their military tenure, but the abuse of that system +in the excessive demands of the crown. + +Mr Freeman, however, who had an equal horror of Ranulf Flambard and of +the 'feudal system', did not hesitate to connect the two more closely +even than Dr Stubbs, though invoking the authority of the latter in +support of his extreme views. The passages to which I would invite +attention, as expressing most concisely Mr Freeman's conclusions, are +these: + + The system of military tenures, and the oppressive + consequences which were held to flow from them, were a work of + the days of William Rufus. + + If then there was any time when 'the Feudal System' could be + said to be introduced into England, it was assuredly not in + the days of William the Conqueror, but in the days of William + the Red. It would be more accurate to say that all that we + are really concerned with, that is, not an imaginary 'Feudal + System', but a system of feudal land-tenures, was not + introduced into England at all, but was devised on English + ground by the malignant genius of the minister of Rufus.[12] + +As the writer's line of argument is avowedly that of Dr Stubbs, it is +only necessary to consider the point of difference between them. Where +his predecessor saw in Henry's charter the proof that Ranulf Flambard +had abused the existing feudal system by 'excessive' and 'unlimited' +demands, Mr Freeman held, and endeavoured to convince us, that he +had introduced not merely abuses of the system, but the actual system +itself.[13] The question virtually turns on the first clause of the +charter;[14] and it will not, I think, be doubted that Dr Stubbs +is right in adopting its natural meaning, namely, that the novelty +introduced by Ranulf was not the _relevatio_ itself, but its abuse in +'excessive exactions'. Indeed, even Mr Freeman had virtually to admit +the point.[15] If, then, the argument breaks down, if Ranulf cannot be +shown to have 'devised' military tenure, how are we to bridge over the +alleged chasm between the date of Domesday (1086) and that of Henry's +charter (1100)? The answer is simply that the difficulty is created +by the very theory I am discussing: it is based on the assumption that +William I did not introduce military tenure,[16] combined with the +fact that 'within thirteen years after the Conqueror's death, not only +the military tenures, but the worst abuses of the military tenures, +were in full force in England'.[17] But, here again, when we examine +the evidence, we find that this assumption is based on the silence, +or alleged silence, of Domesday Book.[18] Now no one was better aware +than Mr Freeman, as an ardent student of 'the great Record', that to +argue from the silence of Domesday is an error as dangerous as it is +common. Speaking from a rather wide acquaintance with topographical +works, I know of no pitfall into which the local antiquary is more +liable to fall. Wonderful are the things that people look for in the +pages of the great survey; I am always reminded of Mr Secretary Pepys' +writing for information as to what it contained 'concerning the sea +and the dominion thereof'.[19] Like other inquests, the Domesday +Survey--'the great inquest of all', as Dr Stubbs terms it--was +intended for a special purpose; special questions were asked, and +these questions were answered in the returns. So with the 'Inquest of +Sheriffs' in 1170; so also with the Inquest of Knights, if I may so +term it, in 1166. In each case the questions asked are, practically, +known to us, and in each they are entirely different. Therefore, when +Mr Freeman writes: + + The survey nowhere employs the feudal language which became + familiar in the twelfth century. Compare, for instance, + the records in the first volume of Hearn's _Liber Niger + Scaccarii_. In this last we find something about knights' fees + in every page. In Domesday there is not a word--[20] + +it is in no spirit of captious criticism, but from the necessity of +demolishing the argument, that I liken it to basing conclusions on the +fact that in the census returns we find something about population +in every page, while in the returns of owners of land there is not a +word. As the inquest of 1166 sought solely for information on knights +and their fees, the returns to it naturally contain 'something about +knights' fees in every page'; on the other hand, 'the payment or +nonpayment of the _geld_ is a matter which appears in every page of +the survey' [of 1086] because 'the formal immediate cause of taking +the survey was to secure its full and fair assessment'.[21] Nor is +this all. When the writer asserts that 'in Domesday there is not a +word' about knights' fees, he greatly overstates his case, as indeed +is shown by the passages he proceeds to quote. I shall be able to +prove, further on, that knights' fees existed in cases where Domesday +does not mention them, but even the incidental notices found in the +Great Survey are quite sufficient to disprove its alleged silence on +the subject. As Mr Freeman has well observed: + + Its most incidental notices are sometimes the most precious. + We have seen that it is to an incidental, an almost accidental + notice in the Survey that we owe our knowledge of the great + fact of the general redemption of lands.[22] + +Here then the writer does not hesitate to base on a single accidental +notice the existence of an event quite as widespread and important as +the introduction of knight service.[23] + +I have now endeavoured to make plain one of the chief flaws in the +view at present accepted, namely, that it is mainly grounded on +the negative evidence of Domesday, which evidence will not bear the +construction that has been placed upon it--and further that, even if +it did, we should be landed in a fresh difficulty, the gulf between +Domesday and Henry's charter being only to be bridged by the +assumption that Ranulf Flambard 'devised' and introduced military +tenure, with its results--an assumption, we have seen, which the facts +of the case not only fail to support, but even discountenance wholly. + +Let us pass to a second difficulty. When we ask the advocates of the +view I am discussing what determined the number of knights due to +the crown from a tenant-in-chief, we obtain, I venture to assert, no +definite answer. At times we are told that it was the number of his +hides; at times that it was the value of his estate. Gneist, who has +discussed the matter in detail, and on several occasions, has held +throughout, broadly speaking, the same view: he maintains that 'since +Alfred's time the general rule had been observed that a fully equipped +man should be furnished for every five _hidæ_, but it had never been +established as a rule of law as in the Carlovingian legislation':[24] +consequently, he urges, 'a fixed standard for the apportionment of the +soldiery was wanting' at the time of the Conquest, and this want was +a serious flaw in the Anglo-Saxon polity. William resolved to make the +system uniform, and + + the object that the royal administration now pursued for + a century was to impose upon the whole mass of old and new + possessors an equal obligation to do service for reward. The + standard adopted in carrying out this system was approximately + that of the five hides possession of the Anglo-Saxon period; + yet with a stricter rating according to the value of the + produce.[25] + +The difficulty encountered in ascertaining this value was a main cause +of the Domesday Survey being undertaken. This is Gneist's special +point on which he invariably insists: 'Domesday book laid the basis +of a roll of the crown vassals';[26] upon it, 'in later times, the +fee-rolls were framed'.[27] By its evidence, 'according to the extent +and the nature of the productive property, could be computed how +many shields were to be furnished by each estate, according to the +gradually fixed proportion of a £20 ground rent'.[28] For 'the _feuda +militum_ thus computed are no knights' fees of a limited area',[29] +but 'units of possession', the unit being £20 in annual value. + +Dr Stubbs, on the other hand, while rejecting the view that military +service, since the days of Alfred, had been practically fixed at one +warrior for every five hides,[30] leans nevertheless to the belief +that the knight's fee was developed out of the five-hide unit, and +that the military 'service' of a tenant-in-chief was determined by the +number of such units which he possessed. But, as he also recognizes +the £20 unit, there will be less danger of misrepresenting his views +if I append _verbatim_ the relevant passages: + + The customary service of one The value of the knight's fee + fully armed man for each five hides must already have been fixed + was probably the rate at which the --twenty pounds a year.[32] + newly endowed follower of the king + would be expected to discharge his + duty ... and the number of knights + to be furnished by a particular + feudatory would be ascertained by + inquiring the number of hides that + he held.[31] + + The number of hides which the It cannot even be granted that + knight's fee contained being known, a definite area of land was + the number of knights' fees in any necessary to constitute a + particular holding could be easily knight's fee; ... It is + discovered.[33] impossible to avoid the + conclusion that the extent of a + All the imposts of the ... Norman knight's fee was determined by + reigns, were, so far as we know, rent and valuation rather than + raised on the land, and according acreage, and that the common + to computation by the hide: ... the quantity was really expressed + feudal exactions by way of aid ... in the twenty librates, etc. + were levied on the hide.[34] [35] + + The variation in the number of + hides contained in the knight's + fee.[36] + +Mr Freeman's views need not detain us, for he unhesitatingly accepts +Dr Stubbs' arguments as proving that the Norman military tenure was +based on 'the old service of a man from each five hides of land'.[37] + +We find then, I submit, that the recognized leaders of existing +opinion on the subject cannot agree among themselves in giving us a +clear answer, when we ask them what determined the amount of 'service' +due from a Norman tenant-in-chief, or, in other words, how that +'service' was developed in unbroken continuity from Anglo-Saxon +obligations. + +The third point that I would raise is this. Even assuming that the +amount of 'service' bore a fixed proportion--whether in pecuniary or +territorial units--to the extent of possession, we are, surely, at +once confronted by the difficulty that the owner of _x_ units of +possession would be compelled, for the discharge of his military +obligations, to enfeoff _x_ knights, assigning a 'unit' to each. A +tenant-in-chief, to take a concrete instance, whose fief was worth +£100 a year, would have to provide _ex hypothesi_ five knights; if, as +was quite usual, he enfeoffed the full number, he would have to assign +to each knight twenty librates of land (which I may at once, though +anticipating, admit was the normal value of a knight's fee), that +is to say, the crown would have forestalled Henry George, and the +luckless _baro_ would see the entire value of his estate swallowed up +in the discharge of its obligations.[38] What his position would be +in cases where, as often, he enfeoffed more knights than he required, +arithmetic is unable to determine. I cannot understand how this +obvious difficulty has been so strangely overlooked. + +The fourth and last criticism which I propose to offer on the subject +is this. If we find that under Henry II--when we meet with definite +information--a fief contained, as we might expect, more 'units of +possession' than it was bound to furnish knights (thus leaving a +balance over for the _baro_ after sub-infeudation), we must draw one +of two conclusions: either this excess had existed from the first; or, +if the fief (as we are asked to believe) was originally assessed up to +the hilt for military service, that assessment must, in the interval, +have been reduced. In other words, Henry I--if, as Dr Stubbs in one +place suggests,[39] he was the first to take a 'regular account of the +knights' fees'--must have found the land with a settled liability of +providing one knight for every five hides, and must, yet, have reduced +that liability of his own accord, on the most sweeping scale, thus, +contrary to all his principles, ultroneously deprived himself of the +'service' he was entitled to claim. + +Having completed my criticisms of the accepted view, and set forth its +chief difficulties, I shall now propound the theory to which my own +researches have led me, following the same method of proof as that +adopted by Mr Seebohm in his _English Village Community_, namely +working back from the known to the relatively unknown, till the light +thrown upwards by the records of the twelfth century illumines +the language of Domesday and renders the allusions of monks and +chroniclers pregnant with meaning. + + +1. THE 'CARTAE' OF 1166 + +In the formal returns (_cartae_) made to the exchequer in 1166 by +the tenants-in-chief (_barones_) of England, of which the official +transcripts are preserved in the _Liber Niger_ and the _Liber Rubeus_, +we have our earliest glimpse of the organization of that purely feudal +host among whom our lands had been parcelled out to be held, as I +shall show, by military service. We have, therefore, in them our best +starting-point for an inquiry into the origin and growth of military +tenure in England. + +It may be well perhaps, at the very outset, to contrast these _cartae_ +of 1166 with those of the Domesday Inquest eighty years before.[40] +For the essentially feudal character of the former is at once, by the +comparison, thrown into relief. The original returns of the Domesday +Inquest were made Hundred by Hundred; those of 1166 were made fief +by fief. The former were made by the jurors of the Hundred-court; the +latter by the lord of the fief. Thus, while the one took for its +unit the oldest and most familiar of native organizations, the other, +ignoring not only the Hundred, but even the shire itself, took for its +unit the alien organization of the fief.[41] The one inquest strictly +continued, the other wholly repudiated, the Anglo-Saxon system. + +It is consequently worse than lost labour to examine these two +inquests, based as they are on opposite systems, and giving us as they +do a cross-division as if they were but successive editions of the +national register or rate-book. + +The first point to be considered is this: What was the information +which the tenants-in-chief were called upon to supply in these +returns? It was _not_, as Dr Stubbs and others have supposed, +the amount of 'service' due from each fief to the crown.[42] The +information asked for was _the number of 'milites' actually enfeoffed_ +by each 'baron' and his predecessors in title, with the number +of 'servitia' due from each such 'miles' to the 'baron'. In this +distinction, missed by Dr Stubbs, we find the key to the problem. The +crown, we shall see, must previously have known the total amount of +'service' due from each fief; but what it did not know, and what it +wished to know, was the number of knights' fees which, up to 1166, had +been created on each fief. + +Although there is great diversity in the form of return adopted--a +diversity which imparts to the _cartae_ a pleasant flavour of +character--it may fairly be assumed that, as in similar cases, they +were called for throughout the realm by one uniform writ. If we may +deduce the purport of that writ from the collation of those returns +which refer to it most explicitly, we must infer that the information +asked for was to be given under four heads: + + (1) How many knights had been enfeoffed before the death of + Henry I? + + (2) How many have been enfeoffed since? + + (3) How many (if any) remain to be enfeoffed to complete the + 'service' due from the fief. Or, in other words, what is + the balance of your 'service' remaining chargeable to your + 'demesne'? + + (4) What are the names of your knights? + +In support of these statements I append the whole of the relevant +returns. + + + BISHOP OF EXETER ARCHBISHOP OF YORK BISHOP OF DURHAM + + Praecepistis mihi Praecipit dignitas Praecepit nobis, + quod mandarem vobis vestra omnibus domine, vestra + per breve meum fidelibus vestris sublimitas, quod + sigillatum et apertum, clericis et laicis, literis nostris + non quot servitia qui de vobis sigillatis, extra + militum vobis debeam, tenent de capite sigillum + sed (1) quot habeam in Eboracsira, ut pendentibus, vobis + milites feffatos de mandent vobis per mandaremus (1) quot + tempore Regis Henrici literas suas, extra milites feffatos + avi vestri, et (2) sigillum pendentes haberemus de veteri + quot post mortem (1) quot milites feffamento et + ipsius, et (3) quot quisquis habeat de (2) de novo, + sint super dominium veteri feffamento scilicet, anno et + meum.[43] de tempore Regis die quo Rex Henricus + Henrici avi vestri, fuit vivus et + scilicet de die et mortuus et de [_sic_] + anno quo ipse fuit post mortem ejus ... + vivus et mortuus, (3) super dominium + et (2) quot habeat vero nostrum, de quo + de novo feodamento similiter mandare + feffatos post mortem præcepistis, etc. + bonae memoriae avi (pp. 416, 418). + vestri ejusdem, et + (3) quot feoda + militum sint super + dominium + uniuscujusque, et + (4) omnium illorum + nomina, tam de novo + feffamento quam de + veteri feffatorum + quae sint in illo + brevi scripta, quia + vultis quod si + aliqui ibi sunt qui + vobis nondum + fecerunt ligantiam, + et quorum nomina + non sunt scripta in + rotulo vestro, quod + infra dominicam + primam xl^{ae} + ligantiam vobis + faciant (p. 412). + + HERBERT DE ENGELARD DE ROBERT DE + CASTELLO STRATTONE BRINTONE + + Michi et comparibus Michi et ceteris Michi et aliis + meis mandastis ut comparibus meis comparibus meis per + vobis per breve qui de vobis litteras vestras + nostrum pendens tenemus in capite innotuistis ut per + extra sigillum, per litteras fidem et ligantiam + mandaremus (1) quot vestras mandastis quam vobis debemus + milites antiquitus ut vobis per breve per breve nostrum + feodatos de tempore nostrum pendens pendens extra + Regis Henrici avi extra sigillum sigillum mandaremus + vestri habeamus et mandaremus (1) quot milites + (2) quot de novo (1) quot milites haberemus de veteri + feodamento.... Et habeamus de veteri feodamento de tempore + hii omnes ligantiam feodamento de Henrici Regis avi + et homagium vobis tempore Henrici vestri, et (2) quot + fecerunt (pp. 275-6). Regis avi vestri, milites haberemus de + et (2) quot novo feodamento post + habeamus de novo tempus Regis Henrici + feodamento (p. 276). avi vestri, et (3) + quot milites habeamus + super dominium + nostrum.... + Et vobis quidem et + filio vestro + ligantiam et + homagium fecerunt + (p. 277).[44] + +Let me here break off for a moment to consider one of the most +important points suggested by this great inquest, namely, the issue of +the writs under which it was held. It has been generally assumed that +each tenant received his writ direct from the crown; and a casual +reading of the _cartae_ might, perhaps, favour such a view. I have, +however, been led to the conclusion that a general writ was issued to +the sheriff of each county, and that its terms were communicated by +him to the several tenants-in-chief, whose _capita baroniæ_ lay within +his jurisdiction. + +Baderun of Monmouth has heard the writ read out in the county +court;[45] Earl Patrick also has heard the writ read out.[46] William +fitz Siward derives from the sheriff, he tells us, his knowledge of +the writ:[47] even the bishop of Chester has received his instructions +from the sheriff.[48] But more especially do I rely upon the return +of the Archbishop of York because he recites the tenor of the writ +in terms which can leave no doubt that it was addressed, through the +sheriff, to the whole shire collectively.[49] If the Archbishop of +York did not receive a special writ, we may fairly infer that no other +tenant can have done so. + +Further, I believe that as the 'barons' received their instructions +from the sheriffs, so they also sent in their returns through those +officers. The memorandum, for instance, on the missing _carta_ of +Osbert fitz Hugh informs us that it was brought to the exchequer by +William de Beauchamp. Now, William de Beauchamp was sheriff of +the shire. This would account for the grouping of the returns 'per +singulos comitatus', as Swereford expresses it, and indeed this +arrangement would but follow the existing practice of collecting the +scutage shire by shire. + +Returning now to the terms of the inquiry, it is obvious that the +tenant (_baro_) to whom such queries were addressed must of necessity +have belonged to one of these three classes-- + + (_a_) Those who had created _the exact number_ of knights' + fees sufficient to discharge their 'service'. + + (_b_) Those who had created _more_ than sufficient. + + (_c_) Those who had created _less_ than sufficient. + +This last class requires some explanation. When the number of knights' +fees created was not sufficient to discharge the baron's 'service', +the balance of that service remained charged on the non-infeudated +portion of his fief, that is, on the 'demesne', and was technically +said to be 'super dominium'. It is all-important that this should +be grasped, for it might otherwise be supposed that such a phrase as +'quot milites super dominium' implied the existence of actual knights +enfeoffed on the demesne, which, to those who realize the working of +the system of knight-service, is an absolute contradiction in terms. +This, it will be found, beautifully explains the first article of the +Assize of Arms (1181)--that every tenant is to keep in stock harness +for as many knights 'quot habuerit feoda militum in dominio suo'.[50] +That is to say, that if, after deducting the knights actually +enfeoffed, there remained due from his fief a balance of +knight-service, he must keep in readiness harness sufficient for +those knights whom he would have to provide himself to discharge that +balance.[51] + +Having made this point clear, I now pass to the immediate object +of the inquest of 1166. What that object was, no one has as yet +discovered. Dr Stubbs, for instance, in his preface to the Pipe-Roll +of 1166, writes: 'On the immediate purpose for which the inquiry was +made--and it can scarcely be doubted that it was for the collection of +a scutage--we shall look for further information in the rolls of the +succeeding years.' My own researches enable me to assert that this +inquest formed part of a financial revolution hitherto ignored, which +deserves to be compared with those other innovations in administration +and finance that characterized the latter half of the twelfth century +in England. + +When we come to place side by side the returns of 1166 and the +payments made upon those returns in 1168, we find (at least, on the +lay fiefs) the same distinction in both between 'the old feoffment' +and 'the new'. But while the _returns_, as we saw, were made under +three heads,[52] the _payments_ were made under two, namely, under +the two feoffments. The reason of this difference can be established +beyond dispute: the exchequer clerks had, in every instance, added the +returns under the _third_ head to those under the _first_, and classed +them together as 'old feoffment'. This is one of the points which, I +think, have never been hitherto explained. + +Plenty of examples might be given, but these two will suffice. Walter +de Aincurt returns 24 fees _de veteri_, 5 _de novo_, and 11 _super +dominium_. The exchequer, in 1168, records him as paying on 35 fees +_de veteri_, and on 5 _de novo_.[53] Richard de Haie returns 11 +fees _de veteri_, 4 _de novo_, and 5 _super dominium_. The exchequer +records him as paying on 16 _de veteri_, and 4 _de novo_. + +The main point, however, on which I propose to insist, is that these +returns were intended to provide, and, as a matter of fact, did +provide a new feudal assessment, wholly superseding the old one, in no +case to the advantage of the tenant, but in many to the advantage +of the crown. The _modus operandi_ was as follows. Instead of either +adhering to the old assessment (_servitium debitum_), or uniformly +substituting a new one based on the fees actually created, the crown +selected in every case whichever of these two systems told in its own +favour and against the tenant of the fief. If he had enfeoffed fewer +knights than his _servitium debitum_ required, the crown retained that +_servitium_ as the irreducible minimum of his assessment; but if he +had created an excess of fees, the crown added that excess to his +pre-existing assessment and increased the 'service' due from him +_pro tanto_. This discovery is no conjecture, but is capable of +arithmetical demonstration. + +It should be noticed how skilfully the queries were framed in the +inquest of 1166, to entrap the unwary tenant, and make him commit +himself to the facts. If his enfeoffed knights were short of the +required number, he was caught under the third query; if, on the other +hand, he had an excess, he was caught under the others. Now, did the +'barons', when they made their returns, anticipate this sweeping and +unwelcome reform? Presumably not. They appear to have drawn up their +_cartae_ carefully and willingly, few of those who had an excess of +knights taking even the precaution of mentioning their _servitium +debitum_.[54] The church, moreover, from the terms in which her +payments are thenceforth entered (_vide infra_), must have uniformly +and systematically adopted an attitude of protest. Yet there is no +trace of such protest in her returns. May we then infer that the crown +sought to deliberately entrap its tenants? Two circumstances might +favour that view. In the first place the tenants had to make their +returns _extra sigillum pendentes_, thereby solemnly committing +themselves;[55] in the second, the tenants would, of course, have been +tempted to conceal or understate their excess of knights, had they +foreseen the use that the crown would make of their returns. + +The question may very fairly be asked, 'What check had the crown upon +a tenant in the event of the latter omitting some of his "excess" +fees?' The answer is supplied, I think, by a clause in the invaluable +return of the northern primate. He there requests that his return may +be accepted 'without prejudice', as a lawyer would say, in case of his +omitting some small fees. That is to say, these formal returns might +be brought up as evidence against tenants-in-chief who had omitted +some of their fees, proving that they had thereby themselves disowned +their right to the fees in question.[56] + +Two points strike one strongly in the preparation of these returns. +The first of these is the difficulty experienced in compiling a +correct list of under-tenants and their holdings; the second is +the employment of the 'Inquest' as a means of ascertaining the +particulars. + +Taking the former of these, we find Hugh Wac writing, 'si amplius +inquirere possim, notificabo vobis'; and Guarine 'de Aula', 'si plus +possim inquirere, faciam vobis scire'; so too the Bishop of Ely, 'de +hiis vero certi sumus, et si amplius inquirere poterimus libenter +vobis significabimus'; and the Bishop of Bath, 'si certiorem inquirere +poterimus veritatem, nos illam vobis significabimus'; and Alfred of +Lincoln, 'si plus inquiri potest, inquirere faciemus'. The Bishop of +Exeter makes his return, 'sicut eam diligentius inquirere potui'; +the Abbot of Tavistock, 'quantum inde sollicitius inquirendo scire +potuit'. Hugh de Lacy, in a postscript to his return, adds a fee 'quod +oblitus sum'; while the Earl of Clare has to send in a subsequent +rider, containing an entry, 'quod ego postquam misi cartam ... +recordatus sum'. + +From this difficulty it is a short step to the inquests which it seems +in some cases to have necessitated. The Abbot of Ramsey heads +his return, 'Haec est inquisitio'; the Earl of Warwick similarly +commences, 'Hoc est quod inquisivi per homines'. Earl Patrick makes +his return, 'secundum quod de probis et antiquis hominibus meis +inquirere potui'. 'Fecimus inquirere,' writes the Bishop of Bath, 'per +legales homines meos.... Haec autem per eos inquisivimus.' + +This brings us directly to the very important inquest referred to in +the _carta_ of the Earl of Arundel: + + Dominus noster Rex Henricus quadam contentione quae surrexit + inter milites de honore de Arundel de exercitu quodam de + Walliis, elegit iiij. milites de honore, de melioribus et + legalioribus, et antiquioribus ... et fecit eos recognoscere + servitia militum de honore, et super legalitatem et sacramenta + eorum inde neminem audire voluit. + +Mr Eyton argued elaborately on genealogical grounds that this inquest +must have taken place under Henry I, but indeed it is quite obvious +from the language of the _carta_ itself that this was so. It is, +consequently, worthy of notice for its bearing on 'the sworn inquest'. +While on this subject, attention may be called to the unique entry +in the Pipe-Roll of 12 Henry II (1166): 'Alanus de Munbi debet xl. +s. quia non interfuit Jurat' feodorum militum' (p. 8). Investigation +proves (through what is known as the Lindsey Survey) that Alan was an +under-tenant of the honour of Brittany, the successor of that Eudo who +held in Mumby _temp._ Domesday. This fact throws light on the entry, +by suggesting that the inquest referred to concerned the honour +of Brittany, the number of fees in which was then and subsequently +doubtful. + +But to return. It is infinitely easier to trace the change brought +about by the inquest of 1166 in the case of the church fiefs than of +the lay ones. For on the former it was uniform and glaring. Previously +to 1166 the church tenants had paid on their _servitium debitum_ +alone; after 1166 they paid, as a rule, on all the fees actually +created upon the fief. Thus the assessment of the Bishop of Durham was +raised at a blow from ten fees to more than seventy.[57] There were +several equally striking cases among the prelates. Now, whether or not +the church tenants feared something of the kind, they had generally +been careful in their returns to set forth their _servitium debitum_, +and when, in 1168, they were uniformly assessed on their total of +fees, their uniform protest is expressed in the formula 'quos non +recognoscit' applied to the payment on their excess knights. Such is +the meaning of this puzzling formula which is peculiar to the church +fiefs.[58] In these cases it wholly replaces the _de veteri_ and _de +novo_ assessment which, from 1166, was applied to the lay fiefs. + + +II. THE SERVITIUM DEBITUM + +The essential feature we have to keep in view when examining the +growth of knight service is the _servitium debitum_, or quota of +knight service due to the crown from each fief. + +This has, I venture to think, been obscured and lost sight of in +the generalizations and vague writing about the 'gradual process' +of development. It is difficult for me to traverse the arguments of +Gneist, Stubbs and Freeman, because we consider the subject from such +wholly different standpoints. For them the introduction of knight +service means the process of sub-infeudation on the several fiefs; +for me it means the grant of fiefs to be held from the crown by knight +service. Thus the process which absorbs the attention of the school +whose views I am opposing is for me a matter of mere secondary +importance. The whole question turns upon the point whether or not the +tenants-in-chief received their fiefs to hold of the crown by a quota +of military service, or not. If they did, it would depend simply on +their individual inclinations, whether, or how far, they had recourse +to sub-infeudation. It was not a matter of principle at all; it was, +as Dr Stubbs himself put it, 'a matter of convenience',[59] a mere +detail. What we have to consider is not the relation between the +tenant-in-chief and his under-tenants, but that between the king +and his tenants-in-chief: for this was the primary relation that +determined all below it. + +The assumption that the Conqueror cannot have introduced any new +principle in the tenure of land lies at the root of the matter. +Assuming this, one must of course seek elsewhere for the introduction +of knight service. Have not the difficulties of the accepted view +arisen from its exponents approaching the problem from the wrong point +of view? The tendency to exalt the English and depreciate the Norman +element in our constitutional development has led them I think, +and especially Mr Freeman, to seek in Anglo-Saxon institutions an +explanation of feudal phenomena. This tendency is manifest in their +conclusions on the great council:[60] it colours no less strongly +their views on knight service. In neither case can they bring +themselves to adopt the feudal standpoint or to enter into the feudal +spirit. It is to this that I attribute their disposition to bring the +crown face to face with the under-tenant--or 'landowner' as they would +prefer to term him--and so to ignore, or at least to minimize the +importance of the tenant-in-chief, the 'middleman' of the feudal +system. Making every allowance for the policy of the Conqueror in +insisting on the direct allegiance of the under-tenant to the crown, +and thereby checking the disintegrating influence of a perfect feudal +system, the fact remains what we may term the 'military service' +bargain was a bargain between the crown and the tenant-in-chief, not +between the crown and his under-tenants. It follows from this that so +long as the 'baron' (or 'tenant-in-chief') discharged his _servitium +debitum_ to the crown, the king had no right to look beyond the +'baron', who was himself and alone responsible for the discharge of +this service. It is, indeed, in this responsibility that lies the +key to the situation. If the under-tenant of a knight's fee failed to +discharge his service, it was not to him, but to his lord, that the +crown betook itself. 'I know nothing of your tenant,' was in effect +the king's position; 'you owe me, for the tenure of your fief, the +service of so many knights, and that service must be performed, +whether your under-tenants repudiate their obligations to yourself or +not'. In other words the 'baron' discharged his service to the king, +whereas the baron's under-tenants discharged theirs to their lord.[61] +So the _Dialogus_ speaks of the under-tenant's 'numerum militum quos +domino debuerat'. + +Let us then apply ourselves directly to the quotas of military service +due from the 'barons' to the crown, and see if, when ascertained, they +throw any fresh light on the real problem. + +No attempt, so far as I know, has ever been made to determine these +quotas, and indeed it was the utter want of trustworthy information +on the subject that led Swereford to undertake his researches in +the thirteenth century. Those researches, unfortunately, leave us +no wiser, partly from his defective method and want of the requisite +accuracy; partly from the fact that what he sought was not abstract +historical truth, but practical information bearing on the existing +rights of the crown. We must turn therefore to the original +authorities: (1) the _cartae baronum_, (2) the annual rolls. These were +the two main sources of Swereford's information, as they must also be +of ours. In the next part of this paper I shall deal with the evidence +of the rolls, as checking and supplementing the _cartae baronum_. + +I shall analyse the church fiefs first, because we can ascertain, +virtually with exactitude, the _servitium debitum_ of every prelate +and of every head of a religious house who held by knight service. +The importance of these figures, together with the fact that they have +never, so far as I know, been set forth till now, has induced me to +append them here in full detail. + + SEE SERVICE DUE SEE SERVICE DUE + knights knights + + Canterbury 60 Bath 20 + Winchester 60 London 20 + Lincoln 60 Exeter 17-1/2[62] + Worcester 50 [60] 'Chester' 15 + Norwich 40 Hereford 15 + Ely 40 Durham 10 + Salisbury 32 Chichester 4 [2] + York 20 [7] + +Every English See then in existence is thus accounted for with the +solitary and significant exceptions of Carlisle and Rochester. The +latter See, we know, had enfeoffed knights for their names (_temp._ +Henry I, I think, from internal evidence) are recorded in the _Textus +Roffensis_ (p. 223);[63] the former had been created after the date +when, as I shall argue, the Conqueror fixed the knight service due +from the fees. + +In the above list the figures in brackets refer to the assessments +previous to 1166. Three changes were made at, or about, that date. The +Bishop of Worcester, in accordance with the protest he had made from +the beginning of the reign, obtained a reduction of his quota from +sixty knights to fifty; while the Archbishop of York's _servitium_ +was raised from seven knights to twenty, and that of the Bishop of +Chichester from two knights to four. These changes are known to us +only from the details of the prelate's scutages; there is nothing to +account for them in the relevant _cartae_, and we can only infer from +the formula _quos recognoscit_ that the two bishops whose _servitia_ +were increased acquiesced in the justice of the crown's claim. + +Proceeding to the 'service' of the religious houses: + + HOUSE SERVICE DUE HOUSE SERVICE DUE + knights knights + + Peterborough 60 Wilton 5 + Glastonbury 40 [60] Ramsey 4 + St Edmundsbury 40 Chertsey 3 + Abingdon 30 St Bene't of Hulme 3 + Hyde 20 Cerne[64] 2 [3] + St Augustine's 15 Pershore 2 [3] + Westminster 15(?) Malmesbury 3 + Tavistock 15(?) Winchcombe 2 + Coventry 10 Middleton 2 + Shaftesbury 7 [10] Sherburne 2 + St Alban's 6 Michelney 1 + Evesham 5 Abbotsbury 1 + + +The changes of assessment on religious houses were few, and are thus +accounted for. Glastonbury, which paid on sixty knights in the first +two scutages of the reign, paid on forty in the third and in +those which followed. Pershore paid on three in the first scutage, +protesting that it was only liable to two, and from 1168 it was only +rated at two. Shaftesbury, which had paid on ten knights in the first +scutage, was assessed at only seven in the third scutage and those +which followed. Cerne also succeeded in getting its assessment reduced +from three knights to two. With these changes should be compared the +letter of Bishop Nigel of Ely to Ramsey Abbey certifying that it was +only liable to an assessment of four knights. Two cases remain which +require special treatment--Tavistock and Westminster. + +Although Tavistock, in the first scutage, appears to have paid on the +anomalous assessment of ten and a half knights its payment on fifteen +in the two succeeding ones may fairly be taken as evidence that this +was its _servitium debitum_.[65] Its abbot, however, made no reference +to that _servitium_ in his return, and--by an exception to the regular +practice in the case of church fiefs--we find him charged, not on the +fees, (1) 'quos recognoscit', (2) 'quos non recognoscit', but on those +which were enfeoffed 'de veteri', and 'de novo' just as if he were a +lay tenant. As his fees 'de veteri' were sixteen, this figure recurs +in successive scutages, until in 3 John we find him contesting as +to one knight ('unde est contentio') who, doubtless, represented the +difference between fifteen and sixteen. + +The case of Westminster presents considerable difficulty, the entries +relating to its payments of scutage being very puzzling. The abbey's +fees lay chiefly in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire--especially +Worcestershire--and it is under this county that we find it ultimately +(_i.e._ from 1168 onwards) assessed at fifteen fees, an assessment +which the abbot himself seems to have claimed, in the first scutage, +as the right one. + +Taking then the _servitium debitum_ of all the church fiefs, at their +earliest ascertainable assessment, we obtain this result: + + Bishops 458-1/2 + Heads of religious houses 318 + Capellaria de Bosham 7-1/2 + ------- + Grand total 784[66] + + +Far more difficult is the calculation of the _servitium debitum_ from +the lay fiefs. The list which follows is constructed from the evidence +of the _cartae_ and the rolls, and, though substantially correct, is +liable to emendation in details. It only comprises those fiefs the +_servitium_ of which I have been able to ascertain with certainty or +probability. + + Robert 'filius Regis' 100[67] + Earl Ferrers 80 (? 60)[68] + Honour of Totness 75 + Honour of Tickhill 60 (?)[69] + Robert de Stafford 60 + Count of Eu 60 (?)[70] + Earl Warrenne 60 (?)[71] + Lacy of Pontefract 60 + Roger de Mowbray 60[72] + Earl of Essex 60 + Walter fitz Robert (of Essex) 50 + Honour of Richmond 50[73] + Gervase Paynell 50 + Reginald de St Valery 50 (?)[74] + Patrick, Earl of Salisbury 40 + Walter de Aincurt 40 + William de Montfichet 40 + Payn de Montdoubleau 40[75] + William de Roumare 40 (?)[76] + Hubert de Rye 35 + Hubert fitz Ralf (Derbyshire) 30 + Walter de Wahulle 30 + William fitz Robert (Devon) 30 + William de Traci 30[77] + Robert de Valoines 30[77] + Maurice de Craon 30[77] + William de Albini (of Belvoir) 30[77] + Bernard Balliol 30[78] + Roger de Arundel 30[79] + Walter de Mayenne 30 (?)[80] + Robert de Albini (Bucks) 25 + Robert fitz Hugh 25 + Alfred of Lincoln 25 + Ralf Hanselin 25 + William de Braose 25[81] + Oliver de Traci 25[81] + Gerard de Limesi 25 (?)[82] + Walter Waleran 20 + Richard de Hay 20 + Honour of Holderness 20 + William de Windsor 20 + Hugh de Bayeux 20 + William de Vesci 20 (?)[83] + Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur 20 (?)[84] + Thomas de Arcy 20 (?)[85] + Hugh de Dover 15 + Walter Bret 15 + Baderon de Monmouth 15 + Earl Richard de Redvers 15[86] + Adam de Brus 15 + Hamo fitz Meinfelin 15 + Osbert fitz Hugh 15 (?)[87] + ? Hugh de Scalers 15[88] + ? Stephen de Scalers 15 + Gilbert de Pinkeni 15 + Geoffrey Ridel 15 + Robert Foliot 15 + Robert de Choques 15 + Robert de Caux 15 + William Paynell 15 (?) + Richard de Reimes 10 + Roger de Buron 10 + Richard fitz William 10 + William fitz Alan 10 + Richard de Cormeilles 10 + Roger de Kentswell 10 + William Trussebut 10 + Nigel de Lovetot 10 + Manasser Arsic 10 + Richard de Montacute 10 + Wandrille de Courcelles 10 + Walter de Bolebec (Bucks) 10 + Robert de Hastings 10 + Lambert de Scotenni 10 + Drogo de Montacute 10 (?)[89] + William de Reimes 10 (?)[90] + William de Helion 10 (?)[91] + +Graeland de Thani of Essex owed seven and a half knights (the half of +fifteen), and Roger de Berkeley probably the same. Those who owed a +_servitium_ of five knights were Robert fitz Harding, Baldwin Buelot, +Simon de Cancy, Nigel de Lovetot (of the honour of Tickhill), Amfry de +Cancy, Hugh de Dover (of the honour of Brunne),[92] Walter de Bolebec +(Northumberland), Robert de Brus, Roger Bertram, and probably Stephen +de Bulmer,[93] and Herbert 'de Castello'. + +The cases in which the _servitium_ can be shown not to have been a +multiple of five are comparatively few. That of Simon de Beauchamp of +Bedford was 54, of William Fossard 33-1/2, of Humphrey de Bohun 30-1/2, +of William Malet 20-1/6, of Robert de Beauchamp (of Somerset) 17, of +William fitz John (of Harptree) 13-3/4, of William Blund 12, of Hugh +Wac 10-1/8, of William de Ros, William fitz John (of Weston) and +William de Beauchamp (of Worcestershire) 7, of John de Bidun and +Jocelin de Lovaine 5-1/2.[94] But these, it will be seen, are quite +insufficient to overthrow the accumulated array of evidence on the +other side, and some of them are, doubtless, capable of explanation. +The Bohun fief, for instance, in 1162 paid on exactly 30 fees. + +It is impossible to resist the inference, from such evidence as we +have, that the amount of the _servitium debitum_ was a matter of +custom and tradition, and could not usually be determined by reference +to written grants or charters. On this point the returns of three +Essex tenants are most instructive, while their similarity is so +striking, that, as in the case of the Shropshire _formulæ_, it can +scarcely be due to accident. The Earl of Essex closes with the words: +'et homines mei dicunt mihi quod debeo Domino Regi lx. milites'. +Walter fitz Robert, who follows him, writes: 'et hoc mihi homines mei +intelligere faciunt, quod debeo inde Regi servitium de l. militibus'. +William de Montfichet ends thus: 'et hoc faciunt homines mei mihi +intelligere--quod pater meus deserviebat per xl. milites'. With these +expressions we may compare those of William fitz Alan's tenants, who +assert that his Norfolk fief 'non debet domino Regi nisi i. militem +... ut antiqui testantur'; that his Shropshire fief 'non debet Regi +nisi x. milites in exercitu ... sicut antiqui testantur'; and that, as +to his Wiltshire fief, 'non sumus certi quod servitium debeat Regi +de hoc tenemento'. The Abbot of Chertsey, also, states his _servitium +debitum_ with the proviso 'secundum quod scire possumus'. These +expressions explain the uncertainty as to the _servitium debitum_ in +such cases as the See of Worcester and Ramsey Abbey.[95] + +The same principle applies to the relation between the tenant-in-chief +and his under-tenant. Thus the very first entry in the _cartae_ runs as +follows: + + Willelmus de Wokindone iiij. milites et dimidium; et praeter + hoc, ex testimonio curiae meae, dimidium exigo, quem ipse se + non debere defendit. + +Of another tenant on the same fief we read: 'praeter hoc, _ex +testimonio curiae meae_, adhuc j. militem exigo'. Here, we see, appeal +is made not to record evidence, but to oral testimony. So, too, the +Bishop of Exeter adds this clause to his return: + + Et praeter hos omnes, sicut _a multis audivi_, comes + Gloucestriæ, et comes Hugo, et comes de Clare debent tenere + de Exoniensi Episcopo; sed nullum ei servitium faciunt vel + recognoscunt. + +Surely in all such cases as these the obvious inference is that the +tenant had been enfeoffed _sine carta_, or in the very words of +the Provisions of the Barons (1259) 'feofatus sine carta a tempore +conquestus vel alio antiquo feofamento' (§ 1). + +And now for my theory. No one can have even glanced at the lists I +have compiled without being instantly struck by the fact that the +'service' is reckoned in round numbers, and is almost invariably +_a multiple of 5, if not of 10_.[96] This discovery, of course, is +absolutely destructive of the view that it always represented the +number of five-hide (or £20) units contained in the fief. Further, the +number of differing fiefs assessed at precisely the same figure proves +that the assessment was wholly arbitrary and cannot have been even the +round sum which approximated most nearly the number of such units.[97] +What then was the true determinant in the light of these conclusions? +I reply--_the unit of the feudal host_. + +'On the continent,' writes Gneist, 'fifty _milites_, or at least +twenty-five, were reckoned to one banneret; in England, in proportion +to the smaller scale of enfeoffments, a smaller number appears to have +formed the unit of the _constabularia_.'[98] He is right: the English +_constabularia_, where I find it referred to, consists of _ten_ +knights.[99] It is interesting to trace this unit and its multiples +recurring in the narratives of Irish warfare, under Henry II, and in +other struggles.[100] We meet with it also in the grant by the Empress +to Geoffrey de Mandeville, in 1141, of 'feodum et servicium xx. +militum' and in Stephen's grant to him of 'lx milites feudatos'.[101] + +The next step is to show that the Normans were familiar with +_servitium debitum_ in terms of the ten-knight unit when they landed +in England. For this we have only to refer to Wace. For in the 'Roman +de Rou', as quoted by Mr Freeman himself, we find William fitz Osbern +assuring the duke as to his barons: + + Vostre servise dobleront: + Ki solt mener vint chevaliers + Quarante en merra volontiers, + E ki de trente servir deit + De sesante servir vos velt, + E cil ki solt servir de cent + Dous cent en merra bonement.[102] + +The _servitium debitum_, therefore, was a standing institution in +Normandy, and 'to the mass of his (William's) followers', as Mr +Freeman frankly admits,[103] a 'feudal tenure, a military tenure, must +have seemed the natural and universal way of holding land'. When we +find them and their descendants holding their fiefs in England, as +they had been held in Normandy, by the service of a round number of +knights, what is the simple and obvious inference but that, just as +Henry II granted out the provinces of Ireland to be held as fiefs +by the familiar service of a round number of knights,[104] so Duke +William granted out the fiefs he formed in England? + +If to escape from this conclusion the suggestion be made that +these _servitia debita_ were compositions effected by English +_antecessores_, it need only be answered that the fiefs acquired were +wholly new creations, constructed from the scattered fragments of +Anglo-Saxon estates. And though in the case of the church fiefs this +objection might not apply, yet we have evidence, as I shall show, to +prove that their _servitia_ also were determined by the conqueror's +will, as indeed might be inferred from their close correspondence with +those of the lay barons. + +But if the lands of the conquered realm were so granted to be held by +a _servitium debitum_ of knights, the key of the position is won, and +the defenders of the existing view must retire along the whole line; +for, as Mr Freeman himself observed, 'Let it be once established that +land is held as a fief from the crown on condition of yielding certain +services to the crown, and the whole of the feudal incidents follow +naturally.'[105] + +I am anxious to make absolutely clear the point that between the +accepted view and the view which I advance, no compromise is possible. +The two are radically opposed. As against the theory that the military +obligation of the Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was determined by the +assessment of his holding, whether in hidage or in value, I maintain +that the extent of that obligation was not determined by his +holding, but was fixed in relation to, and expressed in terms of, the +_constabularia_ of ten knights, the unit of the feudal host. And I, +consequently, hold that his military service was in no way derived or +developed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by +the king, from whom he received his fief, irrespectively both of +its size and of all pre-existent arrangements. Such propositions, of +course, utterly and directly traverse the view which these passages +best summarize: + + The belief that William I divided the English landed property + into military fees is erroneous.... According to the extent + and the nature of the productive property it could be + computed how many shields were to be furnished by each + estate, according to the gradually fixed proportion of a £20 + ground-rent.[106] + + There is no ground for thinking that William directly or + systematically introduced any new kind of tenure into the + holding of English lands. There is nothing to suggest any such + belief, either in the chronicles of his reign, in the Survey, + which is his greatest monument, in the genuine or even in the + spurious remains of his legislation.... As I have had to point + out over and over again, the grantee of William, whether the + old owner or a new one, held his land as it had been held in + the days of King Edward.[107] + + There can be no doubt that the military tenure ... was itself + introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed + in the case of the feudal usages in general. We have no light + on the point from any original grant made by the Conqueror + to a lay follower; but ... we cannot suppose it probable that + such gifts were made on any expressed condition, or accepted + with a distinct pledge to provide a certain contingent of + knights for the king's service.[108] + +If my own conclusions be accepted, they will not only prove +destructive of this view, but will restore, in its simplicity, a +theory which removes all difficulties, and which paves the way to a +reconsideration of other kindred problems, and to the study of that +aspect of Anglo-Norman institutions in which they represent the feudal +spirit developed on feudal lines. + + +III. SCUTAGE, AID, AND 'DONUM' + +Precious for our purpose as are the _cartae_ of 1166, their evidence, +as it stands, is incomplete. It needs to be supplemented by the early +Pipe-Rolls of Henry II's reign. By collating these two authorities we +obtain information which, singly, neither the one nor the other could +afford. All those entries on the rolls which relate to _scutagia_, +_auxilia_ or _dona_ require to be extracted and classified before we +can form our conclusions. Hitherto, historians have remained content +with repeating Swereford's _obiter dicta_, as extracted from the +_Liber Rubeus_ by Madox, without checking these statements by the +evidence of the rolls themselves. + +The question of Swereford's authority is one which it is absolutely +necessary to deal with, because his statements have been freely +accepted by successive historical writers, and have formed, indeed, +the basis on which their conclusions rest. Now the presumption is +naturally in favour of Swereford's knowledge of his subject. His +introduction to the _Liber Rubeus_ is dated 1230, and he tells us that +he had been at work among the records in the days of King John, under +William of Ely[109] himself: he wrote with the actual rolls before +him; he had been intimate with the leading officials of the exchequer, +and enjoyed full knowledge of its practice and its traditions. I +cannot wonder that, this being so, his positive assertions should have +been readily believed, or that Mr Hall, when, for a short time, I was +associated with him in preparing the Red Book for the press, should, +with a kindly bias in favour of so venerable an authority, have shrunk +from my drastic criticism of his famous introduction to that volume. + +On the other hand we have Swereford's own admission that he worked +from the rolls alone.[110] These rolls are, for all purposes, as +accessible to us as they were to him, while we possess the advantage +of having, in contemporary chronicles, sources of information which +he did not use, and with which, indeed, he shows no sign of being even +conversant. We must go, therefore, behind Swereford and examine for +ourselves the materials from which he worked. + +Passing, for the present, over minor points, I would fix on the 'Great +Scutage', or 'Scutage of Toulouse', as the test by which Swereford's +knowledge and accuracy must stand or fall. If he is in error on this +matter, his error is so grievous and so far-reaching that it must +throw the gravest doubt on all his similar assertions. The date of +the expedition against Toulouse was June 1159 (the host having been +summoned at Mid-Lent): from the chroniclers we learn that, to provide +the means for it, and especially to pay an army of mercenaries, +a great levy was made in England and beyond sea. The roll of the +following Michaelmas records precisely such a levy, and the payments +so recorded must have been made for the expenses of this campaign. But +we can go further still; we can actually prove from internal evidence +that sums accounted for on the roll of 1159 were levied expressly +for the Toulouse campaign.[111] Yet we are confidently informed by +Swereford that this levy was for a Welsh war, and that the scutage +of Toulouse is represented by the levies which figure on the rolls +of 1161 and 1162. He appears to have evolved out of his inner +consciousness the rule that a scutage, though fixed and even paid in +any given year, was never accounted for on the rolls till the year +after.[112] But as even this rule will not apply to his calculation +here, one can only suggest that he was absolutely ignorant of the date +of the Toulouse campaign.[113] The value of Swereford's calculations +is so seriously affected by this cardinal error, that one may reject +with less hesitation his statement that the scutage of 1156 was +taken for a Welsh war, and not, as there is evidence to imply, for a +campaign against the king's brother. Swereford, again, may be pardoned +for his ignorance of the fact that scutage existed under Henry +I,[114] but when he unhesitatingly assigns the Domesday Survey to +the fourteenth year of the Conqueror (1079-80), he shows us that the +precision of his statements is no proof of their accuracy. On both +these points he has misled subsequent writers.[115] + +The incredible ignorance and credulity even of officials at the time +are illustrated by the fact that the Conqueror was generally believed +to have created 32,000 knights' fees in England, and that Swereford +plumed himself on his independence in doubting so general a +belief.[116] His less sceptical contemporary, Segrave, continued to +believe it, and even Madox hesitates to reject it. + +The persistent assertion that the _Cartae Baronum_ were connected +with, and preliminary to, the _auxilium ad filiam maritandam_ of +1168 is undoubtedly to be traced to Swereford's _ipse dixit_ to that +effect. He distinctly asserts that the aid was fixed (_assisum_) in +the thirteenth year (1167), that the returns (_cartae_) were made in +the same year (1167), and that the aid was paid and accounted for in +the fourteenth year (1168).[117] Modern research, however, has shown +that the returns were made quite early in 1166, while the youthful +Matilda, we know, was not married till October 1168. This throws an +instructive light on Swereford's _modus operandi_. Finding from the +rolls that the payments made in 1168 were based on the returns in the +_cartae_, and not being acquainted with the date of the latter, he +jumped to the conclusion that they must have been made in 1167, it +being his (quite unsupported) thesis that all levies were fixed in the +year preceding that in which they were accounted for on the rolls. + +Proceeding further, we find him explaining (p. 9) that he omits the +aid of 1165, 'quoniam probata summa auxilii propter hoc non probatur +numerus militum'. And yet this aid, the last to be taken before the +returns of 1166, is of special value and importance for the very +purpose he speaks of. It is, indeed, an essential element in the +evidence on which I build; and this compels me to discuss the point in +some detail. + +Those who contributed towards this aid either (1) gave arbitrary sums +for the payment of _servientes_--whose number was almost invariably +some multiple of five--or (2) paid a marc on every fee of their +_servitium debitum_. We are only here concerned with those who adopted +the latter course. Now let us take the case of those who adopted this +alternative in the counties of Notts and Derby, and compare their +payments with their _servitium debitum_ as known to us from other +sources. + + PAYMENTS (1165) SERVICE (1166) + + _marcae_ knights + + Hubert fitz Ralf 30 30 + Ralf Halselin 25 25 + Robert de 'Calz' 15 15 + Roger de Burun 10 10 + +In this case there is no doubt as to the _servitium debitum_, for it +is ascertained from the _cartae_ themselves. Having then proved, by +this test, the exact correspondence of the payments, I turn to the +case of Devonshire. + + PAYMENTS (1165) SERVICE (1166) + + _marcae_ knights[118] + + Robert 'filius Regis' 100 (?) + William de Traci 30 (?) + William de Braose 25 (?) + Oliver de Traci 25 (?) + Abbot of Tavistock 15 15 + William fitz Reginald 1 1 + Ralf de Valtort 1 1 + Robert fitz Geoffrey 1 1 + +Here we are supplied by this roll with four important _servitia_ which +would otherwise be absolutely unknown to us. And they happen to be of +special interest. For while the _carta_ of William de Braose returns +twenty-eight fees, and that of Oliver de Traci twenty-three and a half +(though he pays on thirty and a half),[119] their payments in 1165, +by revealing their _servitium debitum_, show us that their fiefs +represent the two halves of the Honour of Barnstaple (which, +therefore, was assessed at 50 knights) then in their respective hands. +Again, William de Traci returns his fees in his _carta_ as twenty-five +and three-quarters, and says nothing about any balance on his +_dominium_, as he should have done. Hence we should not have known his +_servitium_ but for the roll of 1165. + +Swereford's extraordinary failure to understand this roll aright +is possibly due to the fact that most of the relevant payments are +entered without mention of their object. He seems to have been very +dependent upon the rolls explaining themselves, and to have worked in +the spirit of a copying clerk rather than of an intelligent student. + +One more example of his errors will suffice. In his abstracts from the +aid 'ad maritandam primogenitam filiam regis' (1168), we read: + + Abbas Gloucestriæ de promissione, sed non numeratur quid; + sed in rotulo praecedenti dicitur:--Abbas Gloucestriæ debet + xxxviij. l. ij. s. vj. d. de veteri scutagio Walliae. + +Now (1) the amount of the abbot's contribution is duly entered on the +roll ('xl. marcas de promissione de eodem auxilio'), and it is not +paid in respect of fees, but is a voluntary proffer; (2) the phrase +in the preceding roll is not 'de veteri _scutagio_', but 'de veteri +_exercitu'_; (3) the payment there recorded represents a contribution +of fifty _servientes_, and had nothing to do with scutage, for the +abbot (as Swereford should have known) did not hold by military +service, and ought not, therefore, to figure in his lists at all.[120] + +Let us turn, therefore, to the rolls themselves. Now, although the +language of the exchequer was not so precise as we could wish, it +is possible, more or less, to distinguish and classify these levies. +Thus, we have of course a typical 'aid' in the levy for the marriage +of the king's daughter (1168), while, on the other hand, we have an +equally typical 'scutage' in 1156, in the payments made by the church +tenants in lieu of military service. + +On the institution of 'scutage' there has been much misconception. +It is placed by our historians among the great innovations wrought by +Henry II, who is supposed by them to have introduced it in 1156.[121] +Here we see, once again, the danger of seeking our information on such +points secondhand, instead of going straight to the fountainhead for +ourselves. + +John of Salisbury implies that scutage was no novelty in 1156 when he +writes, not that the king imposed it, but that he '_could not remit_ +it'. This inference is at once confirmed by the appearance of scutage +_eo nomine_ in the reign of Henry I. + +The following charter is found in the (MS.) _Liber Eliensis_ (Lib. +III), No. xxi, and in the Cottonian MS. Nero A. 15: + + H. rex Anglorum Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus, + Comitibus, etc. Salutem. Sciatis me condonasse Ecclesiæ S. + Ætheldredæ de Ely pro Dei amore et anima Patris et Matris + meae et pro redemptione peccatorum meorum, et petitione Hervei + ejusdem Ecclesie Episcopi 40 libras de illis 100 libris + quas predicta Ecclesia solebat dare de _Scutagio_ quando + _Scutagium_ currebat[122] per terram meam Anglie: ita quod + Ecclesia amodo inperpetuum non dabit inde nisi 60 libras + quando _Scutagium_ per terram evenerit, et ita inperpetuum + sit de predictis libris Ecclesia predicta quieta. T. Rogero + Episcopo Saresberiensi, Gaufrido Cancellario meo et Roberto + de Sigillo et Willelmo de Tancarvilla et Willelmo de Albineio + Pincerna et Radulfo Basset et Gaufrido de Clintona et Willelmo + de Pondelarche. Apud Eilinges in transitu meo. + +This is followed by (No. xxii) a grant of Chatteris Abbey to the +church of Ely;[123] and this again is followed, in a register of +Chatteris Abbey,[124] by a remission of 6s 7d Wardpenny hitherto +paid by that abbey. The first and third charters receive singular +confirmation, being thus accounted for in the Pipe-Roll of Henry I: + + Et idem Episcopus debet ccxl. li. ut rex clamet eum quietum + de superplus militum Episcopatus, et ut Abbatia de Cateriz sit + quieta de Warpenna (p. 44). + +This entry, moreover, connects the _scutagium_ with the system of +knight-service (_superplus militum_). + +It is delicious to learn, on comparing the records, that the virtuous +king who made these grants for the weal of his parents' souls and the +remission of his own sins, extorted from the church, for making them, +an equivalent in hard cash.[125] + +Again, the (MS.) Cartulary of St Evroul contains a confirmation by +Randulf, Earl of Chester (1121-29) of his predecessor (d. 1120) Earl +Richard's benefaction, 'liberam et quietam ab _escuagio_', etc., etc. +The list of the Abbot of Peterborough's knights (see p. 131) is a +further illustration of knight-service _temp._ Henry I, while the +entry as to Vivian, who was enfeoffed by Abbot Turold: 'servit pro +milite _cum auxilio_' (_Chron. Petrob._, p. 175), must refer to the +somewhat obscure 'auxilium militum' of the period. So also, it would +seem, must the curious charter of Eustace, Count of Boulogne,[126] +in which he speaks of his knights serving: 'sive _in nummis_, sive +in exercitu, sive in guarda', under Henry I. Most important of all, +however, is a passage on which I have lighted since this essay first +appeared. In reading through the letters of Herbert (Losinga), Bishop +of Norwich (d. 1119), I found this appeal to the Bishop of Salisbury, +in the king's absence from England: + + In terris meis exiguntur quinquaginta libræ pro placitis, cum + earundem terrarum mei homines nec in responsionem nec in facto + peccaverint.[127] Item _pro militibus sexaginta libræ_ quos [? + quas] tanto difficilius cogor reddere, quanto annis præteritis + mea substantia gravius attenuata est (Ed. Giles, p. 51). + +The sum is that to which the Ely contribution is reduced by the above +charter, and the death of the writer in 1119 proves the early date of +the payment. + +Indeed, a little consideration will show that payment in lieu of +military service, which was the essential principle of scutage, +could be no new thing. The two forms which this payment might +assume--payment to a substitute, or payment to the crown--both appear +in Domesday as applicable to the fyrd; the former is found in the +'Customs' of Berkshire, the latter in other passages. From the very +commencement of knight service, the principle must have prevailed; +for the 'baron' who had not enfeoffed knights enough to discharge his +_servitium debitum_, must always have hired substitutes to the amount +of the balance. Nor is this a matter of supposition: we know as a +fact, from the _Abingdon Chronicle_ and the _Ely History_, that under +William I knights were so hired.[128] Here it should be noted, as a +suggestive fact, that the 'forty days' of military service, though +bearing no direct proportion either to the week or to the month, do so +to the marc and to the pound. The former represents 4d, and the +latter 6d, for each day of the military service.[129] It may fairly +be assumed that this normal 'scutage' would be based on the estimated +cost of substitutes paid direct. Thus the only change involved would +be that the tenant would make his payments not to substitutes, but to +the crown instead. + +There is a valuable entry bearing on this point in the roll of 8 Henry +II (p. 53). We there read: + + Et in liberatione vii. militum soldariorum de toto anno quater + xx. et iiii. li. et xviii. s. et viii. d. Et in liberatione + xx. servientium de toto anno xxx. li. et vi. s. et viii. d. + Et in liberatione viii. Arbalist' viii. li. et xvi. sol. Et in + liberatione v. vigilum et i. Portarii vi. li. et xvi. d. + +This represents 8d a day to each of the seven knights for a year +of 364 days, which, be it observed, corresponds precisely with the +statements in the _Dialogus_: 'Duo milites bajuli clavium quisque +in die viii. [den.] _ratione militiae_; asserunt enim quod equis +necessariis et armis instructi fore teneantur', etc. (i. 3). And so, +we see, a scutage of two marcs, such as that which was raised for +the expedition of Toulouse (1159), would represent, with singular +accuracy, 8d a day for the forty days of feudal service, or exactly +a knight's pay. Again the pay of the _serviens_, recorded in this +passage, works out at a penny a day for a year of 364 days, which has +an important bearing, we shall find, on the roll of three years later +(11 Henry II). A similar calculation shows that the porter received 2d +a day, and the _vigil_ 1d--the very pay assigned him in the _Dialogus_ +(i. 3). There is another similar passage in the roll of 14 Henry II +(p. 124): + + Et in liberatione i. militis et ii. Portariorum, et ii. + vigilum de Blancmost' xviii. li. et v. sol. Et in liberatione + xl. servientum de Blancmust' de xxix. septimanis xxxiii. li. + et xvi. s. et viii. d. Et xx. servientibus qui remanserunt + xxiii. septimanas xiii. li. et viii. s. et iiii. d. + +Here again the knight's pay works out at 8d a day, while the porters, +the watchmen, and the _servientes_ received 1d. Specially valuable, +however, are the entries (to which no one, I think, has drawn +attention) relating to the small standing guards kept up in the summer +months at 'Walton' and Dover.[130] Eventually the payments to these +guards were made from the central treasury ('exitus de thesauro'), and +are therefore appended, on the rolls, to the list of _combustiones_ +where no one would think of looking for them. + +On the roll of 10 Henry II we find: 'Liberatio iiii. militum et ii. +servientum de Waletone a festo Ap. Phil' et Jac' usque ad festum S. +Luce xxiiii. li. et xx. d.' This works out at exactly 8d a day for the +_miles_, and 1d for the _serviens_. On the roll of the next year the +five knights at Dover are paid £25 for 150 days' service, or exactly +8d a day each. So too on the roll of the thirteenth year we read: +'Liberatio iiii. militum de Waletone xxiii. li. et ix. s. et iiii. d. +de clxxvi. diebus.... Et ii. servientibus de clxxvi. diebus xxix. sol. +et iiii. d.' Here again the _miles_ gets 8d, the _serviens_ 1d a day. +It is needless to multiply instances, but it may be added that similar +calculations show the sailors of Richard's crusading fleet to have +received 2d and their boatswains 4d a day. + +It is, perhaps, possible to trace a complete change of policy in this +matter by the crown. The Conqueror, we may gather from divers hints, +was anxious to push forward the process of sub-infeudation, that as +many knights as possible might be actually available for service. As +the chief danger lay, at first, in the prospect of English revolt +it was clearly his policy to strengthen to the utmost that 'Norman +garrison', as we may term it, which the feudal system enabled him +to quarter on the conquered land.[131] But as the two races slowly +coalesced, the nature of the danger changed: it was no longer a +question of Norman _versus_ Englishman, but of danger to the crown +from war abroad and feudal revolt at home. Thenceforth its policy +would be no longer to encourage personal service, but rather payment +in lieu thereof, which would provide the means of hiring mercenaries, +a more trustworthy and useful force. Clearly the accession of the +Angevin house would, and did, give to this new policy a great impetus. + +The first levy to which the rolls bear witness is that of 1156. As +this was only raised from the _church_ fiefs, Henry II was, as yet, +confining himself strictly to the precedent set him, as we know, in +his grandfather's reign. This levy was at the rate of _one pound_ on +the fee, and was made on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_). + +I have already shown that the levy in question was not, as alleged, an +innovation. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The peculiar measure of the second +year was the collection of scutage from the knights' fees holding +of ecclesiastical superiors,[132] a measure which met with much +opposition from Archbishop Theobald at the time';[133] and speaking +of William of Newburgh, he suggests that 'possibly in William's +estimation the consent of St Thomas took from the scutage on church +fees its sacrilegious character'.[134] But if the institution was +fully recognized under Henry I, how was it 'sacrilegious'? Theobald's +'opposition' in 1156 can only be inferred from the king's reply +explaining the necessity for the levy,[135] and was clearly directed, +not against the principle, but by way of appeal against the necessity +in that instance. Miss Norgate holds that 'no resentment seems to have +been provoked by the measure', although she sees in it 'the origin of +the great institution of scutage'.[136] Then there is the question of +the object for which the levy was made. Swereford says 'pro exercitu +Walliæ',[137] and this misled, through Madox, Dr Stubbs (who wrote +'the scutage of 1156 was also for the war in Wales',[138]) and +Gneist.[139] The former writer, however, has elsewhere[140] pointed +out that 'its object was to enable Henry to make war on his brother'; +and Miss Norgate gives the same explanation.[141] Swereford's error, I +believe, can undoubtedly be traced to an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the +third year (1157) recording the payment by the Abbot of Abbotsbury of +two marcs 'de exercitu Walie'.[142] But this must refer to the +Welsh campaign of that year, not to the foreign trouble of the year +before.[143] + +The next levy was 'the scutage of Toulouse' in 1159. This, 'the great +scutage' of Miss Norgate,[144] is, strange as it may seem, on the +Pipe-Roll itself almost uniformly styled not a scutage, but a _donum_. +The explanation given by Swereford is wholly inadequate, and is this: +'Intitulaturque illud scutagium _De Dono_ ea quidem, ut credo, ratione +quod non solum prelati qui tenentur ad servitia militaria sed etiam +alii abbates, de Bello et de Salopesbiria et alii tunc temporis +dederunt auxilium'.[145] + +Miss Norgate, adopting this explanation, writes: + + The reason doubtless is that they were assessed, as the + historians tell us, and as the roll itself shows, not only + upon those estates from which services of the shield were + explicitly due, but also upon all lands held in chief of the + crown, and all church lands without distinction of tenure; the + basis of assessment in all cases being the knight's fee, in + its secondary sense of a parcel of land worth twenty pounds a + year. Whatever the laity might think of this arrangement, + the indignation of the clergy was bitter and deep. The wrong + inflicted on them by the scutage of 1156 was as nothing + compared with this, which set at nought all ancient precedents + of ecclesiastical immunity, and actually wrung from the church + lands even more than from the lay fiefs.[146] + +I am obliged to quote the passage _in extenso_, because, in this case, +the accomplished writer betrays a singular confusion of ideas, and +misrepresents not only the levy, but also the point at issue. The +whole passage is conceived in error, error the more strange because +Miss Norgate enjoyed over her predecessors the advantage of writing +with the printed roll before her. The lay estates were not, as implied +('all lands held in chief of the crown'), in any way exceptionally +assessed: in no case was the basis of assessment the unit alleged by +the writer; and as to the 'church lands', a reference to the roll will +show that all over England there were only eight cases in which those +not owing 'services of the shield' contributed (and that in no way as +an assessment on imaginary knights' fees) to this levy, while in six +out of the eight their contributions were so insignificant that their +collective amount barely exceeded £50.[147] + +The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that only a +portion of the tax was raised by way of scutage. As this great levy +has been wrongly supposed to have consisted of a scutage alone,[148] +and as it played an important part in the development of direct +taxation, I propose to set forth, for the first time, the various +methods by which the money was raised. These were eight in number: + + I. (FIXED) A _donum_ of two marcs on the fee from the + under-tenants of the church, raised _by fiefs_ on the old + assessment (_servitium debitum_). + + II. (FIXED ?) A _donum_ of (it is said) two marcs on the fee + from the under-tenants of the lay barons, raised partly _by + counties_ and partly _by fiefs_. + + III. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the church tenants-in-chief + themselves, irrespective of their fees. + + IV. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from some of the non-feudal + religious houses (tenants _in elemosina_, and not by military + service). + + V. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the towns. + + VI. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the sheriffs. + + VII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the Jewries. + + VIII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the moneyers. + +Of these, the _first_ was strictly regular, being merely a repetition +of the scutage of 1156, at the rate of two marcs instead of twenty +shillings. The _second_ presents some difficulty. Subject to +correction, there are some fifteen cases in which the payment is made +separately by fiefs, and in which the rate is clearly two marcs, while +there are twenty-two in which the _milites_ of the county pay as a +group through the sheriff, and in which, therefore, we cannot actually +test the rate of the levy or the manner of raising it. Swereford's +_ipse dixit_ as to the rate in these latter cases was probably based +on analogy, here our only guide. + +With the _third_ and _fourth_ divisions we return to sure ground. +To them I invite particular attention, because it is to them (and +especially to the third) that apply the complaints of the church +chroniclers, and not (as has always, but erroneously, been supposed) +to the perfectly legitimate levy of two marcs on the fee. It is +necessary to emphasize the fact that the matter has been wholly +misunderstood. The bitter complaint of John of Salisbury that +Henry, on this occasion, 'omnibus (contra antiquum morem et debitam +libertatem) indixit ecclesiis ut _pro arbitrio_ ejus satraparum suorum +conferrunt in censum', would have been without meaning had it referred +(as alleged) to the latter levy (or even to the insignificant sums +contributed _ut supra_ by eight foundations); but when we learn that, +over and above this legitimate levy, a far larger sum was arbitrarily +wrung from the church, the truth and justice of the protest are +at once made evident. I here give two tables illustrative of this +exaction. Each is divided into three columns. In the first column +I give the number of the knights due from each bishopric and each +religious house. In the second column I give the marcs due, and paid +on this occasion, on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_). In the +third will be found the exaction complained of, namely, the _dona_ +extorted from the spiritual 'barons' themselves. + + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + | | |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant| + |Sees |Knights due | (in marcs) |(in marcs) | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + |Winchester | 60 | 120 | 500 | + |Lincoln | 60 | 120 | 500 | + |Worcester | 60 | 120 | 200 | + |Norwich | 40 | 80 | 200 | + |Bath | 20 | 40 | 500 | + |London | 20 | 40 | 200 | + |Exeter | 17-1/2 | 35 | 150 | + |Chester | 15 | 30 | 100 | + |Durham | 10 | 20 | 500 | + |York | 7 | 14 | 500 | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + |Total | -- | 619 | 3,350 | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + | | |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant| + |Religious Houses |Knights due | (in marcs) | (in marcs) | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + |Peterborough | 60 | 120 | 100 | + |St Edmund's | 40 | 80 | 200 | + |Glastonbury | 40 | 80 | -- | + |Abingdon | 30 | 60 | 60 | + |Hyde | 20 | 40 | 150 | + |St Augustine's | 15 | 30 | 220 | + |St Alban's | 6 | 12 | 100 | + |Evesham | 5 | 10 | 60 | + |Wilton | 5 | 10 | 20 | + |Ramsey | 4 | 8 | 60 | + |St Benet of Hulme | 3 | 6 | 30 | + |Pershore | 3 | -- | 7-1/2 | + |Chertsey | 3 | 6 | 60 | + |Cerne | 3 | 6 | -- | + |Winchcombe | 2 | 4 | 7-1/2 | + |Middleton | 2 | 4 | -- | + |Sherburne | 2 | -- | 10 | + |Abbotsbury | 1 | 2 | 7-1/2 | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + |Total | -- | 482 | 1,092-1/2 | + ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +We thus obtain a grand total of 1,101 marcs raised from the church +by legitimate scutage, and 4,442-1/2 (or, adding the _dona_ from +non-feudal houses, 4,700) marcs by special imposition.[149] This +distinction at once explains the real extortion of which churchmen +complained;[150] and shows that it had nothing to do with scutage, but +was a special imposition on the church fees from which the lay ones +were exempt.[151] The idea of the impost was not improbably the +adjustment of inequalities in cases where the knight-service was a +quite inadequate assessment; the precedent created was not forgotten, +and it proved in later days a welcome source of revenue. + +The discovery of this exaction identifies, it will be seen, in spite +of Swereford's error, the levy accounted for on the roll with the +famous 'scutage of Toulouse'. And if even further proof were needed, +it is found in an incidental allusion which clinches the argument. +Giraldus Cambrensis (iii. 357) refers to Bishop Henry of Winchester +assembling all the priests of his diocese 'tanquam ad auxilium +postulandum (dederat enim paulo ante quingentas marcas regi Henrico +_ad expeditionem Tholosanam_)'. The sum here named is that which he +paid in 1159, as my table shows. Its destination is thus established, +as also, it may be noted, the means by which he was expected to recoup +himself. + +As to the scutage on the lay fiefs, the general impression, broadly +speaking, is that Henry replaced his English feudal host by an army of +mercenaries paid from the proceeds of a scutage of two marcs per fee +on all lands held by military service.[152] But is that impression +confirmed by the evidence of the rolls? Without setting forth the +evidence in detail, I may sum it up as amounting to this: that the +grouped payments found under twenty-two counties[153] present, I +think, a total of 1,895 marcs, while those of the fiefs which paid +separately amounted to 666. This gives us a grand total of 2,561 +marcs, representing, of course, 1,280 knights. Now although the amount +of knight service due to the crown from its English realm has been, as +we shall see, absurdly exaggerated, the above number, I need scarcely +say, must represent a minority of the knights due from the lay fiefs. +This sets the matter in quite another aspect. In spite of the passage +in Robert de Monte, on which the accepted view is based,[154] the roll +presents proof to the contrary, and indeed the words of Robert show +that he knew so little of the levy in England as to believe that it +was wholly arbitrary. There are, perhaps, indications that the fiefs +which, on this occasion, paid scutage, were largely those in the +king's hands,[155] and if we add to these the escheated honours, of +which the scutage would be paid through the sheriffs, we must conclude +that the great bulk of the tenants who had a choice in the matter +served abroad with their contingents and did not pay scutage. + +Before taking leave of 'the great scutage', another point demands +notice. Gervase of Canterbury sets forth its proceeds in terms of +great precision: + + _Hoc anno_ rex Henricus scotagium sive scutagium _de Anglia_ + accepit, cujus summa fuit centum millia et quater viginti + millia librarum argenti (i. 167). + +Quite desperate attempts have been made to reconcile this statement +with the actual sums raised. In his preface to the _Gesta Henrici +Regis_, Dr Stubbs suggests that Gervase included in his total the +scutage of two years later (1161), but adds that, if so, the rolls are +very incomplete. In his _Constitutional History_ he speaks of 'this +[scutage] and a very large accumulation of treasure from other +sources, amounting, according to the contemporary writers, to +£180,000' (i. 457), but admits, in a footnote, that 'the sum is +impossible', and throws out as probable a different explanation. Miss +Norgate writes that 'the proceeds, with those of a similar tax levied +upon Henry's other dominions, amounted to some £180,000'.[156] But +Gervase distinctly states that this sum was raised _from England_. Now +the actual sum raised, _by scutage_, in England (1159) was £2,440 in +all, as I reckon it, while the special clerical impost produced some +£3,130 in addition. Consequently, no ingenuity can save the credit of +Gervase. He was not, after all, worse than his fellows. We shall find +that when mediæval chroniclers endeavour to foist on us these absurd +sums they require much bolder handling than they have ever yet +received. + +Pass we now to the _third_ levy, that of 1161. For this the rate was +again _two marcs_ on the fee according to Swereford (followed, of +course, by subsequent writers), though the study of the roll (7 Henry +II) reveals that in many cases, on the lay fiefs at least, the rate +was _one_ marc. Both this and the levy of the following year are most +difficult to deal with in every way. We have seen that an entry on the +roll of 1163 led Swereford to believe that the levy of 1161 was made +for the Toulouse campaign, and Dr Stubbs has made the suggestion that +it might have been raised to defray 'debts' incurred on that +occasion;[157] but the difficulties in the way of accepting this view +seem insuperable.[158] + +The _fourth_ levy, which is that of 1162 (8 Henry II), was at the +rate of _one_ marc, and is recorded by Swereford, but not by Dr +Stubbs.[159] Though richer in names than that of 1161, it is even +less useful for our purpose, as the sums entered are most irregular, +perhaps owing to the adoption of a new method of collection.[160] +Neither of these levies affords, in the absence of corroboration, +trustworthy evidence on the _servitium_ of any lay fief. + +The _fifth_ levy, on the other hand, in 1165 (11 Henry II), affords +most valuable evidence, although it is ignored by Swereford and by +those who have followed him. It is, however, of a singular character. +The money was raised, we gather from the roll, on two different +systems: + +(I) By a _fixed_ payment at the rate of one marc on the fee (old +assessment). + +(II) By an _arbitrary_ payment of certain mysterious sums, which prove +to be multiples of the unit 15s 3d. But there is no fixed proportion +to be traced between the amount paid and the number of _servitia_ due. +Numerous instances are found of a single knight's fee being charged +with a sum equivalent to five of these mysterious units. Magnates, +again, are found paying apparently strange sums, which prove on +dissection to represent 50, 100, 200 and even 300 of these units. +The clue to the mystery is found in an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the +following year (12 Henry II), which proves that this unit was the +pecuniary equivalent of a _serviens_, and that the various payers had +'promised' the king so many _servientes_ for the war in Wales.[161] +Such 'promises' were evidently offers, made independently of the +actual service due from the 'promising' party. Following up this clue, +we see that the Abbot of Abingdon must, like the Bishop of Hereford, +have promised 100 'serjeants',[162] that the Abbot of St Alban's must +have done likewise,[163] while the Bishop of London must have promised +150, _in addition_, be it noted, to paying a scutage of a marc on each +knight's fee (20) of his _servitium debitum_.[164] For the rolls of +1162 and 1163 prove that he had duly paid the scutage of the former +year, and that this was a further payment. The varying form of these +entries should be observed, for it was evidently quite immaterial to +the clerks whether they wrote '5 serjeants' or their equivalent--76 +shillings and 3 pence.[165] Taking the pay of the _serviens_ at 1d a +day, the unit in question would represent six months' pay (for a year +of 366 days). + +But, for our present purpose, we must confine ourselves to the scutage +proper. The passage on which I would specially dwell is the entry +on the roll in which the _custos_ of the archbishopric of Canterbury +'reddit compotum de cxiii. li. de Militibus de Archiepiscopatu de ii. +Exercitibus' (p. 109).[166] In the first place, we have here, surely, +witness to the _two_ Welsh campaigns of this year, which Mr +Eyton adopts, following Mr Bridgeman,[167] but which Miss Norgate +rejects.[168] Secondly, this sum resolves itself, on analysis, +into two constituents of 84-3/4 marcs each. Now the return for the +archbishopric the following year is: 'Archiepiscopus habet iiij^{xx.} +et iiij^{or.} et dimidium et quartam partem feffatos.'[169] Having set +forth this exact corroboration, I will briefly trace the _servitium_ +of the See. In 1156 and 1159 it pays no scutage when the other church +fiefs do, but within six months of Theobald's death it pays to the +scutage of 1161 on a _servitium_ of sixty knights, being then in the +hands of the crown. Under Becket, in 1162, it is once more omitted; +but in 1165 it again pays, as we have seen, and now not on sixty +knights but on 84-3/4. In 1168 it contributes, on the same amount, to +the _auxilium_, and in 1172, but the latter year is the first in which +the _recognoscit_ formula is employed, enabling us to determine that, +as in 1161, the _servitium debitum_ was sixty knights. + +The typical difference between these sixty knights and the 84-3/4 +actually enfeoffed will serve to illustrate the point on which I +insist throughout. Had the fee been held by its tenant, he would +have raised 84-3/4 marcs, paid sixty to the crown, and kept 24-3/4 for +himself.[170] But when a _custos_ held the fief, he could keep +nothing back, and therefore paid over the whole. We have, I think, an +illustration of the same kind in the payment (p. 202, note 76) by the +_custos_ of the Romare fief, 'de noviter feffatis' (_noviter_, be it +observed not yet _de novo_). + +Having brought the levies down to 1165, I hope it has now been made +clear that the officials of the exchequer were well aware of the +amount of _servitium debitum_ from every fief, the levies being always +based on the said amount. Swereford, therefore, was quite mistaken in +the inference he drew from the inquest of 1166:[171] indeed, his words +prove that he completely misunderstood the problem. + +This was the last levy raised previous to the making of the returns +(_cartae_) in 1166. These returns were followed in 1168 by the first +levy on the new assessment. I have already dealt with the changes +which this new assessment involved, but I would here again insist upon +the fact that the church and the lay fiefs were not dealt with alike, +the latter being assessed wholly _de novo_, while the former retained +their old assessments, while accounting separately, and under protest, +for the fees in excess of their _servitium debitum_. So far as the lay +fiefs were concerned, their _servitia_, congenital with Norman rule, +were now swept away. Here, from the single county of Northumberland, +are three cases in point: + + 1162 1168 + + De scutagio Walteri de Bolebec. Walterus de Bolebec redd. comp. + In thesauro v. marcae.[172] de iiii. marcis et dim. de eodem + auxilio. + + Idem debet xlviii. s. et v. d. pro + tribus Militibus et ii^{abus.} + terciis partibus + Mil. de Novo feffamento. + + De scutagio Stephani de Bulemer. Stephanus de Bulemer redd. + In thesauro v. marcae. comp. de iiii. marcis de eodem + auxilio. + + Idem debet xxiii. s. et iiii. d. + de i. milite et dim. et quarta + parte Mil. de Novo feffamento. + + De scutagio Radulfi de Wircestria. Radulfus de Wigornio redd. comp. + In thesauro i. marca.[173] de i. marca de eodem auxilio pro + i. milite. + + Idem debet xiii. s. de dim. Mil. + et de i. tercia et de i. septima + parte Mil. de Novo feffamento. + +The change thus made by the restless king was permanent in its effect, +and thenceforth the only assessment recognized was that based upon the +fees, which, by 1166, had been created de veteri and de novo.[174] + +Before leaving the subject of this levy, there is one point on which +I would touch. When we find, as we often do, that the sum paid in 1168 +in respect of a fief does not tally with the number of fees recorded +in the _cartae_, we must remember that in the _Liber Niger_ and _Liber +Rubeus_ we have not the original _cartae_, but only transcripts +liable to clerical error. Checking the _cartae_ by these payments, we +constantly find cases in which the number of fees should be slightly +greater than is recorded in the _carta_.[175] I suspect that the +transcriber, in these cases, has omitted entries in the original +_carta_, and this suspicion is strongly confirmed by the fact that +where the original return enables us to test the transcript, we +find in the great _carta_ for the honour of Clare that the original +transcriber has omitted half a fee of William de Hastinges, has left +out altogether the entry 'Reginaldus de Cruce, _dimidium militem_', +and has changed the quarter fee of Geoffrey fitz Piers into half a +fee; while in that of the Bishop of Chichester, Robert de Denton's +half fee is converted into a whole one. The later (Red Book) +transcriber has made a further omission. + +Another source of discrepancy may be found in the dangerous +resemblance of formulae. Thus the _carta_ of Ranulf fitz Walter +records three and three-quarter fees duly accounted for. Yet his +payment in 1168 is not £2 10s but £2 4s 5d. The explanation is +that the holding was really three and one-third fees,[176] but +the transcriber read 'iij[^{a.}] pars' (one-third) as 'iij. partes' +(three-quarters). + +How easily such errors arose may be seen in the elaborate entries on +Simon de Beauchamp's fief. Here the formula 'decem denarios quando +Rex accipit marcam de milite', correctly reproduced in the Black Book, +becomes 'x. denarius', etc., in the Red Book. The former expression +means '_tenpence_ in the marc' (_i.e._ one-sixteenth of a fee); +whereas the latter is equivalent to '_the tenth penny_ in the marc' +(_i.e._ one-tenth of a fee), and upsets the whole reckoning. The +correct formula is a not uncommon one and should be compared with the +'de xx. solidis viii. denarios' (eightpence in the pound) which +is given as the holding of two knights of the honour of Clare, and +represents the thirtieth of a fee.[177] + +Lastly, I think that, on further examination, there are three fiefs of +which the _servitia debita_, though at first sight irregular,[178] may +fairly be brought into line as multiples of the _constabularia_. +That of Bohun, though implied by the _carta_ to be thirty and a half +knights, paid in the fifth and eighth years on exactly thirty; that of +Malet, though similarly given as twenty and one-sixth in the _carta_, +is returned in the _Testa de Nevill_ as exactly twenty;[179] that +of Beauchamp of Hacche, though distinctly given as seventeen in the +_carta_, will be found, on careful collation of the rolls for 7 and 8 +Hen. II, to be claimed by the exchequer as 17 + 3, _i.e._ 20. + +Here also, perhaps, it may be allowable to glance at the foreign +parallels to fiefs of sixty fees and smaller multiples of five. There +is a charter of Charles the Fair (1322-28) 'qua Alphonsum de Hispania +"Baronem et Ricum Hominem" Navarræ creat; et, ut Baronis et Rici +Hominis statum manu tenere possit, eidem de gratia speciali 60 +militias [knight's fees] in regno sua Navarræ concedit modo consueto +tenendos et possidendos',[180] while an edict of earlier date +proclaims: 'De Vasvassore [_i.e._ baron] qui _quinque milites_ habet, +per mortem [? pro morte] ejus, emendetur 60 unciæ auri cocti, et +per plagam [? pro plaga] 30, et si plures habuerit milites, crescat +compositio sicut numerus militum.'[181] + + +IV. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF KNIGHTS DUE + +'Ad hoc solicitius animum direxi ut per regna Angliæ debita Regi +servitia militaria quatinus potui plenissime percunctarer.'[182] So +writes Swereford, who proceeds to explain that neither the famous +Bishop Nigel himself, nor his successor, Bishop Richard, nor William +of Ely (_ut supra_) had left any certain information on the subject; +while he (Swereford) could not accept the common belief that +the Conqueror had created _servitia_ of knights to the amount of +32,000.[183] The cause of his failure is found in the fact that he +confused two different things: (1) the _debita Regi servitia_, which +formed the only assessment of fiefs down to 1166; (2) the assessment +based on the _cartae_ of 1166, which superseded the _debita servitia_, +and is not evidence of their amount.[184] But then, as I have already +explained above, the exchequer official was concerned only with the +actual claims of the crown; for him the original 'service due' had a +merely academic interest. + +There are two estimates for the total of which we are in search. One +is 32,000 knights; the other 60,000. + +'Stephen Segrave,' Dr Stubbs reminds us, 'the minister of Henry III, +reckoned 32,000 as the number' (which confirms Swereford's +statement); but he himself wisely declines to hazard 'a conjectural +estimate',[185] adding that 'the official computation, on which the +scutage was levied, reckoned in the middle of the thirteenth century +32,000 knights' fees, but the amount of money actually raised by +Henry II on this account, in any single year, was very far from +commensurate'. Gneist repeats this figure, but holds that 'as far +as we may conjecture by reference to later statements, the number of +shields may be fixed at about 30,000'.[186] + +On the wondrous estimate of 60,000 I have more to say. Started by +Ordericus,[187] this venerable fable has been handed down by Higden +and others, till in the _Short History of the English People_ it +has attained a world-wide circulation.[188] Dr Stubbs has rightly +dismissed the statement 'as one of the many numerical exaggerations +of the early historians';[189] but neither he nor any other writer +has detected, so far as I know, the peculiar interest of the sum. What +that interest is will be seen at once when I say that Ordericus, who +asserts that the Conqueror had so apportioned the knight-service 'ut +Angliæ regnum lx. millia militum indesinenter haberet' (iv. 7), also +alleges that the number present at the famous Salisbury assembly +(1086) was 60,000. It is very instructive to compare this 'body +whose numbers were handed down by tradition as no less than sixty +thousand',[190] with the 'sixty thousand horsemen'[191]--'ut ferunt +sexaginta millia equitum'--of thirteen years earlier, and with +the number of the Norman invaders, 'commonly given at sixty +thousand',[192] of seven years earlier still. It is Ordericus, too, +who states that the treasure in Normandy at the death of Henry I was +£60,000. His father seems to have left behind him the same sum at +Winchester, for, though the chronicle left the amount in doubt, 'Henry +of Huntingdon,' Mr Freeman observed, with a touch of just sarcasm, +'knew the exact amount of the silver, sixty thousand pounds, one +doubtless for each knight's fee'.[193] He also reminds us, as to the +crusade of William of Aquitaine, that 'Orderic allows only thirty +thousand. In William of Malmesbury they have grown into sixty +thousand. Figures of this kind, whether greater or smaller, are always +multiples of one another'.[194] + +Pursuing the subject, we learn from Giraldus that the Conqueror's +annual income was 60,000 marcs.[195] Fantosme speaks of marshalled +knights as + + _Meins de_ seisante mile, _e plus de seisante treis,_ + +and the author of the Anglo-Norman poem on the conquest of Ireland +gives the strength of the Irish host, in 1171, as 60,000 men. Even +'Sir Bevis', if I remember right, slew in the streets of London 60,000 +men; and Fitz Stephen asserts that, in Stephen's reign, London was +able to turn out 60,000 foot.[196] It may, also, not be without +significance that 60,000 Moors are said to have been slain at Navas +de Tolosa, and that William of Sicily was said to have bequeathed to +Henry II three distinct sums of 60,000 each.[197] + +The fact is that 'sixty thousand' was a favourite phrase for a +great number, and that 'sixty' was used in this sense just as the +Romans[198] had used it in classical times and just as Russian +peasants (I think I have read) use it to this day. The 'twice six +hundred thousand men', who were burning to fight for England,[199] and +the £180,000 (60,000 × 3) of Gervase (1159), are traceable, doubtless, +to the same source. + +How strangely different from these wild figures are the sober facts +of the case! The whole of the church fiefs, as we have seen, were +only liable to find 784 knights, a number which, small as it was, just +exceeded the entire knight service of Normandy as returned in 1171. As +to the lay fiefs it is not possible to speak with equal confidence. I +have ventured to fix the approximate _quota_ of 104 (more or less), +of which ninety-two are in favour of my theory: forty-eight fiefs, of +five knights and upwards, remain undetermined.[200] If the average of +knights to a fief were the same in the latter as in the former class, +the total contingents of the lay barons would amount, apparently, to +3,534 knights; but, as the latter one includes such enormous fiefs as +those of Gloucester and of Clare, with such important honours as those +of Peverel and Eye, we must increase our estimate accordingly, and +must also make allowance for fiefs omitted and for those owing less +than five knights (which are comparatively unimportant). + +Making, therefore, every allowance, we shall probably be safe in +saying that the whole _servitium debitum_, clerical and lay, of +England can scarcely have exceeded, if indeed it reached, 5,000 +knights. + +Indefinite though such a result may seem, it is worth obtaining for +the startling contrast which it presents to the 60,000 of Ordericus, +to the 32,000 of Segrave,[201] and to the 30,000 of Gneist. The only +writer, so far as I know, who has approximated, by investigating +for himself, the true facts of the case, is Mr Pearson;[202] but his +calculations, I fear, are vitiated by the unfortunate guess that the +alleged 32,000 fees were really 6,400 of five hides each. It is a +hopeless undertaking to reconcile the facts with the wild figures +of mediæval historians by resorting to the ingenious devices of +apocalyptic interpretation. + + +V. THE NORMAL KNIGHT'S FEE + +Much labour has been vainly spent on attempts to determine the true +area of a knight's fee. The general impression appears to be that +it contained five hides. Mr Pearson, we have seen, based on that +assumption his estimate of 6,400 fees, and other writers have treated +the fee as the recognized equivalent of five hides. The point is of +importance, because if we found that the recognized area of a knight's +fee was five hides, it would give us a link between the under-tenant +(_miles_) and the Anglo-Saxon thegn. But, as Dr Stubbs has recognized, +the assumption cannot be maintained; no fixed number of hides +constituted a knight's fee. + +The circumstance of a fee, in many cases consisting of five hides, is +merely, I think, due to the existence of five-hide estates, survivals +from the previous _régime_. We have an excellent instance of such +fees in a very remarkable document, which has hitherto, it would seem, +remained unnoticed. This is a transcript, in Heming's Cartulary, of a +hidated survey of the Gloucestershire Manors belonging to the See of +Worcester. I believe it to be earlier than Domesday itself, in which +case, of course, it would possess a unique interest. Here are the +entries, side by side, relating to the great episcopal Manor of +Westbury (on Trym), Gloucestershire. + + CARTULARY DOMESDAY + + Ad _uuestbiriam_[203] pertinent Huesberie. Ibi fuerunt et sunt l. + l. hide. xxxv. hidas in dominio hidae.... De hac terra hujus + habe_t_[203] Manerii tenet Turstinus filius Rolf + episcopus, et milites sui habent v. hidas in Austrecliue et + xv. hidas. In icena_t_une v. Gislebertus filius Turold iii. + hidas, In com_t_una v. hidas, hidas et dimidiam jn Contone, et + In b_i_scopes s_t_oke v. hidas. Constantinus v. hidas jn + Icetune.... De eadem terra hujus + Manerii tenet Osbernus Gifard v. + hidae et nullum servitium facit.... + Quod homines tenent (valet) ix. + libras. + +The three five-hide holdings, we find, figure in both alike, but +Gilbert fitz Thorold's holding of three hides and a half appears in +addition in Domesday. The inference, surely would seem to be that +Gilbert was enfeoffed between the date of the survey recorded in +the Cartulary and the date of the Domesday Survey. If so, the former +survey is, as I have suggested, the earlier; and in that survey we +have the three tenants of five-hide holdings described _eo nomine_ as +the bishop's _milites_. + +In the _cartae_ of 1166 we have fees of 5 hides,[204] of 4,[205] +of 6,[206] of 10,[207] of 2-1/2,[208] and even of 2;[209] also of 5 +carucates,[210] of 11,[211] and of 14.[212] Cartularies, however, are +richer in evidence of this discrepancy. Thus the six fees of St Albans +contained 40 hides (an average of 6-2/3 hides each), the figures being +5-1/2, 7, 8-1/2, 6, 5-1/2, 7-1/2.[213] So too in the Abingdon Cartulary +(ii. 3) we find four fees containing 19 hides, three containing 14, a +half-fee 4, a fee and a half 13, one fee, 10, 5, 9. On the other hand, +if we take 20 _librates_ as the amount of the fee--which it was already, +as Dr Stubbs observes, in the days of the Conqueror--the _cartae_ +confirm that conclusion.[214] We must therefore conclude that the +knight's fee, held by an under-tenant, consisted normally of an estate, +worth £20 a year, and was not based on the 'five hides' of the +Anglo-Saxon system. + + +VI. THE EARLY EVIDENCE + +We will now work upwards from the _cartae_ to the Conquest. + +Allusions to early enfeoffment are scattered through the _cartae_ +themselves. Henry fitz Gerold begins his return: 'Isti sunt milites +Eudonis Dapiferi', and Eudo, we know, 'came in with the Conqueror'. We +learn from another return (_Lib. Rub._, p. 397) that Henry I had given +William de Albini, 'Pincerna, de feodo quod fuit Corbuchun xv. milites +feffatos'. Now this refers to 'Robertus filius Corbution', a Domesday +tenant in Norfolk. The _Testa_, again, comes to our help. Thus we +learn from Domesday that Osbern the priest _alias_ Osbern the sheriff +(of Lincolnshire) was William de Perci's tenant at Wickenby, co. +Lincoln, but the _Testa_ entry (p. 338_a_) proves that William had +enfeoffed him in that holding by the service of one knight.[215] So +too Count Alan (of Brittany) had enfeoffed his tenant Landri at Welton +in the same county for the service of half a knight (_ibid._, 338_b_), +and we find his son, Alan fitz Landri, tenant there to Count Stephen, +a generation later than Domesday, in the Lindsey Survey. The barony of +Bywell in Northumberland, we read in the _Testa_(p. 392_a_), had been +held by the service of five knights[216] since the days of William +Rufus, who had granted it on that tenure.[217] After this we are not +surprised to learn that the barony of Morpeth had been held 'from the +Conquest' by the service of four knights, and that of Mitford as +long by the service of five (_ibid._, p. 392_b_), or that those of +Calverdon, Morewic, and Diveleston had all been similarly held by +military service 'from the Conquest'. In Herefordshire, again, John +de Monmouth is returned as holding 'feoda xv. militum a conquestu +Anglie'.[218] So too Robert Foliot claims in his _carta_ (1166) +that his predecessors had been enfeoffed 'since the conquest of +England';[219] and William de Colecherche, that his little fief was +'de antiquo tenemento a Conquestu Angliae' (_L.R._, p. 400); Humphrey +de Bohun enumerates the fees 'quibus avus suus feffatus fuit in primo +feffamento quod in Anglia habuit' (_ibid._, p. 242), and refers to his +grandfather's subsequent enfeoffments in the days of William Rufus +(p. 244), while Alexander de Alno similarly speaks of sub-infeudation +'tempore Willelmi Regis' (p. 230). To take one more instance from the +_cartae_, an abbot sets forth his _servicium_ due to Henry, 'sicuti +debuit antiquitus regibus predecessoribus ejus' (p. 224). This brings +us to the instructive case of Ramsey Abbey. + +Dr Stubbs refers to a document of the reign of William Rufus as 'proof +that the lands of the house had not yet been divided into knights' +fees'.[220] But he does not mention the striking fact that the special +knight service for which the abbot was to be liable is distinctly +stated to have been that for which his 'predecessors' had been +liable.[221] As this charter is assigned to 1091-1100, the mention of +'predecessors' would seem to carry back this knight service very far +indeed. And we have happily another connecting link which carries +downwards the history of this knight service, as the above-named +charter carries it upwards. This is the entry in the Pipe-Roll of +1129-30: + + Abbas de Ramesia reddit compotum de xlviij. li. xj. s. et + vj. d. pro superplus militum qui requirebantur de Abbatia (p. + 47).[222] + +Further, we have a notable communication to the abbot from Bishop +Nigel of Ely, which must refer to the scutage of 1156 or to that of +1159 (probably the former): + + Sciatis quod ubi Ricardus clericus[223] reddidit compotum de + scutagio militum vestrorum ad Scaccarium ego testificatus sum + vos non debere regi plusquam quatuor milites, et per tantum + quieti estis et in rotulo scripti.[224] + +Lastly, we have the return in the Black Book (1166): + + Homines faciunt iiii. milites in communi in servitium domini + regis, ita quod tota terra abbatiae communicata est cum eis + per hidas ad prædictum servitium faciendum. + +Prof Maitland, writing on the Court of the Abbey of Ramsey, in the +thirteenth century, observes that: + + The Abbot is bound to provide four knights, and (contrary to + what is thought to have been the common practice) he has not + split up his land into knights' fees so that on every occasion + the same four tenants shall go to the war ... the process by + which the country was carved out into knights' fees seems in + this case to have been arrested at an early stage.[225] + +The case of Ramsey was undoubtedly peculiar, but in the third volume +of the Cartulary, now published, we have (pp. 48, 218) fuller versions +of the Abbot's return in 1166. The second of these is specially +noteworthy, and reads like a transcript of the original return.[226] +Here we see separate knights' fees duly entered, with the customary +formula 'debet unum militem'. But the service was certainly provided +in 1166 and afterwards 'per hidas'. Further inquiry, therefore, is +needed; but we have in any case, for Ramsey, a chain of evidence which +should prove of considerable value for the study of this difficult +problem. + +The phenomenon, however, for which we have to account is the +appearance from the earliest period to which our information extends +of certain quotas of knight-service, clearly arbitrary in amount, as +due from those bishops and abbots who held by military service. When +and how were these _quotas_ fixed? The answer is given by Matthew +Paris--one of the last quarters in which one would think of +looking--where we read that, in 1070, the Conqueror + + episcopatus quoque et abbatias omnes quae baronias tenebant, + et eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerant, + sub servitute statuit militari, inrotulans episcopatus + et abbatias _pro voluntate sua_ quot milites sibi et + successoribus suis hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis + exhiberi (_Historia Anglorum_, i. 13). + +This passage (which perhaps represents the St Albans tradition) is +dismissed by Dr Stubbs as being probably 'a mistaken account of the +effects of the Domesday Survey'.[227] + +But the Abingdon Chronicle, quite independently, gives the same +explanation, and traces the _quota_ of knights to the action taken by +the Crown: + + Quum jam regis edicto in annalibus annotarentur quot de + episcopiis quotve de abbatiis ad publicam rem tuendam + milites (si forte hinc quid causae propellendae contingeret) + exigerentur, etc.[228] + +Moreover, the Ely Chronicle bears the same witness, telling us that +William Rufus, at the commencement of his reign, + + _debitum servitium quod pater suus imposuerat_ ab ecclesiis + violenter exigit.[229] + +It also tells us that, when undertaking his campaign against Malcolm +(1072), the Conqueror + + jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae _debita + militiae obsequia_ transmitti;[230] + +and it also describes how he fixed the _quota_ of knights due by an +arbitrary act of will.[231] The chronicler, like Matthew Paris, lays +stress upon the facts that (1) the burden was a wholly new one; (2) +its incidence was determined by the royal will alone.[232] + +Here, perhaps, we have the clue to the (rare) clerical exemptions from +the burden of military tenure, such as the abbeys of Gloucester and of +Battle.[233] + +The beginnings of sub-infeudation consequent on the Conqueror's action +are distinctly described in the cases of Abingdon and Ely, and alluded +to in those of Peterborough[234] and Evesham. At the first of these, +Athelelm + + primo quidem stipendariis in hoc utebatur. At his sopitis + incursibus ... abbas mansiones possessionum ecclesiae + pertinentibus inde delegavit, edicto cuique tenore parendi de + suae portionis mansione.[235] + +At Ely, the abbot + + habuit ex consuetudine, secundum jussum regis, prætaxatum + militiae numerum infra aulam ecclesiae, victum cotidie de manu + celerarii capientem atque stipendia, quod intollerabiliter et + supra modum potuit vexare locum.... Ex hoc compulsus quasdam + terras sanctæ Ædeldredae invasoribus in feudum permisit tenere + ... ut in omni expeditione regi observarent, [et] ecclesia + perpetim infatigata permaneret.[236] + +For Canterbury we have remarkable evidence, not, it would seem, +generally known. In Domesday, of course, Lanfranc's _milites_ figure +prominently; but the absence of a detailed return in 1166 leaves their +names and services obscure. Now in the Christ Church Domesday there +is a list of the Archbishop's knights,[237] in which are names +corresponding with those of his tenants in 1086. It can, therefore, +be little, if at all, later than the Conqueror's reign. It is drawn +up exactly like a _carta_ of 1166, giving the names of the knights +and the service due from each. Its editor, instead of printing this +important document in full, has, unfortunately, given us six names +only, and--mistaking the familiar 'd[imidium]' and 'q[uarterium]' +of the list for 'd[enarios]' and 'q[uadrans]'--asserts that the +contributions of the knights are 'evidently ... expressed in terms +of the shilling and its fractions',[238] thus missing the essential +point, namely, that they are expressed in terms of knight service. + +As Lanfranc had done at Canterbury, as Symeon at Ely, as Walter +at Evesham, as Athelelm at Abingdon, so also did Geoffrey at +Tavistock,[239] and so we cannot doubt, did Wulfstan at Worcester. +The _carta_ of his successor (1166) distinctly implies that before his +death he had carved some thirty-seven fees out of the episcopal fief. +Precisely as at Ely, he found this plan less intolerable than the +standing entertainment of a roistering troop of knights.[240] + +The influence of nepotism on sub-infeudation, in the case of +ecclesiastical fiefs, is too important to be passed over. On every +side we find the efforts of prelates and abbots thus to provide for +their relatives opposed and denounced by the bodies over which they +ruled. The Archbishop of York in his _carta_ explains the excessive +number of his knights: 'Antecessores enim nostri, non pro necessitate +servitii, quod debent, sed quia cognatis et servientibus suis +providere volebant, plures quam debebant Regi feodaverunt.' The +Abbot of Ely, we are told by his panegyrist, enfeoffed knights by +compulsion, 'non ex industria aut favore divitum vel propinquorum +affectu'.[241] Abbot Athelelm of Abingdon, says his champion, +enfeoffed knights of necessity;[242] but a less friendly chronicler +asserts that, like Thorold of Peterborough, he brought over from +Normandy his kinsmen, and quartered them on the abbey lands.[243] The +Tavistock charter of Henry I restored to that abbey the lands which +Guimund, its simoniacal abbot (1088-1102), had bestowed on his brother +William. Abbot Walter of Evesham and his successor persisted in +enfeoffing knights 'contradicente capitulo'.[244] + +So, during a vacancy at Abbotsbury under Henry I, 'cum Rogerus +Episcopus habuit custodiam Abbatiæ, duas hidas, ad maritandam quandam +neptem suam, dedit N. de M., contradicente conventu Ecclesiæ'.[245] +Henry of Winchester has left us a similar record of the action of his +predecessors at Glastonbury.[246] His narrative is specially valuable +for the light it throws on the power of subsequent revocation, perhaps +in cases where the corporate body had protested at the time against +the grant. Of this we have a striking instance in the grants of Abbot +Æthelwig of Evesham, almost all of which, we read, were revoked by +his successor.[247] Parallel rather to the cases of Middleton and +Abbotsbury (_vide cartas_) would be the action of William Rufus during +the Canterbury vacancy.[248] + +It was to guard against the nepotism of the heads of monastic houses +that such a clause as this was occasionally inserted: + + Terras censuales non in feudum donet: nec faciat milites nisi + in sacra veste Christi.[249] + +And by their conduct in this matter, abbots, in the Norman period, +were largely judged. But this has been a slight digression. + +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] sal[u]tem. + 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. +258_b_-9_b_), 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. 221_b_, +_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] + +It will startle the reader, doubtless, to learn that there is in +existence so curious a document as a list of knights' fees drawn up +in Old English. Headed 'these beth thare Knystene londes', etc., and +terming a knight's fee a 'knystesmetehom', it has been placed by +the Editors of the new _Monasticon_ (ii. 477) among documents of the +Anglo-Saxon era, but belongs, I think (from internal evidence), to +about the same period as the _cartae_ (1166). The original is extant +in a Cartulary now in the British Museum. + + +VII. THE WORCESTER RELIEF (1095) + +It was urged in the earlier part of this paper that Ranulf Flambard +had been assigned a quite unwarrantable share in the development of +feudalism in England. But so little is actually known of what his +measures were that they have hitherto largely remained matter of +inference and conjecture. It may be well, therefore, to call attention +to a record which shows him actually at work, and which illustrates +the character of his exactions by a singularly perfect example. + +The remarkable document that I am about to discuss is printed in +Heming's 'Cartulary' (i. 79-80).[271] It is therefore most singular +that it should be unknown to Mr Freeman--to whom it would have been +invaluable for his account of Ranulf's doings--as it occurs in the +midst of a group of documents which he had specially studied for his +_excursus_ on 'the condition of Worcestershire under William'.[272] +It is a writ of William Rufus, addressed to the tenants of the See +of Worcester on the death of Bishop Wulfstan, directing them to pay +a 'relief' in consequence of that death, and specifying the quota +due from each of the tenants named. The date is fortunately beyond +question; for the writ must have been issued very shortly after the +death of Wulfstan (January 18, 1095), and in any case before the +death of Bishop Robert of Hereford (June 26, 1095), who is one of the +tenants addressed in it. As the record is not long, and practically, +as we have seen, unknown, one need not hesitate to reprint it. + + W. Rex Anglorum omnibus Francis et Anglis qui francas terras + tenent de episcopatu de Wireceastra, Salutem. Sciatis quia, + mortuo episcopo, honor in manum meam rediit. Nunc volo, ut de + terris vestris tale relevamen mihi detis, sicut per barones + meos disposui. Hugo de Laci xx. libras. Walterus Punher xx. + libras. Gislebertus filius turoldi c. solidos. Rodbertus + episcopus x. libras. Abbas de euesham xxx. libras. Walterus + de Gloecestra xx. libras. Roger filius durandi [quietus per + breve regis][273] x. libras. Winebald de balaon x. libras. + Drogo filius Pontii x. libras. Rodbert filius Sckilin c. + solidos. Rodbert stirmannus lx. solidos. Willelmus de + begebiri xl. solidos. Ricardus & Franca c. solidos. Angotus + xx. solidos. Beraldus xx. solidos. Willelmus de Wic xx. + solidos. Rodbertus filius nigelli c. solidos. Alricus + archidiaconus c. solidos. Ordricus dapifer[274] xl. libras. + Ordricus blaca[275] c. solidos. Colemannus[276] xl. solidos. + Warinus xxx. solidos. Balduuinus xl. solidos. Suegen filius + Azor xx. solidos. Aluredus xxx. solidos. Siuuardus xl. + solidos. Saulfus xv. libras. Algarus xl. solidos. Chippingus + xx. solidos. + + Testibus Ranulfo capellano & Eudone dapifero & Ursone de + abetot. Et qui hoc facere noluerit, Urso & bernardus sasiant + et terras et pecunias in manu mea. + +The points on which this document throws fresh light are these. +First, and above all, the exaction of reliefs by William Rufus and +his minister, which formed so bitter a grievance at the time, and +to which, consequently, Dr Stubbs and Mr Freeman had devoted special +attention. On this we have here evidence which is at present unique. +It must therefore be studied in some detail. + +Broadly speaking, we now learn how 'the analogy of lay fiefs was +applied to the churches with as much minuteness as possible'.[277] One +of the respects in which the church fiefs differed from those of +the lay barons was, that on the one hand they escaped such claims as +reliefs, wardships and 'marriage', while, on the other, their tenants, +of course also escaped payment of such 'aids' as those 'ad filium +militem faciendum' or 'ad filiam maritandam'. In this there was a fair +'give and take'. But Ranulf must have argued that bishops and abbots +who took reliefs from their tenants ought, in like manner, to pay +reliefs to the crown. This they obviously would not do; and, indeed, +even had they been willing, it would have savoured too strongly of +simony. And so he adopted, as our record shows, the unwarrantable +device of extorting the relief from the under-tenants direct. This +was not an enforcement, but a breach, of feudal principles; for an +under-tenant was, obviously, only liable to relief on his succession +to his own fee.[278] + +It would be easy to assume that this was the abuse renounced by Henry +I.[279] But _distinguo_. The above abuse was quite distinct from the +practice of annexing to the revenues of the crown, during a vacancy, +the temporalities. This, which was undoubtedly renounced by Henry, +and as undoubtedly resorted to by himself and by his successors +afterwards, was, however distasteful to the church,[280] a logical +deduction from feudal principles, and did not actually wrong any +individual. It could thus be retained when the crown abandoned such +unjust exactions as the Worcester relief, and it afforded an excellent +substitute for wardship, though practically mischievous in the impulse +it gave to the prolongation of vacancies. + + +There are many other points suggested by the record I am discussing, +but they can only be touched on briefly. It gives us a singularly +early use of the remarkable term 'honour', here employed in its +simplest and strictly accurate sense; the same term was similarly +employed, we have seen, in the case of Abingdon (1097), where we also +find the fief described as reverting to the crown _vacante sede_.[281] +It further alludes to a special assessment by 'barons' deputed for +the purpose; it affords a noteworthy formula for distraint in case of +non-payment; and it gives us, within barely nine years of the great +survey itself, a list of the tenants of the fee, which should prove of +peculiar value. + +If the sums entered be added up, their total will amount to exactly +£250. It is tempting to connect this figure with a _servitium debitum_ +(_teste episcopo_) of fifty fees at the 'ancient relief' of £5 a fee; +but we are only justified in treating it as one of those round sums +that we find exacted for relief under Henry II, especially as its +items cannot be connected with the actual knights' fees. The appended +analysis will show the relation (where ascertainable) of sums paid to +hides held. + + DOMESDAY, 1086 THE RELIEF, 1095 + + _h._ _v._ _£_ _s._ + + Roger de Laci 23 2 Hugh de Laci 20 0 + Walter Ponther 10 2 Walter Punther 20 0 + Gilbert fitz Thorold 7 2 Gilbert fitz Thorold 5 0 + Bishop of Hereford 5 0 Bishop Robert [of Hereford] 10 0 + Abbot of Evesham 9 0 Abbot of Evesham 30 0 + Walter fitz Roger 8 0 Walter de Gloucester 20 0 + Durand the sheriff 6 0 Roger fitz Durand 10 0 + Winebald de Balaon 10 0 + Drogo 10 0 Drogo fitz Ponz 10 0 + Schelin 5 0 Robert fitz Schilin 5 0 + Robert Stirman 3 0 + Anschitil 2 0 Anschitil de Colesbourne 10 0 + Roger de Compton 1 0 + Eudo 1 3 Eudo 3 0 + William de Begeberi 2 0 + Richard & Franca 5 0 + Ansgot 1 2 Angot 1 0 + Berald 1 0 + William de Wick 1 0 + Robert fitz Nigel 5 0 + Ælfric the archdeacon 4 0 Ælfric the archdeacon 5 0 + Orderic} 6 1 Orderic the _Dapifer_ 40 0 + Orderic} Orderic Black 5 0 + Coleman 2 0 + Warine 1 10 + Baldwin 2 0 + Swegen fitz Azor 1 0 + Alfred 1 10 + Siward 5 0 Siward 2 0 + Sawulf 15 0 + Ælfar 2 0 + Cheping 1 0 + ----------------- + £250 0 + + +The comparison of these two lists suggests some interesting +conclusions. Roger de Laci, forfeited early in the reign for treason, +had been succeeded by his brother Hugh. 'Punher' supplies us with the +transitional form from the 'Ponther' of Domesday to the 'Puher' of +the reign of Henry I. The identity of the names is thus established. +Walter fitz Roger has already assumed his family surname as Walter +de Gloucester, and his uncle Durand has now been succeeded by a son +Roger, whose existence was unknown to genealogists. The pedigree of +the family in the Norman period has been well traced by Mr A. S. Ellis +in his paper on the Gloucestershire Domesday tenants, but he was of +opinion that Walter de Gloucester was the immediate successor in the +shrievalty of his uncle, Durand, who died without issue. This list, on +the contrary, suggests that the immediate successor of Durand was his +son Roger, and that if, like his father, he held the shrievalty, this +might account for the interlineation remitting, in his case, the sum +due. In this Roger we, surely, have that 'Roger de Gloucester' who was +slain in Normandy in 1106, and whom, without the evidence afforded by +this list, it was not possible to identify.[282] + +The chief difficulty that this list presents is its omission of the +principal tenant of the see, Urse d'Abetot. One can only assign it to +the fact of his official position as sheriff enabling him to secure +exemption for himself, and perhaps even for his brother, Robert +'Dispensator'. Their exemption, however accounted for, involved an +arbitrary assessment of all the remaining tenants, irrespective of the +character or of the extent of their tenure. With these remarks I must +leave a document, which is free from anachronism or inconsistency, and +as trustworthy, I think, as it is useful. + + +It is my hope that this paper may increase the interest in the +forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_ under the care of Mr Hubert +Hall, and that it may lead to a reconsideration of the problems +presented by the feudal system as it meets us in England. Nor can +I close without reminding the reader that if my researches have +compelled me to differ from an authority so supreme as Dr Stubbs, this +in no way impugns the soundness of his judgment on the _data_ hitherto +known. The original sources have remained so strangely neglected, +that it was not in the power of any writer covering so wide a field +to master the facts and figures which I have now endeavoured to set +forth, and on which alone it is possible to form a conclusion beyond +dispute. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Reprinted, with additions, from the _English + Historical Review_.] + + [Footnote 2: 'The belief which has come down to us from + Selden, and the antiquarian school, a belief which was + hitherto universally received, that William I divided the + English landed property into military fees, is erroneous, and + results from the dating back of an earlier [? later] condition + of things.'--GNEIST, _Const. Hist._, i. 129.] + + [Footnote 3: 'There can be no doubt that the military tenure, + the most prominent feature of historical feudalism, was itself + introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed + in the case of the feudal usages in general.'--STUBBS, _Const. + Hist._, i. 261.] + + [Footnote 4: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 260-1. So too Freeman.] + + [Footnote 5: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.] + + [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, i. 298.] + + [Footnote 7: _Ibid._, i. 298, 301.] + + [Footnote 8: _Ibid._, i. 300.] + + [Footnote 9: _Select Charters_, p. 96.] + + [Footnote 10: _Norm. Conq._, v. 380.] + + [Footnote 11: _C.H._, i. 581.] + + [Footnote 12: _N.C._, v. 377; cf. _History of William II_, pp. + 335, 337, 'The whole system, a system which logically hangs + together in the most perfect way, was the device of the same + subtle and malignant brain.'] + + [Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 374.] + + [Footnote 14: 'Si quis baronum meorum, comitum sive aliorum + qui de me tenent, mortuus fuerit, heres suus non _redimet_ + terram suam sicut faciebat tempore fratris mei, sed justa et + legitima relevatione _relevabit_ eam.'] + + [Footnote 15: 'In that charter the military tenures are + taken for granted. What is provided against is their being + perverted, as they had been in the days of Rufus, into engines + of oppression.'--_N.C._, v. 373.] + + [Footnote 16: _N.C._, v. 372; _C.H._, i. 261.] + + [Footnote 17: _N.C._, v. 373.] + + [Footnote 18: Palgrave, as Mr Freeman observes, 'strongly and + clearly brought out the absence of any distinct mention of + military tenures in Domesday'. Dr Stubbs more cautiously + wrote: 'The wording of the Domesday Survey does not imply that + in this respect the new military service differed from the + old.' (_C.H._, i. 262.) Mr Freeman confidently asserts: + 'Nothing is more certain than that from one end of Domesday + to the other, there is not a trace of military tenures as they + were afterwards understood.... We hear of nothing in Domesday + which can be called knight-service or military tenure in + the later sense.' (_N.C._, v. 370, 371.) Mr Hunt (_Norman + Britain_) follows the same line, and Gneist, vouching + Palgrave, Stubbs, and Freeman, repeats the argument. (_C.H._, + i. 130.)] + + [Footnote 19: 'I spoke to Mr Falconberge to look whether he + could out of Domesday Book give me anything concerning the sea + and the dominion thereof' (1661).] + + [Footnote 20: _N.C._, v. 465.] + + [Footnote 21: _N.C._, v. 4.] + + [Footnote 22: _Ibid._, p. 42.] + + [Footnote 23: As so much stress has been laid on the argument + from Domesday, it is desirable further to demonstrate its + worthlessness by referring to the Lindsey Survey (_vide + supra_, p. 149). This survey can only be a few years + previous to 1120, and was therefore made at a time when, _ex + hypothesi_, feudal tenures had been established for some time. + Yet here, also, page after page may be searched in vain for + any mention of 'knights' or 'fees'.] + + [Footnote 24: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 132.] + + [Footnote 25: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 118.] + + [Footnote 26: _Ibid._, i. 156, 133, 124.] + + [Footnote 27: _Ibid._, i. 130.] + + [Footnote 28: _Ibid._, i. 156.] + + [Footnote 29: _Ibid._, i. 133.] + + [Footnote 30: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 192. I do not quite + understand the passage that 'it is probable that the complete + following out of the Frank idea [exact proportion of service + to hides] was reserved for Henry II, unless his military + reforms are to be understood, as so many of his other measures + are, as the revival and strengthening of anti-feudal and + pre-feudal custom'. (_Ibid._) The allusion is, clearly, to the + assize of arms; but was that assize based on fixed quantities + of land? Mr Little has discussed the five-hide question in the + _English Historical Review_, xvi. pp. 726-9 (_vide supra_, p. + 65).] + + [Footnote 31: _Ibid._, i. 262.] + + [Footnote 32: _Ibid._, i. 262.] + + [Footnote 33: _C.H._, i. 386.] + + [Footnote 34: _Ibid._, i. 581.] + + [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, i. 264-5.] + + [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, i. 432.] + + [Footnote 37: 'The growth of the system of knights' fees out + of the older system of hides is traced by Stubbs. The old + service of a man from each five hides of land would go on, + only it would take a new name and a new spirit' (_N.C._, v. + 866).] + + [Footnote 38: This argument, of course, applies, _mutatis + mutandis_, to a five-hide unit as well.] + + [Footnote 39: _C.H._, i. 265.] + + [Footnote 40: Henry of Huntingdon (p. 207) speaks of the + Domesday returns by the same name (_cartae_).] + + [Footnote 41: _Domesday Book_ occupies a medial position, + being arranged under counties, but within each county, under + fiefs.] + + [Footnote 42: Compare the _carta_ of the bishop of Exeter, + _Præcepistis mihi quod mandarem vobis_ non _quod servitia + militum vobis debeam_, etc. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The king issued + a writ to all the tenants-in-chief of the crown, lay and + clerical, directing each of them to send in a cartel or report + of the number of knights' fees for the service of which he was + legally liable.'--_Const. Hist._, i. 584.] + + [Footnote 43: The bishop of 'Coventry' expresses it: 'numerum + ... eorum si quos in dominio tenemus, et eorum nomina' (p. + 263).] + + [Footnote 44: These references are to the pages of the + forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_. It will be observed + that the second three returns are too closely alike for + accidental coincidence; the three Shropshire 'barons' who + made them must have been in some communication. Note here the + remarkable use of the term 'compares'.] + + [Footnote 45: Audivi praeceptum vestrum in consulatu + Herefordiae.] + + [Footnote 46: Audito praecepto vestro.] + + [Footnote 47: Praeceptum vestrum, per totam Angliam + divulgatum, per vicecomitem vestrum Northumberlande ad me, + sicut ad alios, pervenit.] + + [Footnote 48: Mandavit nobis ... Vicecomes Stephanus, ex parte + vestra quatinus, etc.] + + [Footnote 49: Praecepit dignitas vestra omnibus fidelibus + vestris, clericis et laicis, qui de vobis tenent in capite in + Eboracsira ut mandent, etc.... Quorum ego unus, etc.] + + [Footnote 50: It should be scarcely necessary to warn the + reader against confusing the _dominium_, or non-infeudated + portion of the entire fief, with the _dominium_, or demesne + portion, of each Manor upon that fief.] + + [Footnote 51: An instance in point is afforded by the Bardolf + barony (_i.e._ fief) _temp._ John: 'Heres Dodon' Bardulf tenet + feoda xxv. militum per totum. Inde xv. milites sunt feoffati + et x. feoda sunt super dominium' (_Testa de Nevill_, p. 19).] + + [Footnote 52: (1) Old feoffment, (2) new feoffment, (3) + demesne.] + + [Footnote 53: He and his successors are consequently found + paying, time after time, on thirty-five fees.] + + [Footnote 54: William de Beauchamp, of Worcestershire, is + virtually a solitary exception. He inserts, _cavendi causa_, + this significant clause: 'De hiis praenominatis non debeo Regi + nisi servitium vii. militum, nec antecessores mei unquam plus + fecerunt, sed quia dominus Rex praecepit michi mandare quot + milites habeo et eorum nomina, ideo mando quod istos [_i.e._ + 16] habeo fefatos de veteri feffamento; sed non debeo Regi + nisi servitium vii. militum.' But William was a sheriff at the + time, and may have had special information which put him on + his guard.] + + [Footnote 55: Compare the case of the Irish bishops six years + later (1172), who sent the king 'litteras suas in modum + cartae extra sigillum pendentes' (Howden). Note also that the + addition of the seal made the return essentially a _carta_. + In Normandy, the tenants by knight-service were only required + (1172) to seal the return (_breve_) of their _servitium + debitum_.] + + [Footnote 56: The point is of some importance in its bearing + on the right of the individual to assess himself, which is + held in this case to have been exercised. 'The assessment,' + writes Dr Stubbs, 'of the individual depended very much on + his own report, which the exchequer had little means of + checking.'--_C.H._, i. 585.] + + [Footnote 57: By one of those slips so marvellously rare in + his writings Dr Stubbs writes that 'the Bishop of Durham's + service for his demesne land was that of ten knights, but it + was not cut up into fees' (i. 263). What the bishop said was + that he owed no service for his demesne, because there were + already over seventy fees created on his fief, though he only + owed ten.] + + [Footnote 58: This is one of the points on which Madox is + completely at sea. He quotes the case of the Bishop of Durham + (1168) as an instance of 'Doubts about the number of knights' + fees' (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 122); and he writes, of the above + uniform formula: 'This uncertainty about the number of + the fees frequently happened in the case of ecclesiastical + persons, Bishops, and Abbots.'--_Exchequer_, i. 647.] + + [Footnote 59: _C.H._, i. 264.] + + [Footnote 60: See my papers on 'The House of Lords; the + Transition from Tenure to Writ' (_Antiquary_, October and + December 1884, April 1885).] + + [Footnote 61: See, for instance, the language used in the + _carta_ of Ralf de Worcester (p. 441): 'Teneo de vobis in + capite de veteri fefamento feodum i. militis, unde debeo vobis + facere servitium i. militis. Et de eodem feodo Jordanus Hairum + debet mihi facere iiii.^{am.} partem servitii,' etc. In Normandy + (1172), the phrase ran: 'quot milites unusquisque baronum + deberet ad servicium regis, et quot haberet ad suum proprium + servicium'.] + + [Footnote 62: Sometimes Exeter pays on 15-1/2 (14, 33, Hen. + II), but 17-1/2 (2, 5, 7, 18 Hen. II) is the normal amount. + The explanation of this odd number is found in the _Testa + de Nevill_ (p. 226) where ('Veredictum militum de Rapo de + Arundel') we read: 'Episcopus Exoniensis tenet de Domino Rege + de Capellaria de Boseham vii. feoda militum et dimidium.' The + Bosham estate (as belonging to Osbern) had formed part of the + episcopal fief in Domesday, but (the bishops having founded + a church there) we find it assessed and paying separately as + 7-1/2 fees.] + + [Footnote 63: I have found a case bearing upon this point and + reported at great length (Thorpe's _Registrum Roffense_, pp. + 70 _et seq._). It arose from an attempt of the Archbishop of + Canterbury, in 1253, to distrain the Bishop of Rochester for + the 'auxilium ad filium regis primogenitum militem faciendum'. + The bishop 'posuit se super recordum rotulorum de Scaccario, + per quos rotulos poterit et illa quam rex contra episcopum et + etiam illa quam archiepiscopus contra episcopum movit questio + diffiniri. Didicerat enim episcopus per unum fidelem amicum + quem in scaccario tunc habebat quod nunquam tempore alicujus + regis pro aliquo feodo episcopatus aliquod fuit regi factum + servicium vel datum scutagium.... Unde consulebat quod + audaciter poneret se episcopus super recordum rotulorum de + Scaccario, nichil enim tenet episcopus per baroniam de rege, + sed per puram elemosinam, quod non est dicendum de aliquo + episcopatu Anglie, nec de Archiepiscopatu, nisi dumtaxat de + Karleolen. Cumque cum audacia institisset episcopus, quod + decideretur per rotulos de Scaccario quibus creditur in omnibus + illis sicut sancto evangelio', etc., etc. The barons of the + exchequer examined the rolls, 'a tempore primi conquestus' (?) + and reported: 'nusquam invenerunt episcopum Roffensem solvisse + aut dedisse aliquod servicium regibus temporale'. But the + dispute was not finally decided till 1259. The clue to the + matter is found in the Canterbury 'Domesday Monachorum' (8th + Report Hist. MSS. i. 316), where a list of the archbishop's + knights, perhaps coeval with Domesday (_vide infra_, p. 236), + is headed by 'Episcopus Roffensis' with a _servitium_ of ten + knights to the Primate.] + + [Footnote 64: Cerne had to provide 'ten' knights _ad wardam_ + at Corfe Castle, or 'two' _ad exercitum_ (_vide_ cartam).] + + [Footnote 65: This indeed is proved by an extract quoted by + Madox (_Exchequer_) from the Roll of 22 Hen. II (rot. 10_a_).] + + [Footnote 66: The effect of all the changes of assessment we + have traced under Henry II would only be the reduction of this + total to 774.] + + [Footnote 67: Roll of 11 Hen. II. (This was, of course, the + son of Henry I by Edith.)] + + [Footnote 68 The custos of his fief paid scutage for eighty + knights in 1159, but he speaks 'de meis lx. militibus' in his + _carta_.] + + [Footnote 69: The undoubted assessment in 1162. Afterwards it + is found paying on sixty and a fraction.] + + [Footnote 70: 'Lx. milites ... habere solebat pater meus' + (_Carta_).] + + [Footnote 71: This figure is given in the _Liber Niger_, but + is really derived from his recorded payments.] + + [Footnote 72: Tot habuit milites feodatos ... scilicet lx. de + antiquo feodo (_Carta_).] + + [Footnote 73: In Yorkshire alone. In all England, many more.] + + [Footnote 74: This figure is taken from the payments in 1161 + and 1172.] + + [Footnote 75: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] + + [Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass + of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important + entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment + by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi + vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro + feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former + entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that + time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its + real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he + completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I + think, should be read together as relating to the estates + of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and + of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original + _servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands + of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin. + Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history + of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the + unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide + infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is + 66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in + 1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees. + If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly + existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one + fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added + that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as + 20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by + Richard de Camville in both these years.] + + [Footnote 77: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] + + [Footnote 78: He omitted to send in a _carta_ in 1166; but, + both before and after, he paid on 30 fees.] + + [Footnote 79: He twice pays on 30 fees before 1166, in which + year his fief was held by Gerbert de Percy. Subsequently, as + the honour of Poerstoke (Poorstock), it always pays on 30.] + + [Footnote 80: This is a very difficult case. Walter's _carta_ + might easily be read as implying a _servitium debitum_ of 20 + fees, and his fief paid on 29 _de veteri_ and 1-1/2 _de novo_. + But careful scrutiny reveals that the words 'hos iiij^{or.} + milites qui has predictas terras tenent' are preceded by _six_ + names. If they refer, either to the four names immediately + preceding, or (which is more probable) to the four knights who + held his lands but rendered him no service, the total of his + _servitium debitum_ would, in either case, be 30.] + + [Footnote 81: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] + + [Footnote 82: He paid on 25 fees in 1162.] + + [Footnote 83: 'Feodum xx. militum de rege de veteri feffamento + quod pater suus tenuit' (_carta_).] + + [Footnote 84: He paid on 20 fees in 1161, but the subsequent + assessment of the fief varies considerably.] + + [Footnote 85: He paid on 20 fees in 1162 and 1165, and + returned his fees in 1166 as 20 _de veteri_ and 3/4 _de novo_.] + + [Footnote 86: The scutages record him as paying always on + 15 knights _quos recognoscit_--the formula for _servitium + debitum_.] + + [Footnote 87: His payment on 15 fees in 1161 probably + represents his _servitium debitum_. His total enfeoffments + were 23.] + + [Footnote 88: Hugh and Stephen de Scalers are the names given + in the _cartae_, but Henry and William de Scalers held the + fiefs at the time.] + + [Footnote 89: He paid 10 marcs in 1168, though his _carta_ + only records 9-5/6 fees.] + + [Footnote 90: A difficult fief to deal with, but almost + certainly the half of an original Reimes fief owing 20 knights + (_vide supra_).] + + [Footnote 91: Apparently 15 at first, and 10 later.] + + [Footnote 92: _i.e._ the Peverel Honour of Bourne, + Cambridgeshire (held in Domesday by Picot, the Sheriff), not + Bourne, Lincolnshire, held by the Wakes.] + + [Footnote 93: He only pays on 5 fees in 1162, and the excess + _de novo_ in his _carta_ is accounted for, he says, by the + necessities of his position.] + + [Footnote 94: This is not proved for the latter fief.] + + [Footnote 95: Compare with these allusions to a traditional + _servitium debitum_ the significant words of Wace (_Roman de + Rou_): + + 'Ne ke jamez d'ore en avant, + Ço lor a miz en covenant, + N'ierent de servise requis, + Forz tel ke solt estre al paiz, + E tel come lor ancessor + Soleient fere a lor Seignor,'-- + + which are the reply to the fears of the barons (_Norm. Conq._, + iii. 298): + + 'Li servise ki est doblez + Creiment k'il seit en feu tornez, + Et en costume seit tenu + Et par costume seit rendu (lines 11272 _et seq._).'] + + [Footnote 96: It can be shown that the 'service' in Normandy + was based on precisely the same five-knight unit.] + + [Footnote 97: 'The estates of the twenty greatest feodaries in + Domesday Book contain, according to the ordinary computation, + 793, 439, 442, 298, 280, 222, 171, 164, 132, 130, 123, 119, + 118, 107, 81, 47, 46 and 33 knights' fees.'--Gneist (_Const. + Hist._, i. 334).] + + [Footnote 98: _C.H._, i. 289.] + + [Footnote 99: For instance, the Abbot of St Edmund's + 'quinquaginta milites' are spoken of as 'milites de quatuor + constabiliis' with 'decem miles de quinta constabilia' + (_Memorials of St Edmunds_, Ed. Arnold, i. 269, 271).] + + [Footnote 100: Robert fitz Stephen lands with 30 knights, + Maurice de Prendergast with 10, Maurice fitz Gerald with 10, + Strongbow with 200, Raymond the Fat with 10, Henry himself + with either 400 or 500, etc.] + + [Footnote 101: See my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 103.] + + [Footnote 102: Lines 11253 _et seq._ The figures, however, are + far too large, and savour of poetic licence.] + + [Footnote 103: _N.C._, v. 368.] + + [Footnote 104: Meath with a _servitium debitum_ of 100, + Limerick of 60, Cork with two _servitia_ of 30 each.] + + [Footnote 105: _N.C._, v. 378.] + + [Footnote 106: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 129, 156.] + + [Footnote 107: Freeman, _N.C._, v. 372, 371.] + + [Footnote 108: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.] + + [Footnote 109: Mr Hall informs me that is the name of the + official referred to.] + + [Footnote 110: 'Prout rumor ex rotulis ad me devenit.'] + + [Footnote 111: See p. 221 _infra_.] + + [Footnote 112: 'Et nota quod quandocumque assidentur scutagia, + licet eodem anno solvantur, annotantur tamen in annali anni + sequentis' (_Red Book_, ed. Hall, p. 8).] + + [Footnote 113: It is just possible that the source of his + error is to be found in a solitary entry on the roll of 1163: + 'Advocatus de Betuna reddit compotum de vi. li. xiii. s. iiii. + d. de auxilio exercitus de Tolusa' (p. 9)--which refers to the + levy of 1161.] + + [Footnote 114: 'Temporibus enim regis Henrici primi ... nec + inspexi vel audivi fuisse scutagia assisa' (p. 5).] + + [Footnote 115: _Vide supra_, p. 118 note.] + + [Footnote 116: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum tunc + temporis divulgatum.'] + + [Footnote 117: See _Red Book of the Exchequer_, pp. 5, 8.] + + [Footnote 118: See list of church fiefs.] + + [Footnote 119: His _carta_ is corrupt.] + + [Footnote 120: 'Abbas Gloucestrie tenet omnes terras in libera + elemosina.'--_Testa_, p. 77.] + + [Footnote 121: 'A new impost specially levied (1156) upon some + of the ecclesiastical estates, under the name of _scutage_' + (Norgate's _Angevin Kings_, i. 433). 'The famous scutage, the + acceptance of a money composition for military service, alike + for the old English service of the fyrd' [this, of course, is + a misconception], 'and for the newer military tenures, dates + from this (1159) time' (Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, v. 674). + 'The term _scutage_ now (1156) first employed.... As early as + his second year (1156) we find him collecting a scutage, a new + form of taxation' (Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 454, 458, 581, + 590).] + + [Footnote 122: The phrase 'debet scutagium quando currit' is + of course, a normal one.] + + [Footnote 123: 'Teste Gaufrido Cancellario et Willelmo de + Albineio Pincerna et Gaufrido de Clintona et Pagano fil + Johannis. Apud Sanctum Petrum desuper Divam.'] + + [Footnote 124: Cott. MS. Julius A., i. 6, fo. 74_a_.] + + [Footnote 125: These charters have an independent value for + the light they throw, in conjunction with the roll, on the + movements of the king. The roll itself alludes to the occasion + on which the king crossed from Eling--'ex q[uo] rex + mare transivit de Eilling[es]'--and as it is assigned to + Michaelmas, 1130, the entry cannot refer to his departure at + that very date, especially as these charters are not paid for + among the _nova_ proceedings of the year. They must therefore + have been granted at his previous departure (August 1127), + when he must have crossed from Eling and have gone to S. + Pierre sur Dive (and Argentan) in Normandy. Pleas were heard + before him at Eling on this occasion (_Rot. Pip._, pp. + 17, 38), and are referred to in a charter of Stephen to + Shaftesbury Abbey.] + + [Footnote 126: Printed in _Athenæum_, December 2, 1893.] + + [Footnote 127: Cf. _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 105.] + + [Footnote 128: 'Abbas locum sibi commissum munita manu militum + secure protegebat; et primo quidem stipendiariis in hoc + utebatur' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3). 'Unde abbas tristis + recedens conduxit milites', etc. (_Historia Eliensis_, p. + 275). So too Bishop Wulfstan is found 'pompam militum secum + ducens qui stipendiis annuis', etc. (W. Malmesb.)] + + [Footnote 129: It is singular that in his admirable work, _The + English Village Community_, pp. 38-9, Mr Seebohm connects 'the + normal acreage of the hide of 120 a., and of the virgate of 30 + a., with the scutage of 40s per knight's fee', and argues that + 'in choosing the acreage of the standard hide and virgate, a + number of acres was probably assumed corresponding with the + monetary system, so that the number of pence in the _scutum_ + should correspond with the number of acres assessed to its + payment'. It need hardly be observed that the institution of + scutage was, on the contrary, long posterior to that of a hide + of 120 acres.] + + [Footnote 130: Walton was at the mouth of the Orwell and + the Stour, and was thus an exposed port towards + Flanders as Dover was towards France. It is noteworthy that + when the Earl of Leicester did invade England from Flanders a + few years later, it was at 'Walton' that he landed.] + + [Footnote 131: Compare Will. Pict.: 'Custodes in castellis + strenuos viros collocavit ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei + pariter ac virtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et + equitum, ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit,' etc.] + + [Footnote 132: Should not this rather be 'from ecclesiastical + tenants-in-chief holding by military service'? For it was + neither collected from knights' fees, nor with reference to + their existing number.] + + [Footnote 133: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv. + So too _Const. Hist._, i. 454: 'The practice was, as we learn + from John of Salisbury, opposed by Archbishop Theobald'; and + (i. 577) 'Archbishop Theobald had denounced the scutage of + 1156'; and (_Early Plant._, p. 54) 'he made the bishops, + notwithstanding strong objections from Archbishop Theobald, + pay scutage'.] + + [Footnote 134: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcviii.] + + [Footnote 135: 'Honori et utilitati ecclesiae tota mentis + intentione studiosius invigilabit. Verum interim', etc. John + of Salisbury (Ep. cxxviii). Note that 'ecclesiae' is the + church at large, not the See of Canterbury.] + + [Footnote 136: _Angevin Kings_, i. 443.] + + [Footnote 137: _Red Book_, p. 6.] + + [Footnote 138: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcv.] + + [Footnote 139: _Const. Hist._, i. 454.] + + [Footnote 140: _Ibid._, i. 164.] + + [Footnote 141: _Angevin Kings_, i. 458. Both writers quote the + passage from John of Salisbury (Ep. xcxviii), on which this + explanation is based.] + + [Footnote 142: His _servitium debitum_ was one knight.] + + [Footnote 143: The force for the Welsh campaign was raised, + as we learn from Robert de Monte (_alias_ de Torigni), 'by + demanding that every three knights should, instead of serving + in person, equip one of their number', as Dr Stubbs rightly + puts it (_Const. Hist._, i. 589), and not, as he elsewhere + writes (preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.), by + requiring every two to add to themselves a third, 'by which + means, if we are to understand it literally, 90,000 knights + would appear from 60,000 knights' fees'. The real number would + probably be under 2,000.] + + [Footnote 144: 'This impost, which afterwards came to be known + in English history as the "Great Scutage"' (_Angevin Kings_, + i. 459).] + + [Footnote 145: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 6.] + + [Footnote 146: _Angevin Kings_, i. 461.] + + [Footnote 147: The abbots of Shrewsbury, Thorney, and + Croyland; the abbesses of Barking, Winchester, and Romsey. The + total of their _dona_ amounted to £51 13s 4d.] + + [Footnote 148: Not, however, by Dr Stubbs (Preface to _Gesta + Henrici Regis_, II. xciv-xcvi).] + + [Footnote 149: Dr Stubbs, independently, reckons the total + payments of the church at £3,700 (_Gesta Henrici Regis_), + which does not differ greatly from the above calculation + (£3,167 6s 8d). ] + + [Footnote 150: 'Ille quidem gladius quem in sancte matris + ecclesiae viscera vestra paulo ante manus immerserat cum ad + trajiciendum in Tolosam exercitum tot ipsam marcarum millibus + aporiastis.' Gilbert Foliot (Ep. cxciv).] + + [Footnote 151: 'Nec permisit ut ecclesiae saltem proceribus + coaequarentur in hac contributione vel magis exactione + tam indebita quam injusta.' John of Salisbury (Ep. cxlv). + Swereford, though confused in his account of the tax, points + out that levy was made 'non solum super praelatos, verum _tam + super ipsos_, quam super milites suos' (_L.R._, p. 6).] + + [Footnote 152: Gneist, for instance, writes: 'The first + general imposition took place in 5 Henry II for the campaign + against Toulouse, with two marcs per fee from all crown + vassals' (_C.H._, i. 212).] + + [Footnote 153: Entered as 'Dona militum comitatus', not to + be confused with the 'dona comitatus', a special levy of the + following year (6 Hen. II), raised, it will be found, from the + western counties, from Stafford in the north to Devonshire in + the south.] + + [Footnote 154: 'Rex ... nolens vexare agrarios milites ... + sumptis lx. solidis Andegavensium in Normannia de feudo + uniuscujusque loricae et de reliquis omnibus tam in Normannia + quam in Anglia, sive etiam aliis terris suis, secundum hoc + quod ei visum fuit, capitales barones suos cum paucis secum + duxit, solidarios vero milites innumeros' (p. 202, ed. + Howlett).] + + [Footnote 155: This was certainly the case with the fiefs + of Simon de Beauchamp and the Earl Ferrers, two of the most + considerable.] + + [Footnote 156: _Angevin Kings_, i. 462.] + + [Footnote 157: 'A second scutage was raised in the seventh + year, probably for payment of debts incurred for the same war, + the assessment being in this, as in the former case, two marcs + to the knight's fee.' (Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, p. + xcv.)] + + [Footnote 158: If it was raised for this purpose, it must have + been levied either (1) from _all_ tenants-in-chief, which it + certainly was not; or (2) from the _same_ contributors as in + 1159, which a comparison of the two rolls will at once show + it was not; or (3) from a _new_ set of contributors, which was + also not the case, for the prelates, the Ferrers fief, etc., + are found contributing as before.] + + [Footnote 159: _Const. Hist._, i. 582.] + + [Footnote 160: Instead of a fief paying _en bloc_, it seems to + have paid through the sheriffs of the counties in which it was + situate.] + + [Footnote 161: "Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi. + libris et v. solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'" + (p. 84).] + + [Footnote 162: 'Abbas de Abendona reddit compotum de lxxvi. + libris et v. solidis de promise sione servientium in Waliam' + (rot. 11 Hen. II, p. 74).] + + [Footnote 163: 'Abbas de Sancto Albano reddit compotum de + lxxvi. libris et v. solidis de Exercitu' (_ibid._, p. 19).] + + [Footnote 164: 'Episcopus Lond' reddit compotum de xiii. + libris et vi. sol. et viii. den. de Servicio militum.... Idem + reddit compotum de cxiiii. marcis et v. sol. de promissione + servientium Walie' (_ibid._, p. 19).] + + [Footnote 165: 'Willelmus de Siffrewast reddit compotum de + lxxvi. sol. et iii. den.... Hugo de Bochelanda reddit compotum + de. v. servientibus' (_ibid._, p. 75). Compare the love of + variety in Domesday, _supra_, pp. 41, 42, 77.] + + [Footnote 166: 'Scutagium de ii. exercitibus' in next roll + (rot. 12 Hen. II).] + + [Footnote 167: _Itinerary of Henry II_, p. 79 _et seq._ + Compare also the payment from the Giffard fief 'de secundo + exercitu' (p. 25).] + + [Footnote 168: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 180, note.] + + [Footnote 169: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 193.] + + [Footnote 170: This was the point on which Abbot Sampson + insisted, against his knights, at St Edmund's. In the case + of Canterbury, the inquest of 1163 would have ascertained the + actual number of the archbishop's knights and their fees.] + + [Footnote 171: Ignorasse quidem haec [debita] servitia + militaria Regis ... successores subsequentium argumento non + immerito potuit dubitare: quia cum Rex Henricus ... traderet, + a quolibet sui regni milite marcam unam ... exegit, publico + praecipiens edicto quod quilibet praelatus et baro quot + milites de eo tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis + significarent' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. 4).] + + [Footnote 172: 'Teneo de vobis ... feodum i. militis, unde + debeo vobis facere servitium i. militis' (_carta_).] + + [Footnote 173: 'De hoc predicto feodo debet Regi v. milites' + (_Carta_).] + + [Footnote 174: It must always be remembered that, as explained + above, in cases where the requisite number of knights had not + been enfeoffed by 1166, the balance _de dominio_ was added to + those actually created, as _de veteri_ together.] + + [Footnote 175: Thus Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur pays on one fee + (_de veteri_) more than his _carta_ records, William de Tracy + on half a fee (_de veteri_), Adam de Port on one, the Earl + of Gloucester on two, the Earl of Warwick on two and a half, + Maurice de Craon on one, the Abbot of Hulme on a quarter of a + fee, William de Albini (Pincerna) on one, Henry de Lacy on one + and a half, William de Vescy on one, Bertram de Bulemer on + a half, and William Paynell on one (these figures are all + subject to correction). The case of William de Vescy is + specially conspicuous, because the nineteen fees enumerated + are distinctly spoken of as twenty.] + + [Footnote 176: This brings it into relation with the + _Constabularia_ of which it thus formed just a third.] + + [Footnote 177: The same formula is found in Domesday applied + to hidation in East Anglia, where the assessment of Manors is + expressed not in terms of the hide, but in fractions of the + pound. (_Vide supra_, p. 89.)] + + [Footnote 178: _Vide supra_, p. 205.] + + [Footnote 179: 'Willelmus Malet tenet Cari de Domino Rege et + alias terras suas per servicium viginti militum' (p. 163).] + + [Footnote 180: Ducange (1887), ii. 581.] + + [Footnote 181: _Ibid._, viii. 255. Ducange indeed asserts that + five knights was the qualification in Normandy for barony, + but the statement is based on a mistaken rendering and is + elsewhere disproved.] + + [Footnote 182: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 4.] + + [Footnote 183: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum, tunc + temporis divulgatum, fatuum reputans et mirabile, quod in + regni conquisitione Dux Normannorum, Rex Willelmus, servitia + xxxii. militum infeodavit' (_ibid._).] + + [Footnote 184: Swereford, it is clear, failed to grasp the + great change of assessment in 1166.] + + [Footnote 185: _Const. Hist._, i. 432.] + + [Footnote 186; _Ibid._, i. 157. Dr Stubbs rightly rejects Mr + Pearson's conjecture that the number of 32,000 applied to the + hides, and that 'the number of knights' fees, calculated at + five hides each, would be 6,400'.] + + [Footnote 187: 'His temporibus militiam Anglici regni Rex + Willelmus conscribi fecit et lx. millia militum invenit, quos + omnes, dum necesse esset, paratos esse praecepit.'] + + [Footnote 188: 'A whole army was by this means encamped upon + the soil, and the king's summons could at any moment gather + 60,000 knights to the royal standard.'] + + [Footnote 189: _Const. Hist._, i. 264. Compare pp. 16, 17.] + + [Footnote 190: Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 694).] + + [Footnote 191: _Ibid._, iv. 562.] + + [Footnote 192: _Ibid._, iii. 387. In _Social England_ (i. 373) + we read that 'William is believed to have landed in England + with at least 60,000 men, 50,000 horse and 10,000 foot'. But + on turning to p. 306 of that great effort of co-operative + genius, we learn that only 'some of William's ships carried + horses to the number of from three to eight--as well as men'. + So the number of his ships (396, according to Wace) is as + great a difficulty as the proportions of Noah's Ark.] + + [Footnote 193: _William Rufus_, i. 17.] + + [Footnote 194: _Ibid._, i. 313.] + + [Footnote 195: 'Annui fiscales redditus ... ad sexaginta + millia marcarum summam implebant.'] + + [Footnote 196: 'Sexaginta millia peditum' (p. 4).] + + [Footnote 197: 'Sexaginta millia silinas de frumento, + sexaginta millia de hordeo, sexaginta millia de vino' + (_Richard of Devizes_, ed. Howlett, p. 396).] + + [Footnote 198: 'Sexaginta accipitur indefinite de magno + numero. Sexcenti saepe usurpatur pro numero ingenti et + indefinito' (Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_).] + + [Footnote 199: 'Bis sex sibi millia centum' (_Carmen de bello + Hastingensi_).] + + [Footnote 200: It must be clearly understood that these + figures cannot be absolutely accurate. Some honours are + omitted, it seems, in the returns from which we have to work, + and for these allowance must be made.] + + [Footnote 201: '[1235] Sicut Stephanus Segrave ... asserebat + et affirmabat vetus scutagium ad xxxii. millia scuta + assumabatur et irrotulabatur; et ad tantundem plene et plane + potuit novum scutagium de novis terris assumari' (_Ann. + Monast._, i. 364).] + + [Footnote 202: 'Nine thousand for all England would be a + large estimate at any time of the twelfth century' (_Early and + Middle Ages_, i. 375).] + + [Footnote 203: The italics represent Anglo-Saxon characters.] + + [Footnote 204: _Lib. Rub._, pp. 188, 214, 237, 238, 292.] + + [Footnote 205: _Ibid._, pp. 211, 214.] + + [Footnote 206: _Ibid._, pp. 214, 292.] + + [Footnote 207: _Lib. Rub_., p. 292.] + + [Footnote 208: _Ibid._, pp. 200, 210.] + + [Footnote 209: _Ibid._, p. 210.] + + [Footnote 210: _Ibid._, pp. 390, 444.] + + [Footnote 211: _Ibid._, p. 429.] + + [Footnote 212: _Ibid._, pp. 431-2.] + + [Footnote 213: M. Paris, _Additamenta_, p. 436. This list, + which seems scarcely known, is very valuable for its early + date, being, I think, about contemporaneous with the _cartae_ + of 1166.] + + [Footnote 214: _L.R._, pp. 229, 245, 356.] + + [Footnote 215: 'Et predictus Willelmus dedit predictas + tres carucatas terre Osberto vicecomiti pro servicio unius + militis.'] + + [Footnote 216: Together with castle-guard of thirty knights at + Newcastle.] + + [Footnote 217: 'Post tempus domini Regis Willelmi Ruffi, qui + eos feoffavit.'] + + [Footnote 218: _Testa_, p. 69.] + + [Footnote 219: 'Post Conquestum Angliae' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. + 332).] + + [Footnote 220: _Const. Hist._, i. 263.] + + [Footnote 221: 'Et deinceps tres (milites) mihi habeat _sicut + antecessores sui faciebant_ in septentrionali parte fluminis + Tamesie' (1091-1100).--_Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 234.] + + [Footnote 222: Compare the Ely entry (_supra_ p. 213) for + 'superplus'.] + + [Footnote 223: Could this have been Richard fitz Nigel + himself?] + + [Footnote 224: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 255. Compare with + this expression 'in rotulo scripti', the Conqueror's + command (_infra_), that the number of knights 'in annalibus + annotarentur'.] + + [Footnote 225: Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, p. 50.] + + [Footnote 226: It enables us to correct such an entry in the + Black Book as 'Radulfus Maindeherst', by identifying him with + Ralph Mowyn, the tenant at Hurst. It supplies an entry as to + Henry de 'Wichetone' (Whiston) which is omitted in _L.R._, + and entered in _L.N._, with wrong name and wrong holding; and, + better still, it shows that Silvester of Holwell held only 2 + hides, not 12, as given in error, both in _L.N._, and _L.R._ + The existence of this error in both bears, of course, on their + relation (cf. p. 287, _supra_).] + + [Footnote 227: _Const. Hist._, i. 357. Gneist writes that + Matthew's statement 'is for good reasons called in question by + Stubbs' (_C.H._, i. 255, note).] + + [Footnote 228: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3.] + + [Footnote 229: _Historia Eliensis_ (ed. 1848), p. 276.] + + [Footnote 230: _Ibid._, p. 274.] + + [Footnote 231: 'Praecepit illi (_i.e._ abbati) ex nutu regis + custodiam xl. militum habere in insulam.' _Ibid._, p. 275. + This is the very _servitium debitum_ that appears under Henry + II.] + + [Footnote 232: Compare for the initiative of the crown, the + Domesday phrase, 'miles jussu regis', and the statement that + Lanfranc replaced the drengs of his See by knights at the + royal command ('Rex praecepit.')] + + [Footnote 233: Madox writes (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 114) + bitterly and unjustly: 'In process of time, several of the + religious found out another piece of art. They insisted that + they held all their land and tenements in frankalmoigne, + and not by knight-service.' In the cases he quotes, 'this + allegation' was perfectly correct, and was recognized as such + by the judges.] + + [Footnote 234: Turoldus vero sexaginta et duo hidas terrae de + terra ecclesiae Burgi dedit stipendiariis militibus' (_John of + Peterborough_, ed. Giles).] + + [Footnote 235: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.] + + [Footnote 236: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.] + + [Footnote 237: 'De militibus Archiepiscopis.' 8th Report on + Historical MSS., i. 316.] + + [Footnote 238: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 239: A charter of Henry I (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 496) + addressed 'Willelmo Episcopo Exoniensi et Ricardo filio + Baldwini vicecomiti' (see p. 256) contains the clause: + 'Prohibeo ne aliquis præter monachos ipsas terras amplius + teneat vel alias aliquas quæ de dominio ecclesie fuerunt, + exceptis illis quas Gaufridus abbas dedit _ad servicium + militare_.' Abbot Geoffrey is said to have died in 1088. A + curious difficulty has been raised about the words in italics. + It is argued in Alford's _Abbots of Tavistock_ (p. 68) that + as, according to Mr Freeman, military tenures did not exist in + Abbot Geoffrey's day, there was perhaps a second abbot of that + name to whom that charter refers. But he is only introduced by + Mr Alford under protest; and we see now that there is no need + for him. Henry's charter being witnessed by Ralph, Archbishop + of Canterbury, William, the King's son, and the Count of + Meulan, at Odiham, belongs, I may observe to 1114-16.] + + [Footnote 240: 'Quis stipendii annuis quotidianisque + cibis immane quantum populabantur' (Will. Malmesb., _Gesta + Pontificum_).] + + [Footnote 241: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.] + + [Footnote 242: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.] + + [Footnote 243: _Ibid._, p. 2331: 'misit ... in Normanniam pro + cognatis suis, quibus multas possessiones ecclesiae dedit et + feoffavit, ita ut in anno lxx. de possessionibus ecclesiae eis + conferret.'] + + [Footnote 244: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 8, 'Randulfus + frater abbatis Walterii habet in Withelega iii. hidas de + dominio, etc., etc. ... dono Walterii Abbatis contradicente + capitulo'. This was the 'Rannulfum [_sic_] fratrem ejusdem + Walteri abbatis ... qui cum fratre suo tenebat illud placitum' + (_temp._ Will. I), whom the Bishop of Worcester's knights + challenged to trial by battle (Heming's _Chart. Wig._, ed. + Hearne, p. 82). His holding was represented in 1166 by the + fees of Randulf de Kinwarton and Randulf de Coughton. Other + cases of contested enfeoffment by Abbots Walter and Robert are + those of Hugh Travers and Hugh de Bretfertun.] + + [Footnote 245: See the _carta_ of 1166, which explains how + this holding became half a fee.] + + [Footnote 246: 'Miles quidam, Odo nomine, dono praedecessoris + mei Sifridi abbatis, ob graciam cusjusdam consobrinae suae, + quam idem Odo conjugem duxerat ... tria maneria de dominio + sibi astrinxerat ... invitis fratribus. Alius quidam ... dono + abbatis ... tamen absque fratrum consensu manerium possidebat' + (_Domerham_, p. 306).] + + [Footnote 247: 'De his terris quas, ut diximus, suo tempore + acquisivit, quibusdam bonis hominibus pro magna necessitate et + honore ecclesiae dedit, et inde Deo et sibi fideliter quamdiu + vixit serviebant' (_Chronicon Evesh._, p. 96). His successor, + Walter (1077-86), incited by his own young relatives, 'noluit + homagium a pluribus bonis hominibus quos praedecessor suus + habuerat suscipere eo quod terras omnium, si posset, decrevit + auferre' (_ibid._, p. 98). In the result, 'dicitur quod fere + omnes milites hujus abbatiae haereditavit' (_ibid._, p. 91).] + + [Footnote 248: He begged Anselm that 'terras ecclesiae + quas ipse rex, defuncto Lanfranco, suis dederat pro statuto + servicio, illis ipsis haereditario jure tenendas, causa sui + amoris, condonaret' (_Eadmer_).] + + [Footnote 249: Foundation charter of Alcester Priory.] + + [Footnote 250: Three other documents are found on the same + folio. Of these the first is addressed to Lanfranc, Odo of + Bayeux, Bishop Wulfstan, and Urse d'Abetot, and witnessed by + Bishop Geoffrey (of Coutances) and (like our writ) by Eudo + Dapifer, being also witnessed, like it, at Winchester. It is + noteworthy that it grants Æthelwig the Hundred of Fishborough + 'in potestate et _justitia_ sua'.] + + [Footnote 251: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxvi. f. 15[18].] + + [Footnote 252: 'Rex commisit ei curam istarum partium terrae + ... ita ut omnium hujus patriae consilia atque judicia fere in + eo penderent' (_Hist. Evesham_).] + + [Footnote 253: Florence of Worcester.] + + [Footnote 254: 'Cernens itaque rex grande sibi periculum + imminere, debitum servitium ... exigit' (_Liber Eliensis_, p. + 276).] + + [Footnote 255: 'Rex Henricus contra fratrem suum Robertum, + Normanniae comitem, super se in Anglia cum exercitu venientem, + totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. + 121).] + + [Footnote 256: In the former case, between the crown and + its tenant; in the latter, between the tenant and his + under-tenant.] + + [Footnote 257: 'Idem [Godcelinus de Riveria] dicebat se non + debere facere servitium, nisi duorum militum, pro feudo quem + tenebat de ecclesia, et abbas et sui dicebant eum debere + servitium trium militum' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 129). 'Cum a + quodam duos milites ad servicium regis exigerem (tantum enim + inde deberi ab olim a commilitonibus didiceram) ipse toto + conatu obstitit, unius dumtaxat se militis servicio obnoxium + obtestans.'--Henry, Abbot of Glastonbury (_Domerham_, p. + 318).] + + [Footnote 258: Thus undermining Mr Freeman's argument: 'We + hear of nothing in Domesday which can be called knight-service + or military tenure in the later sense; the old obligations + would remain; the primeval duty of military service, due, not + to a lord as lord, but to the state and to the king as its + head, went on,' etc. (_Norm. Conq._, v. 371).] + + [Footnote 259: _Norm. Conq._, v. 865.] + + [Footnote 260: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3-7.] + + [Footnote 261: 'In Winteham tenet Hubertus de Abbate v. hidas + de terra villanorum' (i. 58_b_).] + + [Footnote 262: 'Hubertus i. militem pro v. hidis in Witham' + (p. 4).] + + [Footnote 263: 'In Wichtham de terra villanorum curiae + Cumenore obsequi solitorum, illo ab abbate cuidam militi + nomine Huberto v. hidarum portio distributa est' (p. 7).] + + [Footnote 264: See _Cart. Ab._, ii. 138. Cf. _Domesday_, i. + 58_b_: 'Willelmus tenet de abbate Leie.'] + + [Footnote 265: See p. 231.] + + [Footnote 266: This distinction, it will be found, is + preserved in Henry's Charter of Liberties (1101): 'nec ... + aliquid accipiam [1] de dominico ecclesiae vel [2] de hominibus + ejus'.] + + [Footnote 267: See my paper on 'The Knights of Peterborough', + _supra_, p. 131.] + + [Footnote 268: In the transcript of the original return it is: + 'habet hugo de bolebech ... de waltero giffard'.] + + [Footnote 269: _Inquisitio Eliensis_ (_O._ 2. 1), f. 210, _et + seq._ (see below, page 349).] + + [Footnote 270: See p. 166.] + + [Footnote 271: Hemingi _Chartularium_ (ed. Hearne), 1723.] + + [Footnote 272: _Norman Conquest_, vol. v.] + + [Footnote 273: Interlineation.] + + [Footnote 274: _Dapifer_ to Bishop Wulfstan.] + + [Footnote 275: He witnessed, as 'Ordric Niger', the + _conventio_ between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of + Evesham, and was perhaps Bishop Wulfstan's reeve (Heming, p. + 420).] + + [Footnote 276: Probably Bishop Wulfstan's chancellor.] + + [Footnote 277: Although, from his ignorance of this document, + Dr Stubbs was not aware of Ranulf's _modus operandi_, its + evidence affords a fresh illustration of his unfailing + insight, and of his perfect grasp of the problem even in the + absence of proof. 'The analogy', he writes, 'of lay fiefs + was applied to the churches with as much minuteness as + possible.... Ranulf Flambard saw no other difference between + an ecclesiastical and a lay fief than the superior facilities + which the first gave for extortion.... The church was open to + these claims because she furnished no opportunity for reliefs, + wardships, marriage, escheats, or forfeiture' (_Const. Hist._, + pp. 298-300).] + + [Footnote 278: It has been urged to me that relief on _mutatio + domini_ was a recognized practice, but I cannot find proof of + it in English feudalism.] + + [Footnote 279: 'Nec mortuo archiepiscopo, sive episcopo, + sive abbate, aliquid accipiam de dominico ecclesiae vel de + hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur.'] + + [Footnote 280: There is a very important allusion to it, as + introduced under Rufus, in the _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 42: + 'Eo tempore [1097] infanda usurpata est in Anglia consuetudo, + ut si qua prelatorum persona ecclesiarum vita decederet mox + honor ecclesiasticus fisco deputaretur regis.'] + + [Footnote 281: Compare the words of the chronicle on the + king claiming to be heir of each man, lay or clerk, with the + expression 'honor in manum meam rediit'.] + + [Footnote 282: 'Rogerium de Glocestra, probatum militem, in + obsessione Falesiae arcubalistae jactu in capite percussum' + (_William of Malmesbury_, ii. 475).] + + + + +PART II + + +HISTORICAL STUDIES + + + + +NORMANS UNDER EDWARD THE CONFESSOR + + +It is probable that in spite of all the efforts of that school which +found in Mr Freeman its ablest and most ardent leader, the 'fatal +habit', as he termed it at the outset of his _magnum opus_ 'of +beginning the study of English history with the Norman Conquest +itself', will continue, in practice, to prevail among those who have +a choice in the matter. It was characteristic of the late Professor +to assign the tendency he deplored to 'a confused and unhappy +nomenclature', for to him names, as I have elsewhere shown,[1] were +always of more importance than they are to the world at large. More to +the point is the explanation given by Mr Grant Allen, who attributes +to the unfamiliar look of Anglo-Saxon appellatives the lack of +interest shown in those who bore them. And yet there must be, surely, +a deeper cause than this, an instinctive feeling that in England our +consecutive political history does, in a sense, begin with the Norman +Conquest. On the one hand it gave us, suddenly, a strong, purposeful +monarchy; on the other it brought us men ready to record history, and +to give us--treason though it be to say so--something better than the +arid entries in our jejune native chronicle. We thus exchange aimless +struggles, told in an uninviting fashion, for a great issue and a +definite policy, on which we have at our disposal materials deserving +of study. From the moment of the Conqueror's landing we trace a +continuous history, and one that we can really work at in the light +of chronicles and records. I begin these studies, therefore, with the +Conquest, or rather with the coming of the Normans. For, as Mr Freeman +rightly insisted, it is with the reign of Edward the Confessor that +'the Norman Conquest really begins':[2] it was 'his accession' that +marked, in its results, 'the first stage of the Conquest itself'.[3] + +As he, elsewhere, justly observed of Edward: + + Normandy was ever the land of his affection.... His heart was + French. His delight was to surround himself with companions + who came from the beloved land, and who spoke the beloved + tongue, to enrich them with English estates, to invest them + with the highest offices of the English kingdom.... His real + affections were lavished on the Norman priests and gentlemen + who flocked to his court as to the land of promise. These + strangers were placed in important offices about the royal + person, and before long they were set to rule as Earls and + Bishops over the already half conquered soil of England.... + These were again only the first instalment of the larger gang + who were to win for themselves a more lasting settlement four + and twenty years later. In all this the seeds of the Conquest + were sowing, or rather ... it is now that the Conquest + actually begins. The reign of Edward is a period of struggle + between natives and foreigners for dominion in England.[4] + +One has, it is true, always to remember that if Edward, on his +mother's side, was a Norman, so was Harold, as his name reminds us, on +his mother's side, a Dane. Nor is it without significance that, on the +exile of his house (1051), he fled to the Scandinavian settlers on +the Irish coast, and found, no doubt, among them those who shared his +almost piratical return in 1052.[5] The late Professor's bias against +all that was 'French', together with his love for the 'kindred' lands +of Germany and Scandinavia, led him, perhaps, to obscure the fact that +England was a prey which the Dane was as eager to grasp as the Norman. +But this in no way impugns the truth of his view that 'the Norman +tendencies of Edward' paved the way for the coming of William. Nor can +we hesitate to begin the study of the Norman Conquest with the coming +of those, its true forerunners-- + + 'Ke Ewart i aveit menéz + Et granz chastels è fieux dunez,' + +and with whom may be said to have begun the story of Feudal England. + +Professor Burrows is entitled to the credit of setting forth the +theory, in his little book upon the Cinque Ports,[6] that Edward the +Confessor 'had evidently intended to make the little group of Sussex +towns, the "New Burgh" [? afterwards Hastings], Winchelsea, and Rye, a +strong link of communication between England and Normandy', by placing +them under the control of Fécamp Abbey. He holds, indeed, that Godwine +and Harold had contrived to thwart this intention in the case of the +latter; but this, as I shall show in my paper on the Cinque Ports, +arises from a misapprehension. This theory I propose to develop by +adding the case of Steyning, Edward's grant of which to Fécamp is well +known, and has been discussed by Mr Freeman. It might not, possibly, +occur to any one that Steyning, like Arundel, was at that time a port. +But in a very curious record of 1103, narrating the agreement made +between the Abbot and De Braose, the Lord of Bramber, it is mentioned +that ships, in the days of the Confessor, used to come up to the +'portus S. Cuthmanni' [the patron saint of Steyning], but had been +lately impeded by a bridge that had been erected at Bramber. Here +then was another Sussex port placed in Norman hands. Yet this does not +exhaust the list. Mr Freeman seems to have strangely overlooked the +fact that the great benefice of Bosham, valued under the Confessor +at £300 a year, had been conferred by Edward on his Norman chaplain, +Osbern, afterwards (1073) Bishop of Exeter, whose brother, in the +words of the Regius Professor, was the 'Duke's earliest and dearest +friend', and who, of course, was of kin both to William and to +Edward. Now this Bosham, with Thorney Island, commanded a third Sussex +harbour, Chichester haven.[7] + +But at London itself also we find the Normans favoured. The very +interesting charter of Henry II, granted by him, as Duke of the +Normans, in 1150 or 1151, to the citizens of Rouen, confirms them in +possession of their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days +of Edward the Confessor.[8] Here then we have evidence--which seems +to have eluded the research of our historians, both general and +local--that, even before the Conquest, the citizens of Rouen had a +haven of their own at the mouth of the Walbrook, for which they were +probably indebted to the Norman proclivities of the Confessor. + +The building of 'Richard's Castle' plays a most important part in +Mr Freeman's narrative of the doings of the Normans under Edward the +Confessor. We hear of its building, according to him, in September +1051: + + Just at this moment another instance of the insolence and + violence of the foreigners in another part of the kingdom + served to stir up men's minds to the highest pitch. Among the + Frenchmen who had flocked to the land of promise was one named + Richard the son of Scrob, who had received a grant of lands in + Herefordshire. He and his son Osbern had there built a castle + on a spot which, by a singularly lasting tradition, preserves + to this day the memory of himself and his building. The + fortress itself has vanished, but its site is still to be + marked, and the name of Richard's castle, still borne by the + parish in which it stood, is an abiding witness of the deep + impression which its erection made on the minds of the men of + those times.... Here then was another wrong, a wrong perhaps + hardly second to the wrong which had been done at Dover. Alike + in Kent and Herefordshire, men had felt the sort of treatment + which they were to expect if the King's foreign favourites + were to be any longer tolerated.[9] + +Accordingly, Godwine, Mr Freeman wrote, demanded (September 8, +1051) 'the surrender of Eustace and his men and of the Frenchmen of +Richard's Castle'. In a footnote to this statement, he explained that +'"the castle" [of the Chronicle] undoubtedly means Richard's +Castle, as it must mean in the entry of the next year in the same +Chronicle'.[10] Of the entry in question (1052) he wrote: '"The +castle" is doubtless Richard's Castle.... Here again the expressions +witness to the deep feeling awakened by the building of this +castle.'[11] So, too, in a special appendix we read: + + A speaking witness to the impression which had been made + on men's minds by the building of this particular Richard's + Castle, probably the first of its class in England, is given + by its being spoken of distinctively as 'the castle' even + by the Worcester chronicler (1052; see p. 309), who had not + spoken of its building in his earlier narrative.[12] + +We have, thus far, a consistent narrative. There was in Herefordshire +one castle, built by Richard and named after him. It had been the +cause of oppression and ravage, and its surrender, as such, had been +demanded by Godwine in 1051. A year later (September 1052) Godwine +triumphs; 'it was needful to punish the authors of all the evils that +had happened' (p. 333); and 'all the Frenchmen' who had caused them +were at last outlawed. But now comes the difficulty, as Mr Freeman +pointed out: + + The sentence did not extend to all the men of Norman birth or + of French speech who were settled in the country. It was meant + to strike none but actual offenders. By an exception capable + of indefinite and dangerous extension, those were excepted + 'whom the King liked, and who were true to him and all his + folk' (ii. 334).... We have a list of those who were thus + excepted, which contains some names which we are surprised to + find there. The exception was to apply to those only who had + been true to the king and his people. Yet among the Normans + who remained we find Richard, the son of Scrob, and among + those who returned we find his son Osbern. These two men were + among the chief authors of all evil (ii. 344). + +That is to say, the Lord of Richard's castle, on whose surrender and +punishment Godwine had specially insisted, was specially exempted, as +guiltless, when Godwine returned to power.[13] + +In me, at least, this discrepancy aroused grave suspicion, and I +turned to see what foundation there was for identifying the offending +garrison of 1051 with that of Richard's castle. I at once discovered +there was none whatever. + +We have here, in short, one of those cases, characteristic, as I +think, of the late Professor's work, in which he first formed an idea, +and then, under its spell, fitted the facts to it without question. +The view, for instance, of the unique position of Richard's castle as +'_the_ castle' at the time is at once rendered untenable by the fact +that, on the return of Godwine, Normans fled 'some west to Pentecostes +castle, some north to Robert's castle', in the words of the +Chronicle.[14] Moreover, the former belonged to Osbern, 'whose +surname was Pentecost' (_cognomento Pentecost_), who, as we learn from +Florence, was forced to surrender it and leave the country, as was +also the fate of another castellan, his comrade Hugh.[15] + +It is important to observe the clear distinction between Richard, son +of Scrob, of Richard's castle, and Osbern Pentecost, of Pentecost's +castle, of whom the former was allowed to remain, while the latter was +exiled. But it is another peculiarity of Mr Freeman's work that he +was apt to confuse different individuals bearing the same name.[16] +In this instance, he boldly assumed that 'Pentecost, as we gather +from Florence [?] ... is the same as Osbern, the son of Richard of +Richard's castle, of whom we have already heard so much' (ii. 329), +although the latter, a well-known man, is always distinguished as a +son of his father, and never as Pentecost. And he further assumes that +'Pentecost's castle' was identical with Richard's castle, 'the first +cause of so much evil' (_ibid._). These identifications led him into +further difficulty, because Osbern, the son of Richard, is found +afterwards holding 'both lands and offices in Herefordshire' (ii. +345). To account for this, he further assumes as 'certain that Osbern +afterwards returned' (_ibid._). This assumption led him on to suggest +that others also returned from exile, and that 'their restoration was +owing to special entreaties of the King after the death of Godwine' +(ii. 346). The whole of this history is sheer assumption, based on +confusion alone. + +Now let us clear our minds of this confusion, and keep the two +castellans and their respective castles apart. On the one hand, +we have Richard, the son of Scrob, who was left undisturbed at his +castle, and was succeeded there by his son Osbern;[17] on the other +hand, we have Osbern, 'whose surname was Pentecost', and who had to +surrender his castle, to which the guilty Normans had fled, and to go +into exile. Can we identify that castle? I would venture to suggest +that it was no other than that of Ewyas Harold in the south-west +corner of Herefordshire, of which Domesday tells us that Earl William +had _re_-fortified it ('hoc castellum refirmaverat'), implying that it +had existed, and been dismantled before the Conquest. It heads, in the +great survey, the possessions of Alfred of Marlborough, and although +its holder T.R.E. is not mentioned, we read of the two Manors which +follow it: 'Hæc duo maneria tenuit Osbernus avunculus Alveredi T.R.E. +quando Goduinus et Heraldus erant exulati' (i. 186). Mr Freeman, of +course, assumed that this Osbern was identical with Osbern, the son +of Richard, the Domesday tenant-in-chief. This assumption is not only +baseless, but also most improbable: for Alfred was old enough to be +father-in-law to Thurstan (Mortimer), a Domesday tenant, and would +scarcely therefore be young enough to be nephew to another Domesday +tenant-in-chief. I would suggest that his uncle was that Osbern +'Pentecost' who had to surrender his castle and flee on the return +of Godwine and Harold. This would exactly fit in with the Domesday +statement, as also with the dismantling of Ewyas Castle.[18] + +Ewyas Harold fits in also with the chronicle's mention of the Normans +fleeing 'west' to Pentecost's castle. + +We have now seen that Richard's castle did not stand alone, and that +there is nothing to identify it with that Herefordshire castle ('ænne +castel') of which the garrison had committed outrages in 1051, and +which is far more likely, so far as our evidence goes, to have been +'Pentecost's Castle'. Mr Freeman rightly called attention to 'the firm +root which the Normans had taken in Herefordshire before 1051, which +looks very much as if they had been specially favoured in these parts' +(ii. 562); and he argued from this that Earl Ralf had probably +ruled the shire between 1046 and 1050. The Earl would naturally +have introduced the foreign system of castles, as he did the foreign +fashion of fighting on horseback. Indeed, speaking of the capture of +Hereford in 1055, Mr Freeman wrote: + + It is an obvious conjecture that the fortress destroyed by + Gruffyd was a Norman castle raised by Ralph. A chief who + was so anxious to make his people conform to Norman ways of + fighting would hardly lag behind his neighbour at Richard's + castle. He would be among the first at once to provide himself + with a dwelling-place and his capital with a defence according + to the latest continental patterns (ii. 391). + +But if this is so, he would have built it while he ruled the shire (as +Mr Freeman believed he probably did) from 1046 to 1050, and would, +in any case, have done so on taking up its government in 1051.[19] +Consequently he would have had a castle and garrison at Hereford in +1052. But Mr Freeman, describing Gruffyd's raid in that year into +Herefordshire, and finding a castle mentioned, assumed that it could +only be Richard's castle,[20] although, a few lines before, he had +admitted the existence of other castles in the shire.[21] Even in 1067 +he would have liked to hold that Richard's castle was the only one +in Herefordshire, but the words of the chronicle were too clear for +him.[22] + +I have endeavoured to make clear my meaning, namely, that Mr Freeman's +view that 'Richard's castle' stood alone as '_the_ castle', and that +Richard and his garrison were the special offenders under Edward the +Confessor, is not only destitute of all foundations, but at variance +with the facts of the case. When we read of Herefordshire (1067) that + + The Norman colony, planted in that region by Eadward and + so strangely tolerated by Harold, was still doing its work. + Osbern had been sheriff under Edward, even when Harold was + Earl of the shire, and his father Richard, the old offender, + still lived (iv. 64)-- + +we must remember that the conduct of Harold was only strange if +Richard, as Mr Freeman maintained, was 'the old offender'. If, +as Florence distinctly tells us, he was, on the contrary, void of +offence, Harold's conduct was in no way strange.[23] + +Let us now turn from the Herefordshire colony, planted, I think, not +so much by King Edward as by his Earl Ralph, just as Earl William +(Fitz Osbern) planted a fresh one after the Conquest. + +Among the Normans allowed to remain, on the triumph of Godwine's +party in 1052, Florence mentions 'Ælfredum regis stratorem'. On him Mr +Freeman thus comments: + + Several Ælfreds occur in Domesday as great landowners, Ælfred + of Marlborough (Osbern's nephew) and Ælfred of Spain, but it + is not easy to identify their possessions with any holder of + the name in Edward's time. The names Ælfred and Edward and the + female name Eadgyth seem to have been the only English names + adopted by the Normans. The two former would naturally be + given to godsons or dependants of the two Althelings while in + Normandy [_i.e._ after 1013].[24] + +An appendix, in the first volume, devoted to Ælfred the giant--who +appears in Normandy, _circ._ 1030--claims that Ælfred is a name so +purely English that the presumption in favour of the English birth of +any one bearing it 'in this generation is extremely strong',[25] +and that it was only adopted by 'a later generation of Normans'. Mr +Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of +Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the +ninth century,[26] while I have noted in a single cartulary seventeen +examples between 1000 and 1150. Among these are 'Alfridus frater +Jutheli' (_ante_ 1008) and Juthel, son of Alfred (1037). Now, at the +Conquest, 'Judhael, who from his chief seat took the name of Judhael +of Totnes, became the owner', in Mr Freeman's words, 'of a vast estate +in Devonshire, and extended his possessions into the proper Cornwall +also'. But we know from charters that this Judhael was the son of an +Alfred, and was succeeded by another Alfred, who joined Baldwin of +Redvers at Exeter in 1136.[27] In the same county, as Mr Freeman +reminds us, we have another Breton tenant-in-chief, 'Alvredus Brito'. +In all this I am working up to the suggestion that the well-known +Alfred of Lincoln was not, as Mr Freeman holds, an Englishman,[28] but +a Breton. We have not only the overwhelming presumption against any +considerable tenant-in-chief being of English origin, but the fact +that his lands were new grants. When we add to this fact that his +heir (whether son or brother) bore the distinctively Breton name of +Alan,[29] we may safely conclude that Alfred was not only a foreigner +but a Breton. But the strange thing is that we do not stop there; +we have a Jool (or Johol) of Lincoln, who died in 1051[30] after +bestowing on Ramsey Abbey its Lincolnshire fief.[31] Thus we have an +Alfred and a Juhel 'of Lincoln', as we have an Alfred and a Juhel +'of Totnes'; and in Juhel of Lincoln we must have a Breton settled in +England under the Confessor. + +The name of 'Lincoln' leads me to another interesting discovery. 'Both +Alfred of Lincoln and the sheriff Thorold,' Mr Freeman wrote, 'were +doubtless Englishmen.'[32] And speaking of Abbot Turold's accession +in 1070, he observed that Turold was 'a form of the Danish Thorold, a +name still [1070] familiar in that part of England, one which had been +borne by an English sheriff'.[33] + +Now this Thorold (_Turoldus_) has been the subject of much speculation +by Mr Stapleton, Mr Freeman,[34] etc., in connection with William +Malet and the mysterious Countess Lucy, but the facts about him are +of the scantiest, nor, I believe, has any one succeeded in finding him +actually mentioned in the Conqueror's reign, though he is referred to +in Domesday. This, however, I have now done, lighting upon him in a +passage of considerable interest _per se_. In the 'De miraculis sancti +Eadmundi' of Herman we read that when Herfast, Bishop of Thetford, +visited Baldwin, Abbot of St Edmund's, to be cured of an injury to his +eye, the Abbot induced him to renounce his claim to jurisdiction over +the Abbey: + + In sacri monasterii vestiario, præsentibus ejusdem loci + majoris ætatis fratribus, sed etiam accitis illuc ab abbate + quibusdam regis primoribus, qui dictante justitia in + eadem villa regia tenebant placita. Quorum nomina, quamvis + auditoribus tædio, tamen sunt veræ rationis testimonio; + videlicet Hugo de Mundford, et Rogerius cognomento Bigot, + Richardus Gisleberti comitis filius, ac cum eis + _Lincoliensis Turoldus_ et Hispaniensis Alveredus, cum aliis + compluribus.[35] + +The date of this incident can be fixed with certainty as 1076-79; and +it is of great interest for its mention both of the eyre itself and +of those 'barons' who took part in it; there can be no question that +'Turoldus' was the mysterious Thorold, sheriff of Lincolnshire, taking +his name from Lincoln.[36] He was, therefore, not 'an English sheriff' +of days before the Conquest, but a Norman--as were his fellows--who +died before Domesday.[37] + +The name of William Malet, connected with that of Thorold, reminds +me of a suggestion I once made,[38] that he held Aulkborough in +Lincolnshire, T.R.E., 'and was, to that extent, as M. le Prêvost held, +"established in England previously to the Conquest"'. + +Stapleton, whose name in such matters rightly carries great weight, +maintained that because the Manor was held in 1086 by Ivo Tailbois, +and is stated in Domesday 'to have previously belonged to William +Malet', it must have been alienated by William by a gift in frank +marriage with a daughter, who must, he held, have married Ivo. But +I pointed out, firstly, that 'it is not the practice of Domesday to +enter Manors held _in maritagio_ thus', and gave an instance (i. 197) +'where we find Picot holding lands from Robert Gernon, which lands +are entered in the Gernon fief with the note: "Has terras tenet Picot +Vicecomes de Roberto Gernon in maritagio feminæ suæ."' I can now, by +the kindness of Dr Liebermann, add the instance of the Mandeville fief +in Surrey, where we read of 'Aultone': 'De his hidis tenet Wesman +vi. hidas de Goisfrido filio comitis Eustachii; hanc terram dedit ei +Goisfridus de Mannevil cum filia sua' (i. 36).[39] In addition to this +argument I urged that 'in default of any statement to the contrary, we +must always infer that the two holders named in the survey are (_A_) +the holder T.R.E., (_B_) the holder in 1086'. This would make William +Malet the holder T.R.E. + +Another 'Norman' on whom I would touch is 'Robert fitz Wimarc', so +often mentioned by Mr Freeman. I claim him too as a Breton, on his +mother's side at least, if Wimarc, as seems to be the case, was his +mother, for that is a distinctively Breton name. Mr Freeman queried +the Biographer's description of him as 'regis consanguineus', when +at Edward's death-bed;[40] but he is clearly the 'Robertus regis +consanguineus' of the Waltham charter.[41] He was also of kin to +William.[42] + +The last on my list is Regenbald 'the Norman chancellor of Edward', +as Mr Freeman termed him throughout. He must have had, I presume, some +authority for doing so: but I cannot discover that authority; and, +in its absence, the name, from its form, does not suggest a Norman +origin.[43] Of Regenbald, however, I shall have to speak in another +paper. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Quarterly Review_, June 1892, pp. 9, 10.] + + [Footnote 2: _Norm. Conq._, i. 525, 526.] + + [Footnote 3: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 4: _Norm. Conq._, ii, 29, 30.] + + [Footnote 5: Mr Freeman admits that his crews 'probably + consisted mainly of adventurers from the Danish Saxons of + Ireland, ready for any enterprise which promised excitement + and plunder' (_N.C._, ii. 313).] + + [Footnote 6: _Historic Towns: Cinque Ports_, pp. 26-9.] + + [Footnote 7: See for Osbern, Mr A. S. Ellis's _Domesday + Tenants in Gloucestershire_, p. 18. May not Peter, William's + chaplain, Bishop of Lichfield, 1075, have similarly been the + Peter who was a chaplain of Edward?] + + [Footnote 8: Chèruel's _Histoire de Rouen pendant l'époque + communale_, i. 245.] + + [Footnote 9: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 136-8.] + + [Footnote 10: _Ibid._, p. 140.] + + [Footnote 11: _Ibid._, p. 309.] + + [Footnote 12: _Ibid._, p. 607.] + + [Footnote 13: 'Norman Richard still held his castle in + Herefordshire' (Hunt's _Norman Britain_, p. 69).] + + [Footnote 14: Mr Clark refers to this passage, adding: 'So + that these places, probably like Richard's castle, were in + Norman hands' (_M.M.A._, i. 37).] + + [Footnote 15: 'Osbernus vero, cognomento Pentecost, et socius + ejus Hugo sua reddiderunt castella.'] + + [Footnote 16: I have noted several cases in point, that of + Walter Giffard being the most striking. But we also read in + _William Rufus_ (ii. 551) that 'Henry, son of Swegen, + who comes so often under Henry the Second, is the unlucky + descendant of Robert, son of Wymarc', that is to say, Henry + 'of Essex', who was a son of Robert, not of Swegen, and who + belonged to a wholly different family and district.] + + [Footnote 17: 'Worse than all, the original sinners of the + Herefordshire border, Richard and his son Osbern, were still + lords of English soil, and holders of English offices' (iv. + 53).] + + [Footnote 18: Named, as Mr Freeman pointed out, after Harold, + son of Earl Ralph, not after Harold, son of Godwine.] + + [Footnote 19: 'That Ralph succeeded Swegen on his final + banishment in 1051, I have no doubt at all' (ii. 562).] + + [Footnote 20: '"The castle" is doubtless Richard's castle.... + Here again the expressions witness to the deep feeling + awakened by the building of this castle' (ii. 309).] + + [Footnote 21: 'The Norman lords whom Eadward had settled + in Herefordshire proved but poor defenders of their adopted + country. The last continental improvements in the art of + fortification proved vain to secure the land' (_ibid._).] + + [Footnote 22: Florence (1067) speaks of the 'Herefordenses + castellani et Richardus filius Scrob' as the opponents + of Eadric. I could almost have fancied that the words + 'Herefordenses castellani' referred to 'the castle' in + Herefordshire (see vol. ii. p. 139); but the words of the + Worcester chronicler 'þa castelmenn on Hereforda' seem to fix + the meaning to the city itself' (iv. 64).] + + [Footnote 23: I have no hesitation in offering these + criticisms, because Mr Freeman's views have been embraced + throughout by Mr Hunt, who has followed closely in his + footsteps. For instance: + + 'A private fortress ... would 'It was the first fortress which + seem even stranger to us now was raised in England for the + than it seemed to our indulgence of private insolence + forefathers when Richard the and greed, and not for the + son of Scrob raised the first protection of Englishmen; it was + castle on English ground' to be the first of many, and the + (_Norm. Conq._, v. 640). evil deeds which Richard's men + wrought were a foretaste of the + evil times when fortresses such + as his were common in the land' + (_Norman Britain_, p. 64). + + Mr Hunt, therefore, survives to defend the position.] + + [Footnote 24: Vol. ii., p. 345.] + + [Footnote 25: Vol. i., p. 747.] + + [Footnote 26: About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus + tyrannus, 871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879.] + + [Footnote 27: Gesta Stephani.] + + [Footnote 28: iii. (2nd ed.) 780; iv. 214.] + + [Footnote 29: See the Lindsey Survey.] + + [Footnote 30: _Ramsey Cartulary_, iii. 167.] + + [Footnote 31: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 208, ii. 74. _Domesday_, + i. 346_b_.] + + [Footnote 32: iii. (2nd ed.) 780.] + + [Footnote 33: iv. (1st ed.) 457.] + + [Footnote 34: _Ibid._, 778-80. Mr Freeman spoke of him as 'a + kind of centre' for the inquiry, and stated that in Domesday + 346_b_ we have 'Turoldus vicecomes' as a benefactor of + Spalding priory. This is an error, for the words there are + 'dedit S. Gutlaco' (_i.e._ Crowland). He also urged that 'we + must not forget the Crowland tradition' about him 'preserved + by the false Ingulf'. But the fact is that 'Ingulf' made + him into _two_ (1) 'Thuroldus Vicecomes Lincoln', whose + benefaction to Crowland (D.B., i. 346_b_) was confirmed in 806 + (!) and subsequently (pp. 6, 9, 15, 19), (2) 'quidam vicecomes + Lincolniæ, dictus Thoroldus ... de genere et cognatione illius + vicedomini Thoroldi qui quondam', etc. (p. 65). It is the + one living in '1051', to whom the Spalding foundation was + assigned.] + + [Footnote 35: _Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey_, i. 63-4. + Herman wrote from personal knowledge.] + + [Footnote 36: There are plenty of instances of this practice, + as at Exeter, Salisbury, Gloucester, Leicester, etc.] + + [Footnote 37: It may be well here to allude to a still more + remarkable commission, some twenty years later, namely in + 1096, when William Rufus sent 'in quadragesima optimates + suos in Devenesiram et in Cornubiam et Exoniam, Walcalinum, + videlicet, Wyntonensem episcopum, Randulphum regalem + capellanum, Willelmum Capram, Hardinum Belnothi filium (_i.e._ + Elnoth or Eadnoth; _see_ Greenfield's _De Meriet pedigree_, + p. 6) ad investiganda regalia placita. Quibus in placitis + calumpniati sunt cuidam [_sic_] mansioni abbacie Taviensis,' + etc. (Tavistock cartulary in _Mon. Ang._, ii. 497). This + eyre cannot be generally known, for Mr T. A. Archer, in his + elaborate biography of Ranulf Flambard, does not mention it. + The association of Bishop Walkelin with Ranulf is specially + interesting because they are stated to have been left by the + king next year (1097) as joint regents of the realm. The name, + I may add, of 'Willelmus filius Baldwini' among those to whom + the consequent charter is addressed (_Mon. Ang._, ii. 497), is + of considerable importance, because it is clearly that of + the sheriff of Devon, and is proof therefore that Baldwin + the sheriff (Baldwin, son of Count Gilbert) had left a son + William, who had succeeded to his shrievalty by 1096, and who + was in turn succeeded by his brother, Richard fitz Baldwin, + sheriff under Henry I.] + + [Footnote 38: _Genealogist_, viii. 4.] + + [Footnote 39: Dr Liebermann asks whether Geoffrey's daughter + was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the future King + of Jerusalem'.] + + [Footnote 40: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 576.] + + [Footnote 41: _Ibid._, ii. 673.] + + [Footnote 42: _Ibid._, iii. 416.] + + [Footnote 43: Mr A. S. Ellis has suggested that 'Elward filius + Reinbaldi' (D.B., i. 170_b_) King's thegn in Glo'stershire + 'was evidently a son' of the chancellor. This suggestion + is highly probable, and in any case, the thegn bearing this + English name, it may fairly be presumed that his father + Reinbald was not of Norman birth.] + + + + +MR FREEMAN AND THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS + +[Greek: Hotan ho ischyros kathôplismenos phylassê tên heautou aulên, +en eirênê estin ta hyparchonta autou. epan de ischyroteros autou +epelthôn nikêsê auton, tên panoplian autou airei eph' hê epepoithei.] + + +It might well be thought the height of rashness to attempt criticism, +even in detail, of Mr Freeman's narrative of the Battle of Hastings. +For its story, as his champion has well observed, is 'the centre and +the very heart of Mr Freeman's work; if he could blunder here in +the most carefully elaborated passage of his whole history he could +blunder anywhere; his reputation for accuracy would be gone almost +beyond hope of retrieving it'.[1] And indeed, it may fairly be +described as Mr Freeman's greatest achievement, the point where he is +strongest of all. He himself described the scene as the 'battle which +is the centre of my whole history', and reminded us that + + on its historic importance I need not dwell; it is the very + subject of my history.... Looking also at the fight simply + as a battle, it is one of the most memorable in all military + history. + +That is the first point. The second is that in his battle pieces +our author was always at his best. Essentially a concrete historian, +objective as Macaulay in his treatment, he loved incident and action; +loved them, indeed, so well, that he could scarcely bring himself to +omit the smallest details of a skirmish: + + E ripenso le mobili + Tende, e i percossi valli, + E 'l campo dei manipoli, + E l'onda dei cavalli. + +Precentor Venables has well described + + that wonderful discourse, one of his greatest triumphs--in + which, with flashing eye and thrilling voice, he made the + great fight of Senlac--as he loved to call it, discarding the + later name--which changed the fortunes of England and made her + what she is, live and move before his hearers. + +My third point is that his knowledge of the subject was unrivalled. +He had visited the battlefield, he tells us, no less than five times, +accompanied by the best experts, civil and military, he could find; he +had studied every authority, and read all that had been written, till +he was absolutely master of every source of information. He had +further executed for him, by officers of the Royal Engineers, an +elaborate plan of the battle based on his unwearied studies. Never was +historian more splendidly equipped. + +Thus was prepared that 'very lucid and quite original account of +the battle', as Mr G. T. Clark describes it, which we are about to +examine; that 'detailed account of the battle' that Mr Hunt, in his +_Norman Britain_, describes as written 'with a rare combination of +critical exactness and epic grandeur'. + + +THE NAME OF 'SENLAC' + +Before we approach the great battle, it is necessary to speak plainly +of the name which Mr Freeman gave it, the excruciating name of +'Senlac'. It is necessary, because we have here a perfect type of +those changes in nomenclature on which Mr Freeman insisted, and which +always remind one of Macaulay's words: + + Mr Mitford piques himself on spelling better than any of + his neighbours; and this not only in ancient names, which he + mangles in defiance both of custom and of reason.... In such + cases established usage is considered as law by all writers + except Mr Mitford ... but he proceeds on no principle but that + of being unlike the rest of the world. Every child has heard + of Linnæus; therefore Mr Mitford calls him Linné. Rousseau is + known all over Europe as Jean Jacques; therefore Mr Mitford + bestows on him the strange appellation of John James. + +None of Mr Freeman's peculiar 'notes' is more familiar than this +tendency, and none has given rise to bitterer controversy or more +popular amusement. 'Pedantry' was the charge brought against him, and +to this charge he was as keenly sensitive as was Browning to that of +'obscurity'. Of both writers it may fairly be said that they evaded +rather than met the charge brought against them. The Regius Professor +invariably maintained that accuracy, not 'pedantry', was his true +offence. Writing, in the _Fortnightly Review_, on 'The Study of +History', he set forth his standing defence in these words: + + I would say, as the first precept, Dare to be accurate. You + will be called a pedant for doing so, but dare to be accurate + all the same. + + He who shall venture to distinguish between two English + boroughs, between two Hadriatic islands when the authorized + caterer for the public information thinks good to confound + them, must be content to bear the terrible name of pedant, + even if no worse fate still is in store for him. + +Was, then, our author a mere pedant, or was this the name that +ignorance bestowed on knowledge? For an answer to this question, +'Senlac' is a test-case. 'Every child', in Macaulay's words, had heard +of the Battle of Hastings; it was known by that name 'all over Europe' +from time immemorial. Unless, therefore, that name was wrong, it was +wanton and mischievous to change it; and, even if changed, it was +indefensible to substitute the name of Senlac, unless there is proof +that the battle was so styled when it was fought. + +As to the first of these points, the old name was in no sense wrong. +Precisely as the battle of Poitiers was fought some miles from +Poitiers, so was it with that of Hastings. Yet we all speak of +the Battle of Poitiers, although we might substitute the name of +Maupertuis more legitimately than that of Senlac. The only plea that +Mr Freeman could advance was that people were led by the old name to +imagine that the battle was fought at Hastings itself! Of those who +argue in this spirit, it was finely said by the late Mr Kerslake that + + instead of lifting ignorance to competence by teaching what + ought to be known, they cut down what ought to be known to the + capacity of those who are deficient of that knowledge. Instead + of making them understand the meaning of the ancient and + established word 'Anglo-Saxon', they disturb the whole world + of learning with an almost violent attempt to turn out of use + the established word, which has been thoroughly understood for + ages. + +The simple answer to Mr Freeman's contention is, that it is needless +to make the change in histories, because those who read them learn +that the fight was at Battle; while as to those who do not read +histories, it is obvious that such a name as 'Senlac' will in no way +lighten their darkness. + +The change, therefore, was uncalled for. But it was not merely +uncalled for; it was also absolutely wrong. 'To the battle itself,' Mr +Freeman wrote, 'I restore its true ancient name of Senlac.' In so +doing the writer acted in the spirit of those who 'restore' our +churches and who gave that word so evil a sound in the ears of all +archæologists, Mr Freeman himself included. I am reminded of the +protest of the Society of Antiquaries on hearing 'with much regret +that a fifteenth-century pinnacle' at Rochester Cathedral 'is in +danger of destruction in order that a modern pinnacle, professing to +represent that which stood in the place in the twelfth century, may be +set up in its stead'. Precisely such a 'restoration' is Mr Freeman's +'Senlac'. Professing to represent the ancient name of the battle, it +is substituted for that name which the battle has borne from the days +of the Conqueror to our own. In William of Malmesbury as in Domesday +Book we read of 'the Battle of Hastings' (_Bellum Hastingense_), and +all Mr Freeman's efforts failed admittedly to discover any record or +any writer who spoke of the Battle of Senlac (_Bellum Senlacium_) +save Orderic alone. Now Orderic wrote two generations after the battle +was fought; the name he strove to give it fell from his pen stillborn; +and the fact that this name was a fad of his own is shown by what Mr +Freeman suppressed, namely, that Orderic, in the same breath, tells +us that Battle Abbey was founded as 'c[oe]nobium Sanctæ Trinitatis +Senlac', whereas we learn from Mr Freeman himself that + + the usual title is 'ecclesia Sancti Martini de Bello', + 'ecclesia de Bello', or, as we have seen, in English 'þæt + mynster æt þære Bataille'. The fuller form, 'Abbas Sancti + Martini de loco Belli', appears in Domesday, 11_b_: but it is + commonly called in the Survey 'ecclesia de Labatailge'. + +So much for Orderic's authority. + +So violent an innovation as this of our author's could not +pass unchallenged. Mr Frederic Harrison threw down the gauntlet +(_Contemporary Review_, January 1886), attacking, in a brilliant and +incisive article, Mr Freeman's 'pedantry' along the whole line. But he +chiefly complained of + + a far more serious change of name that the 'Old English' + school have introduced; which, if it were indefinitely + extended, would wantonly confuse historical literature. I mean + the attempt to alter names which are the accepted landmarks of + history. It is now thought scholarly to write of 'the Battle + of _Senlac_' instead of 'the Battle of _Hastings_'. As every + one knows, the fight took place on the site of Battle Abbey, + seven miles from Hastings; as so many great battles, those of + Tours, Blenheim, Cannæ, Chalons, and the like, have been named + from places not the actual spot of the combat. + + But since for 800 years the historians of Europe have spoken + of 'the Battle of Hastings', it does seem a little pedantic + to rename it.... The sole authority for 'Battle of Senlac' is + Orderic, a monk who lived and wrote in Normandy in the next + century. Yet, on the strength of this secondary authority, the + 'Old English' school choose to erase from English literature + one of our most familiar names. + +Mr Freeman's rejoinder must be noticed, because singularly +characteristic. Treating Mr Harrison 'de haut en bas', he expressed +surprise that his friends should expect him to reply to an article +which had merely amused him, and--unable, of course, to adduce any +fresh authority for 'Senlac'--denounced his critic for a 'reckless +raid into regions where he does not know the road'. For this charge +there was no foundation in the matter of which we treat. Mr Freeman +persisted that he had given the battle 'the only name that I found for +it anywhere' (which we have seen was not the case), and sarcastically +observed that 'so to do is certainly "pedantic", for it conduces to +accuracy'. + +The truth is simply that the site of the battle had no name at all. As +the professor himself wrote: + + The spot was then quite unoccupied and untilled; nothing in + any of the narratives implies the existence of any village or + settlement; our own Chronicle only describes the site as + by 'the hoar apple-tree' ('He com him togenes æt þære haran + apuldran'). + +Consequently, when men wished to speak of the great conflict, they +were driven, as in similar cases, to term it the Battle of Hastings, +or, if they wished to be more exact, they had to describe it, by +periphrasis, as fought on 'the site which is now called Battle'. + +Henry of Huntingdon, our author tells us, is guilty, though otherwise +well informed, of 'a statement so grotesquely inaccurate as +that Harold "aciem suam construxit in _planis Hastinges_"'. Why +'grotesque'? It would be strictly accurate to describe a battle, even +seven miles from Salisbury, as fought on Salisbury Plain; while, as +to the word 'plain', his horror of field-sports may have caused Mr +Freeman's ignorance of the fact that another such stretch of Sussex +Down is known as 'Plumpton Plain'.[2] But the fact is that the whole +difficulty arose from that singular narrowness that cramped our +author's mind, and that lies at the root, when rightly understood, +of his most distinctive tenets. For he was a pedant, after all. +And, observe, this 'pedantry' did, in practice, conduce not to true +accuracy, but to the very reverse. Paradoxical though this may sound, +it is literally true. Let us take a striking instance. In his account +of the attack on Dover in 1067, Mr Freeman argued, 'from the distinct +mention of _oppidum_ and _oppidani_ in Orderic', that it was not the +castle, as supposed, but the town that was attacked. And so convinced +was he of this, that he forced his authorities into harmony with his +view against their plain meaning. This was because he was not aware +that Orderic--'my dear old friend Orderic', as in one place he terms +him--was in the habit of using _oppidum_ for castle. He must +have afterwards discovered this; for his theory was tacitly and +significantly dropped, and the old version substituted, in a +subsequent edition. Again, an article on 'City and Borough', which he +contributed to _Macmillan's Magazine_, was based on the fundamental +assumption that _civitas_, in the Norman period, must have had a +specialized denotation. The fact that, on the contrary, the same town +is spoken of as a _civitas_ and as a _burgus_, cuts the ground +from under this assumption, and, with it, destroys the whole of its +elaborate superstructure. Our author's method, in short, placed him in +standing conflict with every authority for his period. Never was 'the +sacredness of words' treated as of less account; never, indeed, were +words more wantonly changed. What would Mr Freeman have said had he +known that the compilers of that sacrosanct record, Domesday Book +itself, revelled in altering the wording of the sworn original +returns? Such was the spirit of the men whose language he strove to +limit by a terminology as precise as that of modern philosophy. + +I may have wandered somewhat from 'Senlac', but my object was to show +that Mr Freeman misunderstood twelfth-century writers by assigning to +them his own peculiarities. It did not in any way follow from their +speaking of a 'Battle of Hastings' that they 'grotesquely' supposed it +to have been fought at the town itself: they allowed themselves an +elasticity, both in word and phrase, which was so alien to himself +that he could not realize its existence, and therefore accused them of +ignorance because their language was different from his. In the same +spirit he would never admit that the 'Castellum Warham' of Domesday +Book was no other than Corfe Castle, although, as Mr Eyton and Mr Bond +have shown, the fact is certain. + +But the _crux_ is yet to come. To any one acquainted with 'Old +English' it must instantly occur that 'Senlac' is not an English name. +Mr Freeman glided over this by simply ignoring the difficulty, but was +he aware that the name in question, as 'Senlecque' (or 'Senlecques'), +is actually found--in France? One is reminded of his own criticism on +the name 'Duncombe Park': + + When the lands of Helmsley were made to take the name of + Duncombe, a real wrong was done to geography.... How came a + _combe_ in Yorkshire? The thing is a fraud on nomenclature as + great as any of the frauds which the first Duncombe, 'born to + carry parcels and to sweep down a counting-house', contrived + to commit on the treasury of the nation. + +How came a French 'Senlac' in 'Old English' Sussex? The name is as +obviously foreign as 'Senlis' itself, and the occurrence, in later +days of 'Santlachæ' as a local field-name, cannot avail against this +fact, or prove that this open down, in days before the Conquest, could +have borne such a title. Therefore, when Mr Freeman wrote that the +English king 'pitched his camp upon the ever memorable heights of +Senlac', he was guilty, not only of anachronism, but of a 'real wrong +to geography', and, in the name of accuracy, he introduced error.[3] + +I have gone thus carefully into this matter because the name has been +meekly adopted by historians, and even by journalists, thereby proving +the power of that tendency to fashion and imitation on which, in his +_Physics and Politics_, Mr Bagehot loved to insist. For my part I make +an earnest appeal to all who may write or teach history to adhere +to the 'true ancient name' of the Battle of Hastings, and to reject +henceforward an innovation which was uncalled for, misleading, and +wrong.[4] + + +THE PALISADE + +The distinctive peculiarity of the English tactics, we learn from Mr +Freeman at the outset, is found in an entirely novel device introduced +on this occasion by Harold. Instead of merely forming his troops in +the immemorial array known as the shield-wall, he turned 'the battle +as far as possible into the likeness of a siege',[5] by building +around them a 'palisade' of solid timber. How large a part this +'palisade' plays in Mr Freeman's story may be gathered from the fact +that it is mentioned at least a score of times in his account of the +great battle. This 'fortress of timber', with its 'wooden walls', had +'a triple gate of entrance', and was composed of 'firm barricades of +ash and other timber, wattled in so close together that not a crevice +could be seen'. + +It would be easier for me to deal with this 'palisade' if one could +form a clear idea of what it represented to Mr Freeman's mind. +Judging from the passages quoted above, and from his praising Henry +of Huntingdon for his 'admirable comparison of Harold's camp to a +castle';[6] I was led to believe that he imagined precisely such a +timber wall as crowned in those days a castle mound. Such a defence +is well shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, crowning the castle mound which +William threw up at Hastings. Now, this very parallel is suggested +by Mr Freeman himself. Describing Harold's position as 'not without +reason called a fortress' [where?] he suggested that 'its defences +might be nearly equal to those of William's own camp at Hastings' (p. +447). Following up this parallel, we find Mr Freeman writing of this +latter: + + A portion of English ground was already entrenched and + _palisaded_, and changed into a Norman fortress (p. 418).... + He saw the carpenters come out with their axes; he saw the + fosse dug, and the _palisade_ thrown up (p. 419). They had + already built a fort and had fenced it in with a _palisade_ + (p. 420). + +Without binding Mr Freeman down to a defence precisely of this +character--and, indeed, in this as in other matters, he may not even +himself have formed a clear idea of what he meant--it gives us, I +think we may fairly say, a general idea of his 'palisade'. It +was certainly no mere row of stakes,[7] no heap of cottage window +frames,[8] no fantastic array of shields tied to sticks,[9] no +'_abattis_ of some sort'[10] that Mr Freeman had in view, whatever +his champions may pretend. As for the defenders of the 'palisade', +they cannot even agree among themselves as to what it really was. +Mr Archer produces a new explanation, only to throw it over almost +as soon as it is produced.[11] One seeks to know for certain what +one is expected to deal with; but, so far as it is possible to learn, +nobody can tell one. There is only a succession of dissolving views, +and one is left to deal with a nebulous hypothesis.[12] + +Mr Freeman wrote of his 'palisade' as a mere 'development of the usual +tactics of the shield-wall'; but this is an obvious misconception. +It might, indeed, be used as a substitute for the 'shield-wall', and +would enable the troops behind it to adopt a looser formation; but to +suppose that they were ranged 'closely together in the thick array of +the shield-wall', with this second wall in front of them, is surely +absurd. Till the 'wooden walls' were broken the 'shield-wall' was +needless. To retain the disadvantages of its close order, when that +order had been rendered needless, would have been simply insane. Yet +this insanity, in our author's eyes, was 'the master-skill of Harold'. +Was there time, moreover, to construct such a fortress, if 'the battle +followed almost immediately', as we learn, 'on the arrival of Harold'? +Lastly, would there be material on the spot for a palisade (see ground +plan) about a mile in length?[13] These awkward points may not have +occurred to Mr Freeman; but to others they will, I think, cause some +uneasiness. Let us then examine Mr Freeman's authorities for the +existence of this palisade. + + +MR FREEMAN'S AUTHORITIES FOR IT + +In his note on 'The Details of the Battle of Senlac' (iii. 756), +Mr Freeman explained that he had given the authorities on which his +statements rested, adding: + + Each reader can therefore judge for himself how far my + narrative is borne out by my authorities. + +Loyally keeping to this principle, I propose to test his statements +by the authorities he gives for them himself. I therefore address +myself to the passages in Henry of Huntingdon and in Wace. + + +(1) _Henry of Huntingdon_ + +The passage relied on by the historian is this: + + Quum ergo Haroldus totam gentem suam in una acie strictissime + locasset _et quasi castellum inde construxisset_[14] + impenetrabiles erant Normannis (iii. 444, note). + +Mr Freeman thus paraphrased Henry's words: + + He occupied and fortified, as thoroughly as the time and the + means at his command would allow, a post of great natural + strength, which he made into what is distinctly spoken of as a + castle (_ibid._).[15] + +Although the writer made it his complaint against one of the editors +in the Rolls series that he could not 'construe his Latin', we see +that the same failing led him here himself into error. _Inde_ refers, +and can only refer, to Harold's troops themselves. A fortress Harold +wrought; but he wrought it of flesh and blood: it was behind no +ramparts that the soldiers of England awaited the onset of the +chivalry of France. + +The metaphor, of course, is a common one. Henry of Huntingdon himself +recurs to it, when describing that 'acies', at the Battle of Lincoln, +which Stephen 'circa se ... strictissime collocavit' (p. 271), as +Harold, he wrote, 'gentem suam in una acie strictissime locasset' +(p. 203). For he shows us Stephen's 'acies' assailed 'sicut +castellum'.[16] In the same spirit an Irish bard tells us how his +countrymen, on the battlefield of Dysert O'Dea (May 10, 1318), closed +in their ranks, 'like a strong fortress', as their enemies surged +around them. It was felicitous, indeed, to describe as 'quasi +castellum' that immovable mass of warriors girt by their +shield-wall,[17] that 'fortress of shields', as Mr Freeman termed +it, at Hastings itself (iii. 492), at Stamford Bridge (iii. 372), at +Maldon (i. 272), and even in earlier days (i. 151). + +It was Mr Freeman's initial error in thus materializing a metaphor +(through misconstruing his Latin) that first led me to doubt the +existence of the 'palisade'. His champion, Mr Archer, in his first +article,[18] was ominously silent as to this error: in the second, he +had to confess of this passage, the first of Mr Freeman's proofs, that +he himself 'should never think of using it to prove a palisade'.[19] +_Exit_, therefore, Henry of Huntingdon. + + +(2) _Wace_ + +Two passages, and two alone, are in question-- + +(A) ll. 6991-4, which Mr Freeman has paraphrased thus: + + WACE MR FREEMAN + + Heraut a le lieu esgarde, He occupied the hill; he + Closre le fist de boen fosse, surrounded it on all its + De treis parz laissa treis entrees accessible sides by a palisade, + Qu'il a garder a commandees. with a triple gate of entrance, + and defended it to the south by + an artificial ditch (iii. 447). + +My criticism on this has been from the first that Wace here speaks +_only_ of a ditch, and that Mr Freeman has not only introduced here +the alleged palisade, from which Wace's 'fosse' was quite distinct, +but has also transferred to that palisade the 'treis entrees' of the +fosse. That Mr Freeman did treat the 'palisade' and the 'fosse' as +distinct and considerably apart is proved by this passage: + + The Normans had crossed the [_sic_] English fosse, and were + now at the foot of the hill with the palisades and the axes + right before them (iii. 476). + +The 'fosse' is that 'artificial ditch' of which Mr Freeman speaks in +the above passage, the only one of which he does speak. Therefore, +that 'artificial ditch' was, in his view, down in the valley to the +south, and had nothing to do with that 'palisade' which he placed on +the hill. There is thus no possible doubt as to Mr Freeman's view. On +his own showing, the above lines make no mention of a palisade on the +hill.[20] + +(B) ll. 7815-26: The passage in question runs thus: + + Fet orent devant els _escuz_ + De fenestres è d'altres fuz, + Devant els les orent levez, + Come cleies joinz è serrez; + Fait en orent devant closture, + N'i laissierent nule jointure, + Par onc Normant entr'els venist + Qui desconfire les volsist. + D'escuz e d'ais s'avironoent, + Issi deffendre se quidoent + Et s'il se fussent bien tenu, + Ia ne fussent le ior vencu. + +In his first edition, writing, I believe, under the influence of +Taylor's version, Mr Freeman gave these lines in a footnote to his +narrative of the battle, and appears to have then looked on them as +describing his palisade.[21] But in his 'second edition, revised', in +preparing which he went 'minutely through every line, and corrected or +improved whatever seemed to need correction or improvement' (p. v), he +transferred these lines to his appendix on the battle, where he wrote +concerning them as follows: + + [(At Maldon) the English stood, _as at Senlac_, in the array + common to them and their enemies--a strong line, or rather + wedge, of infantry, forming a wall with their shields (i. + 271).][22] + + Of the array of the shield-wall we have often heard already, + as at Maldon (see vol. i. p. 271), but it is at Senlac that we + get the fullest descriptions of it [_sic_] all the better for + coming in the mouths of enemies. Wace gives his description, + 12941: + + 'Fet orent devant els escuz + De fenestres è d'altres fuz; + Devant els les orent levez. + . . . . . + Et s'il se fussent bien tenu + Ja ne fussent li jor vencu.' + + So William of Malmesbury, 241. 'Pedites omnes cum bipennibus, + conserta ante se scutorum testudine, impenetrabilem cuneum + faciunt; quod profecto illis eâ die saluti fuisset, + nisi Normanni simulatâ fugâ more suo confertos manipulos + laxassent.' So at the battle of the Standard, according to + Æthelred of Rievaux (343), 'scutis scuta junguntur, lateribus + latera conseruntur' (iii. 763-4). + +The unquestionable meaning of Mr Freeman's words is that Wace's lines +(like the other passages) describe the time-honoured shield-wall, +'the fortress of shields, so often sung of alike in English and in +Scandinavian minstrelsy' (iii. 372). + +Appealing to this, his own verdict, in my original article,[23] I +spoke of these lines as referring to the 'shield-wall', and maintained +that 'escuz' meant shields, not 'barricades'. This also, it will be +seen, must have been Mr Freeman's view, when he pronounced these lines +to be a description of the shield-wall. I therefore declared that +the only evidence he adduced for his palisade had been demonstrably +obtained by misconstruing his Latin, and (on his own showing) by +mistranslating his French. + +This has been my case from the first: it remains my case now. + +Unlike our forefathers on the hill of battle, I will not be decoyed +into breaking 'the line of the shield-wall'.[24] + + +MY ARGUMENT AGAINST IT + +In order to show clearly that I adhere to my original position, I need +only reprint my argument as it appeared in the _Quarterly Review_. + + It is clear that if he (Mr Freeman) found it needful, in his + story of the great battle, to mention this barricade about + a score of times, it must have occupied a prominent place in + every contemporary narrative. And yet we assert without fear + of contradiction that (dismissing the 'Roman de Rou') in no + chronicle or poem, among all Mr Freeman's authorities, could + he find any ground for this singular delusion; while the + Bayeux Tapestry itself, which he rightly places at their + head, will be searched in vain for a palisade, or for + anything faintly resembling it, from beginning to end of the + battle.[25] + + + On this passage we take our stand: it is the very essence of + our case. We made our statement 'without fear of contradiction'; + and it is not contradicted. Moreover, we can now further + strengthen it by appealing to Baudri's poem,[26] an authority of + the first rank, in which, as in the others, there is no allusion + to the existence of any 'palisade'. + + It will be observed that, in this passage, we expressly excluded + Wace's poem. We did so because--although, as we have seen, Mr + Freeman failed to produce from it any proof of a palisade--we + preferred to leave it an open question whether Wace did or did + not believe the English to have fought behind a palisade. In + rebutting Mr Freeman's evidence, that question did not arise. + + There is another argument that we refrained from bringing + forward because we thought it superfluous. The Normans, of + course, as Mr Freeman reminds us, magnified the odds against + them: 'Nothing but the special favour of God could have given + his servants a victory over their enemies, which was truly + miraculous' (p. 440). William of Poitiers, he adds (p. 479), + sets forth their difficulties in detail:-- + + 'Angli nimium adjuvantur superioris loci opportunitate, quem + sine procursu tenent, et maxime conferti; atque ingenti quoque + numerositate suâ atque validissimâ corpulentiâ; præterea + pugnæ instrumentis, quæ facile per scuta vel alia tegmina viam + inveniunt.' + + Now William who was not only a contemporary writer, but, says + Mr Freeman (p. 757), 'understood' the site, had, obviously, + every inducement to include, among the difficulties of the + Normans, that special 'development', which according to + Mr Freeman (pp. 444, 468), 'the foresight of Harold' had + introduced on this occasion, and which, he assures us, + involved 'a frightful slaughter' of the Normans. And yet this + writer is absolutely silent, both here and throughout the + battle, as to the existence of a barricade of any sort or + kind.[27] + +Here I would briefly refer to certain misrepresentations. Mr Archer +claimed, in his original article (_Cont. Rev._, 344) to 'mainly +rely' upon Wace, on the ground that I did so myself. I was obliged +to describe this statement at once as 'the exact converse of the +truth'.[28] For it will be seen, I expressly excluded Wace from the +authorities on whom I relied, and specially rested my case, from +the first, on the evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry. It is much to be +regretted that Mr Archer has deliberately repeated his statement,[29] +though even his ally reluctantly admits that it was 'not very happily +worded'.[30] + +Mr Archer might well seek to avoid the Bayeux Tapestry, for its +evidence is dead against him, and he cannot explain it away. His +first attempt was a brief allusion, accepting its authority without +question, but suggesting that it might represent that part of the +line where the barricade was absent.[31] Of this suggestion I at +once disposed by showing that it is 'not only absolutely without +foundation, but is directly opposed to Mr Freeman's theory, +and, indeed, to his express statements'.[32] Forced to drop this +explanation, my opponent, in his next article, fell back on the +desperate device of repudiating the authority of the Tapestry,[33] +'the most authentic record' of the battle according to the late +Professor, who was never weary of insisting on its 'paramount +importance'. On my showing, beyond the possibility of question, +that this amounted to rejecting everything that Mr Freeman had +written on the subject,[34] Mr Archer once more shifts his tactics, +and now writes thus: + + If any fact in Hastings is more certain than another, it + is that at the beginning of the battle the main body of + the English was posted _on a hill_. Now 'the priceless + record'--the Bayeux Tapestry--represents them _on a plain_. If + the Tapestry could leave out this central feature--the hill of + Senlac--from its picture of the _opening_ battle, still more + easily could it leave out the intricate barriers upon the + hill.[35] + +This _ad captandum_ argument is disposed of as easily as the others. +The Tapestry does not concern itself with landscape, and shows us +neither a hill nor a plain. It could not, on a narrow strip, show us +'the hill of Senlac', but it could--and would--show us the alleged +palisade. For not only does it strive under every difficulty to +represent such objects as churches, castles and houses, but it +faithfully shows us the 'palisade'[36] raised by William at Hastings +itself. And if it be urged that it could not depict men fighting +behind such a defence, let us turn to the scene at Dinan. If we +compare it with the opening scene of the great battle itself, we see +precisely similar horsemen advancing to the attack, similar infantry +resisting that attack, and similar spears flying between them. But at +Dinan the defenders have a palisade, and on the hill of battle they +have not.[37] + +But although the evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry, Mr Freeman's +own supreme authority, remains absolutely unshaken, it must not +be supposed that I rely on that evidence alone. I attach as much +importance as ever--and so will, I think, all prejudiced persons--to +the other portion of my argument, that if there had been a barricade +playing so important a part in the battle that Mr Freeman found it +needful to mention it at least a score of times, it is practically +inconceivable that all the authorities I enumerate should have +absolutely ignored its existence. Judging from Mr Freeman's own +experience, it would be simply impossible to describe the battle +without mentioning the 'palisade'. + +It is very significant that when we turn to a real feature of the +English line, namely its close array, we find the above authorities as +unanimous in mentioning the fact as they are in ignoring that 'curious +defence',[38] those 'intricate barriers', as Mr Archer terms them, +'upon the hill'.[39] + +The fight has raged so fiercely around this 'palisade' that I have +been obliged to discuss it at somewhat disproportionate length. But to +sum up, we have now seen, firstly, that the alleged palisade was a +new 'development', and needs, as such, special proof of its existence; +secondly, that of Mr Freeman's proofs, one at least must admittedly be +abandoned, while he himself has impugned the other;[40] thirdly, that +the evidence, both positive and presumptive, is altogether opposed to +the existence of a palisade. In the narrative of the battle we shall +find Mr Freeman interpolating the alleged defence solely from his own +imagination, such references proving, on inquiry, to be imaginary and +imaginary alone.[41] + + +THE SHIELD-WALL + +It is a pleasure to find myself here in complete agreement with Mr +Freeman. In his very latest study of the battle Mr Freeman wrote as +follows: + + The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on + foot in the close array of the shield-wall.[42] + +Mr Archer says they cannot have done so.[43] There was also, according +to Mr Freeman, a barricade, in front of--and distinct from--the +shield-wall, being a special development which, he tells us, 'the +foresight of Harold' had introduced on this occasion (pp. 444, 468). +The barricade is denied by me, the shield-wall by Mr Archer. Whichever +of us is right, Mr Freeman's accuracy is, in either case, equally +impugned. + +It is essential to remember that Mr Freeman, throughout, treated the +palisade and the shield-wall as _separate and distinct_. Thus he wrote +so late as 1880: + + Besides the palisade the front ranks made a kind of inner + defence with their shields, called the shield-wall. The Norman + writers were specially struck with the close array of the + English.[44] + +So in his great work we read of 'the shield-wall _and the_ triple +palisade still unbroken' (iii. 467). Later still 'the shield-wall +still stood _behind the_ palisade' (p. 487). Even when 'the English +palisade was gone _the English shield-wall_ was still a formidable +hindrance in the way of the assailants (p. 491). The array of the +shield-wall was still kept, though now without the help of the +barricades' (p. 491). Here we have the very phrase of note NN, 'the +array of the shield-wall',[45] and it is shown beyond question that +Mr Freeman's shield-wall, whatever Mr Archer may pretend, was quite +distinct from the palisade, and was a shield-wall 'pure and simple'. + +Let it also be clearly understood what Mr Freeman meant by that 'array +of the shield-wall', of which the disputed passage in Wace was, he +held, a description. He shows us the whole English army 'ranged so +closely together in the thick array of the shield-wall, that +while they only kept their ground the success of an assailant was +hopeless'.[46] He describes them as, 'a strong line, or rather wedge, +of infantry, forming a wall with their shields',[47] and he ascribes +their defeat to their 'breaking the line of the shield-wall'.[48] + +Of this shield-wall my opponent rashly wrote: + + The Reviewer's [_sic_] theory of an extended shield-wall + vanishes like smoke. If Wace is any authority ... the question + is settled once and for all. There was no extended shield-wall + at Hastings.[49] + +Of course, 'the Reviewer's theory' here is no other than Mr Freeman's +own. + +If, in spite of the above evidence, it should still be pretended by +anyone that the plain meaning of Mr Freeman's words is not their +meaning, I will refer them not to my own interpretation, but to that +of Mr Freeman's friend and colleague, the Rev W. Hunt, who wrote in +the historian's lifetime, 'at his request' and by his 'invitation', +and whose proofs were revised by Mr Freeman himself.[50] This is Mr +Hunt's version: + + Set in close array behind a palisade forming a kind of + fortification, _shoulder to shoulder and shield to shield_, + the army of Harold presented a steady and immovable front to + the Norman attack ... Fatal was the national formation of the + English battle, when _men stood in the closest order, forming + a wall with their shields_. While no mode of array could be + stronger so long as the line remained unbroken it made it hard + to form the line again.[51] + +So, again, in his life of Harold: + + All the heavy-armed force fought in close order, _shield + touching shield_, so as to present a complete wall to the + enemy.[52] + +Here we have no tortuous imaginings, but, in plain and straightforward +words, 'what historians in general evidently mean' when they speak of +a 'shield-wall', what it meant to Mr Freeman, what it means to Mr Hunt, +and it is admitted, to myself.[53] Such was the English shield-wall, +according to Mr Freeman, at 'Senlac'; it was what Mr Archer definitely +declares it cannot possibly have been. + +Lastly, as to the ground on which Mr Archer pronounces impossible a +continuous shield-wall[54]--namely, that the English could not have +fought in such close order,[55] and that the axe-men being 'shieldless +... could not have formed the shield-wall'; one need only confront him +with Mr Freeman's words. + + MR FREEMAN MR ARCHER + + Referring to the mode of fighting It is enough for me that common + of an English army in that age, sense, the tapestry, Wace,[58] + and to 'the usual tactics of the our Italian chronicler, and his + shield-wall', Mr Freeman wrote of later Old French translator all + 'the close array of the show that the English axe-men + battle-axe men' (p. 444). He had could not or did not form the + already written of 'the English shield-wall (_English + house carls with their ... huge Historical Review_, ix. p. 14). + battle-axes', accustomed to Possibly they [the house carls] + fight in 'the close array to the may have formed a genuine + shield-wall.'[56] shield-wall; but while forming + it they cannot have been _using_ + 'They still formed their the 'bipennis', or the two-handed + shield-wall and fought with axe (_Ibid._, p. 20, note). + their great axes.'[57] + +I am compelled to repeat what I said in the _Quarterly Review_. + + We almost hesitate to waste our own and our readers' time on + a writer who, professing to vindicate Mr Freeman's view as + against us, devotes his energies to proving that view to be + utterly absurd.[59] + +Nor will Mr Archer derive comfort from 'our only English "specialist" +on mediaeval warfare';[60] who holds, as I had pointed out, that 'the +English axemen' did fight 'arranged in a compact mass'.[61] + +It is significant that the fact Mr Archer so confidently rejects is +precisely that on which I am at one with Mr Freeman, Mr Hunt, and Mr +Oman, and to which the original authorities bear witness with peculiar +unanimity. Thus William of Poitiers, an authority of the first rank, +describes the English as 'maxime conferti', speaks of their 'nimia +densitas', and proceeds to dwell on the terrible effect of their +weapon, the famous battle-axe. William of Malmesbury tells us that the +axemen 'impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt'. Even Mr Archer's authority, +Wace, writes of these warriors: + + A pie furent _serrement_. + +Baudri describes the English as 'consertos',[62] and the _Brevis +Relatio_ as 'spissum agmen'. Bishop Guy writes of the 'spissum +nemus Angligenarum', and styles them 'densissima turba'; Henry of +Huntingdon, we saw, tells us that they were arranged 'in una acie +strictissime', and were thus 'impenetrabiles Normannis'. + +No feature of the great battle is more absolutely beyond dispute. It +was the denseness of the English ranks that most vividly struck +their foes. 'Shield to shield, and shoulder to shoulder', as Æthelred +describes them at the Battle of the Standard, they wedged themselves +together so tightly that the wounded could not move, nor even the +corpses drop. And so they stood together, the living and the dead.[63] + +And we must remember that this mass of men was 'ranged so closely +together in the thick array _of the shield-wall_, that while they only +kept their ground the success of an assailant was hopeless'.[64] The +Conqueror saw, Mr Freeman reminds us, 'that his only chance was to +tempt the English to break their shield-wall'.[65] I need not insist +on the point further: I need not even have said so much, but that some +of those who read these pages may not have realized the true +character of Mr Archer's phantasies. The 'scutorum testudo', as +William of Malmesbury describes the famous shield-wall,[66] is +depicted, with his usual painstaking care, by the designer of the +Bayeux Tapestry. We read of the 'testudo' at Ashdown fight, even +in the days of Alfred;[67] it was, again, with the shield-wall +that 'glorious Æthelstan' won the day on the hard-fought field of +Brunanburh (937);[68] we hear of it at Maldon (991), where Brihtnoth, +we read, 'bade his men work the war-hedge',--'that is, had made his +men form the shield-wall, a sort of fortress made by holding their +shields close together'.[69] And we do, in Mr Freeman's words, meet +with it 'down to the end', when the war-hedge of Maldon was wrought +anew, by Harold, on the hill of battle, and stood once more as if a +fortress--'quasi castellum'. + + +THE DISPOSITION OF THE ENGLISH + +To render clear the problem involved, I must first sketch as briefly +as possible the nature of the ground the English held. The hill of +battle is so fully described in Mr Freeman's narrative that I here +need only explain that it was a long narrow spur of the downs, running +nearly east and west, of which the south front was defended by the +English and attacked by the Normans. The one and only point that is +certain is that 'on the very crown of the hill', the site of the high +altar in the future, was erected the standard of Harold.[70] This, +then, the centre of the hill, was the centre of the English host. +But the ground to which our attention is directed, as having 'really +played the most decisive part in the great event of the place', lay +to the west of this, 'where the slope is gentlest of all, where the +access to the natural citadel is least difficult'.[71] Mr Freeman +assumes that this ground--the 'English right', as he terms it--where +the 'ascent is easiest in itself', was allotted to 'the least +trustworthy portion of the English army', to 'the sudden levies of the +southern shires'.[72] For this assumption, I hasten to add, there is +no authority whatever. He further assumes that the first English to +leave their post, in pursuit of the enemy, 'were, of course, some of +the defenders of the English right'.[73] William, he holds, at the +crisis of the battle, resolved to draw them again from their post by a +partial feigned retreat, that 'meanwhile another division might reach +the summit through the gap thus left open'. Accordingly, tempted by +this stratagem, 'the English on the right wing rushed down and +pursued', and their error proved 'fatal to England'.[74] + + The Duke's great object was now gained; the main end + of Harold's skilful tactics had been frustrated by the + inconsiderate ardour of the least valuable portion of his + troops. Through the rash descent of the light-armed on the + right, the whole English army lost its vantage-ground. The + pursuing English had left the most easily accessible portion + of the hill open to the approach of the enemy.... The main + body of the Normans made their way on to the hill, no doubt by + the gentle slope at the point west of the present buildings. + The great advantage of the ground was now lost; the Normans + were at last on the hill.[75] + +Such is Mr Freeman's explanation of how the battle was won,[76] for in +this episode he discovers the decisive turning-point of the day.[77] + +Now, let us consider what is involved in the theory here set forth. +'Harold's skilful tactics', we find, consisted in entrusting his +weakest point, the least defensible portion of his position, to 'the +least trustworthy portion of the English army'. The natural result +of these insane tactics was that his weak point was forced, and the +English right turned.[78] And Mr Freeman, having made this clear, +complains of 'the criticisms of monks on the conduct of a consummate +general', and insists that 'nowhere is Harold's military greatness +so distinctly felt as when ... we tread the battlefield of his own +choice'. But there is worse to come. Such tactics as these would +have been mad enough, even if these raw peasants had stood behind a +barricade; but if, as I hold, that barricade is a purely imaginary +creation, we ask ourselves what would have happened to these unhappy +creatures, protected by no 'shield-wall', and armed with 'such rustic +weapons as forks and sharp stakes',[79] when, first riddled by Norman +arrows and then attacked by Norman infantry, they were finally, broken +and defenceless, charged by heavy cavalry. The first onslaught would +have scattered them to the winds, and have won, in so doing, the key +of the English position.[80] Remembering this, it is strange to learn +that 'the consummate generalship of Harold is nowhere more +conspicuously shown than in this memorable campaign', and that his was +'that true skill of the leader of armies, which would have placed both +Harold and William high among the captains of any age'. But if the +generalship of Harold was shown by entrusting to his worst troops his +weakest and most important point, while posting 'the flower of the +English army' just where his ground was strongest, what are we to say +of 'the generalship of William, his ready eye, his quick thought', if +he failed to detect and avail himself of this glaring blunder? For +instead of concentrating his attack upon Harold's weak point, he left +it to be assailed, we learn, by 'what was most likely the least +esteemed' portion of his host,[81] while he himself with his picked +troops dashed himself against an impregnable position like a mad bull +against a wall. 'We read,' says Mr Freeman, 'with equal admiration of +the consummate skill with which Harold chose his position and his +general scheme of action, and of the wonderful readiness with which +William formed and varied his plans.' For myself, I should have +thought that the tactics he describes--tactics which stirred him to a +burst of admiration for 'the two greatest of living captains'--would +have disgraced the most incompetent commander that ever took the +field. + +But Harold, after all, was no fool. Are we then justified in accusing +him of this supreme folly? Mr Freeman held that 'the relative position +of the different divisions in the two armies seems beyond doubt'. +There is, however, as I said, absolutely no evidence for Mr Freeman's +assumption that the English right was entrusted to the raw levies. +Against it is the fact that in this quarter the first assault was +soonest repulsed: against it also is all analogy drawn from the +study of English tactics. Snorro's description of Stamfordbridge is +evidence, at least, that 'the fortress of shields' had a continuous +line of bucklers along its whole front: Æthelred gives us the reason +in his story of the Battle of the Standard; namely, that it was the +front line which had to meet the shock ('periculosum dicebant si primo +aggressu inermes armatis occurrerent'). It was therefore an essential +principle of tactics 'quatinus armati armatos impeterent, milites +congrederentur militibus'.[82] Therefore on Cowton Moor (1138), as (I +hold) on the hill of Battle (1066), we find the 'strenuissimi milites +in prima fronte locati'.[83] + +The words 'and the lighter troops behind them', which originally +followed here, have been objected to by Miss Norgate, who had +originally made the same statement,[84] but who now wishes to withdraw +it.[85] Henry of Huntingdon, however--like Æthelred, a contemporary +authority--agrees with him in describing the dismounted knights, +men with shields and _loricæ_ like the 'housecarls' at Hastings, as +forming an 'iron wall' along the English front.[86] If then mailed +warriors formed the front line, it is difficult to see where the +'inermis plebs', as Æthelred terms it, could be but 'behind them'. The +fact is that the Battle of the Standard, for which we have excellent +authorities, is of no small value for the study of the Battle of +Hastings, as my opponents seem to be uncomfortably aware. 'The +tactics,' Mr Freeman admits, 'were English.' We find there again +the same dense array,[87] the same tactics for defence, though now +rendered less passive by the development of the bowman.[88] There can, +I think, be little question, if we combine the several accounts, that +the Standard, with the older chiefs around it, formed the kernel of +the host;[89] that the rude levies of the shire were massed round +about them;[90] and that the outer rim was formed by the mailed +knights, with the archers crouching for shelter behind their 'iron +wall'. + +Harking back to Sherstone fight (1016), we encounter precisely the +same formation. 'The King,' Mr Freeman writes, 'placed his best troops +in front, and the inferior part of his army in the rear.' + +And he added, 'we must remember these tactics when we come to the +great fight of Senlac'.[91] This was, unhappily, just what he failed +to do. 'William of Poitiers,' he strangely complained, 'has his head +full of Agamemnon and of Xerxes, but this obvious analogy does not +seem to have occurred to him.' Have we also the reason why our +author himself overlooked these obvious analogies in the fact that to +illustrate the Battle of Hastings he quotes some five and twenty times +from the Odyssey and the Iliad, from Herodotus and Xenophon, from +Æschylus, Plutarch, and Dio Cassius; from Livy, Tacitus, Ammianus, and +even Ælius Spartianus? In his later edition, however, he inserted in +a footnote the words: 'On placing the inferior troops in the rear, see +the tactics of Eadmund at Sherstone.'[92] 'In the _rear_?' Yes, but +that is precisely my contention. The assumption that I am assailing is +that they formed the _wings_. + +But we are not even here at the end of Mr Freeman's confusion. He had +meanwhile, in another work, published about the same time as the first +edition of his third volume, written thus: + + As far as I can see, King Harold put these bad troops _in the + back_ ... But his picked men he put _in front_, where the best + troops of the enemy were likely to come.[93] + +This is exactly my own view; it is that 'essential principle of +tactics' on which I have insisted throughout, and on which Miss +Norgate has rashly endeavoured to pour contempt.[94] Mr Freeman, +moreover, further on, wrote of his 'light armed' as 'the troops _in +the rear_',[95] which is again my contention. What seems to have +happened is that he got into his head (I can imagine how) that the +'light-armed' formed the wings, and arranged the battle on that +assumption. Then remembering, when it was too late, that, according to +his own precedent, they ought to have been in the rear, he hesitated +to introduce a change which would affect his whole theory of the +battle, and compel him to approach it _de novo_.[96] + +But indeed, even apart from this, it seems doubtful, examining Mr +Freeman's narrative, whether he had formed a clear conception of how +the English troops were arranged, and whether, if so, he kept it in +view, consistently, throughout. If we honestly seek to learn what his +conception was, a careful comparison of pp. 472, 473, 475, 490, and +505, with the ground-plan, will show that the whole right wing was +composed of 'light-armed troops, who broke their line to pursue'. And +this view seems to be accepted and defended by Miss Norgate, who, +writing as his champion, declares that to her the conclusion embodied +in his ground-plan 'seems irresistible'.[97] On the other hand, pp. +471, 480, 487, and 732 most undoubtedly convey the impression that, +as I have maintained, the heavy-armed English were extended along the +whole front,[98] and that their defeat, in Mr Freeman's words (p. +732), was 'owing to their breaking the line of the shield-wall'. I +suspect that he was led thus to contradict himself by the obvious +concentration of his interest on 'the great personal struggle which +was going on beneath the standard' (p. 487). Here, as is often the +case throughout his work, Mr Freeman's treatment of his subject was +essentially dramatic. To bring his heroes into high relief, he thrust +into the background the rest of his scene as of comparatively small +account. In this spirit, for instance, he wrote: + + A new act in the awful drama of that day had now begun. The + Duke himself, at the head of his own Normans, again pressed + towards the standard.... A few moments more and the mighty + rivals might have met face to face, and the war-club of the + Bastard might have clashed against the lifted axe of the + Emperor of Britain (p. 483). + +Homer, doubtless, would have made them meet; but a great dramatic +opportunity was lost: the 'mighty rivals' seem never to have got +within striking distance. Meanwhile, however, the warring hosts are +left quite in the background; their fate is that of a stage crowd +engaged in a stage battle. I do not mean, of course, that Mr Freeman +ignores them, but that he was so engrossed in the personal exploits of +his heroes as to be impatient of that careful study which the battle +as a whole required, and comparatively careless of consistency in his +allusions to the English array. + +The charge, in short, that I have brought throughout against the +disposition of the English in Mr Freeman's narrative is that his view, +'with all that it involves, was based on no authority, was merely the +offspring of his own imagination, and was directly at variance with +the only precedent that he vouched for the purpose'.[99] There is +absolutely not a scrap of evidence that--as shown on the 'accurate' +ground-plan--the English army was drawn up in three divisions, the +'housecarls' forming the centre, and the 'light-armed' the two wings. +We do not even know that it formed an almost straight line.[100] +The whole arrangement is sheer guesswork, and analogy, here our only +guide, is wholly against it. + +I cannot insist too strongly on the charge I have here made. It is +no 'matter of secondary importance';[101] nor is it the case that my +argument as to the 'palisade' is, as Mr Archer pretended, 'the only +definite and palpable charge' that I bring 'against Mr Freeman's +account of the great battle'.[102] For, as I wrote from the very +first, 'rejecting Mr Freeman's views on the groupings of the English +host, we reject with them _in toto_ the story he has built upon +them'.[103] + +My own view is based upon the fact that, in the military tactics as in +the military architecture of the age, the defence trusted largely to +its power of passive resistance: this was the essential principle of +the ponderous Norman keep; and precisely as the walls of that keep +were formed of an ashlar face of masonry backed by masses of rubble, +so the fighting line of a force standing on the defensive was composed +of a compact facing of heavily-armed troops backed by a rabble of +half-armed peasants, or at best by what we may term the light infantry +of the day. When the foe was advancing to the attack, these rear lines +could discharge such weapons as they possessed--darts, arrows, stones, +etc.--from behind the shelter of their comrades,[104] while at the +moment of actual shock they would form a passive backing, which would +save the front ranks from being broken by the enemy's impact. As the +great object of the attack was to break through the line, a formation +which virtually gave the advantage now possessed by a solid over a +hollow square would naturally commend itself to the defence. + +Now in these tactics we have the key to the true story of the battle. +But, first, we must dismiss from our minds Mr Freeman's fundamental +assumption, and understand that the English 'hoplites' were not massed +in the centre, but were extended along the whole front, precisely as +they were in battles fought both before and after. The fighting face +of Harold's host was composed of this heavy soldiery, clad in helmets +and mail. Arrayed in the closest order, they presented to an advancing +enemy the aspect of a living rampart ('quasi castellum'). + +How the Normans attacked that rampart it will now be my task to show. + + +THE NORMAN ADVANCE + +From Telham Hill Duke William scanned that living rampart, and saw +clearly that 'his only chance was to tempt the English to break their +shield-wall'.[105] It is chiefly from Baudri's poem that we learn how +he set about it.[106] + +There is no question that the fight began with an advance of the +Norman infantry. William of Poitiers and Bishop Guy are in complete +accordance on the fact.[107] But as my description of the infantry has +been challenged,[108] I may show that it is quite beyond dispute.[109] +To my argument, as reprinted below, it has been objected that I +fail 'to take account of the distinction between light-armed and +heavy-armed infantry'.[110] It will be seen that my argument turns, +not on the armour, but on the _weapons_ of the foot. I have challenged +my opponents to produce mention of any weapons but crossbows,[111] or +bows and arrows, and need scarcely say that they cannot. + +Describing the 'armour and weapons of the Normans', Mr Freeman, +avowedly following the Tapestry, represented the infantry as all +archers,[112] and divided them into two classes: (1) those 'without +defensive harness'; (2) those who 'wore the defences common to the +horse and foot of both armies ... the close-fitting coat of mail ... +and the conical helmet'.[113] Now this division is exactly reproduced +in the words of William of Poitiers, who divides his 'pedites' into +two classes, distinguished only by the fact that in one were the +'firmiores et loricatos'. He does not say that the latter were _not_ +archers, or crossbowmen, nor did Mr Freeman venture to assign them +any other weapons.[114] Bishop Guy, moreover, distinctly tells us +that they were crossbowmen (_vide infra_). The advance, therefore, in +modern language, consisted of skirmishers, represented by archers and +perhaps some crossbowmen; supports, namely, crossbowmen who, as a +somewhat superior class, would mostly have defensive armour; and, +lastly, the cavalry as reserve.[115] + +Now what was the intention of this advance? Mr Freeman assumed, +without hesitation, that the foot 'were to strive to break down the +palisades ... and so to make ready the way for the charge of the +horse' (p. 467); that 'the infantry were, therefore, exposed to the +first and most terrible danger' (_ibid._); 'that the French infantry +had to toil up the hill, and to break down the palisade' (p. +477).[116] But we find, on reference, that the above writers say +nothing of any such intention, and do not even mention the existence +of a palisade.[117] Moreover, the only weapons they speak of are +crossbows and bows and arrows, which are scarcely the tools for +pioneers. But William of Poitiers puts us on the track of a very +different explanation: 'Pedites itaque Normanni propius accedentes +_provocant_ Anglos, missilibus in eos vulnera dirigunt atque necem'. +Here Baudri comes to our aid: + + Nam neque Normannus consertos audet adire + Nec valet a cuneo quemlibet excipere. + Arcubus utantur dux imperat atque balistis; + Nam prius has mortes Anglia tunc didicit. + Tunc didicere mori quam non novere sagitta + Creditur a cælo mors super ingruere + Hos velut a longe comitatur militis agmen, + Palantes post se miles ut excipiat. + +The Normans dared not face the serried ranks of the English: the maxim +that cavalry should not charge unbroken infantry was asserting itself +already. But the only means of breaking those ranks, of throwing the +English into confusion, was to gall them by archers and slingers till +some of them should sally forth, when their assailants would turn tail +and leave them to be caught in the open and ridden down. As Bishop Guy +expresses it: + + Præmisit pedites committere bella sagittis, + Et balistantes inserit in medio, + Quatinus infigant volitantia vultibus arma, + Vulneribusque datis ora retro faciant, + Ordine post pedites sperat stabilire Quirites + +These tactics, says Baudri, were crowned with success; the maddened +English, as they dashed forth to strike their tormentors to the +ground, were cut off in every direction by the horsemen waiting their +chance: + + Tunc præ tristitia gens effera præque pudore + Egreditur palans, insequiturque vagos. + Normanni simulantque fugam fugiuntque fugantes, + Intercepit eos undique præpes equus. + Ilico cæduntur; sic paulatim minuuntur, + Nec minuebatur callidus ordo ducis. + +This account is both intelligible and consistent, but differs wholly +from that of Mr Freeman. It had, however, been virtually anticipated +by Mr Oman, who in his _Art of War in the Middle Ages_ (p. 25), points +out, with much felicity, that + + the archers, if unsupported by the knights, could easily + have been driven off the field by a general charge. United, + however, by the skilful tactics of William, the two divisions + of the invading army won the day. The Saxon mass was subjected + to exactly the same trial which befell the British squares in + the battle of Waterloo: incessant charges by a gallant cavalry + were alternated with a destructive fire of missiles. Nothing + can be more maddening than such an ordeal to the infantry + soldier, rooted to the spot by the necessities of his + formation. + +Let us compare the two theories. Mr Freeman's, here again, is not even +consistent. He first tells us that for the knights to charge, with +'the triple palisade still unbroken, would have been sheer madness'; +in fact it was 'altogether useless' for them to advance until the +infantry had broken down the palisade.[118] But this the infantry +failed to do,[119] whereupon--the cavalry charged 'the impenetrable +fortress of timber' (p. 479)! One is surely reminded of the immortal +Don, when 'a todo el galope de Rocinante', he charged the windmill. + +My own theory involves no such inconsistencies. I hold--not as a +conjecture based on a hypothetical palisade, but on the excellent +authority of Baudri and William of Poitiers, that the infantry +were used for the definite purpose of galling the English by their +missiles, and so enticing them to leave their ranks and become a prey +to the horse. As soon as their line had thus been broken, the cavalry +were to charge. + +Up to this point, the English army, as a whole, had kept its +formation; but now the strain on its patience had become too great to +be borne. Breaking its ranks, with one accord, the whole host rushed +upon its foes, and drove them before it in confusion right up to the +Duke's post: + + Tandem jactura gens irritata frequenti, + Ordinibus spretis irruit unanimis. + Tunc quoque plus solito fugientum terga cecidit, + Et miles vultum fugit ad usque ducis. + +This explains what had always been to me a difficulty, namely, the +panic-stricken flight of the Normans at this stage of the battle. That +they should have 'lost heart' (p. 480) at the firmness of the English +is natural enough; but that they should have 'turned and fled' +(_ibid._) from a force which did not pursue them seemed improbable. +The difficulty is solved by Baudri's mention of the wild onslaught +by the English. Moreover, Bishop Guy's description of the rout of +the assailants--which Mr Freeman assigned to this stage of the +battle--agrees well with that of Baudri: + + Anglorum populus, numero superante, repellit + Hostes inque retro compulit ora dari; + Et fuga ficta prius fit tunc virtute coacta; + Normanni fugiunt, dorsa tegunt clipei. + +Again, Baudri's poem suggests a novel view by its definite statement +that the Normans in their flight reached the Duke's post. Mr Freeman +imagined that the Duke himself had been fighting in the front line +(pp. 479, 480), but a careful comparison of his two authorities, +William of Poitiers and Bishop Guy (p. 482), will show that, on the +contrary, they support Baudri's statement. Each speaks of the Duke +as 'meeting' (_occurrens_--_occurrit_) the fugitives, a difficulty +which Mr Freeman evaded by writing that 'he met _or pursued_ the +fugitives'. + +From this flight the Normans were rallied by the desperate efforts of +the Duke himself, who, as is usual at such moments, was believed to +have fallen. I deem this episode a fixed point, and it conveniently +divides the battle. All our four leading authorities--the Tapestry, +William of Poitiers, Bishop Guy, and Baudri--are here in complete +agreement. William describes the Duke as 'nudato insuper capite'; +Guy tells us that 'iratus galea nudat et ipse caput'; Baudri writes +'subito galeam submovet a capite'; in the Tapestry, 'William (writes +Dr Bruce), when he wishes to show himself in order to contradict the +rumour that he has been killed, is obliged to lift his helmet +almost off his head' (p. 98). It is singular that so striking and +well-established an episode is wholly ignored by Wace. + + +THE FOSSE DISASTER + +The serious character of the assailants' flight is duly recognized by +Mr Freeman.[120] We could have no more eloquent witness to the fact +than the admission even by William of Poitiers that the Duke's Normans +themselves gave way, or the description of them by Bishop Guy as 'gens +sua victa'. The only point in question here is whether what I call +'the fosse disaster' was an incident of this headlong flight or +happened at a later stage of the battle. Mr Freeman, discussing 'the +order of events',[121] faced the difficulty frankly, observing that +Guy had placed the feigned flight before what I have termed above the +dividing incident of the day, and that this view 'may be thought to be +confirmed by the Tapestry', etc., etc. We have here perhaps the most +difficult problem raised in the course of the battle, and one which +it would be easier and safer to pass over in silence. As to Guy, I +suggest, as a possible solution--it does not profess to be more--that +what he was describing was not the great feigned flight but the lesser +man[oe]uvres of the same character described by Baudri above. He +may, of course, have transferred to these the importance of the later +episode. On the real flight, at least, he is sound. Of the Tapestry +I would speak with more confidence. 'In the nature of things,' Mr +Freeman wrote, 'exact chronological order is not its strongest point' +(p. 768). But in this case there was nothing to make it depart from +that order, no reason why it should not place the incident of 'the +fosse disaster' after the central incident of the day, instead of +before, if that were its right position. Moreover, it is here, we +find, in the closest agreement with Wace; and though I claim, as did +Mr Freeman, the right of rejecting his testimony when wholly +unsupported (as still more, when opposed to probability), yet such +marked agreement as this is not to be lightly cast aside. + +In any case, nothing can be more unfortunate than Mr Freeman's +treatment of what he describes as the 'great slaughter of the French +in the western ravine' (p. 489). This is a scene invented by Mr +Freeman alone, and illustrates the peculiar use he made, at times, +of his authorities. There is no question that the Norman knights +suffered, in the course of the day, at least one such disaster as the +nobles of France at Courtrai (1302) or her cuirassiers at Waterloo. +But five authorities, so far as one can see, place the incident in the +thick of the battle, while three others assign it to the pursuit of +the defeated English. It is not strange, therefore, that some writers +should have held that there was but one such incident: Mr Freeman, +however, holds that there were two; and I expressly disclaim +questioning his view, the matter being one of opinion. Assuming then, +as he does, that the episode occurred in the course of the battle, +I turn to the spirited version of Wace, as Mr Archer defies me to +'impeach Wace's authority' (p. 346). The 'old Norman poet' is here +very precise. He first tells us (ll. 7869-70, 8103-6) that the English +had made a 'fosse', which the Normans had passed unnoticed in their +advance.[122] These passages Mr Freeman accepts without question (p. +476). But then Wace proceeds to state (ll. 8107-20) that the Normans, +driven back, as we have seen, by the English, tumbled, men and horses, +into this treacherous 'fosse' and perished in great numbers. Now Wace, +far from standing alone, is here in curiously close agreement with +the Tapestry of Bayeux. Two successive scenes in that 'most authetic +record' are styled 'Hic ceciderunt simul Angli et Franci in pr[oe]lio; +hic Odo episcopus baculum tenens confortat pueros.' Wace describes +these scenes in thirty-six lines (ll. 8103-38), devoting eighteen +lines to the first and the same number to the second. Actual +comparison alone can show how close the agreement is. Henry of +Huntingdon, we may add, independently confirms the statement that +English as well as French perished in the fatal fosse.[123] + +Now all this is quite opposed to Mr Freeman's 'conception of the +battle'. He had, therefore, to adapt, with no gentle hands, his +authorities to his requirements. Cinderella's stepmother, when her +daughter's foot could not be got into the golden shoe, armed herself, +we read, with axe and scissors, and trimmed it to the requisite shape. +With no less decision the late Professor set about his own task. +Wace's evidence he simply suppressed; Henry of Huntingdon's he +ignored; but that of the Bayeux Tapestry could not be so easily +disposed of. I invite particular attention to his treatment of this, +his 'highest authority'. Retaining in its natural place (pp. 481-2) +the second of the two scenes we have described, he threw forward the +one preceding it to a later stage of the battle (p. 490). Nor did his +vigorous adaptation stop even here. The scene thus wrenched from its +place depicts a single incident: mounted Normans are tumbling headlong +into a ditch at the foot of a mound, on which 'light-armed' English +stand assailing them with their weapons. The fight is hand to hand; +the bodies touch. And yet the Professor treats this scene as a +description of two quite separate events happening at a distance from +each other. These he terms (p. 489) the 'stand of the English at the +detached hill'; and the 'great slaughter of the French in the western +ravine'. But on referring to his own ground-plan, we find that this +'ravine' and the 'detached hill' were a quarter of a mile apart, with +the slopes of the main hill between them. + +My criticism here is twofold. In the first place, Mr Freeman +endeavoured to conceal the liberties he had taken with his leading +authority. No one would gather from his narrative of the battle that +any such violence had been used; nor would anyone who read of the +'hill' episode that 'the scene is vividly shown in the Tapestry' (p. +489), and, subsequently, of the 'ravine' disaster, that 'this scene +is most vividly shown in the Tapestry' (p. 490), imagine that 'the +incidents of the ravine and the little hill' (p. 768) are in the +Tapestry one and the same. In the second place, the large part which +the writer's own imagination plays in his narrative of the fight is +here clearly seen. There is nothing, for instance, in any authority to +connect 'the western ravine' with 'the great slaughter of the French'. +It is placed by those who mention it in a 'fosse', 'fossatum', or +'fovea'. 'If Wace is any authority,' to quote Mr Archer's words, 'the +question is settled once and for all';[124] the slaughter took place +not in the 'ravine', but in a ditch which according to him, the +English had dug to the south of the hill, and which, according to +Henry of Huntingdon, they had cunningly concealed. Mr Freeman produces +no authority in support of his own fancy; his only argument is that +the slaughter + + must have happened somewhere to the south or south-west of the + hill. The small ravine to the south-west seems exactly what is + wanted (p. 771). + +The 'western ravine' however, does not fulfil these requirements +(see ground-plan, where it lies to the north-west of the hill); +while Wace's 'fosse', which--though here ignoring it--he had already +accepted, lay, as required, to the south of the hill. Wace +mentions another instance (ll. 1737-50) in which this stratagem was +adopted,[125] but whether our ditch was dug, as he states, expressly +or not, the fact of its existence does not depend on his evidence +alone. + +To resume: accepting provisionally Mr Freeman's view (iii. 770) that +there were two disasters to the horse, one 'happening comparatively +early in the battle', and the other 'which William of Poitiers, +Orderic and the Battle chronicler place at the very end of the +battle', as occurring in the pursuit of the defeated English, we find +that the former is mentioned by five writers. The Tapestry and Wace +agree absolutely in making it an episode of the real flight of the +Normans before the great rally; Henry of Huntingdon assigns it to the +great feigned flight, later in the battle; William of Malmesbury +seems to make it happen during the pursuit by the Normans after their +feigned flight; the anonymous writer quoted by Andresen (ii. 713) from +Le Prevost may be left out of the question. Yet, in spite of all this +contradiction, Mr Freeman assigns this striking episode, not as a +conjecture, but as historic fact, to the pursuit of the English by +the 'Bretons'[126] after the feigned flight (p. 489). Let me make my +position clear. We expect an historian to weigh, as an expert, the +evidence before him: we look to him for guidance where that evidence +is conflicting. But we have a right to protest against the statement, +as historic fact, of hypotheses which cannot be established, and which +are quite possibly wrong. Where the evidence is flatly contradictory, +the fact that it is so should be made clear; conflicting statements +should not be evaded, nor evidence, such as that of the Tapestry, +appealed to, when it proves to be opposed to, not in favour of, the +writer's hypothesis. Dealing with the Conqueror's march on London, +after his great victory, Mr Parker has insisted with much force, on +the principle for which I am contending. + + Though, by leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the + residue may be worked up into a consecutive and consistent + series of events, such a process amounts to making history, + not writing it. Amidst a mass of contradictory evidence, it + is impossible to arrive at any sure conclusion.... It is, + however, comparatively easy to piece together such details + as will fit of the various stories, and still more easy to + discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work + produces ... [but] it cannot be reasonably regarded as real + history. The method by which the results are obtained bears + too close a resemblance to that by which ... some of the + legends described in the fifth chapter have come to be + accepted as historical narratives.[127] + +That is the danger. Such a narrative as that which Mr Freeman has +given us must 'come to be accepted as historical' if allowed to pass +current without a grave warning. It will doubtless be replied that in +his appendices, he frankly admits that 'it is often hard to reconcile +the various accounts'; but the question at issue is whether one is +justified when, as here, the various accounts are not only 'hard' but +impossible to reconcile, in constructing a definite narrative at all, +instead of honestly admitting that the matter must be left in doubt. + + +THE GREAT FEIGNED FLIGHT + +There is no feature of the famous battle more familiar or more certain +than that of the feigned retreat. It is necessary here to grasp Mr +Freeman's view, because he discovers in this man[oe]uvre and its +results the decisive turning point of the day.[128] + +That there was a great feigned flight, which induced a large portion +of the English to break their formation and pursue their foes, is +beyond question.[129] But Mr Freeman, on this foundation, built up a +legend, for which, we shall find, there exists no evidence whatever. +He first assumed that it was 'most likely' the left wing of the +assailants which 'turned in seeming flight'[130] (p. 488), and that +it was, consequently, 'the English on the right wing' who 'rushed down +and pursued them'. Thus: + + Through the rash descent of the light-armed on the right, + the whole English army lost its vantage ground. The pursuing + English had left the most easily accessible portion of the + hill open to the approach of the enemy (p. 490). + +The result, of course, was that 'the main body of the Normans made +their way on the hill, no doubt by the gentle slope' at this point +(_ibid._). + + The great advantage of the ground was now lost; the Normans + were at last on the hill. Instead of having to cut their way + up the slope, and through the palisades, they could now + charge to the east right against the defenders of the standard + (_ibid._). + +These words are most important. They set forth Mr Freeman's theory +that Harold now found the Normans charging down upon his right flank +instead of attacking him in front. It was in this sense I wrote 'that +his weak point was forced, and the English right turned', as the +natural result of the 'insane' tactics attributed to him by his +champion.[131] The man[oe]uvre assigned by Mr Freeman to the Duke is, +in fact, that by which Marlborough won the battle of Ramillies, where +he got on to the hill by dislodging the French right, and then wheeled +to his own right, outflanking the French centre. + +When we turn from this elaborate theory to the authorities on which it +is supposed to be based, we find, with some astonishment, that it is +all sheer imagination. William of Poitiers, on whom the writer seemed +mainly to rely for the feigned flight, states that: + + Normanni sociaque turba ... terga dederunt, fugam ex industriâ + simulantes-- + +words which distinctly imply that this feigned flight was general. +Henry of Huntingdon merely writes: 'Docuit Dux Willelmus _genti +suæ_ fugam simulare.' No one, certainly, says or implies that it was +restricted to the left wing. As for the theory that 'the main body of +the Normans' were, by this man[oe]uvre, enabled to seize the western +portion of the hill, and thus attack Harold on his flank, it is more +imaginary, if possible, still. + +The fact is that, as I explained in my original article,[132] Mr +Freeman had wholly misconceived the nature of William's man[oe]uvre. +The feigned flight was not a simple (as he supposed), but a combined +movement. The best account of that movement is found in the Battle +Chronicle: + + Tandem strenuissimus Boloniæ comes Eustachius clam, callida + præmeditata arte--fugam cum exercitu duce simulante--super + Anglos sparsim agiliter insequentes cum manu valida a tergo + irruit, _sicque et duce hostes ferociter invadente ipsis + interclusis utrinque_ prosternuntur innumeri. + +This precise statement, which Mr Freeman omits,[133] affords the clue +we seek, explaining the words of William of Poitiers, 'interceptos et +inclusos undique mactaverunt'. The retreat of the pursuing English +was cut off by the Count's squadrons, and, caught 'between two fires', +they were cut down and butchered. The supposition that, while this was +going on, the main body of the Normans was riding on to the hill is +baseless. The whole host, we have seen, were below, surrounding the +English who had left the hill. Had Mr Freeman kept in mind, as he had +intended to do, the employment of this old Norman device at the relief +of Arques (1053), he would have seen more clearly what really happened. +But this, precisely as with his Sherstone precedent, he failed to do. + + +THE RELIEF OF ARQUES + +To illustrate the feigned flight by analogy, I append this passage +relating to the stratagem at Arques. + + A plan was speedily devised; an ambush was laid; a smaller + party was sent forth to practise that stratagem of pretended + flight which Norman craft was to display thirteen years later + [1066] on a greater scale. The Normans turned; the French + pursued; presently the liers-in-wait were upon them, and the + noblest and bravest of the invading host were slaughtered or + taken prisoners before the eyes of their king (iii. 133). + +The man[oe]uvre is elaborately described by Wace (ll. 3491-514) in a +passage which ought to be compared, in places, with that on the great +'feinte fuie' itself (ll. 8203-70). + +He carefully distinguishes the two parties essential to the +stratagem:[134] + + Partie pristrent des Normanz, + Des forz e des mielz cumbatanz, + . . . . . + Puis pristrent une autre partie, etc., etc. + +The latter detachment turned in flight and decoyed some of the leading +Frenchmen past the spot where the ambush was laid. Then, facing round, +they caught their rash pursuers 'between two fires'. I have shown +above, from the 'precise statement' which is found in the 'Battle +Chronicle', that the great man[oe]uvre which deceived the English was +a similarly combined one. Mr Freeman, completely missing this point, +makes the Norman 'division', which did not take part in the flight +'ride up the hill' (p. 490), where its slopes were deserted, whereas, +on the contrary, they thrust themselves between the pursuers and the +hill, and then charged on their rear, riding, of course, not on to, +but away from the hill. + +So close is the Arques parallel that in Wace we find the same words +occurring in both cases: + + A cels kis alouent chazant Engleis les aloent gabant + E quis alouent leidissant E de paroles laidissant + Sunt enmi le vis tresturne, .... + E Franceis sunt a els mesdle (ll. Torne lor sunt enmi le vis + 3501-4); .... + E as Engleis entremesler (ll. + 8241-2, 8262-4); + +while William of Malmesbury describes the French king as thus 'astutia +insidiis exceptus', just as he describes Harold, in turn as thus +'astutiâ Willelmi circumventus'. Mr Freeman quoted both passages, yet +failed to note the parallel. + +I speak, it will be seen, of 'the relief of Arques'. As my critic so +rashly assumed that in my original article I exhausted Mr Freeman's +errors,[135] I may point out that this subject introduces us, at once, +to fresh ones. Our author, for instance, held that Arques was not +relieved. Let us see. We are first rightly told, on the authority +of William of Poitiers, that the Duke blockaded the stronghold +(_munitio_) by erecting a _castellum_ at its foot (p. 128). On the +next page we are told that the latter was 'a wooden tower'--which is +precisely what it was not--and that it 'is described as a _munitio_' +by William of Poitiers, whereas that term, as we have just seen, +denoted, on the contrary, the rebel stronghold itself. Then we +are told that the French king marched to the relief of the rebels, +bringing with him 'a good stock of provisions, of corn, and of wine' +for the purpose, but 'was far from being successful in his enterprise' +(p. 131). In fact, he 'went home, having done nothing towards the +immediate object of his journey--the relief of the besieged' (p. +137). Mr Freeman added in a note: 'So I understand the not very +clear statement of William of Poitiers that the King went away.' Now, +William's statement (which is quoted by him) is absolutely clear: + + _Perveniens tamen quo ire intenderat_, Rex exacerbatissimis + animis summâ vi præsidium attentavit: Willelmum ab ærumnis uti + eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum vindicaret. + +The King, that is, in spite of the ambush, reached his destination +(the blockaded stronghold) and then furiously attacked the _castellum_ +below, with the double object of raising the blockade and of avenging +the death of his followers. Wace is, if possible, even more explicit. +After describing the affair of the ambush, he proceeds thus: + + Les somiers fist apareilier, + La garisun prendre e chargier, + _À la tur d'Arches fist porter_, + Il meisme fu al mener (II. ll. 3519-22). + +Arques, therefore, was duly relieved; the blockading party being only +strong enough to defend, when attacked, its own _castellum_. + +We will certainly not say of Mr Freeman that he had not read his +Wace 'with common care'--to quote from his criticism on Professor +Pearson--but really, when _more suo_ he corrected _ex cathedrâ_ the +faults of others, he might at least have made sure of his facts. We +will take (from the narrative of the Battle of Hastings) the case of +the knighting of Harold on the eve of the Breton war: + + WACE MR FREEMAN + + E Heraut out iloc geu, Mr Planché says that Wace lays + E par la Lande fu passez, the scene at Avranches. He probably + Quant il fu duc amenez, refers to the Roman de Rou, 13723, + Qui a Aurenches donc esteit but the knighthood is not there + E en Bretaigne aler deueit, spoken of (p. 229). + _La le fist li dus chevalier_ + [ll. 13720-5]. + +But it is only the feigned flight that connects the Battle of Hastings +with Arques and its blockade. We read, as the battle is about to +begin, of 'the aged Walter Giffard, the lord of Longueville, the hero +of Arques and Mortemer' (p. 457). As our author breaks the thread +of his narrative (pp. 128-37) to tell us in detail about those whose +names occur in it, we need not scruple in this instance to do the +same. Turning back, therefore, we read: + + The chief who now commanded below the steep of Arques lived + to refuse to bear the banner of Normandy below the steep + of Senlac ... and to found, like so many others among the + baronage of Normandy, a short-lived earldom in the land which + he helped to conquer (p. 123). + +In the act of that refusal he is thus described: + + Even in the days of Arques [1053] and Mortimer [1054] he was + an aged man, and now [1066] he was old indeed; his hair was + white, his arm was failing (p. 465). + +Yet we meet the veteran again, a generation later, as 'old Walter +Giffard, now [1090] Earl of Buckingham, in England ... the aged +warrior of Arques and Senlac' (_W.R._, i. 231). 'Nor do we wonder,' we +read, 'to find,' among the supporters of William Rufus in 1095, 'the +name of Walter Giffard, him [_sic_] who appeared as an aged man forty +years before' (_W.R._, i. 472). But even Mr Freeman admits that 'we +are somewhat surprised to find', among the opponents of Henry I in +1101, 'now at the very end of his long life, the aged Walter Giffard, +lord of Longueville, and Earl of Buckingham' (_W.R._, ii. 395). +Surprised? We are indeed; for, if he was 'an aged man' half a century +before, what must he have been when he joined the rebels in 1101? +It reminds one of a delightful passage in the quaint 'Memorie of the +Somervells', where the artless author, speaking of the action, in +1213, of his ancestor 'being then near the nyntieth and fourth year of +his age', observes: + + What could have induced him ... to join himself with the + rebellious barrons at such an age, when he could not act any + in all human probabilitie, and was as unfit for counsel, is a + thing to be admired, but not understood or knowne. + +One need scarcely point out that Mr Freeman has confused two +successive bearers of the name. The confusion is avoided by the +Duchess of Cleveland in her work on 'The Battle Abbey Roll', as it had +been by Planché and previous writers. + +I here notice it chiefly as illustrating Mr Freeman's ready acceptance +of even glaring improbabilities. + +But one of the most singular flaws in the late Professor's work was +his evident tendency to confuse two or more persons bearing the same +name. Three or four Leofstans of London were rolled by him into one; +Henry of Essex was identified with a Henry who had a different +father and who lived in Cumberland; while a whole string of erroneous +conclusions followed, we saw, from identifying Osbern 'filius Ricardi' +with Osbern 'cognomine Pentecost'.[136] It is strange that one who was +so severe on confusion of identity where places were concerned[137] +should have been, in the case of persons, guilty of that confusion. + + +SUMMARY + +I would now briefly recapitulate the points I claim to have +established. We have seen, in the first place, that Mr Freeman's +disposition of the English forces is, with all that it involves, +nothing but a sheer guess--a guess to which he did not consistently +adhere, and to which his own precedent, moreover, is directly opposed. +Secondly, as to the 'palisade' which formed, according to him, so +prominent a feature of the battle, we have found that of the passages +he vouched for its existence only one need even be considered; and +that one, according to himself, where he last quotes and deals with +it, describes, not a palisade but the time-honoured 'array of the +shield-wall'.[138] Then, passing to the battle and taking it stage by +stage, I have shown that on its opening phase he went utterly astray +in search of an imaginary assault on a phantom palisade; we have +seen how another such guess transported to 'the western ravine' +a catastrophe which, even on his own showing, must have happened +somewhere else, and assigned it to a stage of the battle which is +quite possibly the wrong one. We have watched him missing the point +of the great feigned flight and failing to see how Norman craft caught +the English in a trap. And lastly, the critical man[oe]uvre of the +day, by which the Duke's great object was gained, and 'the +great advantage of the ground lost' to the English, proves on +inquiry--although introduced, like other assertions, as a historic +fact--to be yet another unsupported guess: for the statement that by +this man[oe]uvre 'the Normans were at last on the hill' and could thus +'charge to the east right against the defenders of the Standard' there +is absolutely no foundation. + +We have now--confining ourselves to points as to which there can be no +question--examined Mr Freeman's account of the Battle of Hastings. It +is, as I showed at the outset, the very crown and flower of his work, +and it is, I venture to assert, mistaken in its essential points. Must +it, then, be cast aside as simply erroneous and misleading? Hardly. In +the words of his own criticism on Mr Coote's _Romans in Britain_: 'It +ought to be read, if only as a curious study, to show how utterly +astray an ingenious and thoroughly well-informed man can go.' For +there is the true conclusion. The possession of exhaustive knowledge, +the devotion of unsparing pains--neither of these were wanting. Then +'wanting is--what?' Men have differed and will always differ, as to +how history should be written; but on one point we are all agreed. The +true historian is he, and he only, who, from the evidence before him, +can divine the facts. Other qualities are welcome, but this is the +essential gift. And it was because, here at least, he lacked in that, +in spite of all his advantages, in spite of his genius and his zeal, +our author, in his story of this battle, failed as we have seen. + +Mr Freeman held that his predecessors, Thierry and Sir Francis +Palgrave, 'singularly resemble each other in a certain lack of +critical power'. His own lack, as I conceive it, was of a somewhat +different kind. For if he studied the text and weighed the value of +his authorities, yet he was often liable to danger from his tendency +to a _parti pris_. Setting out with his own impression, he read his +texts in the light of that impression rather than with an open mind. +Thus we might say of his 'very lucid and original account' of the +great battle, as he said of Mr Coote's work: 'The truth of the whole +matter is that all this very ingenious but baseless fabric has been +built upon the foundation of a single error.' Had he not stumbled at +the outset over that 'quasi castellum', he might never have erected +that 'ingenious but baseless fabric'. As it is, while the battle +should be largely rewritten, preserving only such incidents as are +taken straight from the authorities, the accompanying plan must be +wholly destroyed. Till then, as Dr Stubbs has said of the discovery +that 'Ingulf' was a forgery, 'it remains a warning light, a wandering +marshfire, to caution the reader not to accept too abjectly the +conclusions of his authority'. + +What then remains, it may be asked, of Mr Freeman's narrative? When +one remembers its superb vividness, carrying us away in spite of +ourselves, one is tempted to reply, in his own words on the saga of +Stamfordbridge: + + We have, indeed, a glorious description which, when critically + examined, proves to be hardly more worthy of belief than a + battlepiece in the Iliad.... Such is the magnificent legend + which has been commonly accepted as the history of this famous + battle.... And it is disappointing that, for so detailed and + glowing a tale, we have so little of authentic history to + substitute (pp. 365-8). + +For, as he has so justly observed, when dismissing as 'mythical' +this 'famous and magnificent saga' (pp. 328-9), 'a void is left which +history cannot fill, and which it is forbidden to the historian to +fill up from the resources of his own imagination'. + +Accepting the principle here enunciated by Mr Freeman himself, I do +not merely reject demonstrably erroneous statements. I protest +against his giving us a narrative drawn 'from the resources of his +own imagination'. It is no answer to say that his guesses cannot be +actually proved to be wrong; the historian cannot distinguish too +sharply between statements drawn from his authorities and guesses, +however ingenious, representing imagination alone. No one I am sure, +reading Mr Freeman's brilliant narrative, could imagine how largely +his story of the battle is based on mere conjecture. + +What the battle really was may be thus tersely expressed--it was +Waterloo without the Prussians. The Normans could avail nothing +against that serried mass. + + Dash'd on every rocky square, + Their surging charges foam'd themselves away. + +As Mr Oman has so well observed, the Norman horse might have surged +for ever 'around the impenetrable shield-wall'.[139] It was only, as +he and Mr Hunt[140] have shown, by the skilful combination of horsemen +and archers, by the maddening showers of arrows between the charges of +the horse, that the English, especially the lighter armed, were stung +into breaking their formation and abandoning that passive defence +to which they were unfortunately restricted. 'While no mode of array +could be stronger so long as the line remained unbroken, it made it +hard to form the line again.'[141] Dazzled by the rapid movements +of their foes, now advancing, now retreating, either in feint or in +earnest, the English, in places, broke their line, and then the Duke, +as Mr Oman writes, 'thrust his horsemen into the gaps'.[142] All this +is quite certain, and is what the authorities plainly describe. Let +us, then, keep to what we know. Is it not enough for us to picture +the English line stubbornly striving to the last to close its broken +ranks, the awful scene of slaughter and confusion, as the Old Guard +of Harold, tortured by Norman arrows, found the horsemen among them +at last, slashing and piercing right and left. Still the battle-axe +blindly smote; doggedly, grimly still they fought, till the axes +dropped from their lifeless grasp. And so they fell. + +Mr Archer, when he first came forward to defend 'Mr Freeman's account +of the great battle',[143] observed that I claimed 'here to prove +the entire inadequacy of Mr Freeman's work', that I held him 'wrong, +completely wrong in his whole conception of the battle'.[144] And he +admitted that + + 'such a contention, it will at once be perceived, is very + different from any mere criticism of detail; it affects the + centre and the very heart of Mr Freeman's work. If he could + blunder here in the most carefully elaborated passage of his + whole history, he could blunder anywhere; his reputation for + accuracy would be gone almost beyond hope of retrieving it' + (p. 336). + +'Blunder', surely, is a harsh word. I would rather say that the +historian is seen here at his strongest and at his weakest: at his +weakest in his tendency to follow blindly individual authorities +in turn, instead of grasping them as a whole, and, worse still, +in adapting them, at need, to his own preconceived notions; at his +strongest, in his Homeric power of making the actors in his drama live +and move before us. Not in vain has 'the wand of the enchanter', as an +ardent admirer once termed it, been waved around Harold and his host. +We are learning from recent German researches how the narratives of +early Irish warfare are 'perfectly surrounded with magic'; how, for +instance, at the battle of Culdreimne 'a Druid wove a magic hedge, +which he placed before the army as a hindrance to the enemy'. But +spells are now no longer wrought + + With woven paces and with waving hands; + +and the Druid's hedge must go the way of our own magician's +'palisade'. + +But, as I foresaw, in his eagerness to prove, at least, the existence +of a palisade, my critic was soon reduced to impugning Mr Freeman's +own supreme authority, and at last to throwing over Mr Freeman +himself. 'Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim.' Sneering[145] +at what the historian termed his 'highest', his 'primary' authority, +that 'precious monument', the Bayeux Tapestry--merely because it will +not square with his views--he rejects utterly Mr Freeman's theory as +to its date and origin,[146] and substitutes one which the Professor +described as 'utterly inconceivable'.[147] He has further informed us +that 'common sense' tells him that the English axemen cannot possibly +have fought 'in the close array of the shield-wall', as Mr Freeman +says they did.[148] And then he finally demolishes Mr Freeman's +'conception of the battle' by dismissing 'an imaginary +shield-wall',[149] and assuring us that the absurd vision of 'an +extended shield-wall vanishes like smoke'.[150] + +It is impossible not to pity Mr Freeman's would-be champion. Scorning, +at the outset, the thought that his hero could err 'in the most +carefully elaborated passage of his whole history',[151] his attitude +of bold defiance was a joy to Mr Freeman's friends.[152] + + [Greek: amphi d' ar' autô baine leôn hôs alki pepoithôs, + prosthe de hoi dyry t' esche kai aspida pantos eisên, + ton ktamenai memaôs hos tis tou g' antios elthoi, + smerdalea iachôn.] + +But his wildly brandished weapon proved more deadly to friend than +foe: he discovered, as I knew, he could only oppose me by making +jettison of Mr Freeman's views. Of this we have seen above examples +striking enough; but the climax was reached in his chief contention, +namely, that the lines in the _Roman de Rou_, which describe, Mr +Freeman asserted, 'the array of the shield-wall',[153] cannot, on many +grounds, be 'referred to a shield-wall'.[154] No contradiction could +be more complete. So he now finds himself forced to write: + + I do not say--I have _never_ said--that I agree with every + word that Mr Freeman has written about the great battle; but I + do regard his account of Hastings as the noblest battle-piece + in our historical literature--perhaps in that of the + world.[155] + +'O most lame and impotent conclusion!' We are discussing whether that +account is 'right', not whether it is 'noble'. To the splendour of +that narrative I have borne no sparing witness. I have spoken of its +'superb vividness', I have praised its 'epic grandeur', I have dwelt +on the writer's 'Homeric power of making the actors in his drama live +and move before us', and have compared his tale with the 'glorious +description' in the saga of Stamfordbridge. But the nearer it +approaches to the epic and the saga, the less likely is that stirring +tale to be rigidly confined to fact. + +I will not say of Mr Archer, 'his attack must be held to have failed', +for that would imperfectly express its utter and absolute collapse. + +The whole of my original argument as to the narrative of the battle +remains not merely unshaken, but, it will be seen, untouched. Mr +Archer himself has now pleaded that 'the only' point he 'took up +directly' was that of the disputed passage in Wace;[156] and here he +could only make even the semblance of a case by deliberately ignoring +and suppressing Mr Freeman's own verdict (iii. 763-4), to which, from +the very first, I have persistently referred. In his latest, as in +his earliest article, he adheres to this deliberate suppression, and +falsely represents 'Mr Freeman's interpretation' as 'a palisade or +barricade' alone.[157] + +Those who may object to plain speaking should rather denounce the +tactics that make such speaking necessary. When my adversary claims +that his case is proved, if the disputed passage does not describe a +shield-wall, he is perfectly aware that Mr Freeman distinctly asserted +that it did. To suppress that fact, as Mr Archer does,[158] can only +be described as dishonest. + +Judging from the desperate tactics to which my opponent resorted, +it would seem that my 'attack' on Mr Freeman's work cannot here be +impugned by any straightforward means. The impotent wrath aroused +by its success will lead, no doubt, to other attempts equally +unscrupulous and equally futile. But truth cannot be silenced, facts +cannot be obscured. I appeal, sure of my ground, to the verdict +of historical scholars, awaiting, with confidence and calm, the +inevitable triumph of the truth. + + +CONCLUSION + +'History is philosophy teaching by examples.' In one sense the period +of the Conquest was, as Mr Freeman asserted in his preface, 'a period +of our history which is full alike of political instruction and of +living personal interest'. In one sense, it is an object-lesson never +more urgently needed than it is at the present hour. Only that lesson +is one which Mr Freeman could never teach, because it is the bitterest +commentary on the doctrines he most adored. In the hands of a patriot, +in the hands of a writer who placed England before party, the tale +might have burned like a beacon-fire, warning us that what happened +in the past, might happen now, today. The Battle of Hastings has its +moral and its moral is for us. An almost anarchical excess of liberty, +the want of a strong centralized system, the absorption in party +strife, the belief that politics are statesmanship, and that oratory +will save a people--these are the dangers of which it warns us, and to +which the majority of Englishmen are subject now as then. But Mr +Freeman, like the Bourbons, never learnt, and never forgot. A democrat +first, an historian afterwards, History was for him, unhappily, ever +'past politics'. If he worshipped Harold with a blind enthusiasm, it +was chiefly because he was a _novus homo_, 'who reigned purely by the +will of the people'. He insisted that the English, on the hill of +battle, were beaten through lack of discipline, through lack of +obedience to their king; but he could not see that the system in which +he gloried, a system which made the people 'a co-ordinate authority' +with their king, was the worst of all trainings for the hour of battle; +he could not see that, like Poland, England fell, in large measure, +from the want of a strong rule, and from excess of liberty. To him the +voice of 'a sovereign people' was 'the most spirit-stirring of earthly +sounds'; but it availed about as much to check the Norman Conquest as +the fetish of an African savage, or the yells of Asiatic hordes. We +trace in his history of Sicily the same blindness to fact. Dionysius +was for him, as he was for Dante, merely-- + + Dionisio fero + Che fe' Cicilia aver dolorosi anni. + +But, in truth, the same excess of liberty that left England a prey to +the Normans had left Sicily, in her day, a prey to Carthage: the +same internal jealousies paralysed her strength. And yet he could not +forgive Dionysius, the man who gave Sicily what she lacked, the rule +of a 'strong man armed', because, in a democrat's eyes, Dionysius was +a 'tyrant'. That I am strictly just in my criticism of Mr Freeman's +attitude at the Conquest, is, I think, abundantly manifest, when even +so ardent a democrat as Mr Grant Allen admits that + + a people so helpless, so utterly anarchic, so incapable of + united action, deserved to undergo a severe training from + the hard task-masters of Romance civilization. The nation + remained, but it remained as a conquered race, to be drilled + in the stern school of the conquerors.[159] + +Such were the bitter fruits of Old-English freedom. And, in the teeth +of this awful lesson, Mr Freeman could still look back with longing +to 'a free and pure Teutonic England',[160] could still exult in the +thought that a democratic age is bringing England ever nearer to her +state 'before the Norman set foot upon her shores'. + +But the school of which he was a champion has long seen its day. A +reactionary movement, as has been pointed out by scholars in America, +as in Russia[161] has invaded the study of history, has assailed +the supremacy of the Liberal school, and has begun to preach, as the +teaching of the past, the dangers of unfettered freedom. + +Politics are not statesmanship. Mr Freeman confused the two. There +rang from his successor a truer note when, as he traversed the seas +that bind the links of the Empire, he penned those words that appeal +to the sons of an imperial race, sunk in the strife of parties or +the politics of a parish pump, to rise to the level of their high +inheritance among the nations of the earth. What was the Empire, what +was India--we all remember that historic phrase--to one whose ideal, +it would seem, of statesmanship, was that of an orator in Hyde Park? +Godwine, the ambitious, the unscrupulous agitator, is always for him +'the great deliverer'. Whether in the Sicily of the 'tyrants', or the +England of Edward the Confessor, we are presented, under the guise of +history, with a glorification of demagogy. + + No man ever deserved a higher or a more lasting place in + national gratitude than the first man who, being neither King + nor Priest, stands forth in English history as endowed with + all the highest attributes of the statesman. In him, in + those distant times, we can revere the great minister, the + unrivalled parliamentary leader, the man who could sway + councils and assemblies at his will, etc., etc.[162] + +We know of whom the writer was thinking, when he praised that +'irresistible tongue';[163] he had surely before him a living model, +who, if not a statesman, was, no doubt, an 'unrivalled parliamentary +leader'. Do we not recognize the portrait?-- + + The mighty voice, the speaking look and gesture of that old + man eloquent, could again sway assemblies of Englishmen at his + will.[164] + + The voice which had so often swayed assemblies of Englishmen, + was heard once more in all the fulness of its eloquence.[165] + +But it was not an 'irresistible tongue', nor 'the harangue of a +practised orator', of which England stood in need. Forts and soldiers, +not tongues, are England's want now as then. But to the late Regius +Professor, if there was one thing more hateful than 'castles', more +hateful even than hereditary rule, it was a standing army. When the +Franco-German war had made us look to our harness, he set himself at +once, with superb blindness, to sneer at what he termed 'the panic', +to suggest the application of democracy to the army, and to express +his characteristic aversion to the thought of 'an officer and a +gentleman'.[166] How could such a writer teach the lesson of the +Norman Conquest? + +'The long, long canker of peace' had done its work--'vivebatur enim +tunc pene ubique in Anglia perditis moribus, et pro pacis affluentia +deliciarum fervebat luxus.'[167] The land was ripe for the invader, +and a saviour of Society was at hand. While our fathers were playing +at democracy, watching the strife of rival houses, as men might now +watch the contest of rival parties, the terrible Duke of the Normans +was girding himself for war. _De nobis fabula narratur._ + + + + + [Footnote 1: Mr T. A. Archer (_Contemporary Review_, March + 1893, p. 336).] + + [Footnote 2: Mr Freeman saw nothing grotesque in Orderic's + description of Exeter, as 'in plano sita' (_Norm. Conq._, iv. + 153), though its site 'sets Exeter distinctly among the hill + cities' (Freeman's _Exeter_, p. 6).] + + [Footnote 3: That I may not be accused of passing over any + defence of Mr Freeman, I give the reference to Mr Archer's + letter in _Academy_ of November 4, 1893, arguing, as against + Mr Harrison, that the story of a great 'naval engagement' in + 1066 may probably be traced 'to the seaside associations of + the name Hastings'. Unfortunately for him, Mr Freeman himself + had quoted this wild story (iii. 729) and suggested quite a + different explanation, namely, that it originated, not in the + Battle of Hastings, but in some real 'naval operations'.] + + [Footnote 4: Since this passage appeared in print my opponents + themselves have written of the Battle of Hastings [_sic_], and + Mr Archer has admitted that 'to speak of Senlac in ordinary + conversation, or in ordinary writing, is a piece of pedantry' + (_Academy_ _ut supra_). On my own use of the word before I had + examined Mr Freeman's authority, see p. 273.] + + [Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 444.] + + [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, p. 757.] + + [Footnote 7: Mr Archer writes: '_Pel_ is literally "stake", + and originally, of course, represented the upright or + horizontal stakes which go to make a palisade' (_English + Historical Review_, ix. 6).] + + [Footnote 8: _Ibid._, p. 10. The word which Mr Freeman (and + others) rendered 'ash' is rendered 'windows of farm dwellings' + by Mr Archer (see below, p. 308).] + + [Footnote 9: Mr Archer would have us believe that 'Mr Freeman + really had in his mind ... a real wall of real shields and + stakes' (_English Historical Review_, 16), and that the + English would 'strap up their shields to the stakes', would + combine 'their shields and poles', and so forth (20).] + + [Footnote 10: This is Mr Oman's third and (up to now) final + explanation (_Academy_, June 9, 1894).] + + [Footnote 11: _English Historical Review_, ix. 232.] + + [Footnote 12: _Ibid._, ix. 232-3, 237-8, 240.] + + [Footnote 13: The difficulty of hauling timber even a short + distance over broken and hilly ground 'in an October of those + days' (_N.C._, iii. 446) must not be forgotten.] + + [Footnote 14: The italics are Mr Freeman's own.] + + [Footnote 15: He even spoke of it as 'the main castle' (_Arch. + Journ._, xl. 359).] + + [Footnote 16: Miss Norgate (_Angevin Kings_) follows him, + speaking of their assailants striving 'to assault them as if + besieging a fortress'. One is reminded of Mr Freeman's remark + as to Hastings, that Harold turned 'the battle as far as + possible into the likeness of a siege' (see above).] + + [Footnote 17: 'Men ranged so closely together in the thick + array of the shield-wall' (iii. 471).] + + [Footnote 18: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893.] + + [Footnote 19: _English Historical Review_, ix. 12.] + + [Footnote 20: My detailed reply to Mr Archer's attempt to + confuse the 'fosse' and the palisade will be found in _ibid._, + ix. 213, 214.] + + [Footnote 21: He paraphrased 'escuz de fenestres è d'altres + fuz' as 'firm barricades of ash and other timber'.] + + [Footnote 22: I supply the passage in square brackets (the + italics are my own) from the earlier volume to explain Mr + Freeman's reference.] + + [Footnote 23: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 14.] + + [Footnote 24: I am loth to introduce into the text the + wearisome details of controversy, especially where they are + _nihil ad rem_, and have no bearing on my argument. But, lest + I should be charged with ignoring any defence of Mr Freeman, I + will briefly explain in this note the attitude adopted by his + champions. + + In the _Contemporary Review_ of March 1893, Mr T. A. Archer + produced a reply to my original article (_Quarterly Review_, + July 1892), or rather, to that part of it which dealt with the + Battle of Hastings. Declaring my attack on the palisade to + be my 'only definite and palpable charge against Mr Freeman's + account' (p. 273) which, it will be found, is not the case--he + undertook to 'show Mr Freeman to have been entirely right in + the view he took of the whole question' (p. 267). To do this, + he deliberately suppressed the fatal passage (iii. 763-4) I + have printed above--to which, in my article, I had prominently + appealed--in order to represent me as alone in seeing a + description of the shield-wall in Wace's lines (p. 267). + He then insisted that 'there are six distinct objections to + translating this passage as if it referred to a shield-wall' + (p. 270). + + Instantly reminded by me (_Athenæum_, March 18, April 8, + 1893), that Mr Freeman himself had taken it as a description + of the shield-wall, and challenged to account for the fact, + again charged (_Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 88), with + 'ignoring a fact in the presence of which his elaborate + argument collapses like a house of cards', further challenged + (_Academy_, September 16, 1893) to reconcile Mr Freeman's + words (iii. 763-4), with his representation of the historian's + position, Mr Archer continued to shirk the point, till in the + _English Historical Review_ of January 1894, he grudgingly + confessed that 'the discovery that a shield-wall (of some sort + or other) was implied in this so-called "crucial passage", is + due to Mr Freeman' (p. 3), but he and Miss Norgate endeavoured + to urge that it could not be as I imagined, the shield-wall + that he had always spoken of (pp. 3, 16, 62). Even this + feeble evasion, now seems to be dropped since I disposed of it + (_ibid._, 225-7).] + + [Footnote 25: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 15.] + + [Footnote 26: See below, p. 284.] + + [Footnote 27: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 84.] + + [Footnote 28: _Athenæum_, March 18, 1893.] + + [Footnote 29: _English Historical Review_, ix. 40.] + + [Footnote 30: _Ibid._, p. 58.] + + [Footnote 31: _Cont. Rev._, 351.] + + [Footnote 32: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, pp. 93-4.] + + [Footnote 33: _Ibid._, ix. 27, 28.] + + [Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, 219-25.] + + [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 607. The italics are Mr Archer's + own. His own trusted authority, Wace, posts the English in 'un + champ' (ii. 7729, 7769)!] + + [Footnote 36: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 419, 420.] + + [Footnote 37: No one, of course, would treat the Tapestry like + a modern illustrated journal; but if it be fairly treated, + in Mr Freeman's spirit, one's real wonder is that, under + such obvious limitations, the designer should have been so + successful as he has. Nowhere, perhaps, is the painstaking + accuracy of the Bayeux Tapestry better seen than in its + miniature representation of the fortress at Dinan. It shows us + the _motte_, or artificial mound, surrounded by its ditch, + and even the bank beyond the ditch, together with the wooden + bridge springing (as we know it did in such castles) from that + bank to the summit of the mound. + + As to Mr Archer's attempts to show that Mr Freeman in one or + two instances did not value so highly as he did what he deemed + the supreme authority for the battle, I need only print Mr + Freeman's words, parallel with his own comments, to show how + their character is distorted. + + MR FREEMAN MR ARCHER + + The testimony of Florence is He rejects the Tapestry's account + confirmed by a witness more of Harold's coronation, + unexceptionable than all, by following Florence of Worcester's + the earliest and most statement--that Harold was + trustworthy witness on the crowned by Aldred, Archbishop + Norman side, by the of York--in avowed + contemporary Tapestry ... in opposition to his own reading of + every statement but one.... the Tapestry, i.e. that Harold + The Tapestry implies--_it can was crowned by Stigand. + hardly be said directly to + affirm_--that the consecrator + was Stigand (iii. 582). The + representation in the + Tapestry is singular. _It + does not show Stigand + crowning or anointing Harold_ + (iii. 620). + + It has been remarked by Mr He rejects _in toto_ the + Planché and others, that at Tapestry's version of Edward the + this point the order of time Confessor's death, for that + is forsaken; the burial of 'priceless record' makes _Edward + Eadward is placed before his buried before he died!_ Mr + deathbed and death. On this Freeman, and perhaps not + Dr Bruce says _very truly_: altogether without reason, + 'the seeming inconsistency follows the saner notion of other + is very easily explained', authorities, that Edward died + etc., etc. (iii. 587) ... I before he was buried (_English + do not think that any one Historical Review_, ix. 607). + who makes the comparison + minutely (between the + Tapestry and the Life) will + attach much importance to + the sceptical remarks of Mr + Planché (_ibid._). + + One would hardly imagine from Mr Archer's sneers that Mr Freeman + had really vindicated the Tapestry from its 'seeming inconsistency', + did one not know him, as a writer, to be _capable de tout_.] + + [Footnote 38: _Cont. Rev._, p. 351.] + + [Footnote 39: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.] + + [Footnote 40: I wish, as I have done throughout, to make + it absolutely clear that I am here concerned only with Mr + Freeman's rendering of Wace. If we are to go outside that + rendering and discuss Wace _de novo_, it is best to do so in a + fresh section. This I hope to do below, when I shall discuss + the question of his authority (which has not yet arisen), + and shall also propound my own explanation of the now famous + disputed passage.] + + [Footnote 41: In my first article (_Quarterly Review_, July + 1892, pp. 15-16) I pointed out that the great weight attached + to Mr Freeman's statements had of course 'secured universal + acceptance' for the palisade, and that it figures 'now in + every history'. Mr Archer, in his latest paper, refers to + these remarks (_English Historical Review_, ix. 602) and + triumphantly charges me with self-contradiction in having + myself once accepted it, like every one else. He refers to + an incidental allusion by me in the _Dictionary of National + Biography_ so many years ago that I was unaware of its + existence. I am particularly glad to be reminded of the fact + that I did allude, in early days, to the 'palisade' and to + 'Senlac', for it emphasizes the very point of my case, namely, + that that mischievous superstition of Mr Freeman's unfailing + accuracy must be ruthlessly destroyed lest others should be + taught, as I was, to accept his authority as supreme. + + My opponent writes: + + 'Mr Round ... in direct contradiction to the _Quarterly_ + reviewer, has found for it [the palisade] an authority in + William of Poitiers, and _has gone far beyond Mr Freeman + himself in giving us the name of the man who first broke it + down_.' + + How has Mr Archer produced the alleged 'contradiction'? He has + taken a passage from my notice of Robert de Beaumont, written + years before I had made any independent investigation of the + Battle of Hastings, and when I thought, like the rest of + the world, that I might, here at any rate, safely follow Mr + Freeman, when it was only a matter of a passing allusion to + the fight. The following parallel passages will prove, beyond + the shadow of doubt, that I here merely followed Mr Freeman, + accepting his own authority--William of Poitiers--for the + incident. Any one in my place would have done the same. But + Mr Archer asserts that, on the contrary, I went 'far beyond + Mr Freeman himself in giving us the name of the man who first + broke it down'. Let us see if this definite statement is true: + + MR FREEMAN MY ARTICLE + + The new castle was placed in Of these [sons] Robert fought at + the keeping of Henry, the Senlac ... [and] was _the first + younger son of Roger of to break down the English + Beaumont. A great estate in palisade_ ... he was rewarded + the shire also fell to with large grants in + Henry's elder brother, Warwickshire, and Warwick Castle + Robert, Count of Melent, who, was entrusted to his brother + at the head of the French Henry--_Dict. Nat. Biog._, iv. 64. + auxiliaries, had been _the (Mr Freeman's works, of course, + first to break down the are given among the authorities + English palisade_ at for the article.) + Senlac--_Norman Conquest_, + iv. [1871] 191-2. See also + iii. 486, and _Will. Rufus_, + i. 185, ii. 135, 402. + + So much for Mr Archer's assertion that I made an independent + statement not found in Mr Freeman's pages. It is obviously + impossible to conduct a controversy with an opponent who does + not restrict himself to fact.] + + [Footnote 42: _William the Conqueror_ (1888), p. 90.] + + [Footnote 43: 'Had they done so, they must have been set so + close that they could not have used their weapons with any + freedom' (_Cont. Rev._, p. 346).] + + [Footnote 44: _Short History_, p. 79.] + + [Footnote 45: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763, _ut supra_.] + + [Footnote 46: _Ibid._, iii. p. 471.] + + [Footnote 47: _Ibid._, i. 271; cf. _W.R._, ii. 411.] + + [Footnote 48: _Ibid._, iii. 732.] + + [Footnote 49: _Cont. Rev._, 348.] + + [Footnote 50: _Norman Britain_ (S.P.C.K.), p. vi.] + + [Footnote 51: _Ibid._, pp. 79, 80.] + + [Footnote 52: _Dict. Nat. Biography_ (1890), xxx. 424.] + + [Footnote 53: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.] + + [Footnote 54: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.] + + [Footnote 55: _Ibid._, p. 346.] + + [Footnote 56: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 90.] + + [Footnote 57: _Old English History_, p. 335.] + + [Footnote 58: Wace, of course, is the only one worth + mentioning of the three last, and even his 'decisive words' + prove to be only a personal opinion ('_ço me semble_') that + the axeman's shield must have hampered him (see _Cont. Rev._, + 348, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. 765).] + + [Footnote 59: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 91.] + + [Footnote 60: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.] + + [Footnote 61: Oman's _Art of War in the Middle Ages_, 24 (see + _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 90).] + + [Footnote 62: Compare (as Mr Freeman does) Æthelred's + description of the English array of the Battle of the + Standard: 'lateribus latera conseruntur'.] + + [Footnote 63: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 491.] + + [Footnote 64: _Ibid._, p. 471.] + + [Footnote 65: _Old English History_, p. 334.] + + [Footnote 66: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 764; cf. _English Historical + Review_, ix. 18.] + + [Footnote 67: 'This is the _shield-wall_, the famous tactic + of the English and Danes alike. We shall hear of it in all + the great battles down to the end.' (Freeman's _Old English + History_, p. 112.)] + + [Footnote 68: _Ibid._, p. 155.] + + [Footnote 69: _Ibid._, p. 196.] + + [Footnote 70: _Norm. Conq._, iii. viii.] + + [Footnote 71: _Ibid._, pp. 445-6.] + + [Footnote 72: _Ibid._, p. 472.] + + [Footnote 73: _Ibid._, p. 480.] + + [Footnote 74: _Norm. Conq._, iii. pp. 488, 490.] + + [Footnote 75: _Ibid._, p. 490.] + + [Footnote 76: 'The battle was lost through the error of those + light-armed troops who, in disobedience to the King's orders, + broke their line to pursue' (_Ibid._, 505).] + + [Footnote 77: 'The day had now turned decidedly in favour of + the invaders' (_Ibid._, 491). I am obliged to quote these two + passages, because my opponents have not shrunk from impugning + (_Cont. Rev._, 353; _English Historical Review_, ix. 70) the + accuracy of the words in the text (which are from _Q.R._, July + 1892, p. 17).] + + [Footnote 78: _Q.R._, July 1893, 101.] + + [Footnote 79: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 472.] + + [Footnote 80: To have placed some of them as an advanced post + on the 'small detached hill' in front would have been to leave + them _en l'air_, exposed to certain destruction from an attack + which they could not check. For Mr Freeman held that, even if + occupied by an outpost, it was only by the 'light-armed'. (See + _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 99, 100.)] + + [Footnote 81: On what ground are the Bretons so described? + Guy, quoted by Mr Freeman (iii. 459) writes of them here: + 'Gensque Britannorum quorum decus exstat in armis, Tellus ni + fugiat est fuga nulla quibus'.] + + [Footnote 82: I have replied in _English Historical Review_ + (ix. 255) to Miss Norgate's characteristic quibble (_ibid._, + p. 75) that these quotations apply to the Scottish army + alone--for the principle applies alike to 'armati' and + 'armatos', to 'milites' and to 'militibus'.] + + [Footnote 83: Down to this point the present section is all + reprinted from my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892), as not + calling for any alteration or correction.] + + [Footnote 84: 'The general mass of the less well-armed troops + of the shire in the rear.' (_England under the Angevin Kings_, + i. 290.)] + + [Footnote 85: _English Historical Review_, ix. 611.] + + [Footnote 86: When the Scotch, he writes, 'amentatis + missilibus et lanceis longissimis super aciem equitum + nostrorum loricatam percutiunt, quasi muro ferreo offendentes, + impenetrabiles [compare the 'impenetrabiles' ranks of + the English at Hastings, _supra_, p. 276] invenerunt.... + Equitantes enim nulla ratione diu persistere potuerunt + contra milites loricatos pede persistentes et immobiliter + coacervatos' (pp. 264-5). Miss Norgate follows him, writing: + 'The wild Celts of Galloway dashed headlong upon the English + front, only to find their spears and javelins glance off from + the helmets and shields of the knights as from an iron wall.'] + + [Footnote 87: 'Tota namque gens Normannorum et Anglorum in una + acie circum Standard conglobata, persistebant immobiles' + (Hen. Hunt). 'Australes, quoniam pauci erant, in unum cuneum + sapientissime glomerantur' (_Æth. Riv._).] + + [Footnote 88: It is no less interesting than curious that + the Bayeux Tapestry enables us to see how the archers + were combined with the mailed knights at the Battle of the + Standard. It shows us (on its principle of giving a type) an + English archer of whom Mr Freeman has well observed: 'He is a + small man without armour crouching under the shield of a tall + Housecarl, like Teukros under that of Aias' (iii. 472). So + Æthelred writes that the mailed warriors 'sagittarios ita sibi + inseruerunt ut, _militaribus armis protecti_, tanto acrius + quanto securius vel in hostes irruerent, vel exciperent + irruentes'.] + + [Footnote 89: 'Proceres qui maturioris ætatis fuerunt ... + circa signum regium constituuntur, quibusdam altius ceteris + in ipsa machina collatis' (_Æth. Riv._). 'Circum Standard in + pectore belli condensantur' (_Ric. Hex._).] + + [Footnote 90: 'Reliqua autem multitudo undique conglomerata + eos circumvallabat' (_ibid._).] + + [Footnote 91: _Norm. Conq._, i. 383.] + + [Footnote 92: _Ibid._, iii. 472.] + + [Footnote 93: _Old English History_, p. 331.] + + [Footnote 94: _English Historical Review_, ix. 75.] + + [Footnote 95: _Old English History_, p. 333.] + + [Footnote 96: Miss Norgate, unable to deny the glaring + 'self-contradiction' involved in Mr Freeman's words, dismisses + it as a 'matter of secondary importance' (_English Historical + Review_, ix. 74).] + + [Footnote 97: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.] + + [Footnote 98: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.] + + [Footnote 99: _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 102-3; cf. _Q.R._, July + 1892, p. 18; _English Historical Review_, ix. 254.] + + [Footnote 100: It might, for all we know, have formed a + crescent or semi-circle, its wings resting strongly on the + rear-slopes of the hill; or even a 'wedge', as, indeed, Mr + Freeman twice described it (i. 271, iii. 471).] + + [Footnote 101: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.] + + [Footnote 102: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.] + + [Footnote 103: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.] + + [Footnote 104: Since this passage appeared (as it stands) in + my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19), I have noted + a curious confirmation in Æthelred's words where he speaks + of the archers at the Battle of the Standard as 'militaribus + armis protecti [ut] tanto acrius quanto securius vel in hostes + irruerent, vel exciperent irruentes'. For, as I wrote (p. 20), + 'it would naturally be they who, like cavalry in modern times, + would harass and follow up a retreating foe'.] + + [Footnote 105: _Old English History_, p. 334.] + + [Footnote 106: For Baudri's poem see _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. + 73-5. As to Baudri's authority, I need only repeat what I + wrote in the _English Historical Review_ (ix. 217): 'Mr Archer + endeavours, of course, to pooh-pooh it. Now I call special + attention to the fact that the test I apply to Baudri is that + which Mr Freeman applied to the Tapestry, the obvious test of + internal evidence. But Mr Archer's ways are not as those of + other historians: instead of examining, as I did, Baudri's + account in detail he dismisses it on the ground that the + writer's "description _of the world_" at that date could + not be accurate (_ibid._, 29). We are not dealing with his + "description of the world"; we are dealing with his lines on + the battle of Hastings.'] + + [Footnote 107: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467, 477.] + + [Footnote 108: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42-3, 603.] + + [Footnote 109: Though I have already done so in _English + Historical Review_, ix. 250.] + + [Footnote 110: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42.] + + [Footnote 111: Mr Freeman rendered the 'sagittis armatos et + balistis' of William by 'archers, slingers, and crossbowmen'. + 'Balistæ' can hardly mean slings _and_ crossbows, and I think, + on consideration, it is best referred to the latter; but the + question is not of much importance.] + + [Footnote 112: So, too, in _Arch. Journ._, xl. 359: 'You + may call up the march of archers and horsemen across the low + ground between the hills.'] + + [Footnote 113: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 462. I regret that I must + call attention to the fact that I gave (_English Historical + Review_, ix. 250) this precise reference for my statement + that, according to Mr Freeman, the infantry were all archers, + explaining that in another passage (p. 467) William of + Poitiers had led him to take a somewhat different view. Mr + Archer, however, has printed (_English Historical Review_, ix. + 603) the other passage (p. 467) in triumph by the side of my + statement. He further denies that Mr Freeman held, even on p. + 462, that the infantry were all archers. Anyone can test the + value of Mr Archer's denial for himself by referring to + _Norm. Conq._, iii. 462, where he will find that Mr Freeman, + describing the Norman host, mentions no infantry but archers.] + + [Footnote 114: As he had merely copied from the Tapestry on p. + 462, so he copied William of Poitiers on p. 467.] + + [Footnote 115: The distinction between archers and crossbowmen + is of little or no consequence, the missile being common to + both.] + + [Footnote 116: My opponents complain that in the former + passage Mr Freeman assigns this task to 'the heavier foot' + only; but my point is that no palisade is here mentioned, + and no attack on it by _any_ infantry, heavy or light, and no + weapons assigned to that infantry of any use for the purpose.] + + [Footnote 117: This is an excellent instance of what I said + as to Mr Freeman's 'imaginary' references to the now famous + palisade. I have challenged my opponents to disprove my + statement that none of Mr Freeman's own authorities says + anything here of a palisade. And, of course, they cannot do + so. + + Here is another instance in point. We read on pp. 486-7 that + Robert of Beaumont was specially distinguished in the work of + breaking down the 'barricade' (see also _supra_, p. 273). But + when we turn to William of Poitiers, the authority cited, + we find no mention of a 'barricade', but read only of him + 'irruens ac sternens magnâ cum audaciâ'. As the writer had + just described how the Duke '_stravit_ adversam gentem', we see + that Robert, in his charge, laid low, not a barricade, but + 'adversam gentem'. + + This brings me to an extraordinary case of mediaeval + plagiarism. The author of the Ely history has applied this + description of Robert's exploits to the Conqueror himself at + Ely (_Liber Eliensis_, pp. 244-5). The passages 'Exardentes + Normanni--deleverunt ea', 'Egit enim quod--magna cum audacia', + 'Scriptor Thebaidos vel Æneidos', _et seq._, are all 'lifted' + bodily from William's narrative of the Battle of Hastings and + applied to the storming of the Isle of Ely!] + + [Footnote 118: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467.] + + [Footnote 119: 'The Norman infantry had now done its best, but + that best had been in vain' (_ibid._, 479).] + + [Footnote 120: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 481.] + + [Footnote 121: _Ibid._, 767-8.] + + [Footnote 122: + + 'Un fosse ont d'une part fait + Qui parmi la champaigne vait + + * * * * + + En la champaigne out un fosse: + Normanz l'aueient adosse + En beliuant l'orent passé + Ne l'aueint mie esgarde.' + + I had followed Taylor in my rendering of this passage; but + Miss Norgate (_English Historical Review_, ix. 46) would + prefer to say that the Normans did not heed, than that they + did not notice the fosse. 'The passage,' as she says, 'is + somewhat obscure.'] + + [Footnote 123: Miss Norgate has rightly pointed out (ix. + 47) that Henry places the disaster during the great feigned + flight.] + + [Footnote 124: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.] + + [Footnote 125: Compare the death of Robert Marmion, at + Coventry, under Stephen, when he fell into one of the ditches + he had dug to entrap the enemy's horse. The passage quoted by + Andresen in his Wace (ii. 713) from Michel's notes to Benoit + is very precise: 'Fecerant autem Angli foveam quandam caute et + ingeniose, quam ipsi ex obliquo curantes maximam multitudinem + Normannorum in ea præcipitaverant. Et plures etiam ex eis + insequentes et tracti ab aliis in eadem perierunt.'] + + [Footnote 126: See below, p. 292.] + + [Footnote 127: _Early Oxford_, pp. 191, 192. And see my + preface.] + + [Footnote 128: See above, p. 278, for Mr Freeman's view.] + + [Footnote 129: 'Angli vero, illos putantes vere fugere, + c[oe]perunt post eos currere volentes eos si possent + interficere' (_Brevis Relatio_). 'Ausa sunt, ut superius, + aliquot millia quasi volante cursu, quos fugere putabant + urgere' (_Will. Pict._).] + + [Footnote 130: Though admitting, in a footnote, that the + 'Brevis Relatio' was opposed to this assumption.] + + [Footnote 131: _Supra_, p. 278.] + + [Footnote 132: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 20.] + + [Footnote 133: Miss Norgate has indignantly retorted (_English + Historical Review_, ix. 50) that Mr Freeman 'only' omitted + the words from 'sicque' onwards. But it is precisely on these + words that my statement is based. Mr Freeman, moreover, did + not even quote the rest _à propos_ of the feigned flight, + where we should look for it.] + + [Footnote 134: So does Will. Gem., as quoted by Mr Freeman + (iii. 133): 'de suis miserunt si quos forte hostium a regio + c[oe]tu abstraherent, quos illi in latibulis degentes incautos + exciperent.' See also my Addenda.] + + [Footnote 135: _Cont. Rev._, p. 354.] + + [Footnote 136: See above, p. 251.] + + [Footnote 137: See above, p. 259.] + + [Footnote 138: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.] + + [Footnote 139: _Social England_, i. 299. 'Mr Oman, like Mr J. + H. Round, knows nothing of the famous "palisade", but only + of the "shield-wall" of the English' (_Speaker_, December 2, + 1893).] + + [Footnote 140: _Norman Britain_, p. 79.] + + [Footnote 141: _Ibid._, p. 80.] + + [Footnote 142: _Social England_, p. 300.] + + [Footnote 143: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.] + + [Footnote 144: _Ibid._, p. 335.] + + [Footnote 145: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.] + + [Footnote 146: _Ibid._, ix. 219-25.] + + [Footnote 147: _Ibid._, 224, 257.] + + [Footnote 148: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 469; and _supra_, p. 356.] + + [Footnote 149: _Cont. Rev._, 352.] + + [Footnote 150: _Ibid._, 348.] + + [Footnote 151: _Cont. Rev._, 335-6.] + + [Footnote 152: 'The Reviewer ... tells us that ... Mr Freeman + ... is wrong, completely wrong, in his whole conception of the + battle.... His attack must be held to have failed' (_Cont. + Rev._, pp. 335, 353).] + + [Footnote 153: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763.] + + [Footnote 154: _Cont. Rev._, p. 349. Cf. Mr Archer's articles + _passim_.] + + [Footnote 155: _English Historical Review_, ix. 22.] + + [Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.] + + [Footnote 157: _Ibid._, ix. 606. _Supra_, p. 269.] + + [Footnote 158: _Ibid._, ix. 606, 607. My readers are invited + to refer to this article and to that in the _Cont. Rev._ + (March 1893), and test my statement for themselves.] + + [Footnote 159: _Anglo-Saxon Britain_, p. 172.] + + [Footnote 160: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 454.] + + [Footnote 161: e.g. Vinogradoff and Dr Andrews.] + + [Footnote 162: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 352.] + + [Footnote 163: _Ibid._, 327.] + + [Footnote 164: _Ibid._, 326.] + + [Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 332.] + + [Footnote 166: 'We shall get rid of the talk about "an officer + and a gentleman".' (_Macmillan's_, xxiv. 10).] + + [Footnote 167: _Vita Wlstani_.] + + + + +MASTER WACE + + + MR FREEMAN MR ARCHER + + Of the array of the shield-wall Now, there are six distinct + we have often heard already as objections to translating this + at Maldon, but it is at Senlac passage [of Wace] as if it + that we get the fullest referred to a shield-wall. These + descriptions of it, all the objections are, of course, of + better for coming in the unequal value; but some of them + mouths of enemies. Wace gives would, by themselves, suffice to + his description, 12941:--(_Norm. overthrow such a theory (_Cont. + Conq._, iii. 763). Rev._, 349). + +In discussing Mr Freeman's treatment of the great battle, we saw +that the only passage he vouched for the existence of a palisade[1] +consisted of certain lines from Wace's _Roman de Rou_, which he +ultimately declared to be, on the contrary, a description of 'the +array of the shield-wall'.[2] The question, therefore, as to their +meaning--on which my critics have throughout endeavoured to represent +the controversy as turning--did not even arise so far as Mr Freeman +was concerned. Still less had I occasion to discuss the authority of +Wace, Mr Freeman's explicit verdict on the lines (iii. 763-4) having +removed them, as concerns his own narrative, from the sphere of +controversy. + +The case, however, is at once altered when Mr Archer insists on +ignoring Mr Freeman's words, and makes an independent examination of +the lines, quoting also other passages which were not vouched by Mr +Freeman, as proving 'beyond the shadow of a doubt that Wace did +mean to represent the English at Hastings as fighting behind a +palisade'.[3] So long as I make it clearly understood that this +question in no way affects the controversy as to Mr Freeman, I am +quite willing to discuss the question thus raised by Mr Archer. + +It is most naturally treated under these three heads: + +(1) Did Wace believe and assert that there was a palisade? + +(2) If so, what weight ought to be attached to his authority? + +(3) If we reject it, can we explain how his mistake arose? + + +WACE'S MEANING + +I have elsewhere[4] discussed 'the disputed passage' (_supra_, p. +267), and agreed with Mr Archer that there are 'four views which have +been suggested' as to its meaning.[5] Two of them, I there showed, +were successively held by Mr Freeman, and the two others successively +advanced by Mr Archer. When I add (anticipating) that, according to M. +Paris, 'le passage de Wace présente quelque obscurité',[6] and that +M. Meyer introduced yet another element of doubt in a special kind +of shield ('de grands écus') not previously suggested, it will be +obvious, quite apart from any opinion of my own, that the passage +presents difficulties. + +So long as I only dealt with Mr Freeman's work, I found on his +admission that the passage described the shield-wall.[7] Now that we +are leaving his work aside, I fall back on my own conclusion, namely, +that the passage is with equal difficulty referred either to a +palisade or to a shield-wall. The word 'escuz', it will be seen, +occurs twice in the passage. Mr Archer held, at first, that in neither +case did it mean real 'shields',[8] but he afterwards assigned that +meaning to the second of the two 'escuz', while still rendering the +first 'in a metaphorical sense'.[9] It is obvious that when Mr Freeman +took the lines to describe 'the array of the shield-wall', he must +have done so on the ground that 'escuz' meant 'shields'. That is my +own contention. While fully recognizing the obstacles to translating +'the disputed passage' as if it referred throughout to a shield-wall, +I maintain that 'escu' means shield, as a term 'which is one of the +commonest in Wace' and invariably means shield.[10] But to cut short +a long story, it was decided by Mr Gardiner to settle this issue by +submitting the disputed passage to the verdict of MM. Gaston Paris +and Paul Meyer. In spite of my protest, this was done without my +articles and my solution of the problem[11] being laid before them +at the same time. A snap verdict was thus secured before they had +seen the evidence. I am sure that Mr Gardiner must have thought this +fair, and editors, we know, cannot err; but it seems to me quite +possible that these distinguished French scholars were not familiar +with the shield-wall, an Old English tactic, and were not aware that +this information was the great feature of the battle. Had all this, +as I wished, been duly set before them, their verdict would, of +course, have carried much greater weight. + +But having said this much, I frankly admit that their verdict is in +favour of Mr Archer's contention, and, so far as the first 'escuz' is +concerned, against my own.[12] They may not agree in detail with each +other, or with either of Mr Archer's views, but, on the broad issue, +he has a perfect right to claim that their verdict is for him so +long as he does not pretend that it also confirms 'Mr Freeman's +interpretation', by ignoring the historian's own latest and explicit +words.[13] It must also be remembered that this admission in no way +diminishes the obscurity of the passage, which, as we have seen, +is beyond dispute, and which forms an important element in my own +solution of the problem.[14] + +Having now shown how the matter stands with regard to 'the disputed +passage', I need not linger over those which Mr Freeman ignored, +and which Mr Archer adduced to strengthen his views as to the main +passage. I have dealt with these elsewhere,[15] and need here +only refer to ll. 8585-90, because that passage raises a point of +historical interest quite apart from personal controversy. I have +maintained that it can only be accepted at the cost of 'throwing +over Mr Freeman's conception of the battle',[16] and have proved, by +quoting his own words, that he placed the standard with Harold at his +foot 'in the very forefront of the fight'.[17] I do not say that he +was right in doing so: he was, I think, very probably wrong, and was +influenced here, as elsewhere, by his dramatic treatment of Harold. +But as this can only be matter of opinion, I have not challenged his +view; I only say that those who accept it cannot consistently appeal +to a passage in Wace which places the standard in the rear of the +English host. + + +WACE'S AUTHORITY + +Assuming then, for the sake of argument, that Wace mentions a defence +of some kind,[18] even though not consistently[19] in front of the +English troops, let us see whether his statement is corroborated, +whether it is in harmony with the other evidence, and whether, if +it is neither corroborated nor in such agreement, his authority is +sufficient, nevertheless, to warrant its acceptance. + +As to corroboration, Mr Archer undertook 'to produce corroborative +evidence from other sources';[20] but this at once dwindled down to +one line--'tending in the same direction'[21]--from Benoît de St Maur, +who does not even mention a palisade.[22] There is therefore, on his +own showing, not a shred of corroborative evidence. + +As to the second point, I may refer to my arguments against the +palisade,[23] where I showed that none of our authorities is here in +agreement with Wace. + +We come, therefore, to our third point, namely, the weight to +which Wace's testimony, when standing alone, is entitled. Here, +as elsewhere, I adhere to my position. As I have written in the +_Quarterly Review_: + + Even if Wace, clearly and consistently, mentioned a palisade + throughout his account of the battle, we should certainly + reject the statement of a witness, writing a century after it, + when we find him at variance with every authority (for that + is our point), just as Mr Freeman rejected the bridge at + Varaville,[24] or the 'falsehood' of the burning of the ships, + or the 'blunder' of making the Duke land at Hastings, or his + anachronisms, or his chronology. For, 'of course', in the + Professor's own words, 'whenever he [Wace] departs from + contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating + traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events + which he records, his statements need to be very carefully + weighed'.[25] + +Let me specially lay stress upon the points on which, when Wace and +the Tapestry differ, the preference is given by Mr Freeman himself to +the Tapestry as against Wace: + + Had the tapestry been a work of later date, it is hardly + possible that it could have given the simple and truthful + account of these matters which it does give. A work of the + twelfth or thirteenth century[26] would have brought in, _as + even honest Wace does in some degree_, the notions of the + twelfth or thirteenth century. One cannot conceive an artist + of the time of Henry II, still less an artist later than the + French conquest of Normandy, agreeing so remarkably with the + authentic writings of the eleventh century (iii. 573). + + [In the Tapestry] every antiquarian detail is accurate--the + lack of armour on the horses (iii. 574). [But] Wace speaks of + the horse of William fitz Osbern as 'all covered with iron' + (iii. 570). + +Wace again, is 'hardly accurate' (iii. 765), we read, as to the +English weapons, because he differs from the Tapestry. As to Harold's +wound, 'Wace places it too early in the battle' (iii. 497); Mr Freeman +follows the Tapestry. As to the landing of the Normans at Pevensey: + + _Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry ... Wace ... altogether + reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings, and + go to Pevensey afterwards' (iii. 402). + +As to the 'Mora', the Duke's ship, the Tapestry shows 'the child with +his horn'; Wace describes him 'Saete et arc tendu portant'. Mr Freeman +adopts the 'horn' (iii. 382). Harold, says Mr Freeman, was imprisoned +at Beaurain. + + This is quite plain from the Tapestry: 'Dux eum ad Belrem et + ibi eum tenuit'. Wace says, 'A Abevile l'ont mené....' This I + conceive to arise from a misconception of the words of William + of Jumièges (iii. 224). + +This illustrates, I would remind Mr Archer, the difference between a +primary authority and a mere late compiler. + +To these examples I may add Wace's mention of Harold's _vizor_ +(_ventaille_). Mr Freeman pointed out the superior accuracy of the +Tapestry in 'the nose-pieces' (iii. 574), and observed that 'the +vizor' was a much later introduction (iii. 497).[27] Here again we +see the soundness of Mr Freeman's view that Wace could not help +introducing 'the notions' of his own time into his account of the +battle. Miss Norgate admits that he 'transferred to his mythical +battles the colouring of the actual battles of his own day', but +urges that these narratives illustrate the 'warfare of Wace's own ... +contemporaries'.[28] Quite so. But the battle of Hastings belonged +to an older and obsolete style of warfare. That is what his champions +always forget. If Miss Norgate's argument has any meaning, it is that +the men who fought in that battle were 'Wace's own contemporaries'. + +But, even where Wace's authority is in actual agreement with the +Tapestry, Mr Freeman did not hesitate to reject, or rather, ignore it, +as we saw in the matter of the fosse disaster. + +As to Wace's sources of information, and the _prima facie_ evidence +for his authority, a question of considerable interest is raised. Mr +Archer discusses it from his own standpoint.[29] On Wace's life, +age and work, facts are few and speculations many. These have been +collected and patiently sifted in Andresen's great work, with the +following result: + +Wace was certainly living not merely in 1170,[30] but in 1174, for +he alludes to the siege of Rouen (August 1174) in his epilogue to the +second part of the 'Roman'.[31] It is admitted on all hands, though Mr +Archer does not mention it, that he did not even begin the third part +till after the coronation of the younger Henry (June 14, 1170).[32] +Allowing for its great length, he cannot have come to his account +of the battle _at the very earliest_ till 1171, 105 years after the +event. For my part, I think that it was probably written even some +years later. But imagine in any case an Englishman, ignorant of +Belgium, writing an account of Waterloo, mainly _from oral tradition_, +in 1920. + +Mr Archer contends that Wace was born 'probably between the years 1100 +and 1110' (_ante_, p. 31). Andresen holds that the earliest date we +can venture to assign is 1110,[33] forty-four years after the battle. +Special stress is laid by Mr Archer on Wace's oral information: + + He had seen and talked with many men who recollected things + anterior to Hastings and the Hastings campaign. Among his + informants for this latter was his own father, then, we may + suppose, a well-grown lad, if not an actual participator in + the fight (_ante_, p. 32). + +'We may suppose'--where all is supposition--exactly the contrary. If +Wace was born, as we may safely say, more than forty years after the +battle, 'we may suppose' that his father was not even born before it. +All this talk about Wace's father is based on ll. 6445-7, of which +Andresen truly remarks, 'Die Verse "Mais co oi dire a mon pere, Bien +m'en souient mais Vaslet ere, Que set cenz nes, quatre meins, furent", +u.s.w., sind viel zu unbestimmt gehalten, so dass wir aus ihnen streng +genommen nicht einmal entnehmen können, ob der Vater im Jahre 1066 +schon auf der Welt war oder nicht' (p. lxx). I venture to take my own +case. Born within forty years of Waterloo, I can say with Wace that I +remember my father telling me, as a boy, stories of the battle. But +he was born after it. The information was second-hand. Over and over +again does Mr Archer lay stress on the fact (_ut supra_) that Wace +gives us 'the reminiscences of the old heroes who fought at Hastings +as no one else has cared to do'.[34] I must insist that Wace himself +nowhere mentions having seen or spoken to them. He does mention having +seen men who remembered the great comet (Mr Archer italicizes the +lines[35]); but this exactly confirms my point. For when Wace _had_ +seen eyewitnesses he was careful, we see, to mention the fact. Men +would remember the comet, though little children at the time. One +of my own very earliest recollections is that of a great comet, even +though it did not create the sensation of the comet in 1066. Wace had +talked with those who had been children, not with those who had been +fighting men, in 1066. + +I need only invite attention to one more point. Mr Archer assures +us that 'Wace is a very sober writer', with 'something of the shrewd +scepticism' of modern scholars.[36] What shall we say then, of his +long story (ll. 7005-100) of the night visit, by Harold and Gyrth, +to the Norman camp, to which Mr Archer appeals as evidence for the +_lices_ (l. 7010)? 'Nothing,' replies Mr Freeman (iii. 449), 'could be +less trustworthy.... No power short of divination could have revealed +it.'[37] Mr Archer tells us he has only space for one instance[38] +of Wace's conscientiousness. That instance is his story of the +negotiation between William and Baldwin of Flanders on the eve of the +Conquest. Of this story Mr Freeman writes: + + Of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his + character of sovereign of Flanders Wace has a tale which + strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to + introduce it into the text.... The whole story seems quite + inconsistent with the real relations between William and + Baldwin (iii. 718-19). + +Comment is superfluous. + +Having now shown that Wace's evidence is not corroborated, is not +in accordance with that of contemporary witnesses, and cannot on +the sound canons of criticism recognized by Mr Freeman himself, be +accepted under these circumstances, I propose to show that my case can +be carried further still, and that I can even trace to its origin the +confused statement in his 'disputed passage' which is said to describe +a palisade or defence of some sort or other. + + +WACE AND HIS SOURCES[39] + +In studying the authorities for the Battle of Hastings, I was led to a +conclusion which, so far as I know, had never occurred to any one. It +is that William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta Regum' was among the sources +used by Wace. Neither in Korting's elaborate treatise, 'Ueber die +Quellen des Roman de Rou', nor in Andresen's notes to his well-known +edition of the 'Roman' (ii. 708), can I find any suggestion to this +effect. Dr Stubbs, in his edition of the 'Gesta Regum', dwells on the +popularity of the work both at home and abroad, but does not include +Wace among the writers who availed themselves of it; and the late Mr +Freeman, though frequently compelled to notice the agreement between +Wace and William, never thought, it appears, of suggesting the theory +of derivation; indeed, he speaks of the two writers as independent +witnesses, when dealing with one of these coincidences.[40] The +more one studies Wace, the more evident it becomes that the 'Roman' +requires to be used with the greatest caution. Based on a _congeries_ +of authorities, on tradition, and occasionally of course, on the +poetic invention of the _trouveur_ it presents a whole in which it is +almost impossible to disentangle the various sources of the narrative. +Before dealing with the passage which led me to believe that the +'Gesta Regum' must have been known to Wace, I will glance at some +other coincidences. We have first the alleged landing of William at +Hastings instead of Pevensey. On this Mr Freeman observed: + + _Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry. So William of + Poitiers and William of Jumièges. William of Malmesbury says + carelessly, _Placido cursu Hastingas appulerunt_. So Wace, + who altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at + Hastings and go to Pevensey afterwards.[41] + +Here William of Malmesbury, who was probably using 'Hastingas' +as loosely as when he applied that term to Battle, appears to be +responsible for the mistake of Wace, who may have tried to harmonize +him with William of Jumièges by making the Normans proceed to Pevensey +after having landed. Take again the hotly disputed burial of Harold at +Waltham. On this question Mr Freeman writes: + + William of Malmesbury, after saying that the body was given to + Gytha, adds _acceptum itaque apud Waltham sepelivit_.... Wace + had evidently heard two or three stories, and, with his usual + discretion, he avoided committing himself, but he distinctly + asserts a burial at Waltham.[42] + +This, then, is another coincidence between the two writers, while, +as before, Wace found himself in the presence of a conflict of +authorities. On yet another difficult point, the accession of Harold, +I see a marked agreement, though Mr Freeman did not. Harold, according +to William of Malmesbury, _extorta a principibus fide, arripuit +diadema_, and _diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et +Willelmum cogitabat_. Wace's version runs: + + Heraut ki ert manant è forz + Se fist énoindre è coroner; + Unkes al duc n'en volt parler, + Homages prist è féeltez + Des plus riches è des ainz nes. + +Not only is the attitude of Wace and William towards Harold's action +here virtually identical, but the mention of his exaction of homage +seems special to them both. + +The passages, however, on which I would specially rest my case are +those in which these two writers describe the visit of Harold's spies +to the Norman camp before the battle of Hastings. This legend is +peculiar to William of Malmesbury and Wace, and though it may be +suggested that they had heard it independently, the correspondence--it +will, I think, be admitted--is too close to admit of that solution. + +I print these passages side by side: + + WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY WACE + + Premisit tamen qui numerum Heraut enveia dous espies + hostium et vires specularentur. Por espier quels compagnies + E quanz barons e quanz armez + Aueit li dus od sei menez. + Ia esteient a l'ost uenu, + Quant il furent aparceu + Quos intra castra deprehensos A Guillaume furent mene, + Willelmus circum tentoria duci, Forment furent espoente. + moxque, largis eduliis pastos, Mais quant il sout que il quereient + domino incolumes remitti jubet. E que ses genz esmer ueneient, + Par tos les tres les fist mener + E tote l'ost lor fist mostrer; + Bien les fist paistre e abeurer, + Pois les laissa quites aler, + Nes volt laidir ne destorber. + Redeuntes percunctatur Haroldus Quant il vindrent a lor seignor, + quid rerum apportent: illi, verbis Del duc distrent mult grant enor. + amplissimis ductoris magnificam Un des Engleis, qui out veuz + confidentiam prosecuti, serio Les Normans toz res e tonduz, + addiderunt pene omnes in exercitu Quida que tuit proueire fussent + illo presbyteros videri, quod E que messes chanter peussent, + totam faciem cum utroque labio Kar tuit erent tondu e res, + rasam haberent; ... subrisit rex Ne lor esteit guernon remes. + fatuitatem referentinum, lepido Cil dist a Heraut que li dus + insecutus cachinno, quia non Aueit od sei proueies plus + essent presbyteri, sed milites Que chevaliers ne altre gent; + validi, armis invicti. (§ 239) De co se merueillout forment + Que tuit erent res e tondu. + E Heraut li a respondu + Que co sunt cheualiers uaillanz, + Hardi e proz e combatanz. + 'N'ont mie barbes ne guernons,' + Co dist Heraut, 'com nos auons.' + (ll. 7101-34) + +The story is just one of those that William of Malmesbury would have +picked up, and Wace has simply, in metrical paraphrase, transferred it +from his pages to his own. + +Yet another story, on which Mr Freeman looked with some just +suspicion, is common to these two writers, and virtually to them +alone. It is that of 'the contrast between the way in which the night +before the battle was spent by the Normans and the English' (iii. +760). Wace, says Mr Freeman, 'gives us the same account' as William +'in more detail', while William 'gives us a shorter account'. I +here again append the passages side by side, insisting on the fact +mentioned by Mr Freeman, that Wace expands the story 'in more detail': + + Itaque utrinque animosi duces Quant la bataille dut ioster, + disponunt acies.... Angli, ut La noit auant, c'oi conter, + accepimus, totam noctem insompnem Furent Engleis forment haitie + cantibus potibusque ducentes. Mult riant e mult enueisie. + Tote noit maingierent e burent, + . . . . . Onques la noit en lit ne jurent. + Mult les veissiez demener, + Treper e saillir e chanter. + . . . . . + Contra Normanni, nocte tota E li Normant e li Franceis + confessioni Tote noit firent oreisons + peccatorum vacantes, mane E furent en afflictions. + Dominico corpore communicarunt. De lor pechiez confes se firent, + (§§ 241, 242) As proueires les regehirent, + E qui nen out proueires pres, + À son ueisin se fist confes. + . . . . . + Quant les messes furent chantees, + Qui bien matin furent finees.... + (ll. 7349-56, 7362-8, 7407-8) + +This brings me to my destination, namely, § 241 of the 'Gesta Regum'. +We may divide this section into three successive parts: (1) the +description of the way in which the English spent the night--which is +repeated, we have seen, by Wace; (2) the array of the English, with +which I shall deal below; (3) the dismounting of Harold at the foot +of the standard. I here subjoin the parallels for the third, calling +special attention to the phrases, 'd'or e de pierres (auro et +lapidibus)' and 'Guil. pois cele victoire Le fist porter a l'apostoire +(post victorium papae misit Willelmus).' + + Rex ipse pedes juxta vexillum Quant Heraut out tot apreste + stabat cum fratribus, ut, in E co qu'il uolt out commande + commune periculo aequato, nemo Enmi les Engleis est uenuz, + de fuga cogitaret. Vexillum Lez l'estandart est descenduz + illud post victoriam papae Lewine e Guert furent od lui + misit Willelmus, quod erat Frere Heraut furent andui, + in hominis pugnantis figura, Assez out barons enuiron; + auro et lapidibus arte Heraut fu lez son gonfanon. + sumptuosa intextum. Li gonfanon fu mult vaillanz, + D'or e de pierres reluissanz. + Guill. pois cele victoire + Le fist porter a l'apostoire, + Por mostrer e metre en memoire + Son grant conquest e sa grant + gloire. + (ll. 7853-66) + +The only part of § 241 which remains to be dealt with is the second. +The two passages run thus: + + Pedites omnes cum bipennibus Geldons engleis haches portoent + conserta ante se _scutorum_ E gisarmes qui bien trenchoent + testudine, impenetrabilem Fait orent deuant els _escuz_ + cuneum faciunt; quod profecto De fenestres e d'altres fuz, + illis _ea die_ saluti fuisset, Deuant els les orent leuez, + nisi Normanni, simulata fuga Comme cleies joinz e serrez; + more suo confertos manipulos Fait en orent deuant closture, + laxassent. N'i laissierent nule iointure, + (§ 241) Par onc Normant entr'els venist + Qui desconfire les volsist. + D'escuz e d'ais s'auironoent, + Issi deffendre se quidoent; + Et s'il se fussent bien tenu, + Ia ne fussent _le ior_ uencu. + (ll. 7813-26) + +Mr Freeman, of course, observed the parallel, but, oddly enough, +missed the point. He first quoted the lines from Wace, and then +immediately added, 'So William of Malmesbury' (iii. 764), thus +reversing the natural order. The word that really gave me the clue +was the _escuz_ of Wace. It was obvious, I held, that, here as +elsewhere,[43] it must mean 'shield'; and Mr Freeman consequently saw +in the passage an undoubted description of the 'shield-wall' (iii. +763). Moreover, the phrase _lever escuz_ is, in Wace, a familiar one, +describing preparation for action, thus, for instance: + + Mult ueissiez Engleis fremir + . . . . . + Armes saisir, escuz leuer. + (ll. 8030, 8033) + +On the other hand, there are, in spite of Mr Freeman, undoubted +difficulties in rendering the passage as a description of the +'shield-wall', just as there are in taking _escuz_ to mean +'barricades' (iii. 471). The result was that, perhaps unconsciously, +Mr Freeman gave the passage, in succession, two contradictory +renderings (iii. 471, 763). Now, starting from the fact that the +disputed passage supported, and also opposed both renderings, I +arrived at the conclusion that it must represent some confusion of +Wace's own. He had, evidently, himself no clear idea of what he was +describing. But the whole confusion is at once accounted for if +we admit him to have here also followed William of Malmesbury. His +_escuz_--otherwise impossible to explain--faithfully renders the +_scuta_ of William, while the latter's _testudo_, though strictly +accurate, clearly led him astray. The fact is that William of +Malmesbury must have been quite familiar with the 'shield-wall', if +indeed he had seen the fyrd actually forming it.[44] Wace, on the +contrary, living later, and in Normandy instead of England, cannot +have seen, or even understood, this famous formation, with which his +cavalry fight of the twelfth century had nothing in common. It is +natural therefore that his version should betray some confusion, +though his _Fait en orent deuant closture_ clearly renders William of +Malmesbury's _conserta ante se scutorum testudine_. There is no +question as to William's meaning, for a _testudo_ of shields is +excellent Latin for the shield-wall formed by the Romans against a +flight of arrows. Moreover, the construction of William's Latin +(_conserta_) accounts for that use by Wace of the pluperfect tense on +which stress has been laid as proof that the passage must describe a +'barricade'.[45] That Wace could, occasionally, be led astray by +misunderstanding his authority, is shown by his taking Harold to +Abbeville, after his capture on the French coast, a statement which +arose, in Mr Freeman's opinion, 'from a misconception of the words of +William of Jumièges (iii. 224)'. No one, I think, can read +dispassionately the extracts I have printed side by side, without +accepting the explanation I offer of this disputed passage in Wace, +namely, that it is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat +confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury. + +Passing from William of Malmesbury to the Bayeux Tapestry, we find a +general recognition of the difficulty of determining Wace's knowledge +of it. I can only, like others, leave the point undecided. On the +other hand, his narrative, as a whole, does not follow the Tapestry; +on the other, it is hard to believe that the writer of II. 8103-38 +had not seen that famous work. His description of the scene is +marvellously exact, and the Tapestry phrase, in which Odo _confortat +pueros_--often a subject of discussion--is at once explained by his +making the _pueri_ whom Odo 'comforted' to be-- + + Vaslez, qui al herneis esteient + E le herneis garder deueient. + +Of these varlets in charge of the 'harness' he had already spoken (ll. +7963-7). The difficulty of accounting for Wace, as a canon of Bayeux, +being unacquainted with the Tapestry is, of course, obvious. But +in any case he cannot have used it, as we do ourselves, among his +foremost authorities. + +In discussing his use of William of Jumièges, we stand on much surer +ground. It certainly strikes one as strange that in mentioning the +obvious error by which Wace makes Harold receive his wound in the eye +early in the fight (l. 8185), before the great feigned flight, Mr +Freeman does not suggest its derivation from William of Jumièges, +though he proceeds to add (p. 771): + + I need hardly stop to refute the strange mistake of William of + Jumièges, followed by Orderic: 'Heraldus ipse in primo militum + progressu ['Congressu', _Ord._] vulneribus letaliter confossus + occubuit'. + +But a worse instance of the contradictions involved by the patchwork +and secondary character of Wace's narrative is found in his statement +as to Harold's arrival on the field of battle. 'Wace,' says Mr +Freeman, 'makes the English reach Senlac on Thursday night' (p. 441). +So he does, even adding that Harold + + fist son estandart drecier + Et fist son gonfanon fichier + Iloc tot dreit ou l'abeie + De la Bataille est establie. + (ll. 6985-8) + +But Mr Freeman must have overlooked the very significant fact that +when the battle is about to begin, Wace tells a different story, and +makes Harold only occupy the battlefield on the Saturday morning: + + Heraut sout que Normant vendreient + E que par main se combatreient: + Un champ out _par matin_ porpris, + Ou il a toz ses Engleis mis. + _Par matin_ les fist toz armer + E a bataille conreer. + (ll. 7768-72) + +I have little doubt that he here follows William of Jumièges: +'[Heraldus] in campo belli apparuit mane', and that he was thus led to +contradict himself. + +Mr Freeman had a weakness for Wace, and did not conceal it: he +insisted on the poet's 'honesty'. But 'honesty' is not knowledge; and +in dealing with the battle, it is not allowable to slur over Wace's +imperfect knowledge. Mr Freeman admits that 'probably he did not know +the ground, and did not take in the distance between Hastings and +Battle' (p. 762). But he charitably suggests that 'it is possible +that when he says "en un tertre s'estut li dus" he meant the hill of +Telham, only without any notion of its distance from Hastings'. +But, in spite of this attempt to smooth over the discrepancy, it is +impossible to reconcile Wace's narrative with that of Mr Freeman. The +latter makes the duke deliver his speech at Hastings, and then march +with his knights to Telham, and there arm. But Wace imagined that they +armed in their quarters at Hastings ('Issi sunt as tentes ale'), and +straightway fought. The events immediately preceding the battle are +far more doubtful and difficult to determine than could be imagined +from Mr Freeman's narrative, but I must confine myself to Wace's +version. I have shown that his account is not consistent as to +the movements of Harold, while as to the topography, 'his primary +blunder', as Mr Freeman terms it, 'of reversing the geographical +order, by making William land at Hastings and thence go to Pevensey', +together with his obvious ignorance of the character and position of +the battlefield, must, of course, lower our opinion of his accuracy, +and of the value of the oral tradition at his disposal. + +To rely 'mainly'[46] on such a writer, in preference to the original +authorities he confused, or to follow him when, in Mr Freeman's words, +he actually 'departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down +floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events +which he records'--betrays the absence of a critical faculty, or the +consciousness of a hopeless cause. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Dismissing _ut supra_ the 'fosse' passage, which + neither mentions nor implies it, together with the passage + from Henry of Huntingdon.] + + [Footnote 2: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4. I have shown in the + _English Historical Review_ (ix. 225) that he meant here by + the shield-wall 'exactly what he meant by it elsewhere', a + shield-wall and nothing else.] + + [Footnote 3: _Cont. Rev._, 344.] + + [Footnote 4: _English Historical Review_, ix. 231-40.] + + [Footnote 5: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.] + + [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, 260.] + + [Footnote 7: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.] + + [Footnote 8: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.] + + [Footnote 9: _English Historical Review_, ix. 17-20.] + + [Footnote 10: I explained, in one of my replies to Mr Archer, + that this statement applied _only_ to its usage '_in Wace_' + (_Academy_, September 16, 1893), but, characteristically, he + has not hesitated to suppress this explanation, and renew his + sneers at my knowledge of 'Old French', on the ground of a + statement which, I had explained, was not my meaning (_English + Historical Review_, ix. 604). It is difficult to describe such + devices as these. + + Common as the word is in Wace, I have never found any other + instance of its use (_i.e._ by him) in a metaphorical sense, + nor, if there is one, has Mr Archer attempted to produce it.] + + [Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 313-18.] + + [Footnote 12: _English Historical Review_, ix. 260.] + + [Footnote 13: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 736-7.] + + [Footnote 14: The word 'fenestres', for instance, which Mr + Archer first rendered 'ash', out of deference to Mr Freeman + and his predecessors, but subsequently 'windows' (_English + Historical Review_, ix. 18), is either a corruption or quite + inexplicable. 'If it pleases Mr Archer,' as I wrote (_ibid._, + 236), 'to construct a barricade, of which "windows" are the + chief ingredient, on an uninhabited Sussex down, in 1066, he + is perfectly welcome to do so.' I may add that the rendering + adopted by the two French scholars does not in the least alter + my view as to the improbability, or rather absurdity, of the + suggestion.] + + [Footnote 15: _Ibid._, ix. 244.] + + [Footnote 16: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 95.] + + [Footnote 17: _English Historical Review_, ix. 251-3. I + was careful to add that 'if it be claimed that his text is + contradictory, this would but prove further how confused his + mind really was as to the battle' (p. 252). Mr Archer, as I + anticipated, now prints, as a conclusive reply (_ibid._, ix. + 603), words which look the other way, ignoring, as usual, the + quotations on which I explicitly relied. He has thereby, as + I said, only proved how confused, here as elsewhere, Mr + Freeman's conception was.] + + [Footnote 18: Mr Archer now prefers to leave its details + doubtful (_English Historical Review_, ix. 606).] + + [Footnote 19: As I have shown in _ibid._, ix. 244-5.] + + [Footnote 20: _Cont. Rev._, 344.] + + [Footnote 21: _Ibid._, 346.] + + [Footnote 22: I have shown (_Academy_, September 16, 1893) by + reference to Godefroi and Michel that either Mr Archer or + they must here have been ignorant of Old French. The former + alternative seems to be accepted.] + + [Footnote 23: _Supra_, pp. 269-70.] + + [Footnote 24: The case of the battle of Varaville, in 1058, + is precisely similar in this respect to that of the Battle of + Hastings. Of the former Mr Freeman writes: 'Wace alone speaks, + throughout his narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers + speak only of a ford' (iii. 173). Now Wace's authority was + better for this, the earlier battle, because, says Mr Freeman, + he knew the ground. Yet the Professor did not hesitate to + reject his 'bridge'. So again, in 'the campaign of Hastings', + Mr Freeman rejects 'the falsehood of the story of William + burning his ships, of which the first traces appear in Wace' + (iii. 408). So much for placing our reliance upon Wace, when + he stands alone.] + + [Footnote 25: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 96.] + + [Footnote 26: Mr Archer's limit is 1066-1210.] + + [Footnote 27: We have, I suspect, a similar instance, in + Wace's _gisarmes_ (ll. 7794, 7814, 8328, 8332, 8342, + 8587, 8629, 8656). An excellent vindication of the Bayeux + Tapestry--oddly enough overlooked by Mr Freeman--namely, M. + Delauney's 'Origine de la Tapisserie de Bayeux prouvée par + elle-même' (Caen, 1824)--discusses the weapons, the author + observing: 'La hache d'armes ressemble à celle de nos sapeurs; + celle des temps postèrieurs au xi^{e} siècle à, dans les + monuments, une espèce de petite lance au-dessus de la douille + du côté opposé au tranchant' (see Jubinal, _La Tapisserie de + Bayeux_, p. 17). This exactly describes the true _gisarme_, a + later introduction. So again, Wace makes the _chevalier_ who + has hurried from Hastings exclaim to Harold: + + 'Un chastel i ont ia ferme + De _breteschese_ de fosse' (ll. 6717-8), + + whereas _bretasches_ of course were impossible at the time. + One is reminded of the description, by Piramus, of the coming + of the English, when 'over the broad sea Britain they sought': + + 'Leuent bresteches od kernels, + Ke cuntrevalent bons chastels, + De herituns [? hericuns] e de paliz + Les cernent, si funt riulez + Del quer des cheygnes, forze e halz, + Ki ne criement sieges ne asalz.' + + (_Vie Seint Edmund le Rey_, ll. 228-33.)] + + [Footnote 28: _English Historical Review_, ix. 66.] + + [Footnote 29: _Ibid._, 31-7, 17-18, and throughout his paper.] + + [Footnote 30: _Ibid._, ix. 32.] + + [Footnote 31: 'Al siege de Rouen le quidierent gaber' (l. + 62).] + + [Footnote 32: 'Demn nicht etwa am Schlusse, sondern gleich + zu Anfang des genannten Theiles' (l. 179) 'spricht er von den + drei Königen Heinrich die er gesehen und gekannt' (p. xciv).] + + [Footnote 33: 'Nimmt man das Jahr 1110 als Geburtsjahr des + Dichters an', etc. (p. xciv).] + + [Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, ix. 33. It need + scarcely be said that these 'old heroes' would be found rather + in England than in Normandy.] + + [Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 17. + + 'Assez vi homes qui la virent, + Qui ainz e pois longues vesquirent.'] + + [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, ix. 33.] + + [Footnote 37: Compare his scornful rejection (iii. 469-71) of + Wace's tales in ll. 7875-950.] + + [Footnote 38: _English Historical Review_, ix. 34.] + + [Footnote 39: Reprinted from _ibid._, October 1893.] + + [Footnote 40: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 783.] + + [Footnote 41: iii. 402, note 2.] + + [Footnote 42: iii. 782.] + + [Footnote 43: I mean, as I explained above, elsewhere in + Wace.] + + [Footnote 44: He describes, as Mr Freeman observed, King Henry + bidding the English 'meet the charge of the Norman knights + by standing firm in the array of the ancient shield-wall' + (_William Rufus_, ii. 411).] + + [Footnote 45: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 351.] + + [Footnote 46: 'It is upon Wace that we shall mainly rely.' + _Cont. Rev._, p. 344.] + + + + +NOTE ON THE PSEUDO-INGULF + + +I owe to my friend Mr Hubert Hall the suggestion that the great battle +described by the Pseudo-Ingulf as taking place between the English +and the Danes in 870--and all accepted as sober fact by Turner in his +_History of the Anglo-Saxons_--may be a concoction based on the facts +of the battle of Hastings. This is also the theory Mr Freeman advanced +as to Snorro's story of the battle of Stamford Bridge. The coincidence +is very striking. In both narratives the defending force is formed +with 'the dense shield-wall';[1] in both it breaks at length that +formation; in both it is, consequently, overwhelmed; and in both cases +the attacking force consists of horsemen and archers. But the most +curious coincidence is found in the principal weapon of the defending +force. In Snorro's narrative, as Mr Freeman renders it, 'a dense wood +of spears bristles in front of the circle to receive the charge of the +English horsemen';[2] in the Pseudo-Ingulf the defending force 'contra +violentiam equitum densissimam aciem lancearum prætendebant'.[3] Such +a defence savours of the days when the knight, fighting on foot with +his lance,[4] had replaced the housecarl with his battle-axe: it was +not that of Harold's host, but one which we meet with in the twelfth +century. + +There are marks, however, in the Pseudo-Ingulf, of study, not merely +of the Battle of Hastings, but of William of Malmesbury's account +of it. From him, it would seem, are taken the words 'testudo' and +'tumulus'. The first parallel passages are these: + + WILLIAM 'INGULF' + + Conserta ante se _scutorum In unum cuneum conglobati, + testudine_, impenetrabilem ... _testudinem clypeorum_ + cuneum faciunt. prætendebant. + +Again, after the disaster caused, in each case, by a feigned flight, +we have the rally thus described: + + WILLIAM 'INGULF' + + nec tamen ultioni suæ defuere, in quodam campi _tumulo_ cetera + quin crebro consistentes ... planitie aliquantulum altiore + occupato _tumulo_, Normannos, in orbem conferti, barbaros + calore succensos acriter ad arietantes diutissime + superiora nitentes, in vallem sustinuerunt ... suum sanguinem + dejiciunt. vindicantes. + +The Pseudo-Ingulf alludes but briefly to the Battle of Hastings +itself. Yet here again we have traces of William of Malmesbury's words +in 'nec de toto exercitu, præter paucissimos eum aliquis concomitatur' +and 'more gregarii militis manu ad manum congrediens', which phrases +are applied to Harold. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 367.] + + [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 365.] + + [Footnote 3: Ed. 1684, p. 21.] + + [Footnote 4: _Vide supra_, p. 279. Cf. the fight at Jaffa, + August 5, 1192.] + + + + +REGENBALD, PRIEST AND CHANCELLOR + + +No better illustration could be given of the fact that valuable +historical evidence may lurk, even in print, unknown, than the +charters printed, from the Cirencester Cartulary, by Sir Thomas +Phillips in _Archæologia_ (1836).[1] One can imagine how highly +prized they would have been by Mr Freeman, had he only known of their +existence. + +Regenbald, of whom Sir Thomas would seem never to have heard, was the +first Chancellor of England.[2] Mr Freeman called him, I know not +on what authority, 'the Norman chancellor of Eadward'. Whatever +his nationality, it is well established that he was that king's +chancellor. He occurs repeatedly in Domesday, where he is +distinguished as 'Canceler', 'Presbyter', and 'de Cirencestre'. +We learn also from its pages that he held land in at least three +counties--Berkshire, Herefordshire, and Dorset T.R.E.--and that +he seems to have received further grants from King William in his +return.[3] + +The three charters of which I treat are found in the Cirencester +Cartulary and are in Anglo-Saxon. The first is one of King Edward's in +favour of 'Reinbold min preost', and is a confirmation to him of soc +and sac, toll and team, etc., as his predecessors had enjoyed it 'on +Cnutes kinges daie'. The third is a notification from King William +that 'ic hæbbe geunnen Regenbald minan preoste eall his lond' as 'he +hit under Ed[w]earde hædde mine meie'. The chief points to be noticed +here are that the land is granted _de novo_, not confirmed, and that +the Conqueror speaks of Regenbald as 'minan preoste', implying that he +has taken him into his service. + +It is the second of these charters that is of quite extraordinary +importance. I here append it _in extenso_ as printed by Sir Thomas +Phillips: + +'Vyllelm king gret Hereman b. & Wulstan b. & Eustace eorl & Eadrich +& Bristrich & ealle mine þegenes on [W]yltoneshyre & on Glouc'shyre +fronliche & ic cuþe eo[w] ic habbe geunnan Reinbold mina preost [þt] +land æt Esi & [þt] land æt Latton & ealle þæra þinge [þt] þar to lið +binnan port & buten mið sace & mið socne s[w]a full and s[w]a forð +s[w]a his furmest on hondan stodan Harald kinge on ællan þingan on +dæge & æfter to atheonne s[w]a s[w]a ealra lefest ys & ic nelle nenna +men geþafian [þt] him fram honda teo ænig þære þinga þæs þa ic him +geunne habbe bi minan freonshype.' + +The relevant entry in Domesday speaks for itself: + + Reinbaldus presbyter tenet Latone et Aisi. Duo taini tenuerunt + pro II. Maneriis T.R.E. Heraldus comes junxit in unum. + Geldabat pro ix. hidis (68_b_). + +If the charter were nothing more than a grant from the Conqueror to +a private individual of lands duly entered in Domesday, it would, I +believe, as such be unique. Historians have long and vainly sought +for any genuine charter of the kind; and here it has been in print for +nearly sixty years. + +But the document, I hope to show, does far more for us than this: it +opens a new chapter in the history of the Norman Conquest. + +We first notice that the writ is addressed not to Norman, but to +English authorities. The only exception is Count Eustace, who was, of +course, not a Norman, and who was known in England before the Conquest +as brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor. The obvious inference is +that, at the time this writ was issued, Norman government had not yet +been set up in the district. Urse d'Abetot, for instance, the dreaded +sheriff of Worcestershire, would probably have been addressed in +conjunction with Bishop Wulstan had he been then in power. But we know +that he came into power soon after the Conquest, for he had time to be +guilty of oppression and to be rebuked for it by Ealdred before that +Primate's death in 1069. But as our writ is of this early date, it +must be previous to the treason of Count Eustace in 1067. It must +therefore belong to the beginning of that year, when William had only +recently been crowned king. + +We see then here, I think, the Conqueror, in his first days as an +English king, addressing his subjects, in a part of the realm not yet +under Norman sway, and doing so in their own tongue and in the forms +to which they were accustomed. As King Edward in his charter to +Regenbald had greeted bishops, earls, and sheriffs, so here his +successor greets two bishops, 'Eustace Eorl', and two Englishmen +representing the power of the sheriff. And so again in his charter to +London he began by greeting the Bishop and the Portreeve.[4] + +The writ, it will be seen, is addressed to the authorities of +Gloucestershire and Wilts. The estate lay in the latter county, but +the connection of Regenbald de 'Cirencestre' with Glo'stershire may +account for the inclusion of that county. Can we identify 'Eadrich' +and 'Bristrich' with any local magnates? With some confidence I boldly +suggest that the latter was no other than the 'Bristricus' of the Exon +Domesday, that famous Brihtric, the son of Ælfgar, who, to quote from +the appendix Mr Freeman devotes to him, 'appears distinctly as a great +landowner in most of the western shires', one from whose vast domains +was carved out later the great Honour of Gloucester. Until now, all we +have known of him has been derived from the Domesday entries of his +estates T.R.E. and from the legend which associates his name with that +of Queen Matilda. But this charter enables us to say that he was +living and still holding his great position in the west in the early +days of William's reign.[5] + +From 'Bristric' I turn to 'Eadric', and ask if we may not here +recognize 'Eadric the Wild' himself? This can only be matter of +conjecture, but it is certain that these two Englishmen are here +assigned the place that would be given to a sheriff, and that 'Eadric +the Wild'--'quidam præpotens minister', as Florence terms him--was a +magnate in the west (Herefordshire and Shropshire) at the time of the +Conquest. Mr Freeman terms him 'a man about whom we should gladly know +more'. It is stated by Orderic that he was one of those who came in +and submitted to William at the outset. But Mr Freeman held it 'far +more likely that he did not submit till a much later time', +because Florence says of him in William's absence: 'se dedere Regi +dedignabatur'. Orderic's statement, however, is not denied, and +Florence's words seem to me quite explicable by the hypothesis that +Eadric had refused the 'dangerous honour', as Mr Freeman terms it, of +following William to Normandy in 1067 among 'his English attendants +or hostages'. Harried, in consequence, by his Norman neighbours, he +retaliated by ravaging Herefordshire in August of that year; while +Count Eustace also threw off his allegiance and made his descent on +Dover. + +If the identity of 'Eadric' is matter of conjecture, that of 'Eustace +eorl' is certain. But no one has known, or even suspected, that he +held, at this period, high position in the west. It may be that, as I +have already hinted, he was sent by William to a district, as yet +only nominally subject, as being, from his previous connection with +England, less obnoxious than a Norman was likely to prove. It would +be refining overmuch to suggest that William might also intend to +establish him as far as possible from his base of operations at +Boulogne. + +In any case, we have in this charter a welcome addition to our scanty +knowledge of that obscure period when William, as it were, was feeling +his feet as an English king. Nor is it its least important feature +that it shows us William, contrary to what Mr Freeman held to be his +fundamental rule, speaking of his predecessor as 'Harald kinge'. + +Before taking leave of Regenbald, we may glance at one of the Domesday +entries relating to his lands. Mr Freeman, in two distinct passages, +wrote as follows: + + An entry in 99 reads as if the The rights of the antecessor are + same Regenbald had been defrauded handed on to the grantee of his + of land by a Norman tenant of his land.... So in Exon 432. + own. 'Ricardus tenet in Rode i. 'Ricardus interpres habet + hidam, quam ipse tenuit de i. hidam terræ in Roda quam ipse + Rainboldo presbytero licentia emit de Rainboldo sacerdote + regis, ut dicit. Reinbold vero [Eadward's chancellor?] per + tenuit T.R.E.' licentiam regis, ut dicit qui + (_Norm. Conq._, v. 751) tenuit eam die qua Rex E. + fuit[6] et mortuus.' + (_Ibid._, p. 784) + +Although these two passages are found in two different appendices, the +entries thus diversely adduced, are, of course, one and the same. But, +it will be seen, the 'tenuit' of Domesday is equated by the 'emit' of +the Exon book. One of the two must be wrong. I should accept the +Exon text because 'emit licentia regis' is the right Domesday phrase, +because it makes better sense, and because it is a sound principle of +textual criticism that the Exchequer scribe was more likely to write +the usual 'tenuit' for the exceptional 'emit' than the Exon scribe +to do the converse. I should then read the passage thus: 'emit de +Rainboldo sacerdote--per licentiam regis, ut dicit--qui tenuit eam +die', etc. + +If my view be adopted, we here detect noteworthy error in our great +and sacrosanct record. + +The charter of Henry I to Cirencester Abbey--in which he had placed +Canons Regular, and of which he claimed to be the founder--sets, as it +were, the coping-stone on the story of Regenbald.[7] In it we read: + + Dedi et concessi ... totam tenuram Reimbaldi presbyteri in + terris et ecclesiis, et ceteris omnibusquæ subscripta sunt.... + + De rebus autem predictis quæ fuerunt Rembaldi hec statuimus. + +The details of Regenbald's possessions are given, and are of special +value for collation with Domesday. They set him before us not only as +a landowner in five different counties, but also as the first great +pluralist. Sixteen churches, rich in tithes and glebe--one might +really term them 'fat livings'--had passed into the hands of Regenbald +'the priest'. From the king's phrase, '_dedi_ et concessi', he would +seem to have been not merely confirming an endowment by Regenbald, but +granting lands which had escheated to himself.[8] + +And this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the king, while +granting them, especially reserved the life interest of the Bishop of +Salisbury and of two others--one of them, alas! a bishop's nephew--who +must have acquired their rights since Regenbald's death. + +This charter, apart from its contents, is of great interest from its +mention of the place where and the time when it was granted, together +with its list of witnesses. These were the two Archbishops, the +Bishops of Salisbury, Winchester, Lincoln, Durham, Ely, Hereford, and +Rochester: Robert 'de Sigillo', Robert de Ver, Miles of Gloucester, +Robert d'Oilli, Hugh Bigot, Robert de Curci, Payne 'filius Johannis et +Eustacio et Willelmo fratribus ejus, et Willelmo de Albini Britone'. +The charter was granted 'apud Burnam in transfretatione mea anno +incarnationis Domini MCXXXIII. regni vero mei XXXIII.'; and 'Burna', +as I have elsewhere shown,[9] was Westbourne in Sussex, on the border +of Hampshire, then in the king's hands by forfeiture and near the +coast. Here therefore we see the king, when leaving England for the +last time, surrounded by his prelates and ministers, and are enabled +to say positively who were with him. I would note the predominance of +the official class represented by the Bishops of Salisbury, Lincoln, +and Ely, by the late chancellor, the Bishop of Durham, and by laymen +who are found specially entrusted with administrative work. A long +list of witnesses such as this is specially characteristic of the +closing period of the reign,[10] and, of course, always possesses +biographical value.[11] + +Another English writ of the Conqueror, which may be profitably +compared with that we have discussed, is found in one of the +cartularies of Bury St Edmund's.[12] Its address, as rendered in the +transcript, runs: + + William [_sic_] kyng gret Ægelmær Bischop and Raulf Eorl and + Nordman and ealle myne thegnaes on Sudfolke frendliche. + +This writ is obviously previous to the deposition of Bishop Æthelmær +in April, 1070, but how far previous it is not easy to say. 'Nordman' +is clearly the sheriff of Suffolk, who appears in Domesday as +'Normannus Vicecomes' (II. 438). His name affords presumption, though +not proof, that he was of English birth;[13] and as his Domesday +holding consisted only of rights over two Ipswich burgesses (which he +may have acquired during his shrievalty) he is hardly likely to have +been one of the conquering race. Of the third official, Earl Ralf, we +know a good deal. Mr Freeman was much puzzled by this 'somewhat +mysterious person',[14] but eventually came to the conclusion that +'there were two Ralfs in Norfolk, father and son, the younger being +the son of a Breton mother: the elder was staller under Edward and +Earl under William'. The younger was the Earl of Norfolk (or 'of the +East Angles'), who rebelled and was forfeited in 1075; the elder was +that 'Rawulf' who, in the words of the chronicle, 'wæs Englisc and +wæs geboren on Norðfolce'. Putting our evidence together, I lean +strongly to the view that we have here, as in the case of Regenbald, +a writ addressed to English authorities before Norfolk had passed +into the hands of Norman authorities. Mr Freeman held that a passage +in Domesday (II. 194), to which he had given much attention, should +be read--'Hanc terram habuit A[rfastus] episcopus in tempore +utrorumque [Radulforum]', and that therefore 'the elder Ralph was +living as late as 1070, in which year the episcopate of Erfast +begins'. But the context clearly shows that we should read 'A[ilmarus] +episcopus', and that, therefore, the elder Ralf died before Æthelmær +was deposed. Moreover, Norwich, we are specially told, was entrusted +by the Conqueror to William fitz Osbern before his departure from +England in March 1067. William was placed, some two years later, in +charge of York castle, and we read in Mr Freeman's work that 'the man +who now (autumn, 1069) commanded at Norwich, and who was already, +or soon afterwards, invested with the East-Anglian Earldom, was the +renegade native of the shire, Ralf of Wader'.[15] This, it will be +seen, contradicts his own, and supports my reading of the Domesday +passage quoted above. Everything therefore points to the 'Raulf Eorl' +of our writ dying or being deposed shortly after the Conquest. + +Before taking leave of this writ we may note that, dealing as it does +with Suffolk, it is addressed to Earl Ralf as Earl, not merely of +Norfolk, but of East Anglia. This is of some importance, because Mr +Freeman wrote, speaking of the Regents appointed in 1067: + + There was no longer to be an Earl of the West Saxons or an + Earl of the East Angles.... Returning in this to earlier + English practice, the Earl under William was to have the rule + of a single shire only, or if two shires were ever set under + one Earl they were at least not to be adjoining shires. The + results of this change have been of the highest moment. (iv. + 70.) + +Yet on page 253, as we have seen, we read of 'the East Anglian +Earldom', and on page 573 that the younger Ralph 'had received the +Earldom of East Anglia'--Florence of Worcester distinctly terming him +'East-Anglorum comite'. Mr Freeman, indeed, was led by this passage to +style him 'Earl of Norfolk or of the East Angles'.[16] I believe this +latter style to be perfectly correct, and, as I have shown in my +_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 191), to apply even to the Bigod earldom +in the days of Stephen. + +The curious English writ that has suggested these considerations ought +to be compared with a Latin one, also in favour of St Edmund's, on +which I lighted in examining the 'Registrum Album' of the Abbey. It is +one of those exceedingly rare documents that find their correlatives +in Domesday. The words of the writ are these: + + W. rex Anglor' E. epo. B. Abbi W. Malet salm. sciatis vos + mei fideles me concessisse servitium de Liuremere quam Werno + hactenus de me tenuit sancto Ædmundo Et filia Guernonis in + vita sua de Abbate B. tenuit.[17] + +The last clause is clearly an addition by the cartulary scribe. +Now this charter being addressed, like the other, to Æthelmær +('Ethelmerus'), Bishop of the East Angles, is, of course, previous to +April 1070. I should, therefore, also place it previous to the capture +of William Malet at York in September 1069. But this, unlike the +other date, is matter of probability rather than of proof. Mr Freeman +believed that William returned, and died 'in the marshes of Ely' +(1071), but this is only a guess in which I cannot concur.[18] In +any case, we have evidence here of this well-known man having held a +position in Suffolk (where he owned the great Honour of Eye) analogous +to that of sheriff. He may have succeeded Northman in that office. + +The relevant Domesday entry is as follows: + + Hujus terram rex accepit de abbate et dedit Guernoni depeiz + [de Peiz]. Postea licencia regis deveniens monachus reddidit + terram. (363_b_.) + +The charter records, I take it, the 'licencia regis' of Domesday.[19] + + + + + [Footnote 1: Vol. xxvi., p. 256.] + + [Footnote 2: Not counting Leofric, styled 'regis cancellarius' + by Florence in 1046.] + + [Footnote 3: See my life of him in _Dictionary of National + Biography_.] + + [Footnote 4: It might even be suggested that not only this + charter but the Essex writ in favour of Deorman (addressed to + Bishop William and Swegen the sheriff) belonged to the same + early period. Compare, however, the Conqueror's Old English + writ that I have discussed ('Londoners and the Chase') in the + _Athenæum_ of June 30, 1894.] + + [Footnote 5: It is a noteworthy coincidence that 'Brihtricus + princeps' and 'Eadricus princeps' are among the witnesses to + Harold's Waltham charter in 1062, which Regenbald himself also + attests as Chancellor.] + + [Footnote 6: _sic._] + + [Footnote 7: See _Monast. Anglic._, ii. 177.] + + [Footnote 8: It is possible, I think, that the only endowment + entered to the church at Cirencester in Domesday, viz., two + hides at Cirencester, had been originally given by Regenbald.] + + [Footnote 9: Henry I, at 'Burne' (_English Historical Review_, + 1895).] + + [Footnote 10: As in the charters to Aubrey de Vere (_Baronia + Anglica_, 158) and William Mauduit.] + + [Footnote 11: Here, it would seem, is further proof of + the Bishops of Ely and Durham assuming their styles before + consecration (_infra_, pp. 366-7).] + + [Footnote 12: Harl. MS., 743, fo. 8_d_.] + + [Footnote 13: Mr Freeman held him to be an Englishman.] + + [Footnote 14: _Norm. Conq._ (2nd Ed.), iii. 773. Cf. 1st Ed., + iii. 752-3; iv. 277.] + + [Footnote 15: _Ibid._ (1st Ed.), iv. 252-3.] + + [Footnote 16: _Ibid._ (2nd.), iii. 773.] + + [Footnote 17: Add. MS., 14,314, fo. 32_b_ (pencil).] + + [Footnote 18: See my letter on 'the death of William Malet' in + _Academy_ of August 26, 1884.] + + [Footnote 19: Since this paper was written, there has + appeared the valuable Bath Cartulary (Somerset Record Society) + containing a most remarkable charter (p. 36), which should + be closely compared with those to Regenbald. It is issued by + William the King and William the Earl, and must undoubtedly be + assigned to the former's absence from England, March-December + 1067. It shows us therefore William fitz Osbern acting + as Regent and anticipating the office of the later Great + Justiciar by inserting in the document his own name. This + charter, like that to Regenbald, is addressed to the still + English authorities of an unconquered district.] + + + + +THE CONQUEROR AT EXETER + + 'And y seide nay, and proved hit by Domesday.'[1] + + +For a companion study to the Battle of Hastings, one could not select +a better subject than the Siege of Exeter by William in 1068. It is +so, because, in the tale of the Conquest, 'No city of England', in Mr +Freeman's words, 'comes so distinctly to the front as Exeter':[2] and +because, as editor of 'Historic Towns', he chose Exeter, out of all +others, as the town to be reserved for himself.[3] 'Its siege by +William', we are told, 'is one of the most important events of his +reign';[4] but it was doubtless the alleged 'federal' character +of Exeter's attitude at this crisis that gave its story for him an +interest so unique. This episode, moreover, has many advantages: it +is complete in itself; it is rich in suggestion; it is taken from the +period in which the Professor described himself as 'most at home'; and +its scene is laid within his own borders, his own West Saxon land. It +presents an admirable test of Mr Freeman's work at the point where he +was admittedly strongest, and his thoroughly typical treatment of it +affords a perfect illustration of the method he employed. + +The year 1067 was drawing to its close when the Conqueror, summoned +back from Normandy by the tidings of pressing danger, returned to +spend his Christmas at Westminster amidst 'the sea of troubles which +still awaited him in his half-conquered island-kingdom'.[5] Threatened +at once by foes within and without the realm, he perceived the vital +necessity of severing their forces by instant suppression of the +'rebellions' at home, _swift_ suppression before the invaders were +upon him, _stern_ suppression before the movement spread. Let us bear +in mind these twin motives, by which his policy must at this juncture +have been shaped, the need for _swiftness_, with invasion in prospect, +and the need for _sternness_ as a warning to 'rebels'. + +Of all the 'rebellious' movements on foot, that at Exeter, as Mr +Freeman admits, was 'specially hateful in William's eyes'.[6] It was +against Exeter, therefore, that the Conqueror directed his first blow. +In the depths of winter, in the early days of the new year, 'he fared +to Devonshire'. Such is the brief statement of the English Chronicle. + +We hear of William at Westminster; we next hear of him before the +walls of Exeter: all that intervenes is a sheer blank. Of what +happened on this long westward march not a single detail is preserved +to us in the Chronicle, in Orderic or in Florence. Now it is precisely +such a blank as this that, to Mr Freeman, was irresistible. We shall +see below how, a few months later, we have, in William's march from +Warwick to Nottingham, a blank exactly parallel.[7] There also Mr +Freeman succumbed to the temptation. He seized, in each case, on +the empty canvas, and, by a few rapid and suggestive touches, he has +boldly filled it in with the outlines of historical events, not merely +events for which there is no sufficient evidence, but events which can +be proved, by demonstration, to have had no foundation in fact. + +The scene elaborated by Mr Freeman to enliven the void between +the departure from London and the entrance into Devonshire is THE +RESISTANCE AND THE DOWNFALL OF 'THE CIVIC LEAGUE'.[8] This striking +incident in the Exeter campaign I propose to analyse without further +delay. + +It must, in the first place, be pointed out that we have no proof +whatever of this 'Civic League' having even existed. To apply Mr +Freeman's words to his own narrative: + + The story is perfectly possible. We only ask for the proof. + Show us the proof;... then we will believe. Without such a + proof we will not believe.[9] + +For proof of its existence Mr Freeman relies on a solitary passage in +Orderic.[10] But Orderic, it will at once be seen, does not say that +any such league was effected; he does not even say that the league +which was contemplated was intended to be an exclusively Civic League. +What he does say is that the men of Exeter sought for allies in the +neighbouring coasts (_plagæ_)[11] and in other cities. The Dorset +townlets, such as Bridport, with its 120 houses, would scarcely +represent these 'cities'. Mr Freeman assumed, however, that 'the Civic +League' was formed, assumed that the Dorset towns had 'doubtless' +joined it, and finally assumed that they were 'no doubt' besieged by +William in consequence.[12] These assumptions he boldly connected +with the entries on the towns in Domesday, entries which we shall +analyse below, and which are not only incorrectly rendered, but are +directly opposed to the above assumptions. + +What, then, is the inference to be drawn? Simply this. The 'Civic +League' must share the fate of the 'palisade on Senlac'. The sieges +which took place 'probably' never took place at all; the League never +resisted; the League never fell; in short, there is not a scrap of +evidence that there was ever such a League at all. The existence of +such a League would be, unquestionably, a fact of great importance. +But its very importance imperatively requires that its existence +should be established by indisputable proof. Of such proof there is +none. One can imagine how severely Mr Freeman would have handled +such guesses from others. For he wrote of a deceased Somersetshire +historian who boldly connects the story of Gisa with the banishment of +Godwine: + + One is inclined to ask with Henry II, 'Quære a rustico illo + utrum hoc somniaverit?' But these things have their use. Every + instance in the growth of a legend affords practice in the art + of distinguishing legend from history. + +It should, however, in justice be at once added that this story did +not originate wholly with Mr Freeman himself. He refers us on the +subject of the League to his predecessor, Sir Francis Palgrave. The +brilliant imagination of that graceful writer was indeed led captive +by the fascinating vision of 'the first Federal Commonwealth', yet he +did not allow himself, when dealing with the facts, to deviate from +the exact truth. His statement that Exeter '_attempted to form_ a +defensive confederation' reproduces with scrupulous accuracy Orderic's +words. And even when he passed from fact to conjecture, there was +nothing in his conjecture at variance from fact. From him we have no +suggestion that the Dorset towns resisted William or 'stood sieges'. +It was left for Mr Freeman to carry into action Palgrave's line of +thought, and, by forcing the evidence of the Domesday Survey into +harmony with the story he had evolved, to show us, in his own words, +'the growth of a legend'. For, as he observed with perfect truth: + + What we call the growth of a story is really the result of + the action of a number of human wills. The convenient metaphor + must not delude us into thinking that a story really grows + of itself as a tree grows. In a crowd of cases ... the story + comes of a state of mind which does not willingly sin against + historical truth, but which has not yet learned that there is + such a thing as historical truth. + +Had Mr Freeman done so himself? Did he ever really learn to +distinguish conjecture from fact? One asks this because within the +covers of a single work, his _English Towns and Districts_, that Civic +League which in the _Norman Conquest_ is said to have existed 'no +doubt', is in one place said to have existed 'perhaps', and in another +is set forth as an undoubted historic fact: + + Exeter stood forth for one moment ... the chief of a + confederation of the lesser towns of the West.... A + confederation of the western towns, with the great city of the + district at their head, suddenly started into life to check + the progress of the Conqueror. + +Finally, in his 'Exeter' (1887), the same story again appears, without +a word of caution, as absolute historic fact. Exeter, we read, was + + the head of a gathering of smaller commonwealths around her; + ... the towns of Dorset were in league with Exeter.... We + have no record of the march, but it is plain that the towns of + Dorset were fearfully harried. + +Through all Mr Freeman's work we trace this same tendency to confuse +his own conjectures with proved historic fact. + +For the details of this fearful harrying we are referred to the +Domesday Survey. It was 'no doubt', we learn, when William marched on +Exeter (1068), that + + Dorchester, Bridport, Wareham, and Shaftesbury underwent that + fearful harrying, the result of which is recorded in Domesday. + Bridport was utterly ruined; not a house seems to have been + able to pay taxes at the time of the Survey. At Dorchester, + the old Roman settlement, the chief town of the shire, only a + small remnant of the houses escaped destruction. These facts + are signs, etc., etc. + +'These facts', we find, will not bear investigation. To refute them in +the case of Bridport, 'there is nothing to be done but to turn to the +proper place in the great Survey'. Following this, his own, precept, +we learn that there is nothing in Domesday of our author's 'utter +ruin'; and that so far from 'not a house' being 'able to pay taxes', +Domesday tells us that four-fifths of the houses then existing could +and did pay them. Here, again, the errors arose from not reading +Domesday 'with common care'. The entry runs: 'Modo sunt ibi c. domus, +et xx. sunt ita destitutæ', etc. The meaning, of course, is that +twenty houses were impoverished. Mr Freeman must have hurriedly +misconstrued his Latin, and read it as a hundred and twenty. No +error that he detected in Mr Froude could be worse than representing +Bridport, on the authority of Domesday, as the greatest sufferer among +the Dorset towns, when Domesday itself proves that it suffered least +of all. And so, too, with Dorchester. On turning to Domesday, we learn +with surprise that the 'small remnant' of houses remaining there was +eighty-eight as against one hundred and seventy-two in the days +of King Edward. From an appendix of our author's to which we are +referred, we glean the fact that + + at Dorchester, out of a hundred and seventy-two houses no + less than a hundred and twenty-eight were 'penitus destructæ a + tempore Hugonis vicecomitis usque nunc'. + +Here, again, Mr Freeman's error can be traced beyond the possibility +of question, to a misreading of Domesday: the entry runs, 'modo sunt +ibi quater xx. et viii. [88] domus, et c. [sunt] penitus destructæ'. +Mr Freeman must have hurriedly ignored the 'quater', and then added +the 'twenty-eight' thus evolved to the hundred houses that were +destroyed. All this Mr Freeman did, and we have in 'that great record, +from which there is no appeal', the proof of the fact. Clearly, in the +notable words of M. Bémont (_Revue Historique_), 'il est prudent de +revoir après lui les textes qu'il invoque'.[13] + +The strange thing is that Sir Henry Ellis's work, though 'far from +being up to the present standard of historical scholarship', could +have saved him, here also, from error, as it gives the correct figures +from Domesday. + +But passing from 'facts' to theories, we find Mr Freeman holding +that 'no doubt', 'doubtless', 'probably', the destruction recorded in +Domesday was wrought by the Conqueror himself in 1068. Why should this +guesswork be substituted for history, when we have 'always the means', +as our author himself wrote, 'of at once turning to the law and +testimony to see whether these things are so'? A glance at Domesday +effectually disposes of Mr Freeman's theory; for the Survey is here +peculiarly explicit: with anxious care, with painful iteration, it +assures us that, in the case of Wareham, the devastation was wrought +'a tempore Hugonis vicecomitis', and that, in the case of Shaftesbury +and in the case of Dorchester, it was wrought 'a tempore Hugonis +vicecomitis usque nunc'. These categorical statements are conclusive: +they place the whole of the devastation subsequent to the accession of +the Norman sheriff, Hugh FitzGrip. Mr Eyton, in his work on the Dorset +Domesday, held that they fix it as having occurred between 1070 and +1084; the words, however, 'usque nunc' carry it on down to 1086, and, +but that I must now come to Exeter, I could show the real bearing of +these allusions to Sheriff Hugh. + +The breakdown, when tested, of the alleged 'Civic League' strangely +vindicates the sound insight of that sagacious historian who +explicitly asserted that the English boroughs + + never, as was the case in Scotland and in Germany, adopted + a confederate bond of union, or organized themselves in + leagues.[14] + +Yet, in his _English Towns and Districts_, Mr Freeman was led by his +own tale of the resistance of the western lands and their capital to +argue from it as from a proved historic fact: + + When Exeter stood forth for one moment ... _the chief of a + confederation of the lesser towns of the West_ ... we see that + the path was opening by which Exeter might have come to be + another Lübeck, the head of a Damnonian Hanse, another Bern, + the mistress of the subject-lands of the western peninsula. + Such a dream sounds wild in our ears.[15] + +It does indeed. But it does so for the reason that it is founded on +a fact which has no historic existence. Yet, for Mr Freeman, with his +fertile imagination afire with the glories of ancient Greece and of +countless mediaeval Commonwealths, this same 'wild dream' possessed an +irresistible fascination. 'It is none the less true', he hastened to +add, that + + when a confederation of the western towns, with the great city + of the district at their head, suddenly started into life to + check the progress of the Conqueror, it shows that a spirit + had been kindled, etc., etc.... It is worth while to stop and + think how near England once was to running the same course as + other lands, etc., etc.[16] + +Returning now to sober fact, let us ask how the city of Exeter came +into William's hands. This is the pivotal point on which the whole +story revolves. On this point Mr Freeman spoke with no uncertain +sound: the city was 'taken by means of a mine'.[17] It was, he wrote, +'by undermining the walls that William at last gained possession +of the city', the citizens being thus forced 'to submit +unreservedly'.[18] He added, contrasting the success of William with +the failure, in 1003, of Swend: + + William might have been beaten back from Exeter as Swend had + been, if the military art of Normandy in William's days had + not been many steps in advance of the military art of Denmark + in the days of Swend. + +This allusion to 'Swend' involves a perfect tangle of confusion. +Turning back a couple of pages, we are reminded that on Penhow, +'sixty-seven years before (1001), Swend, of Denmark, driven back from +the city, had found his revenge' (p. 154). Guided by a footnote, we +turn for information to the earlier volume to which the author refers +us, only to learn that it was not Swegen, but the adventurer Pallig +who was driven back from Exeter in 1001 (i. 307), while 'of +Swegen himself we hear nothing in English history for nine years +(994-1003)'.[19] Moreover, when Swegen did come--in 1003--invading +England to avenge the massacre of Saint Brice, he was not 'driven back +from the city', but, on the contrary, 'stormed and plundered it' (p. +315), for 'the citizens who had beaten back Pallig had no chance of +beating back Swegen' (_Exeter_, p. 27). Moreover, the suggestion +that the Danes would not have been able to attack and breach the city +wall is in direct conflict with the evidence quoted by Mr Freeman +himself. Not only did Pallig, in 1001, direct his attack against the +wall,[20] but 'Swegen', we read, in 1003, 'Civitatem Exanceastram +infregit'.[21] Now, speaking of 1063, Mr Freeman wrote that 'the +expression of Florence "infregit" seems to fall in with' his view +that William breached the wall. That is to say that, according to +Mr Freeman, 'Swend' was 'beaten back' (which he was not), because he +could not breach the walls, which is precisely what, on his showing, +Swegen succeeded in doing. Could confusion further go? + +For his statement that 'William's mine advanced so far that part of +the wall crumbled to the ground, making a practicable breach' (p. +156), Mr Freeman relied on an ingenious combination of Orderic's +statement that the Conqueror 'obnixe satagit cives desuper impugnare +et subtus murum suffodere' with William of Malmesbury's assertion that +he triumphed 'divino scilicet adjutus auxilio, quod pars muralis +ultro decidens ingressum illi patefecerit'. He argued that, on +the supposition that 'Exonia' is the right reading in William of +Malmesbury, his 'story, allowing for a little legendary improvement, +fits so well into Orderic's as to support the theory of a breach'. The +argument is ingenuous and plausible, nor can it be lightly dismissed. +But whether the words of Orderic imply, of necessity, a mine or +not,[22] the real point is that he does not mention a breach. He +speaks of William's efforts, but he does not say they were successful. +It is difficult to suppose that William of Poitiers, of whom Orderic +is here the mouthpiece, would not have mentioned his hero's success, +had success rewarded his efforts. We are reduced then, as the sole and +unconfirmed authority for Mr Freeman's absolute statement--or rather +as the legend from which he 'infers' the facts he states--to the +words of William of Malmesbury. Now William was classed, by Mr Freeman +himself, among those writers whose 'accounts are often mixed up with +romantic details', so that 'it is dangerous to trust them' (i. 258); +and he pointed out of the murder of Edward that: + + In the hands of William of Malmesbury the story becomes a + romance.... The _obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury that + Ælfhere had a hand in Edward's death is contrary to the whole + tenor of the history ... (i. 265). + +If there is thus, on Mr Freeman's showing, need for accepting with +some caution a statement made by William alone, there is further, in +this special case, the consideration that even if his story does refer +to Exeter, the phrase, '_leviter_ subegit' is justly queried by Mr +Freeman;[23] and that William here deals in hyperbole and miracle. +Indeed, when we find Mr Freeman writing: 'I infer this from William +of Malmesbury', we are reminded of his words on his predecessor's +treatment of the legend of Siward: 'Such stuff would not be worth +mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave inferred from it the +existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon' (iv. 768-9). +I will not express an opinion of my own, but will quote from Mr +Freeman's able essay on 'The Mythical and Romantic Elements in Early +English History'.[24] In it he expressly disclaimed + + sympathy with the old pragmatizing or euhemeristic school + of mythological interpretation.... The pragmatizers take + a mythical story; they strip it by an arbitrary process + of whatever seems impossible; they explain or allegorize + miraculous details; and having thus obtained something + which possibly may have happened, they give it out as + something which actually did happen.... It will never + do to take the tale of Troy, to leave out all + intervention of the gods, and to give out the remnant as + a piece of real Grecian history (p. 3). + +This criticism would seem to apply to the 'legendary' tale that the +walls of Exeter fell down, like those of Jericho, by supernatural +intervention. At least, we may say of the breaching of the walls, when +given out 'as something which actually did happen', what was said of +the possible siege of Oxford, this same year, by Mr Freeman: + + The direct evidence for a siege of Oxford is so weak that the + tale cannot be relied on with any certainty (iv. 188). + +Having now examined the direct evidence for the statement that the +citizens were forced to surrender unconditionally to William by +the successful breaching of their walls, I propose to show that the +acceptance of this statement does violence not only to the facts of +the case, but to all that is known of William's character, to the +English Chronicle, and to Domesday; and I shall prove that it rests +beyond dispute 'on the foundation of a single error'. + +Assuming for the moment the accuracy of Mr Freeman's version, namely, +that the city had been placed, by a breach, absolutely at William's +mercy, what treatment of its citizens would his character and his +whole career lead us to expect? 'At all stages of his life,' as +Mr Freeman observed, paraphrasing the famous words of the English +Chronicle (1087), 'if he was _debonnair_ to those who would do his +will, he was beyond measure stern to all who withstood it' (ii. 167). +Again, speaking of his march on Exeter, the Professor insisted on the +fact that 'the policy of William was ever severity to those who +withstood him, and gentleness to those who submitted to his yoke'.[25] +How he applied this principle in practice was shown at Romney and at +Dover in 1066. Romney had successfully resisted the landing of a party +of Normans,[26] and William was resolved to avenge the deed. + + It was his policy now, as ever, to be harsh whenever he met + with resistance, and gentle to all who submitted easily.... + Harrying then as he went, William reached Romney. The words + which set forth his doings there are short, pithy, and + terrible. He took what vengeance he would for the slaughter of + his men (iii. 533-4). + +Dover, on the contrary, made no resistance, but surrendered before he +'had thrown up a bank, or shot an arrow'. It was, therefore, 'plainly +his policy to show himself mild and _debonnair_ as it had been his +policy at Romney to show himself beyond measure stark'.[27] + +Such being William's settled principle, what might the citizens of +Exeter expect? Even before the siege began the fear that they had +sinned too deeply for forgiveness made them disown the capitulation +their leaders had arranged.[28] The reference is doubtless to conduct +similar to that which had brought upon Romney William's merciless +vengeance.[29] But how stood the case at its close? + +(1) They were rebels. And for these 'rebels, as they were deemed in +Norman eyes' (iv. 135), confiscation was the penalty (iv. 127-8). + +(2) 'The movement at Exeter' was not merely a rebellion, but one which +was 'specially hateful in William's eyes' (iv. 140). + +(3) They had been guilty of 'cruel and insulting treatment' to +William's earlier emissaries (iv. 138). + +(4) They had offered William himself an 'insult as unseemly as it was +senseless' (iv. 155). + +(5) They had flung to the winds their own capitulation with such +audacity that William 'ira repletus est' (iv. 152). + +(6) They had offered a prolonged and desperate resistance, costing the +lives of many of his men (iv. 156). + +Verily, in William's eyes, the cup of Exeter's iniquities must have +been exceedingly full. + +Even in cases of ordinary resistance his practice, we learn, was so +uniform that Mr Freeman could take it for granted, 'after the fall of +Exeter', that + + the heavy destruction which fell on the town of Barnstaple, + in the north-western part of Devonshire, and the still heavier + destruction which fell on the town of Lidford, might seem to + show that these two boroughs were special scenes of resistance + (iv. 163).[30] + +Therefore, in the aggravated case of Exeter, we could but expect him +to deal with its citizens as he had dealt with those of Alençon,[31] +and as he was to deal, hereafter, with the sturdy defenders of +Ely.[32] A fearful vengeance was their certain doom. There was, +moreover, as I stated at the outset, a need for sternness at this +juncture that might justify William, apart from vengeance, in +inflicting such signal punishment as should deter all other 'rebels'. + +Yet what do we find? The citizens, we read, were 'favourably +received', and 'assured of the safe possession of their lives and +goods'. Nay, William even 'secured the gates with a strong guard of +men whom he could trust in order to preserve the goods of the citizens +from any breaches of discipline'.[33] The dreaded Conqueror, 'post tot +iras terribilesque minas', had suddenly become mild as a lamb, and Mr +Freeman accepts it all quite as a matter of course. + +Such conduct would, surely, have been a positive premium on revolt. + +A castle, of course, was raised; but this was inevitable, whether +a town submitted peaceably or not. For instance, 'it is plain', Mr +Freeman wrote, 'that Lincolnshire submitted more peaceably, and was +dealt with more tenderly, than most parts of the kingdom' (iv. +216); but 'a castle was, of course, raised at Lincoln, as well as +elsewhere', and 'involved the destruction of a large number of houses' +(217-8), very many more than at Exeter. + +One 'penalty', however, remains as the price that Exeter was called +upon to pay for all her guilt. This, we read, was 'the raising of its +tribute to lessen the wealth which had enabled it to resist'.[34] For +its wealth is admitted. Now, before criticizing Mr Freeman's view, +let us clearly understand what that view was. Taking, as is right, +his latest work--though his view had not altered--we read of Exeter in +1050: + + The city which had been the morning-gift of Norman Emma + was now, along with Winchester, part of the morning-gift + of English Edith, daughter of Godwine, sister of Harold. At + Exeter she was on her own ground; the royal revenues within + the city were hers.[35] + +In 1086, we learn: + + The whole payment was eighteen pounds yearly. Of this sum six + pounds--that is the earl's third penny--went to the Sheriff + Baldwin.... The other twelve pounds had formed part of the + morning-gift of the lady, and though Edith had been dead + eleven years, they are entered separately as hers.[36] + +So far, all is consistent and clear enough. But we find it immediately +added that: + + This regular yearly payment of eighteen pounds had taken the + place of various uncertain payments and services.... Thus the + citizens of Exeter, who had offered to pay to William what + they had paid to former kings, found their burthens far + heavier than they had been in the old time. And the lady, + while she lived, reaped her full share of the increased + contributions of her own city.[37] + +Or, as expressed in his great work: + + The money payment was now raised from an occasional half-marc + of silver to eighteen pounds yearly. The rights of the old + lady were not forgotten, and Eadgyth received two-thirds of + the increased burthen laid upon her morning-gift.[38] + +If the 'twelve pounds had formed part of the morning-gift of the +lady', and were accordingly received by her, as we learn,[39] in +the days of King Edward, how could they possibly form part of a new +'burthen' laid upon Exeter, as a punishment for its resistance, by +William? And if the only payment due, under Edward, was an occasional +half-marc of silver 'for the use of the soldiers'[40] what were 'the +royal revenues' from Exeter that Edith was drawing in 1050? A moment's +thought is enough to show that Mr Freeman's statements contradict +themselves, as, indeed, he must have seen, had he stopped to think. +But this he sometimes failed to do. + +The whole source of Mr Freeman's confusion was his inexplicable +misunderstanding of the Domesday entry on the city.[41] We must first +note that both his predecessors--Palgrave, who was lacking in +'critical faculty', and Ellis, who was 'far from being up to the +present standard of historical scholarship'--had read this entry +rightly, and given, independently, its gist. It will best enable my +readers to understand the point at issue if I print side by side the +paraphrases of Exeter's offer given by Palgrave and by our author. + + PALGRAVE FREEMAN + + Tribute or gafol they would We are ready to pay to him the + proffer to their king such as tribute which we have been used + was due to his predecessors.... to pay to former kings.... The + They (1) would weigh out the city paid in money only when + eighteen pounds of silver; (2) London, York, and Winchester + the geld would be paid, if paid, and the sum to be paid was + London, York, and Winchester a single half-marc of silver. + submitted to the tax; and (3) When the king summoned his _fyrd_ + if war arose, the king should to his standard by sea or by land, + have the quota of service Exeter supplied the same number of + imposed upon five hydes of men as were supplied by five hides + land.... But the citizens of land.... But the men of Exeter + refused to become the men ... of would not, each citizen personally, + their sovereign; they would become his men; they would not + not ... allow the Basileus to receive so dangerous a visitor + enter within their walls. within their walls.[42] + +I have numbered the clauses in Palgrave's paraphrase which render the +three successive clauses in the Domesday Book entry. The first refers +to the _firma_ of the town, payable to its lord (the king);[43] the +second to the 'geld' (tax), payable to the king _qua_ king;[44] the +third to its military service.[45] The distinction between the three +clauses is admirably seen under Totnes (i. 108, _b_), and the sense +of Domesday is absolutely certain to any one familiar with its +formulas.[46] + +The 'commutation of geldability' (as Mr Eyton termed it) was by no +means peculiar to Exeter. Totnes paid, 'when Exeter paid', the same +sum of half a marc 'pro geldo'. Bridport paid the same 'ad opus +Huscarlium regis' (75), Dorchester and Wareham a marc each, and +Shaftesbury two marcs (Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, 70-72). In these +Dorset instances, one marc represented an assessment of ten hides. + +What Mr Freeman did was to confuse the first clause with the second, +and to suppose that both referred to the 'money payment' of the town, +the first under William, the second under Edward. He thus evolved +the statement that under William 'the money payment was raised from +an occasional half-marc of silver to eighteen pounds yearly'. This +is roughly equivalent to saying of a house rented at fifty pounds, +and paying a tax of one pound, that its 'money payment' was raised +from one pound to fifty. + +But this confusion, with all its results, is carried further still. +Edith's share of the eighteen pounds is entered in Domesday as 'xii. +lib[ras] ad numerum'. This Mr Freeman rightly gave as the amount in +1086;[47] but turning back a few pages, we actually read that + + In Domesday twelve houses in Exeter appear as 'liberæ ad + numerum in ministeriis Edid reginæ'.[48] + +This is, of course, the same entry, only that here our author changed +pounds into houses, and _libras_ into _liberæ_. What idea was conveyed +to his mind by a house 'libera ad numerum' I do not profess to +explain. But, oddly enough, as he here turned pounds into houses, so +in a passage of his _William Rufus_ he turned houses into pence.[49] + +The essence of the whole matter is that the 'burdens' to which Exeter +was subject were not raised at all, but remained precisely the same +as had been paid to former kings. And this fact is the more notable, +because, as Mr Freeman had to admit, 'even the tribute imposed by +William' [on his own hypothesis] 'was not large for so great a city', +and, one may add, a rich one.[50] Indeed, it was so small as to fairly +call for increase.[51] Even Lincoln, which, according to Mr Freeman, +received 'favourable' treatment from William, had its 'tribute largely +raised'[52] in fact, more than trebled.[53] What we have to account +for, therefore, is the fact that a city which had defied, insulted, +and outraged William, received not only 'a free pardon',[54] but +peculiar favour at his hands. + +The paradox itself is beyond dispute, whatever may be said of my +solution. + +For a solution there is. Only it is not to miracles or legends, nor +to the flatterings of courtly chaplains that we must look to learn the +truth, but, in the words of a memorable essay, to 'the few unerring +notices in Domesday and the chronicles'.[55] As yet we have not, it +must be remembered, heard the story from the English side. Let us +turn, therefore, to the English version, to what Mr Freeman described +as 'the short but weighty account in the Worcester Chronicle, which +gives hints which we should be well pleased to see drawn out at +greater length'.[56] These hints I shall now examine, though I doubt +if Mr Freeman's friends will be well pleased with the result. + +We have in the Chronicle a straightforward story, not only +intelligible in itself, but also thoroughly in harmony with the known +facts of the case. The king finds himself compelled to lay formal +siege to Exeter ('besæt þa burh'); he is detained before its walls day +after day ('xviii. dægas') in the depth of an English winter, 'and +þær wearð micel his heres forfaren'. The need for sternness was there +indeed; but swiftness was to him, for the moment, a matter of life +and death. Held at bay by those stubborn walls, learning the might +of those 'two generals'--January and February--in whom the Emperor +Nicholas put his trust, William was in sore straits. Take Mr Freeman's +own words: + + The disaffected were intriguing for foreign help;... there + was a chance of his having to struggle for his crown against + Swend of Denmark;... men were everywhere seeking to shake off + the yoke, or to escape it in their own persons. Even where no + outbreak took place local conspiracies were rife.[57] + +Swend was in his rear, half England on his flank; before him reared +their head the walls of dauntless Exeter.[58] In that bleak wilderness +of frost and snow his men were falling around him, and, in very +bitterness of spirit, the Conqueror bowed himself for need. So, at +least, I boldly suggest. He fell back on his 'arts of policy', and set +himself to win by alluring terms the men whom he could not conquer. +In the words of the Chronicle, he promised them well ('ac he heom well +behet'). + +This solution, of course, differs _toto cælo_ from Mr Freeman's +narrative. We have seen that he blindly accepted the statements of +that 'abandoned flatterer', William of Poitiers (whom Orderic had here +'doubtless followed'[59])--against whom he elsewhere warned us--and +combined them with a miracle from William of Malmesbury, which he +euhemerized in the style that he himself had ridiculed in Thierry.[60] +And as he could not harmonize the courtly version with the 'short but +weighty account' in the Chronicle he cut the knot by dismissing the +latter, and pronouncing his own version 'the most likely'.[61] + +Resuming the narrative, we learn that the thegns--the party of +non-resistance from the first--must have seized this opportunity for +impressing on their 'concives' the necessity of embracing the offer, +whereupon the latter, in the words of the Chronicle, 'gave up the town +because the thegns had betrayed them'. It is just possible that the +word 'geswicon' may point to some direct treachery, but it seems best +and most naturally explained as referring to their unpatriotic advice, +which would naturally appear to English eyes a 'betrayal' of the +national cause. There can be little doubt, from the admissions of +William of Poitiers (through the mouth of Orderic), that the terms of +agreement included not only a free pardon for all past offences, and +for the city's aggravated resistance, but also security for person and +property from plunder by the Norman soldiery. And the witness of 'the +great record' implies that 'the Exeter patricians', as Mr Freeman +styled them[62]--'the civic aristocracy'[63]--gained their original +selfish aim, and secured an undertaking that they should not pay a +penny more than their 'tributum ex consuetudine pristina'. + +What security, it may be asked, could they obtain for the terms they +seem to have exacted? Bold as it may seem, I would here venture to +read between the lines, and to make the suggestion--it is nothing +more--that when there issued from the gates 'the clergy of the city, +bearing their sacred books and other holy things' (as Mr Freeman +rendered the words of Orderic), the real object of their coming forth +was to make the king swear upon their relics[64] to the observance +of the terms they had obtained. It was indeed the irony of fate if +William, who was ever insisting on the breach of Harold's oath, was +driven, by the force of circumstances, to take such an oath himself. + +But, it may be urged, should we be justified in treating thus +drastically the witness of Orderic, or rather, of William of Poitiers? +At Alençon, I reply, in Mr Freeman's words: + + William of Poitiers is silent altogether, both as to the + vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps + altogether agreeable to a professed panegyrist (_Norm. Conq._, + ii. 285). + +Stronger, however, is the case of Le Mans, and more directly to the +point. 'William,' we read, 'followed the same policy against Exeter +(1068) which he had followed against Le Mans' (1063);[65] and so, in +1073, we find him 'calling on the men of Le Mans, as he had called on +the men of Exeter', to submit peacefully, and escape his wrath.[66] +Unlike 'the Exeter patricians', indeed, 'the magistrates of Le Mans' +did receive the king peacefully within their walls; they did not incur +the guilt of offering armed resistance. But the essential point at Le +Mans is that + + the Norman version simply tells how they brought the keys of + the city, how they threw themselves on William's mercy, and + were graciously received by him. The local writer speaks + in another tone. The interview between the king and the + magistrates of Le Mans is described by a word often used to + express conferences--in a word, _parliaments_--whether between + prince and prince, or between princes and the estates of their + dominions. They submitted themselves to William's authority + as their sovereign, but they received his oath to observe the + ancient customs and _justices_ of the city. Le Mans was no + longer to be a sovereign commonwealth, but it was to remain a + privileged municipality.[67] + +The words 'acceptis ab eo sacramentis, tam de impunitate perfidiæ quam +de conservandis antiquis ejusdem civitatis consuetudinibus'[68] would +apply exactly to the case of Exeter, and William may well have done +there what he actually did, we here read, at Le Mans. There would have +been at Exeter even greater need for an oath, in that its 'perfidia' +had been so much the worse. + +But now comes the curious parallel. Though quoting and scrutinizing so +closely the meagre accounts of the Exeter campaign, Mr Freeman seems +to have oddly overlooked the significant words of Florence, although, +of course, familiar with his narrative. Florence, we find, employs a +phrase corresponding with that in the _Vetera Analecta_. + + FLORENCE 'VET AN' + + Cives autem _dextris acceptis_ _Acceptis ab eo sacramentis_ + regi se dedebant. ... sese et sua omnia dederunt. + +Mr Freeman argues from the case of Le Mans that _dedere_ in these +times did not imply the fulness of a Roman _deditio_.[69] But we +are not merely dependent upon this. The words, 'dextris acceptis', I +contend, imply a promise and a pledge for its performance, and cannot +therefore be reconciled with an unconditional surrender. + +Now if it were not for the fortunate preservation of the _Vetera +Analecta_ in the case of Le Mans, Mr Freeman would there also, as at +Exeter, have been hoodwinked by 'the Norman version'.[70] I am anxious +not to employ a phrase which might be deemed offensive or unjust, so +I restrict myself to that which he himself applied to his predecessor, +Palgrave, when, speaking of the story of Eadric and his brother, +he wrote that Sir Francis Palgrave 'swallowed the whole tale'.[71] +Whether my solution be accepted or not, it is, I repeat, conjectural. +I have, at least, shown that there is a mystery to be solved, that Mr +Freeman's version fails to solve it, and that, so far from Domesday +recording the punishment inflicted upon Exeter, it actually heightens +the mystery of the case by proving that Exeter obtained exceptionally +favourable treatment. + +It is not merely a question of how Exeter fell. The issue illustrates +the policy and affects the character of William. The lame manner +in which Mr Freeman accounts for his sudden conversion from fury to +lamb-like gentleness is no less unsatisfactory than his treatment of +the 'weighty account' in the Chronicle when he found that this, his +valued authority, rendered the problem difficult. Even at Le Mans more +was needed than merely to print both stories. The fact that we find in +'the Norman version' the truth conveniently glossed over ought to be +insisted on and duly applied. Time after time in Mr Freeman's work we +find him paraphrasing patches of chronicles, under the impression that +he was writing history. The statements of witnesses are laid before +us, neatly pieced together, but they are not subjected to more than +a perfunctory cross-examination. Even if the accurate reproduction of +testimony were all that we sought from the historian, we should not, +so far as Domesday is concerned, obtain it in this instance. But +the case of Exeter is one where something more is needed, where even +accuracy is not sufficient without the possession of that higher gift, +the power of seizing upon the truth when the evidence is misleading +and contradictory. The paraphrasing of evidence is the work of a +reporter; from the historian we have a right to expect the skilled +summing-up of the judge. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Letter from John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter, + 1447.] + + [Footnote 2: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 34.] + + [Footnote 3: It was also the subject of a special paper in his + 'Historic Towns and Districts' (1883) reprinted from _Arch. + Journ._, xxx. 297, pp. 49 _et seq._, and _Sat. Rev._, xxix. + 764-5.] + + [Footnote 4: _Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765.] + + [Footnote 5: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 123. The metaphor of a + 'sea' waiting in an 'island' is sufficiently original to be + deserving of notice.] + + [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, iv. 140.] + + [Footnote 7: See 'The alleged destruction of Leicester', + _infra_, p. 347.] + + [Footnote 8: iv. 151. 'It is certain', Mr Freeman had written, + 'that what William had to strive against in the West was a + league of towns' (_Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765).] + + [Footnote 9: _Cont. Rev._, June 1877, p. 22. See also + Preface.] + + [Footnote 10: 'Hi nimirum socios e plagis finitimis inquiete + arcessebant ... alias quoque civitates ad conspirandum in + eadem legationibus instigabant.' _Ord. Vit._, 510 A (quoted in + _Norman Conquest_, iv. 140).] + + [Footnote 11: Mr Freeman rendered it 'neighbouring shires', + but I am not at all sure that, taken in conjunction with + the words just before about the accessibility of Exeter from + Ireland and Brittany, and those just after, about 'mercatores + advenas', _plagæ_ does not refer to the shores from which + these merchants came.] + + [Footnote 12: The boroughs of Dorset were doubtless among + the towns which had joined in the Civic League. Probably + they stood sieges and were taken by storm (_Norm. Conq._, iv. + 151).] + + [Footnote 13: Mr Archer deemed it sufficient reply to all + these 'trifling blunders' to admit that 'Mr Freeman did + misread 128 for 100' (_Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 337). I + invite comparison of the errors I have corrected, and of all + the edifice built upon them, with this disingenuous attempt to + represent them as unimportant 'slips' (_ibid._, p. 354).] + + [Footnote 14: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 625.] + + [Footnote 15: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 71.] + + [Footnote 16: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 17: _Norm. Conq._, iv. xiii, and marginal note on p. + 156.] + + [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, p. 156.] + + [Footnote 19: _Ibid._, i. 289.] + + [Footnote 20: 'Dum murum illius destruere moliretur' (quoted + from Florence, on i., p. 309).] + + [Footnote 21: Quoted from Florence, on i., p. 315.] + + [Footnote 22: It seems possible, at least, that they might + describe a direct attack on the foot of the walls.] + + [Footnote 23: I would here compare William's description of + the Conqueror's 'peaceful progress' to London after his great + victory, which better evidence, Mr Freeman observed, 'quite + upsets' (iii. 533).] + + [Footnote 24: _Essays_, 1st series.] + + [Footnote 25: _Exeter_, p. 36.] + + [Footnote 26: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 412.] + + [Footnote 27: _Ibid._, iii. 536-7.] + + [Footnote 28: 'Supplicia pro reatu nimis metuebant.'] + + [Footnote 29: 'Militibus crudeliter et contumeliose illuserant + quos ipse de Normannia miserat et tempestas ad portum illorum + appulerat.'] + + [Footnote 30: So too we read of Torkesey, a little later on, + that it suffered so 'severely as to suggest the idea that + William met with some serious resistance at this point' + (_Ibid._, iv. 217); while speaking of the 'Fall of Chester', + Mr Freeman wrote: 'We know that the resistance which William + met with in this his last conquest was enough to lead him to + apply the same stern remedy which he had applied north of the + Humber. A fearful harrying fell on city and shire, and on the + lands round about' (_Ibid._, iv. 314-5).] + + [Footnote 31: 'The Conqueror, faithful to his fearful + oath, now gave the first of that long list of instances of + indifference to human suffering', etc. (_Ibid._, ii. 285).] + + [Footnote 32: 'At Ely, as at Alençon, the Conqueror felt no + scruple against inflicting punishments which to our notions + might seem more frightful than death itself' (_Ibid._, iv. + 476).] + + [Footnote 33: _Ibid._, iv. 160.] + + [Footnote 34: _English Towns and Districts_.] + + [Footnote 35: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 32.] + + [Footnote 36: _Ibid._, pp. 43-4.] + + [Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 44.] + + [Footnote 38: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.] + + [Footnote 39: _Exeter_, p. 32.] + + [Footnote 40: _Exeter_, p. 44; _Norm. Conq._, iv. 147.] + + [Footnote 41: This grave confusion, with all that it involves, + was one of the 'trifling slips', as Mr Archer terms them + (_Cont. Rev._, p. 354), exposed in my original article + (_Q.R._, July 1892). Such a description is either dishonest, + or must imply that Mr Archer, who boasts that he has 'a + sterner criterion' than myself (_English Historical Review_, + ix. 606), deems such errors of no consequence.] + + [Footnote 42: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146-7.] + + [Footnote 43: 'Hec reddit xviii. lib. per annum' (100).] + + [Footnote 44: 'Hæc civitas T.R.E. non geldabat nisi quando + Londonia et Eboracum et Wintonia geldabant, et hoc erat + dimidia marka Argenti ad opus militum' (100).] + + [Footnote 45: 'Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare, + serviebat hæc civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ' (100).] + + [Footnote 46: The practice in the Survey of Devon was to state + the render in 1086, and, if it had been different formerly, + to add a note to that effect. Thus we read on 100_b_: 'Reddit + xlviii. lib. ad pensam. Ante Balduinum reddebat xxiii. lib.' + So, too, of Totnes: 'Inter omnes redd' viii. lib. ad numerum. + Olim reddebant iii. lib. ad pensam et arsuram' (108_b_).] + + [Footnote 47: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.] + + [Footnote 48: _Ibid._, 139.] + + [Footnote 49: Reading 'Eudo Dapifer [tenet] v. denarios', + where Domesday (ii. 106) has, of course, 'v. d[omus]'.] + + [Footnote 50: Mr Freeman held that Domesday hinted it might be + classed with London, York, and Winchester (_Norm. Conq._, + iv. 147; _Exeter_, 45), and quotes William of Malmesbury's + description of its wealth and importance. Even in earlier + days, he wrote, 'both the commercial and the military + importance of the city were of the first rank' (i. 308).] + + [Footnote 51: The _firma_ of Gloucester had been raised to + £60, and that of Chester to over £70, while at Wallingford, + where the king had about as many houses as at Exeter, it was + £80.] + + [Footnote 52: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 213.] + + [Footnote 53: 'T.R.E. reddebat civitas Lincolia regi xx. + libras et comiti x. libras. Modo reddit c. libras ad numerum + inter regem et comitem' (D.B., i. 336_b_).] + + [Footnote 54: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 160.] + + [Footnote 55: Mr Freeman's 'Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers' + (_Cont. Rev._, June 1887, p. 33).] + + [Footnote 56: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.] + + [Footnote 57: _Ibid._, iv. pp. 103, 118. So too _ibid._, p. + 126: 'There was the imminent fear of an invasion from Denmark, + and the threatening aspect of the still independent west and + north. William had need of all his arts of war and policy to + triumph over the combination of so many enemies at once.'] + + [Footnote 58: 'Cives eam tenebant furiosi, copiosæ + multitudinis, infestissimi mortalibus Gallici generis.'--_Ord. + Vit._] + + [Footnote 59: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146.] + + [Footnote 60: It is curious to see how Thierry waters down the + miracle: 'Son cheval, glissant sur le pavé, s'abattit et le + froissa dans sa chute.' Of course this is likely enough to + have been the kernel of truth in the legend, but no man has a + right to tell the tale in this shape as if it were undoubted + fact.--_Norm. Conq._, iv. 291.] + + [Footnote 61: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151-2.] + + [Footnote 62: _Ibid._, 146.] + + [Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 147.] + + [Footnote 64: Cf. the familiar phrase, 'Tactis sacris + evangeliis', with Orderic's words here, 'sacros libros'.] + + [Footnote 65: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.] + + [Footnote 66: _Ibid._, 559.] + + [Footnote 67: _Ibid._, 560.] + + [Footnote 68: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 69: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 560.] + + [Footnote 70: 'Edicta regalia suis opportune intimavit, et + urbanis imperiose mandavit, ut prudenter sibi consulerent' + (_Ord Vit._, ii. 255).] + + [Footnote 71: _Ibid._, i. 662.] + + + + +THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068) + + +This question was raised and discussed by Mr Freeman in his _History +of the Norman Conquest_ (iv. 196-7). We there read as follows: + + Is it possible that in the case of Leicester, at least, no + power was left either to follow or to resist? While we have no + evidence either way on which we can rely with confidence, one + of those secondary and local records, which sometimes contain + fragments of authentic tradition, suggests, in a perfectly + casual way, that a doom fell upon Leicester, which might, + doubtless, with some exaggeration, be spoken of as utter + destruction. And this incidental hint may perhaps draw + some indirect confirmation from the highest evidence of + all [Domesday] ... and it may be that Leicester earned its + overthrow by a defence worthy of a borough which was to give + its name to the greatest of England's later worthies. + +The 'record' referred to is quoted in a footnote, and is a history +of the foundation of Leicester Abbey, one of a class of narratives +notoriously inaccurate and corrupt: + + Robertus Comes Mellenti, veniens in Angliam cum Willelmo Duce + Normanniæ, adeptus consulatum Leycestriæ, ex dono dicti Ducis + et Conquestoris Angliæ, _destructa prius civitate Leicestriæ_ + cum castello et ecclesia infra castellum tempore prædicti + Conquestoris, reædificavit ipsam æcclesiam Sancta Mariæ infra + castellum. + +Now, it strikes one in the first place as somewhat unlikely that +William, on his arrival at Leicester, should find a castle to destroy. +But, further, how could Robert have obtained the 'consulatus' of +Leicester from the Conqueror, when he is well known to have first +obtained it (under very peculiar circumstances) from Henry I? If this +known event has been so glaringly ante-dated, may not the alleged +'destruction' be so likewise? These it may be said are only +doubts. But, as it happens, we can not only discredit the suggested +'destruction' in the days of the Conqueror: we can actually fix its +date as the reign of Henry I. + +We learn from Orderic that the town of Leicester ('urbs Legrecestria') +was divided into four quarters, of which Ivo de Grantmesnil possessed +two, one in his own right, and one (which was the King's share) as the +King's reeve and representative. We also learn that he was among the +'seditiosi proceres', who rebelled against Henry in 1101, and that of +these, 'aliqui contra fideles vicinos guerram arripuerunt et gremium +almæ telluris rapacitatibus et incendiis, cruentisque cædibus +maculaverunt'. Ivo is again mentioned by Orderic in 1102, not only +among the 'proditores' of the previous year, who were now called to +account, but also as a special ringleader in that internecine conflict +to which he had already referred. He tells us that Henry + + Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in Anglia c[oe]perat et vicinorum + rura suorum incendia combusserat (quod in illa regione crimen + est inusitatum nec sine grave ultione fit expiatum), rigidus + censor accusatum nec purgatum ingentis pecuniæ redditione + oneravit, et plurimo angore tribulatum mæstificavit. + +In short, as Dr Stubbs reminds us, Ivo 'has the evil reputation of +being the first to introduce the horrors of private warfare into +England'. Bearing in mind the divided authority from which Leicester +suffered, and the statement that Ivo, ruling half the town, plundered +and made fierce war upon his neighbours, we arrive at the conclusion +that the 'destruction', which, in the _Monasticon_ narrative, precedes +the accession of the Count of Meulan to the _comitatus_ of Leicester, +may be assigned, without a shadow of doubt, to the struggle of 1101. + +On Ivo's disgrace, as is well known, the wily Count stepped at once +into his shoes, 'et auxilio regis suâque calliditate totam sibi +civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus'. There is no +reason to doubt the statement that St Mary 'de Castro' was rebuilt +and refounded by Count Robert after his obtaining this position at +Leicester. + +It is singular that just as the _Monasticon_ seems to have misled Mr +Freeman at Leicester, so it is responsible for Thierry's 'story of the +fighting monks of Oxford', at about the same time, a story of which Mr +Freeman wrote that 'the whole story is a dream', and 'would not have +been allowable even in an historical novel' (iv. 779-80). + + + + +ELY AND HER DESPOILERS (1072-5) + + +The elaborate record of this trial is only found, I believe, in the +Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2, 1 (fos. 210_b_-213_b_) from +which it has been printed by Mr Hamilton in his _Inquisitio Comitatus +Cantabrigiensis_ (pp. 192-5). This 'placitum', therefore, would seem +to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876). + +The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years. +It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was +held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions +'Rodulfus comes', it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls +in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William +Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later, +therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070. +Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ('post obitum +illius'). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070; +and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time +afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this 'placitum' did not +take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn +of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years +1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076--the date +given in the _Liber Eliensis_, and accepted by Mr Freeman--it follows +that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place +under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmentioned by the chroniclers, +and unsuspected by Mr Freeman, who held that he found no favour in +William's eyes. + +The great length of this document--so important for its bearing on +Domesday--precludes its discussion in detail. But its opening clause +must be given and some of its features pointed out. + + Ad illud placitum quo pontifices Gosfridus et Remigius, consul + vero Waltheuus, necnon vicecom[ites] Picotus atque Ilbertus + jussu Willelmi Dei dispositione Anglor[um] regis, cum omni + vicecomitatu sicut rex preceperat, convenerunt, testimonio + hominum rei veritatem cognoscentium determinaverunt terras que + injuste fuerant ablate ab ecclesia sancte Dei genitricis + Marie de insulâ ely ... quatinus de dominio fuerant, + tempore videlicet regis Ædwardi, ad dominium sine alicujus + contradictione redirent quicunque eas possideret. + +The mention of Count Eustace among those withholding lands proves +that at the date of this document he was already restored to his +possessions. Another individual whose name occurs several times in +this document is Lisois ('De Monasteriis'), the hero of the passage of +the Aire. Collating its evidence with that of Domesday, we find that +Lisois had been succeeded, at the date of the great record, by +the well-known Eudo Dapifer in a fief, ranging over at least five +counties--Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and +Essex--in all of which Domesday records his name as the predecessor of +Eudo. This is of the more interest because Mr Freeman wrote: + + The only notice of this Lisois which I can find in Domesday + is in ii. 49_b_, where he appears in possession, but seemingly + illegal possession, of a small holding in Essex. + +So again we have in our document this passage relating to Stigand: + + He sunt proprie ville monasterii insule Ely quos Stigandus + archipresul tenebat, unde per annum victum fratribus reddidit + tantum quantum pertinet ad hoc. Has vero tenet rex noster W. + post obitum illius, Methelwald et Crokestune et Snegelwelle et + Dictun. + +Now Stigand, according to the _Liber Eliensis_ 'quasdam illius optimas +possessiones sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium +retinuit'. Our document identifies these 'possessiones' with Methwold +and Croxton in Norfolk, Snailwell and Ditton in Cambridgeshire, and +thus disposes of Mr Freeman's very unfortunate suggestion--advanced, +of course, to justify Stigand--that the _Liber Eliensis_ here referred +to a tiny Hampshire estate, which the Abbey had held under Stigand +T.R.E.[1] + +In my paper on Domesday I have pointed out the importance of this +document in its bearing on socmen and their services, while we saw +in investigating knight service that its language affords, in this +matter, a valuable gloss on that of Domesday. Close examination of its +details shows that the aggressions on the Abbey's property which it +records, were, in spite of the verdict on this occasion, persisted in, +if not increased. Those, for instance, of Hardwin may be recognized in +the duplicate entries in Domesday Book, representing the conflicting +claims.[2] On persons as on lands we have some fresh information. +Ilbert the Sheriff was, I believe, identical with that 'Ilbert de +Hertford', who is alluded to in Domesday (i. 200), and would thus be +a pre-Domesday Sheriff of Herts.[3] The entry, 'tenet Rotbertus +homo Bainardi in Reoden de soca', when compared with the holding of +'Rienduna' by Ralf 'Baignardi' in Domesday (ii. 414), suggests that +we have in Bainard the father (hitherto unknown) of this Domesday +tenant-in-chief. Bainard would thus be a Christian name, as was also +Mainard, which occurs in this same document. + + + + + [Footnote 1: D.B., i. 40_b_.] + + [Footnote 2: See p. 32 _supra_.] + + [Footnote 3: Domesday (i. 200_b_) styles him, 'Ilbertus de + Hertford', and connects him with 'Risedene', a Hertfordshire + Manor. On the other hand, the I.C.C. makes him 'Ilbertus de + Hereforda' (p. 56), and 'Ilbertus vicecomes' is actually found + in Herefordshire (D.B., i. 179_b_). But what could he be doing + in Cambridgeshire?] + + + + +THE LORDS OF ARDRES + + +In the _History of the Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.) we read of Eustace +of Boulogne: + + An incidental notice of one of his followers throws some light + on the class of men who flocked to William's banners, and on + the rewards which they received. One Geoffrey, an officer of + the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint Omer, who had the charge of + its possessions in the County of Guines, sent his sons, Arnold + and Geoffrey, to the war ... and in the end they received + a grant of lands both in Essex and in the border shires of + Mercia and East-Anglia, under the superiority of their patron + Count Eustace (iii. 314). + +In an Appendix on 'Arnold of Ardres', which Mr Freeman devoted to this +subject (iii. 725-6), he gave the 'Historia Comitum Ardensium' (of +Lambert of Ardres) for his authority, and he verified, by Domesday, +the Manors which Lambert assigns to 'these adventurers', holding +that a Bedfordshire estate was omitted, while 'Stebintonia', which he +identified with Stibbington, Hunts, was wrongly included, as it was +'held of Count Eustace by Lunen'. + +The first point to be noticed here is that 'these adventurers' were +the sons (as Lambert explains) not of any 'Geoffrey', a mere Abbey +officer, but of a local magnate, Arnold, Lord of Ardres. The next is +that Lambert was quite correct in his list of Manors. + +In the fourth series of his historical essays Mr Freeman included a +paper on 'The Lords of Ardres', for which he availed himself of Dr +Heller's edition of Lambert in the _Monumenta_ (vol. xxiv). In this +edition the passage runs: + + Feodum Stevintoniam et pertinencias eius, Dokeswordiam, + Tropintoniam, Leilefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam (cap. + 113, p. 615). + +Dr Heller, on this, notes: + + Secundum 'Domesday Book' recepit Ernulfus de Arda Dochesworde, + Trupintone (com. Cantabrig.) et Stiventone (comit. Bedford) + a comite Eustacio ... e contra Toheshunt [_sic_] Hoiland, + Leleford recepit ab eodem comite Adelolfus de Merc (prope + Calais). + +This note enabled Mr Freeman to identify 'Adelolfus' (which he had +failed to do in the _Norman Conquest_), though he must have overlooked +the identification of 'Stevintonia' (namely Stevington, Beds.), for we +find him still writing: + + But of the English possessions reckoned up by our author two + only ... can be identified in Domesday as held by Arnold ... + The local writer seems to have mixed up the possessions of + Arnold with those of a less famous adventurer from the same + reign, Adelolf--our Athelwulf--of Merck (pp. 184-5). + +And he again insisted that 'Arnold had other lands in Bedfordshire'. + +We will now turn to an entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ from the +'milites tenentes de honore Bononie': + + Comes de Gines tenet xii. milites, scilicet--in + Bedefordescire, in _Stiveton_ et Parva Wahull III milites, + in Cantabr' in _Dukesword_, et _Trumpeton_ III milites ... in + Essex, _Tholehunt_ et Galdhangr' III milites, in _Hoyland'_ et + _Lalesford_ ibidem III milites. + +Here we have all the Manors mentioned by Lambert (with their +appurtenances) assigned to the Count of Guines, the heir of Arnold +of Ardres; and we can thus believe the _Testa_ entry (p. 272) of +Tolleshunt and Holland, 'quas idem comes et antecessores sui tenuerunt +de conquestu Angliæ'. But the _Testa_ does more than this; it informs +us that Holland and Lawford were held of the Count by 'Henry de Merk'. +Now, 'Adelolf' de Merk is found in Domesday holding many Manors direct +from Eustace of Boulogne, and these Manors are divided in the _Testa_ +between his descendants Simon and Henry de Merk.[1] It is, therefore, +possible that he held the three Essex Manors in 1086, not directly +from Count Eustace, but, like his descendant, from their under-tenant +(Arnold). This raises, of course, an important question as to +Domesday.[2] + +It is interesting to observe that the village of Marck in the Pas de +Calais has, through Adelolf and his heirs, transferred its name to the +Essex parish of Mark's Tey, though not to that of Marks Hall (so named +in Domesday). + +While on the subject of the Lords of Ardres, it may be convenient +to give the reference to a letter of mine to the _Academy_ (May 28, +1892), explaining that Lambert's 'Albericus Aper', who puzzled Dr +Heller and Mr Freeman, was our own Aubrey de Vere, first Earl of +Oxford, and that Lambert's statement (accepted by Mr Freeman) as to +the parentage of Emma, wife of Count Manasses, had been disproved by +Stapleton. + + + + + [Footnote 1: An interesting charter belonging to the close of + Stephen's reign shows us Queen Matilda compensating Henry 'de + Merch' for his land at Donyland (one of these Manors)--which + she was giving to St John's, Colchester--'de redditibus + transmarinis ad suam voluntatem'. Another and earlier charter + from her father and mother (printed by Mr E. J. L. Scott in + the _Athenæum_ of December 2, 1893) has Fulco de merc and M. + de merc among the witnesses.] + + [Footnote 2: The non-appearance of Arnold's brother, + 'Geoffrey', in Domesday which has been deemed a difficulty, + is accounted for by Lambert's statement that he made over his + English possessions to Arnold.] + + + + +EARLY IRISH TRADE WITH CHESTER AND ROUEN[1] + + +The eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts +speaks of the records of the city of Chester as 'beginning with Henry +the Second's writ of licence to the citizens of Chester to trade in +Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry the First' +(p. xv). The records themselves are similarly described in the actual +report on them (pp. 355-403) as 'beginning with a curious writ, +addressed by Henry the Second to his bailiffs of the city of Durham' +[_sic_]. This, which is among those items spoken of as 'especially +interesting and important', figures thus as the head of the calendar: + + (1) Henry II. Licence to the burgesses of Chester to buy and + sell at Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of + Henry I--'Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie + et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie balluis [_sic_] de Dunelina + [_sic_] salutem:--Precipio quod Burgenses Cestrie possint + emere et vendere ad detaillum [_or_ doraillum] apud Dunelinam + [_sic_] habendo et faciendo easdem consuetudines quas + faciebant tempore Regis Henrici avi mei et easdem ibi habeant + rectitudines et libertates et liberas consuetudines quas + tempore illo habere solebant, teste, Willelmo filio Ald' + dapifero Apud Wintoniam. + +Durham is not only a most improbable place for such a writ to refer +to, but is also an impossible rendering of the Latin name. The +interest and importance of this 'curious writ' has, in short, been +obscured and lost through the ignorance of Mr J. C. Jeaffreson, to +whom the report was entrusted. The charters which follow the writ, and +which are printed on the same page, refer to this writ as relating to +Ireland; and the town, of course, to which it refers is not Durham but +Dublin (_Duuelina_). + +We have, therefore, in this writ an almost, if not quite, unique +reference by Henry II to Dublin in the days of his grandfather, and a +confirmation of the 'libertates', etc., which the men of Chester had +then enjoyed there, just as if his grandfather had been in his own +position. Secondly, we have here record evidence, not merely of a +recognized connection, but of what might be termed treaty relations +between the traders of Chester and the Ostmen of Dublin, long previous +to the Conquest of Ireland, thus confirming Mr Green's observation, +'the port of Chester depended on the trade with Ireland, which +had sprung up since the settlement of the Northmen along the Irish +Coasts'.[2] And this has, of course, a bearing on the question of 'a +Danish settlement' at Chester. Thirdly, we learn from this document +that at the date of its issue Dublin was governed by bailiffs of the +King (_ballivi sui_). + +What, then, was its date? The clue, unfortunately, is slight; but it +may not improbably belong to the close of 1175 or early part of +1176. This brings us to the interesting question, why was such a +writ issued? Remembering that during his stay at Dublin (November +1171-January 1172) Henry II had granted that city to his men of +Bristol, we may hold it in accordance with the spirit of the time, +and, indeed, a matter of virtual certainty, that Bristol would have +striven on the strength of this grant to exclude 'its rival port' +(_Conquest of England_, p. 443) from the benefits of the Dublin trade. +Chester would, therefore, appeal to the King on the strength of its +antecedent rights, and would thus have obtained from him this writ, +recognizing and confirming their validity. + +The Domesday customs of the city (i. 262_b_) contain a curious +allusion to its Irish trade: + + Si habentibus martrinas pelles juberet prepositus regis ut + nulli venderet donec sibi prius ostensas compararet, qui hoc + non observabat xl. solidis emendabat ... Hæc civitas tunc + reddebat de firma xlv. lib et iii. timbres pellium martrinium. + +There is nothing to show where these marten skins came from, or why +they are mentioned under Chester alone. But on turning to the customs +of Rouen, as recorded in the charters of Duke Henry (1150-1) and King +John (1199), we find they were imported from Ireland. + + Quæcunque navis de Hibernia venerit, ex quo caput de Gernes + [Guernsey] transierit, Rothomagum veniat, unde ego habeam + de unaquâque nave unum tymbrium de martris aut decem libras + Rothomagi, si ejusdem navis mercatores jurare poterint se ideo + non mercatos fuisse illas martras ut auferrent consuetudinem + ducis Normanniæ, et vicecomes Rothomagi de unaquaque habeat + viginti solidos Rothomagi et Camerarius Tancarvillæ unam + accipitrem aut sexdecim solidos Rothomagi. + +Giraldus Cambrensis, it may be remembered, alludes to the abundance of +martens in Ireland,[3] and describes how they were captured. We thus +have evidence in Domesday of the Irish trade with Chester, even in the +days of Edward the Confessor. + + + + + [Footnote 1: The error as to the Chester writ was explained by + me in a letter to the _Academy_ (No. 734).] + + [Footnote 2: _Conquest of England_, p. 440.] + + [Footnote 3: 'Martrinarum copia abundant hic silvestria' + (_Top. Hib._, i. 24).] + + + + +WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE + + +In his detailed examination of all the evidence bearing on the death +of William Rufus, the late Mr Freeman carefully collected the few +facts that are known relative to Walter Tirel. They are, however, so +few that he could add nothing to what Lappenberg had set forth (ii. +207) in 1834. He was, however, less confident than his predecessor as +to the identity of Walter Tirel with the Essex tenant of that name in +Domesday. I hope now to establish the facts beyond dispute, to restore +the identity of Walter Tirel, and also to show for the first time who +his wife really was. + +The three passages we have first to consider are these, taking them in +the same order as Mr Freeman: + + Adelidam filiam Ricardi de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum + conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, strenuissimum militem, + marito suo peperit (_Ord. Vit._). + + Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro + ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (_Domesday_, ii. 41). + + Adeliz uxor Walteri Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis + argenti de eisdem placitis de La Wingeham (_Rot. Pip._, 31 + Hen. I). + +Dealing first with the Domesday entry, which comes, as Mr Freeman +observed, 'among the estates of Richard of Clare', I would point out +that though Ellis (who misled Mr Freeman) thought that 'Tirelde' was +the name, the right reading is 'tenet Walterus Tirel de R[icardo]', +two words (as is not unusual) being written as one. Turning next to +the words of Orderic, we find that Lappenberg renders them 'Adelaide, +Tochter des Richard Giffard', and Mr Freeman as 'a wife Adelaide +by name, of the great line of Giffard'. But there is no trace of a +Richard Giffard, nor can 'Adelida' herself be identified among the +Giffards. The explanation of the mystery, I hold, is that she was the +daughter, not of a Giffard, but of Richard _de Clare_, by his wife +Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard the elder. It is noteworthy that +Orderic employs a precisely similar expression in the case of another +Adeliza, the daughter of Robert de Grentmesnil. He terms her 'soror +Hugonis de Grentemaisnil de clara stirpe Geroianorum', though she was +only descended from the famous Geroy through her mother. Richard's +daughter was sufficiently described as 'Adelida filia Ricardi', just +as her brothers were known as 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi', 'Rogerus +filius Ricardi', etc. The position of that mighty family was such that +this description was enough, and they were even known collectively as +the 'Ricardi', or 'Richardenses' (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 609). This is well +illustrated by the passage in the Ely writer, describing Adeliza's +brother Richard, Abbot of Ely, as + + parentum undique grege vallatus, quorum familiam ex Ricardis + et Gifardis constare tota Anglia et novit et sensit. Ricardi + enim et Gifardi, duæ scilicet ex propinquo venientes familiæ, + virtutis fama et generis copia illustres effecerat. + +The above forms are curious, but not without parallel. Thus the +descendants of Urse d'Abetot are spoken of as 'Ursini' in Heming's +Cartulary. Æthelred of Rievaulx speaks of 'Poncii' and 'Morini' as +present at the battle of the Standard; Gerald, in a well-known passage +(v. 335), speaks of the 'Giraldidæ' and 'Stephanidæ', and Orderic, we +have seen, of the 'Geroiani'. + +The doubly influential character of this descent is well illustrated +in this passage (_quantum valeat_) from the chronicle of St John's +Abbey, Colchester. + + Parcebatur tamen Eudoni, propter genus uxoris ipsius Rohaisæ: + erat enim hæc de genere nobilissimo Normannorum, filia + scilicet Ricardi, qui fuit filius Gilbert Comitis, duxitque + Rohaisam uxorem, quæ erat soror Willelmi Giffardi, Episcopi + Wintoniæ. Itaque, cum fratres et propinqui junioris Rohaisæ + quoslibet motus machinaturi putarentur, si contra maritum + ipsius aliquid durius decerneretur, sic factum est ut + interventu predicti Episcopi, etc., etc. + +This passage is, I believe, the sole evidence for the real parentage +of Bishop William. It was clearly unknown to Canon Venables, who wrote +the Bishop's life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_. + +Like most of these 'foundation' histories, this document is in part +untrustworthy. But it is Dugdale who has misread it, and not the +document itself that is responsible for the grave error (_Baronage_, +i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl +of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a +Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from +referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law, +Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in +its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that +'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos +nupta est' (iv. 609). + +In asserting under 'Clare' (_Baronage_, i. 208) that Eudo married the +widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and +more inaccurate document (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269) which actually does +speak of + + Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]--duas plures + enim habuit--conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti, + qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis + magnates præcessit-- + +as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide +in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter +and namesake. + +We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who +had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham' +was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an +important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130 +(_Rot. Pip._, Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given +her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under +Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster +a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not +yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase +de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is +extant,[1] and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that +it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover +in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of +a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion, +which runs as follows: + + Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal. + Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam + Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de + Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem + concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet. + +Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare +that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course, +equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This +mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade +of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the +above Gervase, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, was no +other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham +duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.[2] The chain of +evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their +Manor placed beyond question. + +But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it +raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces +us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de +Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed, +were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another +brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I, +who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William +Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.[3] +Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant +attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a +Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points +to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at +least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives. + +I have explained in my article on the Clares in the _Dictionary of +National Biography_ that there has been much confusion as to the +family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps +be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append +a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will +distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his +forefathers and his descendants'. + +Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court +in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging +to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi +et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the +attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus] +filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus] +frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'[4] + +Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard +'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different +family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard +an Earl of Devon. + +Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors--which, +originating in the _Monasticon_, is embalmed in Dugdale's +_Baronage_--as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the +Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her _Battle Abbey +Roll_ (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming' +the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is +shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's _Exeter_ (1887) and by the +life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, +by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of +Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his +father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles. + +I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in +my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an +earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon. + +Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another +daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match. +This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece +and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems +to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter. +The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of +Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and +her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their +mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 512-13). She can +only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de +Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet +another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who +brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard. + +[Illustration: Family tree] + + Count Gilbert, + of Brionne. + Benefactor to Bec. + Murdered 1040 + | + --------------------------------------------(connect to + | Richard de Bienfaite) + | + Albreda=(1) Baldwin (2) Emma + de Meules, = + _alias_ de Clare, | + _alias_ Baldwin of | + Exeter, _alias_ | + Baldwin the | + Sheriff [of Devon]. | + Benefactor to Bec | + | (connect + | to Roger, + | 'filius Ricardi') + ------------------------------------------- ----- + | | | + William,[1] Robert,[2] Richard, Gilbert, + 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', + Sheriff of Devon, held Brionne Sheriff of _alias_ Gilbert + 1090 (see p. 256). against Robert Devon, 1129. de Tunbridge, + Benefactor to Bec of Normandy Died 1136.[3] mar. Adeliza + in 1090. Benefactor to Bec de Clermont + Benefactor to Bec (see p. 394) + | + ----------------------------------------(connect + | | to Baldwin, + | | 'filius Gilberti') + | | | + Richard, Gilbert, Walter,[7] + 'filius Gilberti,' 'filius Gilberti', 'filius Gilberti,' + d. 1136[3] Earl of Pembroke. of Maldon. + | Protector of Went on crusade + V St Neot's[5] _circ._ 1147 + a quo the | + Earls of V + Hertford + (connect to + Count Gilbert + of Brionne) + ---- + | + Richard = Rohese, dau. of + de Bienfaite, Walter Giffard. + _alias_ 'filius Benefactress of + Gilberti', _alias_ St Neot's Priory + 'filius Comitis | + Gilberti', _alias_ | + 'de Tunbridge', | + _alias_ 'de Clare'. | + Founder of St | + Neot's Priory | + (cell to Bec) | + | + (connect to |(connect + Gilbert, |to Robert + 'filius Baldwini') |'filius + ------------------------------------------------ Ricardi') + | | | + Roger, Walter, Richard, + 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', + living 1130 ob. s. p. Monk of Bec, + ob. s. p. Founder of Abbot of Ely 1100. + Benefactor to Tintern Abbey, Died 1107 + Bec[4] 1131, + living 1136[5] + + (connect + to Walter,' + 'filius Gilberti') + ----------------------------------------- + | | | + Baldwin, Adelidis Rohese,[8] + 'filius Gilberti', 'de Tunbridge' mar. Baderon + _alias_ Baldwin mar. William de Monmouth + de Clare. de Percy + Founder of Deeping | + Priory (Benedictine) | + and Bourne Priory V + (Austin) + + (connect + to Richard + 'filius Ricardi') + ---------------------------------------- + | | | + Robert, Rohese, Adeliza = Walter + 'filius Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', | Tirel, + d. (after Easter) mar. Eudo Dapifer died at | Lord of Poix, + 1136. _circ._ 1088 Conflans, an | under-tenant + Bur. at St Neot's, He died 1120. offshoot of Bec, | of his + (? Dapifer Regis) She died 1121, _circ._ 1138 | father-in-law, + | and was buried | 1086 + | at Bec | + | | + -------------------------------- + | | Hugh + Walter Maude = William Tirel, + 'filius "Roberti', 'de Senliz'. | de Albini Lord of Poix, + 'Dapifer Regis[6] Benefactress | 'Brito' Benefactor to Bec. + (see p. 360) to St Neot's V Went on crusade 1147 + | + V + + [Footnotes from Family Tree: + + [Footnote 1: 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum, + Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a + monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum, + Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (_Mon. + Ang._, v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed + _aliunde_. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.] + + [Footnote 2: 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex + W.] et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (_Ord. Vit._)] + + [Footnote 3: 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus + Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi, + patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus' + (_Robert of Torigni_).] + + [Footnote 4: 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et + Waltero.'] + + [Footnote 5: 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione + mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab + antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).] + + [Footnote 6: Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of + Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as + 'Clarreaus'--a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.] + + [Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._ iv. 597. _Formul Ang._ p. 40.] + + [Footnote 8: _Mon. Ang._, iv. 597.]] + +[_To face page_ 359.] + +We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house, +Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his +daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected +that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac +(1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a +well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts +that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de +Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however, +on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale +actually relied on a charter,[5] which includes Baldwin among the +Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets +(_Baronage_, i. 207_b_). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving +Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin +_de Clare_, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the +battle of Lincoln.[6] + +Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also +to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son +'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire' +(_Baronage_, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a +monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.[7] +The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of +Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of +Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord +of Daventry. + +But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud +'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years +old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died +in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in _anno_ 1140' +(_ibid._)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was +the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare. +The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St +Neot's.[8] We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo. +79_b_, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (_al._ "Senliz") filia +Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one +(fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband: + + Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et + concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti + et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et + antecessorum meorum. + +Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio +filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius +Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz +mater mea eis prius concesserat'--her said grant of land in Cratfield +duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'. +Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this +grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield +belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in +Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given +to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in +maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what +her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is +found in this entry (1185): + + Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et + mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et + est lx. annorum (_Rot. de Dominabus_, p. 1). + +We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William +Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may +seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of +William de Albini, who sent in his _carta_ (under Leicestershire) in +1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167. +She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the +Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. + +Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman +wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of +ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux, +and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu +and of Achères by the Seine' (_W. Rufus_, II, 322, 673).[9] But the +mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman +put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with +Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way +identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and +shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to +be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with +Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of +his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with +the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the +third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087, +and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de +Poix,[10] and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he +who was father of Hugh the Crusader.[11] + +Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been +known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon +in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',[12] which appears to have eluded Mr +Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions +of the death of William Rufus: + + Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a + Waltero _de Bekam_, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege + in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem + divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte + recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus, + etc., etc. + +The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is, +even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain +the 'Bekam'.[13] + +If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work +on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy, +'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather +than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's +somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of +original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph +on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts +the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more +critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis +de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their +present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment +of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes +'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not, +we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is +this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline' +and son Hugh to the grant? + +Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they +solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg, +imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to +diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter +Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the +'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in +the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader +of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose +evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the +son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son, +we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot +be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter +Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de +Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or +1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham. + +But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which +proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the +archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of +Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham' +to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had +taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of +Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read +of the charter's date: + + Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab + incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii. + +Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession +of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell +us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that +year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having +survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until, +therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we +must reject it _in toto_. + +I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by +which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark +his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he +empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox, +the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are: + + Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell' + licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi + sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias + quos poterit ibi includere.[18] + +Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries +ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts' +are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It + is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam + Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de + lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a + mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons + on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of + coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in + _Arch. Journ._, ii. 46).] + + [Footnote 2: Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.] + + [Footnote 3: A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims + for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he, + like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see + p. 355 _supra_).] + + [Footnote 4: See also _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 329.] + + [Footnote 5: Old _Monasticon_, i. 245_b_; and _vide infra_, p. + 393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of + Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the + Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost + illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac. + This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of + drawings.] + + [Footnote 6: See also _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, and my _Geoffrey + de Mandeville_.] + + [Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._, v. 178.] + + [Footnote 8: Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.] + + [Footnote 9: Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by + 'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires + de Poix Vicomtes d'_Equesnes_' it is probable that the latter + was meant.] + + [Footnote 10: His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of + Amiens, who died in 1116.] + + [Footnote 11: The essential reference occurs in the charter of + 1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon + filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives + depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo. + 91). These were the first and second known bearers of the + name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix + was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of + considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral + is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de + Piceio'.] + + [Footnote 12: _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin_ + (_Documents Inédits_), pp. 267-8.] + + [Footnote 13: I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin + (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification + 'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum + omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that + they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram + militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for + 'Belram' [Beaurain]?] + + [Footnote 14: _Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la + Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix_, etc., etc. + (2nd Ed.) 1869.] + + [Footnote 15: Vol. vii., pp. 820 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 16: _Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de + Picardies_ (1876), xxv. 287 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 17: M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely + similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to + have been already in possession of Poix, although, according + to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws + doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.] + + [Footnote 18: Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42. + _Supra_, p. 357.] + + + + +WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR + + +The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for +chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very +great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was, +as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been +supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the _Dictionary of +National Biography_), that his latest appearance as chancellor was +early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in +taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well +known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in +Normandy with the King. There is, however, in _Gallia Christiana_ +(vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided +before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present +being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can +trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date. + +There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss +believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in +a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.[1] This charter is printed in the +_Monasticon_ (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus _temp._ Henry IV. There is, +however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I[2] +(No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is +that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No. +2), with a fuller list of witnesses.[3] I have examined the roll for +myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs: + + Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^{o} + centesimo vii^{o} apud Wintoniam. + +The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the +words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto +apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these +Tewkesbury charters,[4] and that suspicion is not lessened by the +double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of +1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name +was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly +be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de +Pistres[5]) who was killed in 1106. + +On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as +chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November +1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,[6] +in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.[7] Its date is +determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop +of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor, +combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was +granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One +must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not, +as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the +names of the witnesses point to Easter--September 1107; and it is just +possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster +gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St +Andrew's may well have been granted. + +Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the +chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of +Laon,[8] but I do not know of any evidence to that effect. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Judges of England_, i. 140.] + + [Footnote 2: _30th Report of Deputy-Keeper_, p. 203.] + + [Footnote 3: _Ibid._, p. 204.] + + [Footnote 4: See _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, 421, 431-2.] + + [Footnote 5: See p. 245 _supra_.] + + [Footnote 6: _Judges of England_, i. 79.] + + [Footnote 7: _Monasticon_, v. 191.] + + [Footnote 8: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 22.] + + + + +A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123) + + +A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and +biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the +church of Exeter. It is printed in the _Monasticon_ under Plimpton, +to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been +preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter, +however, is also found among those confirmed by Henry VIII +(Confirmation Roll, I Henry VIII, p. 5, No. 13), with a list of +witnesses arranged in correct order; whereas the _Monasticon_ version +is taken from the pleadings under Richard II (Coram Rege, Hil. 2 +Richard II, Rot. 20, Devon), and records the witnesses in grievous +disorder. The explanation of such disorder is that the clerk in the +latter case was not familiar with the system on which the attestations +to these charters were arranged, the names of the leading witnesses +being placed in a line above the others. This will be made evident +from the two lists of witnesses: + + _Right Order_ _Wrong Order_ + + King Henry + Queen Adeliza Queen Adeliza + William, Archbishop of Canterbury William, Archbishop of Canterbury + Thurstan, Archbishop of York Robert, Earl of Gloucester + Richard, Bishop of London Thurstan, Archbishop of York + William, Bishop of Winchester William, Earl of Surrey + Roger, Bishop of Salisbury Roger, Bishop of Salisbury + Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln Roger, Earl of Warwick + Evrard, Bishop of Norwich Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln + Hervey, Bishop of Ely Robert, Earl of Leicester + Ralf, Bishop of Chichester Evrard, Bishop of Norwich + Ranulf, Bishop of Durham Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ + Robert, Bishop of Coventry Hervey, Bishop of Ely + 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester William de Pirou, _dapifer_ + Bernard, Bishop of St David's Ralf, Bishop of Chichester + Richard, Bishop of Hereford William d'Aubeny + Godfrey, Bishop of Bath Ranulf, Bishop of Durham + Geoffrey the Chancellor Nigel d'Aubeny + Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, Robert, Bishop of Coventry + Winchester + Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock Richard fitz Baldwin + Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester + Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon Baldwin de Redvers + Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury Bernard, Bishop of St David's + Robert, Earl of Gloucester Johel de Berdestaple + William, Earl of Surrey Richard, Bishop of Hereford + David, Earl of Huntingdon Guy de Totness + Ranulf, Earl of Chester Godfrey, Bishop of Bath + Roger, Earl of Warwick Robert de Cadentona [_sic_] + Robert, Earl of Leicester Geoffrey the Chancellor + Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ William fitz Odo + William de Pirou, _dapifer_ Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, + William d'Aubeny Winchester + Nigel d'Aubeny Goislin de Pomereda + Richard fitz Baldwin Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock + Baldwin de Redvers Rainald de Valle Torta + Johel de Berdestaple Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne + Guy de Totness William fitz Richard + Robert de 'Badentona' Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon + William fitz Odo Herbert de Alneto + Goislin de Pomereda Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury + Rainald de Valle Torta Humfrey de Bohun + William fitz Richard William, Abbot of Cerne + Herbert de Alneto Walter fitz Thurstan[1] + Humfrey de Bohun + Walter fitz Thurstan + +It is obvious that this charter was granted before the death of +the Bishop of Worcester (October 20, 1123), and before the King's +departure from England (June 1123). But it must be subsequent to the +death of the previous chancellor, Ranulf (Christmas 1122), and to the +appointment or consecration (February 1123) of Archbishop William. The +narrow limit thus ascertained points to the Easter court of 1123 at +Winchester, the great gathering of bishops and earls implying some +such occasion. Easter fell that year on April 15th. + +Now two sees had fallen vacant at the beginning of the year, those of +Lincoln and of Bath. Lincoln was given to Alexander, whether at +Easter (Winchester), as stated by Henry of Huntingdon, or in Lent, as +asserted by the continuator of Florence; but he was not consecrated +till July 22nd. Bath was bestowed on Godfrey, whose consecration did +not take place till August 26th, though Henry of Huntingdon assigns +his appointment, like that of Alexander, to Easter (Winchester). Both +these bishops, it will be seen, attest the above charter, which proves +that it cannot be earlier than Easter (April 15th), while the evidence +below practically limits it to the Easter court at Winchester. + +The first point to be observed is that these two bishops attest +as such (not as 'elect') long before their consecration. As it is +generally held that bishops never did so, this point is of importance +(always assuming the accuracy of the evidence) for its bearing +on other charters.[2] Secondly, four of the witnesses--the +two archbishops, the Bishop of St David's, and the Abbot of +Glastonbury--are said by the continuator to have left for Rome after +Alexander's appointment. From this charter it is clear that they did +not leave till after Easter. The third point is that Earl Roger of +Warwick had, at the date of this charter, succeeded his father, Henry. + +Turning to Geoffrey the chancellor, we find in this charter perhaps +his earliest appearance. Foss, in his useful work, is here a year out. +He wrongly assigned the death of the preceding chancellor, Ranulf, +to Christmas 1123, instead of Christmas 1122, and he assumed that our +charter must be subsequent to Bishop Godfrey's consecration (August +26, 1123), and, in fact, that it belonged to 1124 (to which year he +wrongly assigned the death of Bishop Theowulf). It is important for +chronological purposes to date the change of chancellor correctly. I +have already determined (p. 481) the date of Ranulf's accession to the +post. + +The correction of this date of Ranulf's death affects that of the +foundation of Laund Priory, Leicestershire, which is assigned by +Nichols and by the Editors of the _Monasticon_ to 'about 1125'. As the +foundation charter is addressed to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, +and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it must be subsequent to Alexander's +promotion in the spring of 1123 (if not to his consecration on June +22nd). This is admitted by Foss, who accepts the charter without +question. There is nothing in the document to excite suspicion, nor do +I impugn it without reluctance. But the awkward fact remains that it +is witnessed by Ranulf the chancellor, who died, as we have seen, at +the beginning of 1123, and actually in the lifetime of Bishop Robert, +Alexander's predecessor at Lincoln. There can be no question as to +Ranulf's death, for the sequence of events is inexorable. Henry +of Huntingdon tells us that (1) the king spent Christmas (1122) at +Dunstable; that (2) he went thence to Berkhampstead, where Ranulf was +accidentally killed; that (3) he then visited Woodstock, where Bishop +Robert met with an equally sudden death; that (4) at the Purification +(February 2, 1123) he gave the See of Canterbury to William of +Corbeuil; that (5) he gave (at Winchester) the See of Lincoln to +Alexander at Easter. It is singular that the members of the foundation +had two strings to their bow, another charter of Henry I being adduced +for Inspeximus. Its witnesses imply a later date, and their names do +not involve any chronological difficulty. + +We have in this Exeter charter one of the earliest attestations +(according to my theory) of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. It should be +noted that he takes at once precedence of all other earls, just as he +had taken, before his elevation, precedence of all laymen under the +rank of earl. + +Of the barons most are familiar. Richard fitz Baldwin was the son and +successor of the famous Baldwin of Exeter, and was, like him, sheriff +of Devon (see p. 237). Baldwin de Redvers was the son of Richard de +Redvers, and became subsequently first earl of Devon (the confusion +of these two families, from the similarity of name, seems to be +incorrigible).[3] The lords of the great honours of Barnstaple and +Totnes[4] are followed by Robert of Bampton, who had succeeded to the +Domesday fief of Walter de Douai, and who, as I have shown (_English +Historical Review_, v. 746), was afterwards a rebel against Stephen. +Goislin de Pomerey was the heir of Ralf de Pomerey, the Domesday +baron; and Reginald (Rainaldus) de Vautort was a great under-tenant of +the honour of Mortain. William fitz Richard I identify with that +great Cornish magnate, whose daughter and heiress carried his fief to +Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall. Herbert de Alneto also was a +Cornish baron, father of that Richard who, in 1130, paid £100 for his +succession (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 158). Specially interesting, +however, is the name of William fitz Odo, in whom I detect not the +William fitz _Otho_, of Essex and Middlesex (with whom he is confused +in the Index to the 1130 Pipe-Roll), but the son of 'Odo filius +Gamelin'; a Devonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 116_b_). I see him in +that '--filius Odonis', who is entered on the damaged Devonshire +roll (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 157) in connection with thirty-four +shillings, which proves that he held a considerable estate. The fief +of 'Odo filius Gamelin' was assessed at 21-3/16 hides, representing in +Devon large estates.[5] + + + + + [Footnote 1: It will be observed that this list omits the + Bishops of London and Winchester and the Earls of Huntingdon + and Chester, but adds the Abbot of Cerne.] + + [Footnote 2: An excellent instance of this practice is found, + ten years later, in the case of Bishop Nigel, who attested + three charters in 1133, before the king's departure, as Bishop + of Ely, though he was not consecrated till some months later. + They are those found in _Monasticon_, vi. 1174, 1274, and that + which granted the chamberlainship to Aubrey de Vere.] + + [Footnote 3: It has found its way, under 'Baldwin', into the + _Dictionary of National Biography_.] + + [Footnote 4: The _Guido de Totteneys_ of this charter seems to + be identical with the _Wido de Nunant_ of the charter granted + by Henry II to this priory. This conjecture is confirmed + by the entry in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I: 'Wido de Nunant + reddit comp. de x. marcis pro concessione ferie de Totneis' + (p. 154). There is a story quoted by Dugdale, under Totnes + priory, from the records of the abbey of Angers, that Juhel + 'of Totnes', the Domesday baron, was expelled by William + Rufus, and his lands given to Roger de Nunant. I certainly + find Roger de Nonant attesting in 1091 the foundation charter + of Salisbury Cathedral in conjunction with William fitz + Baldwin (see pp. 330, 472); and Manors belonging to Juhel in + 1086 are found afterwards belonging to Valletort, Nonant's + successor, as part of his honour of Totnes. But it would seem + that Juhel retained part of his honour of Barnstaple, while + the Nonants held the rest as the honour of Totnes. Indeed, he + must have held both _capita_ so late as 1113, when, say the + monks of Laon, 'venimus ad castrum, quod dicitur Bannistaplum, + ubi manebat quidam princeps nomine Joellus de Totenes', etc. + (_Hermannus_, ii. 17), adding that they afterwards visited + Totnes 'præfati principis castrum' (_ibid._, 18).] + + [Footnote 5: Reprinted, with additions, from _English + Historical Review_.] + + + + +THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES + + +It is difficult to believe that so interesting a genealogical question +as the origin of this famous house should have remained as yet +undetermined. I have shown above (p. 137) that we can identify in +Domesday Gilbert and Ralph de Neville, the earliest bearers of the +name in England, as knightly tenants of the Abbot of Peterborough; but +the existing house, as is well known, descends from them only through +a female. It is at its origin in the male line that I here glance. The +innumerable quarters in which, unfortunately, information of this kind +has been published makes it impossible for me to say whether I have +been forestalled. So far, however, as I can find at present, two +different versions are in the field. + +First, there is Dugdale's view that Robert fitz Maldred, their +founder, was 'son of Dolfin, son of Earl Gospatric, son of Maldred +fitz Crinan by Algitha daughter of Uchtred, Earl of Northumberland, +who was son-in-law to King Æthelred'. This was, apparently, Mr +Shirley's view, for, in his _Noble and Gentle Men of England_ +he derives the Nevilles from 'Gospatric, the Saxon Earl of +Northumberland', though he makes Robert fitz Maldred his +_great_-grandson, as Rowland had done in his work on the House of +Nevill (1830), by placing Maldred between Dolfin and Robert fitz +Maldred. Even that sceptical genealogist, Mr Foster, admitted in +his peerage their descent from this Earl Gospatric. The immediate +ancestry, however, of their founder, Robert fitz Maldred, can be +proved, and is as follows: + + Dolfin, + fitz Uchtred, + received 'Staindropshire' + from the Prior of Durham, + 1131. (_Feod. Prior. Dun._ 56, 140) + | + __________________|________________________ + | | + | | + Meldred Patrick + fitz Dolfin, fitz Dolfin + (F.P.D. 53, 100, 140) (F.P.D. 100) + | d. 1195-6 + |___________________________________________ + | | + | | + Isabel = Robert Gilbert + de Neville | fitz Meldred fitz Meldred + | of Raby (F.P.D. 53, 54) + | + Geoffrey + de Neville + +Drummond's _Noble British Families_ (1842) set out a new origin for +the family without any hesitation, and this was adopted by the Duchess +of Cleveland, whose elaborate work on the _Battle Abbey Roll_ has much +excellent genealogy. Their patriarch Dolfin was now made the son +of that Uchtred, who was a grandson and namesake of Dugdale's Earl +Uchtred, _temp._ King Æthelred. A chart pedigree is required to show +the descent of the earls: + + (1) Earl (2) (3) + = Uchtred, = = + | slain 1016 | | + ___________| _____________| |________ + | | | | + | | | | + Earl Earl Gospatric Ealdgyth, + Ealdred Eadwulf | mar. Maldred + | | | fitz Crinan + | | | | + daughter, | | | + mar. Siward | | | + | Earl UCHTRED Earl + | Osulf | Gospatric + | | ___________|________ + | | | | | + Earl Eadwulf Dolfin Waltheof Gospatric + Waltheof, 'Rus', of Carlisle, of Dunbar + beheaded 1075 living 1080 1092 + +No authority, unfortunately, is given for the identity of this Uchtred +with Uchtred, father of Dolfin, and the assumption of that identity +involves the conclusion that Eadwulf 'Rus', who took the lead in the +murder of Bishop Walcher (1080), was brother to Dolfin who received +Staindrop in 1131, and uncle to a man who died in 1195 or 1196! +We cannot therefore accept this descent as it stands, or carry the +pedigree at present beyond Dolfin fitz Uchtred (1131). But as this +Dolfin, when doing homage to the Prior of Durham for Staindrop, +reserved his homage to the kings of England and of Scotland, as well +as the Bishop of Durham, he was, no doubt, a man of consequence, and +was probably of high Northumbrian birth. It may be worth throwing +out, as a hint, the suggestion that his father Uchtred might have been +identical with Uchtred, son of Ligulf, that great Northumbrian thegn +who was slain at Durham in 1080. But this is only a guess. One cannot, +in fact, be too careful, as I have shown in my two papers on 'Odard of +Carlisle' and 'Odard the Sheriff',[1] in identifying two individuals +of the same Christian names, when, in these northern districts, the +names in question were so widely borne. The Whitby cartulary, for +instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings was (maternal) grandson +of Alan, son of Thorphin 'de Alverstain', son of Uchtred (son of +Gospatric), which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby Ravensworth to the +abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Rufus. But who Gospatric, +his father, was has not been clearly ascertained. The skilled +genealogists of the north may be able to decide these points, and to +tell us the true descent of 'Dolfin, the son of Uchtred'. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Genealogist_, N.S., v. 25-8; viii. 200.] + + + + +THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147 + + +When Mr Richard Howlett, in the preface to his edition of the _Gesta +Stephani_ for the Rolls series, announced that we were indebted to its +'careful author' for the knowledge of an invasion of England by +Henry FitzEmpress in 1147, 'unrecorded by any other chronicler', and +endeavoured at considerable length to establish this proposition,[1] +it was received, from all that I can learn, with general incredulity. +As, however, in the volume which he has since edited, he reiterates +his belief in this alleged invasion,[2] it becomes necessary to +examine in detail the evidence for a discovery so authoritatively +announced in the pages of the Rolls series. + +The accepted view of Henry's movements has hitherto been that, by his +father's permission, in the autumn of 1142 he accompanied the Earl of +Gloucester to England; that he remained there about four years; that, +by his father's wish, at the end of 1146 or beginning of 1147 he +returned from England; that he then spent two years and four months +over sea; that in the spring of 1149 he again came to England, and was +knighted at Carlisle by the king of Scots on May 22nd. As to the above +long visit, commencing in 1142, Gervase of Canterbury is our chief +authority, but the other chroniclers (omitting for the present the +_Gesta Stephani_) harmonize well with his account. Gervase and Robert +of Torigni alike mention but one arrival of Henry (1142) and one +departure (1146 or 1147), thus distinctly implying there was then +only one visit--namely, that visit which Gervase tells us lasted four +years. The only slight discrepancy between Gervase and Robert is found +in the date of Henry's departure. Robert places that event under 1147, +and mentions that Henry visited Bec May 29th in that year. There is +also, Mr Howlett has pointed out, charter evidence implying that Henry +was back in Normandy in March or April. Now Gervase says distinctly +that he was away from England two years and four months. The +chroniclers, Gervase included, say that he returned to England in the +middle of May 1149. Counting back the two years and four months, this +would bring us to January 1147, as the date of his departure from +England. But there is a charter of his to Salisbury Cathedral, tested, +as Mr Howlett observes, at Devizes, April 13, 1149. If this evidence +be trustworthy, it would take us back to December 1146, instead of +January 1147. It is easy to see how Gervase may have included in 1146, +and Robert in 1147, an event which appears to have taken place about +the end of the one or the beginning of the other year. + +Much has been made of the alleged circumstance that Gervase assigned +the Earl of Gloucester's death to 1146, whereas he is known to have +died in 1147. But reference to his text will show that he does nothing +of the kind. Writing of Henry's departure at the close of 1146, he +tells us that the earl was destined never to see him again, for +he died in November [_i.e._ November 1147]. He is here obviously +anticipating. + +Such being the evidence on which is based the accepted view of +Henry's movements, let us now turn to the _Gesta Stephani_. Though Mr +Howlett's knowledge of the period is great and quite exceptional, I +cannot but think that he has been led astray by his admiration for +this fascinating chronicle. Miss Norgate sensibly observes that 'there +must be something wrong in the story' as actually preserved in the +_Gesta_,[3] but Mr Howlett, unwilling to admit the possibility of +error in his chronicle, boldly asserts that the 'romantic account'[4] +of Henry's adventures which it contains does not refer to his visit +in 1149, but to a hitherto unknown invasion in 1147. He appears to +imagine that the only objection in accepting this story is found in +the fact that Henry was but just fourteen at the time.[5] But this +is not so. Putting aside this objection, as also the silence of other +chroniclers, there remains the chronological difficulty. How is the +alleged visit to be fitted in? Its inventor, who suggests 'about April +1147', for its date, must first take Henry back to Normandy (why or +when he does not even suggest) and then bring him back to England as +an invader, neither his alleged going or coming being recorded by any +chronicler. Then he assigns to his second return to Normandy (after +the alleged invasion) the only passages in Gervase and Robert which +speak of his returning at all. Surely nothing could be more improbable +than that Henry should rush back to England just after he had left it, +and had returned to his victorious father, and this at a time when his +cause seemed as hopeless there as it was prosperous over the sea. + +The evidence of the _Gesta Stephani_ would have, indeed, to be beyond +question if we are to accept, on its sole authority, so improbable +a story. But what does that evidence amount to? The _Gesta_, unlike +other chronicles, not being arranged chronologically under years, the +only definite note of time here afforded in its text is found in the +passage, 'Consuluit [Henricus] et avunculum [_sic_] Glaorniæ comitem, +sed ipse suis sacculis avide incumbens, rebus tantum sibi necessariis +occurrere maluit'.[6] + +As Earl Robert is known to have died in the autumn of 1147, the word +_avunculus_ does, undoubtedly, fix these events as prior to that date. +But is not _avunculus_ a slip of the writer for _cognatus_? Is not the +reference to Earl William rather than to his father, Earl Robert?[7] +Such a slip is no mere conjecture; the statement that Earl Robert was +too avaricious to assist his beloved nephew in his hour of need is not +only absolutely contrary to all that we know of his character, but is +virtually discredited by the _Gesta_ itself when its author tells us, +further on: + + Comes deinde Glaorniæ ut erat regis adversariorum + strenuissimus et ad magna quevis struenda paratissimus, + iterum atque iterum exercitum comparare, jugi hortaminis et + admonitionis stimulo complices suos incitavit; illos minis, + istos promissis sibi et præmiis conjugare; quatinus omnes + in unam concordiam, in unum animum conspirati, exercitum e + diverso ad idem velle repararent, et collectis undecumque + agminibus, vive et constanter in regem insurgerent.[8] + +How can such language as this be reconciled with the statement as to +Earl Robert's apathy at the very time when Henry's efforts offered him +a unique opportunity of pursuing his war against the king? Mr Howlett +does not attempt to meet, or even notice, this objection. Moreover, +when the _Gesta_ proceeds to describe Earl William of Gloucester as +devoted to his own pleasures rather than to war,[9] we see that the +conduct so incredible in his father would in him be what we might +expect. + +I will not follow Mr Howlett in his lengthy argument relative to the +knighting of Eustace and Henry, because he himself admits that it is +based only on conjecture.[10] It is sufficient to observe that if the +'romantic' narrative in the _Gesta_ refers to the events of 1149,[11] +then the knighting of Eustace, which is a pendant to that narrative, +belongs, as the other chroniclers assert, to 1149. The statement, +I may add, that Henry applied for help to his mother, by no means +involves, as Mr Howlett assumes, her presence in England at the time. + +I would suggest, then, that the whole hypothesis of this invasion +in 1147 is based on nothing more than a confusion in the _Gesta_. Mr +Howlett, indeed, claims that 'mediaeval history would simply disappear +if the evidence of chroniclers were to be treated in this way,[12] +and detects 'among some modern writers a tendency to incautious +rejection', etc.[13] But he himself goes out of his way to denounce, +in this connection, as a 'blundering interpolation' a passage in John +of Hexham, which he assigns to notes being 'carelessly misplaced' and +'ignorantly miscopied'.[14] The _Gesta_, to my knowledge, is by no +means immaculate; its unbroken narrative and vagueness as to dates +render its chronology a matter of difficulty; and the circumstance +that the passage in dispute occurs towards its close renders it +impossible to test it as we could wish by comparison with later +portions. The weakness of Mr Howlett's case is shown by his desperate +appeal to 'the exact precedent' set by Fulk Nerra, and no talk about +the contrast presented by 'physical science' and that 'fragmentary +tale of human inconsistencies which we term history' can justify the +inclusion of this alleged invasion as a fact beyond dispute in so +formal and authoritative a quarter as the preface to a Rolls volume. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Chronicles_, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, vol. + iii. pp. xvi-xx, 130.] + + [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. xxi-xxii.] + + [Footnote 3: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 377.] + + [Footnote 4: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 5: 'The invasion of England by Henry in 1147, when + he was but a boy of fourteen, a piece of history which + has hitherto been rejected solely on the ground of + improbability.'--Preface (_ut supra_), p. xxi.] + + [Footnote 6: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 131.] + + [Footnote 7: There is a precisely similar slip, by John of + Salisbury, in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (Pertz, xx. 532), + where the 'Duke' of Normandy is referred to in 1148 as 'qui + modo rex est' (_i.e._ Henry). Mr Howlett himself has pointed + out (_Academy_, November 12, 1887) that the author 'slipped in + the words "qui modo rex est", and thus transferred to Henry a + narrative which assuredly relates to his father'. The slip in + question, as he observed, had sadly misled Miss Norgate.] + + [Footnote 8: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 134.] + + [Footnote 9: 'Successit in comitatum suum Willelmus filius + suus, senior quidem ætate, sed vir mollis, et thalamorum magis + quam militiæ appetitor' (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 134).] + + [Footnote 10: Mr Howlett incidentally claims that knighthood + was a necessary preliminary to comital rank, and appeals to + the fact that the younger Henry was even carefully knighted + before his coronation (_Gesta_, p. xxii). But what has he to + say to the knighting of Earl Richard of Clare, by Henry VI, + and more especially to the knighting of Malcolm, already + Earl of Huntingdon and king of Scots, by Henry II, in 1159? + (_Robert of Torigni_, p. 203).] + + [Footnote 11: Mr Howlett asserts (_Gesta_, p. 130, note) that + 'when Henry made his better known visit in 1149 his acts were + quite different' from those recorded in the _Gesta_. But if, + as he himself admits, in 1149 Henry visited Devizes on his + way to Carlisle, what more natural than that he should pass + by Cricklade and Bourton (the two places mentioned in the + _Gesta_), which lay directly on his road?] + + [Footnote 12: Preface to _Gesta_, p. xx.] + + [Footnote 13: Preface to _Robert of Torigni_, p. xxii.] + + [Footnote 14: Preface to _Gesta_ (_ut supra_), p. xvi.] + + + + +THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163) + + +The great importance attached by historians to the financial dispute +at the council of Woodstock in 1163 renders it desirable that the +point at issue should be clearly stated and understood. As I venture +to believe that the accepted view on the matter in dispute is +erroneous, I here submit the reasons which have led me to that +conclusion. 'Two most important points,' writes Dr Stubbs, 'stand +out' on this occasion: (1) 'this is the first case of any express +opposition being made to the king's financial dealings since the +Conquest'; (2) 'the first fruit of the first constitutional opposition +is the abolition of the most ancient property-tax [danegeld] imposed +as a bribe for the Danes'.[1] It is with the second of these points +that I propose especially to deal. + +The passage which forms our best evidence is found in Grim's _Life of +St Thomas_, and its relative portion is as follows: + + Movetur quæstio de consuetudine quadam quae in Anglia + tenebatur. Dabantur de hida bini solidi ministris regis + qui vicecomitum loco comitatus servabant, quos voluit rex + conscribere fisco et reditibus propriis associare. Cui + archiepiscopus in faciem restitit, dicens, non debere eos + exigi pro reditibus, 'nec pro reditu', inquit, 'dabimus eos, + domine rex, salvo beneplacito vestro: sed si digne + nobis servierint vicecomites, et servientes vel ministri + provinciarum, et homines nostros manutenuerint, nequaquam eis + deerimus in auxilium.' Rex autem aegre ferens archiepiscopi + responsionem, 'Per oculos Dei', ait, 'dabuntur pro reditu, et + in scriptura regis scribentur'. + +On this passage Dr Stubbs thus comments: + + A tax so described can hardly have been anything else than the + danegeld, which was an impost of two shillings on the hide, + and was collected by the sheriffs, being possibly compounded + for at a certain rate and paid by them into the exchequer. As + the danegeld from this very year 1163 ceases to appear as a + distinct item of account in the Pipe-Rolls, it is impossible + to avoid connecting the two ideas, even if we may not identify + them. Whether the king's object in making this proposition was + to collect the danegeld in full amount, putting an end to + the nominal assessment which had so long been in use, and so + depriving the sheriffs of such profits as they made from it, + or whether he had some other end in view, it is impossible now + to determine; and consequently it is difficult to understand + the position taken by the archbishop.[2] + +The attempt to identify the payment in dispute with the danegeld does +indeed lead to the greatest possible difficulties, and Miss Norgate, +who follows closely in Dr Stubbs' footsteps, is no more successful in +answering them;[3] for, in the first place, the words of Grim do not +apply to the danegeld if taken in their natural sense; and in the +second the proceeds of the danegeld were already royal revenue, and +were duly paid in, as such, at the exchequer. To meet this latter and +obvious difficulty Dr Stubbs suggests that: + + as the sums paid into the exchequer under that name (danegeld) + were very small compared with the extent of land that paid the + tax, it is probable that the sheriffs paid a fixed composition + and retained the surplus as wages for their services (etc.).[4] + +So, too, Miss Norgate urges that the danegeld 'still occasionally made +its appearance in the treasury rolls, but in such small amount that +it is evident the sheriffs, if they collected it in full, paid only +a fixed composition to the crown, and kept the greater part as a +remuneration for their own services'.[5] Now this suggestion raises +the whole question as to the revenue from danegeld. We are told that +'the danegeld was a very unpopular tax, probably because it was the +plea on which the sheriffs made their greatest profit ... having +become in the long lapse of years a mere composition paid by the +sheriff to the exchequer, while the balance of the whole sums exacted +on that account went to swell his own income'.[6] + +As against this view I venture to hold that the danegeld was in no way +compounded for, but that every penny raised by its agency was due to +the royal treasury, leaving no profit whatever to the sheriff. The +test is easily applied: let us take the case of Dorset. The Domesday +assessment of this county, according to the late Mr Eyton, who had +investigated it with his usual painstaking labour, and collated it +with the geld-rolls of two years before, was about 2,300 hides.[7] +This assessment would produce, at two shillings on the hide, about +£230. Now the actual amount accounted for on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is +£228 5s; on that of 1156 it is £228 5s; and on that of 1162, the last +levy, it is £247 5s.[8] There is certainly no margin of profit for +the sheriff here. In other counties, we find that the proceeds of the +danegeld in 1130, 1156, and 1162, whilst slightly fluctuating, roughly +correspond, as, indeed, they were bound to do, the Domesday assessment +remaining unchanged.[9] I can, therefore, find no ground for the +alleged discrepancy between the amounts accounted for by the sheriffs +and those which the assessment ought to have produced. + +This being so, the solitary explanation suggested for Henry's action +falls to the ground, and it becomes clear that the payment in dispute +could not have been the danegeld, as the proposed change could not +increase the amount it produced already. As a matter of fact, the last +occasion on which danegeld _eo nomine_ was levied was in 1162, but +to connect that circumstance with the Woodstock dispute of 1163 is an +instance of the _post hoc propter hoc_ argument, more especially as +the danegeld was not in dispute, still less its abolition. On the +contrary, the primate desired to keep things as they were. What, +then, was this mysterious payment but the _auxilium vicecomitis_, +or 'sheriffs' aid'? Garnier distinctly states that this is what it +was,[10] and Grim's words no less unmistakably point to the same +conclusion. To institutional students of the twelfth and thirteenth +centuries the _auxilium vicecomitis_ is familiar enough. It +was, writes Dr Stubbs, a 'payment made to the sheriff for his +services',[11] and was, it may be added, a customary charge, varying +in amount,[12] paid over locally to the sheriffs. It may fairly be +said to have stood to the danegeld in the relation of rates to taxes. + +On this hypothesis the difficulties of the case vanish at once, and +Henry's object is made plain. To add this regular annual levy to +his own revenues would be all clear gain, and would relieve him _pro +tanto_ from the necessity of spasmodic and irregular taxation. As for +the sheriffs and the districts beneath their sway, they were possibly +to be left to their own devices to find a substitute for the lost +'aid', like a modern county council bereft of its wheel tax; for +the thought suggests itself that Henry was attempting to reverse the +process that we have lately witnessed, by relieving the taxes at +the expense of the rates, instead of the rates at the expense of +the taxes. Whether, therefore, the attitude of the primate can be +described as 'opposition to the king's will in the matter of taxation' +is perhaps just open to question. He took his stand on the sure ground +of existing 'custom', recognized at that time as binding on all.[13] +One is tempted to discern a grim irony in Henry's action when he +promptly proceeded to turn the tables on his old friend by appealing +to the _avitæ consuetudines_ as obviously binding on so rigid a +constitutional purist as the primate.[14] + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 69, 70. So, too, Miss + Norgate: 'It seems, therefore, that for the first time in + English history since the Norman Conquest the right of the + nation's representatives to oppose the financial demands + of the crown was asserted in the Council of Woodstock, and + asserted with such success that the king was obliged not + merely to abandon his project, but to obliterate the last + trace of the tradition on which it was founded' (_Angevin + Kings_, ii. 16).] + + [Footnote 2: _Const. Hist._, i. 462; so, too, _Early + Plantagenets_, pp. 68-70; and _Select Charters_, p. 29, + where it is described as 'Henry's proposal to appropriate the + sheriffs' share of danegeld'.] + + [Footnote 3: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 15, 16.] + + [Footnote 4: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 69.] + + [Footnote 5: But the Auctor Anonymus makes it clear that the + king was not asking for the balance of the sums raised, but + for the entirety: 'duo illi solidi ... si in unum conferuntur + immensum efficere possunt cumulum'.] + + [Footnote 6: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 381, 582.] + + [Footnote 7: _Dorset Domesday_, p. 144.] + + [Footnote 8: Thus accounted for (_Rot. Pip._, 8 Hen. II): + + £ s. d. + Paid in 141 10 0 + Paid out previously 63 0 0 + Allowed for remissions 20 1 2 + Balance due 22 13 10 + ----------------- + 247 5 0 + + N.B. The roll sums up the remissions as £21 [_sic_] 1s 2d, but + the total of the items is £20 1s 2d.] + + [Footnote 9: Oxfordshire, for instance, where the amounts were + £239 9s 3d, £249 6s 5d, £242 0s 10d; or Wiltshire, where they + run £388 13s 0d, £389 13s 0d, £388 11s 11d.] + + [Footnote 10: _L'Aide al Vescunte_, as quoted by Miss Norgate, + who observes thereon, 'This payment, although described as + customary rather than legal, and called the "sheriffs' aid", + seems really to have been nothing else than the danegeld.... + His (Garnier's) story points directly to the danegeld.'] + + [Footnote 11: _Const. Hist._, i. 382.] + + [Footnote 12: In this detail alone Grim appears to have + confused it with the uniform two shilling rate of the + danegeld. The record in the _Testa de Nevill_ (pp. 85, 86) + of the 'auxilium vicecomitis', due from the Vills in the + Wapentake of Framelund (Leic.), illustrates well the payment.] + + [Footnote 13: Thus the statement that he 'declared at + Woodstock that the lands of his church should not pay a penny + to the danegeld' (_Const. Hist._, i. 578) misrepresents his + position by making him repudiate his undoubted obligation.] + + [Footnote 14: This and the preceding and succeeding papers are + reprinted from the _English Historical Review_.] + + + + +A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170) + + +The charter given below is cited by Madox as evidence that in the days +of Henry II the exchequer was still 'sometimes holden in other places' +than Westminster. Contrary to his usual practice, he does not print +the charter; so, wishing to ascertain what light it might throw on +the private transaction it records, I referred to its original +enrolment.[1] Finding that its evidence would prove of some historical +value, I decided to edit it for the use of students.[2] + + Willelmus comes de Essex' omnibus hominibus [et] amicis suis, + Francis [et] Anglis, clericis [et] laicis, tam futuris quam + presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse [et] concessisse + [et] hac carta mea confirmasse Rogero filio Ricardi [et] + suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis] + in escambio pro Cunctonia hereditarie tenendam de me [et] + heredibus meis sibi [et] heredibus suis per servicium unius + militis [et] dimidii, libere et quiete [et] honorifice sicut + unquam antecessores mei liberius [et] honorificencius eam + tenuerunt [et] habuerunt; scilicet in bosco [et] in plano, + in pratis et pascuis, in viis [et] semitis, in aquis, [et] + molendinis, [et] in omnibus predicte ville adjacentibus. + Et insuper dedi [et] concessi predicto Rogero filio Ricardi + terram de Wlauynton' quam pater meus comes Gal[fridus] dedit + Willelmo de Moretonio, per servicium michi faciendum quod + predictus Willelmus patri meo facere debuit, hereditarie + tenendum [_sic_] de me [et] heredibus meis, illi [et] + heredibus suis. Quare volo [et] firmiter precipio quod ista + donacio rata [et] inconcussa permaneat. Et notum sit omnibus + quod istud eschambium factum fuit apud Wynconiam [_sic_] + ad Scaccarium coram domino Rege Henrico filio regis Henrici + Secundi [et] Baronibus suis. Tes[et]e [_sic_] + Reg' comite, Bac'[3] de Luc[i], Willelmo de Sancto Johanne, + Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo Archidiacono + Pick[tavensi], Hunfrido de Buh[un] constant[e],[4] Manser' + Biset dap[ifero], Gilberto Malet dap[ifero], Hugone de + Gundvil[la], Alano de Nevill[a], Thoma Basset, Willelmo filio + Audel[ini], Johanne Mereschal, Roberto de Bussone, Johanne + const[abulario] Cestr[iae], Ranulpho de Glanvile, Gaufrido de + Say, Gerard de Kanvill[a], Oseberto filio Ricardi, David de + Jarpenvilla, Ricardo filio Hugonis, Johanne Burd, Willelmo + filio Gill[eberti], Roberto de Sancto Claro, Johanne de Roch, + Hasculfo Capellano, Henrico clerico, Roberto clerico, qui hanc + cartam scripsit, [et] multis aliis. + +The purpose of the charter is soon disposed of; it records a grant by +the Earl of Essex to Roger fitz Richard (who had married the earl's +aunt 'Alice of Essex'[5]) of Aynho, Northants, in exchange for +Compton, co. Warwick. Both Manors were in the Mandeville fief, and +the former was to be held, as the latter had been (in 1166[6]), 'per +servicium unius militis et dimidii'. + +The interest of the document is to be sought in its witnesses, and +its place of testing, and above all in the date which, I hope to show, +they suggest. The mention of the two inseparable archdeacons proves +that this date cannot be later than 1174, and consequently, as the +young king was present, must have been previous to his revolt in 1173, +and therefore to his departure from England about the close of 1172. +On the other hand, the date must be subsequent to June 1170, when +the young king was crowned, and therefore probably to the meeting at +Fréteval (July 22, 1170), at which the Archdeacon of Canterbury was +present. + +Thus we obtain a limit of date. Within this limit we may exclude +the young king's stay in England after the departure of the two +archdeacons (December 1170), as also his subsequent presence in +England in 1171-2 while his father was in Ireland, for William fitz +Aldelin was in Ireland with him. Indeed, we are told by Giraldus (v. +286) that when the king left Ireland (April 1172) William was left +behind in charge of Wexford.[7] As the young king then accompanied his +father over sea, the only period remaining (except July-December 1170) +to which we could assign the document is August-November 1172, when he +visited England, with his consort Margaret, for his second coronation. +This ceremony took place at Winchester, but we cannot tell whether +William fitz Aldelin had yet returned from Ireland, or whether any +other of our witnesses were present on that occasion.[8] + +But if we turn to the other possible period, the latter half of 1170, +we find an occasion when six of the witnesses to the above charter +can actually be shown to have been present, under circumstances of +peculiar interest, with the young king at Winchester. + +The evidence of charters is so deficient at this period of the reign +that from August 1170 to June 1171, Mr Eyton could only adduce two +charters 'quite problematically' and one more 'safely', as he claims, +but erroneously, as his own pages show.[9] If, then, our charter +belongs to this period, its evidence is proportionately valuable. Now +all that we know of the movements of the young king at the time +is that he was at Westminster on October 5th, and that he kept his +Christmas at Winchester. Mr Eyton's book must here be used with great +caution. He has been misled by R. de Diceto (i. 342)[10] into the +statement that Henry was at Woodstock when Becket sought to visit him +in December; and adds--by a confusion, it would seem, with his October +movements--'The young king is at Windsor' (December 4th[11]). Henry +was neither at Woodstock nor Windsor at this time, but at Winchester. +Becket's biographers are unanimous in stating that he sent his envoy +before him to the young king at Winchester. + +Landing on December 1st, and entering Canterbury next day, the primate +(says William fitz Stephen), 'post octo dierum moram in sede',[12] +sent Richard, prior of Dover (who was destined to be his own +successor), to the young king to ask permission to visit him 'tanquam +regem et dominum suum'. Richard 'veniens Wintoniam, regem invenit, ubi +optimates regni ... coegerat'.[13] + +The purpose of this special assembly was connected with the scheme for +an irregular election to the vacant sees, at the court of the elder +king, by deputations whom his son was to send over.[14] Prior Richard +was confronted by the young king's guardians (three of whom attest +our charter).[15] He himself, on receiving the application, sent (as +I read it) to consult Geoffrey Ridel, who was believed to know his +father's wishes, and who, with the Archdeacon of Poitiers, was at +Southampton, waiting to cross.[16] Turning, for their movements, to +William fitz Stephen, we learn that, while on their way to cross from +a Kentish port, the two archdeacons, on entering the county, learnt +that the primate had arrived at Canterbury, and, turning their horses' +heads, made for a more westerly port.[17] Southampton clearly was the +port they made for, and on their way thither they must have visited +the young king at Winchester. This is admitted in the case of +Geoffrey, who went there, says Becket, to lay before him the complaint +of the excommunicated bishops. + +I believe that our charter belongs to this occasion, when the two +attesting archdeacons were at Winchester. _Reg'_ no doubt is Earl +Reginald of Cornwall, who was certainly present at the same time[18] +and who is probably referred to in 'li cunte' of Garnier. This will +establish the presence of six of our witnesses. Of the others, Richard +de Luci takes precedence as justiciar; Alan de Nevill, Thomas Basset, +and the great Glanville were, like the two archdeacons and the three +guardians of the king, members of the judicial body; Humfrey de Bohun, +Gilbert Malet, and Manasser Bisset were present as officers of the +household; John, constable of Chester, was (then or afterwards) +son-in-law to the grantee's wife, and Geoffrey de Say was the son +of the earl's aunt; Osbert fitz Richard and David de Jarpenville +(probably John de Rochelle also) were among the earl's feudal tenants +and are found attesting another of his charters; and Hasculf was the +enterprising chaplain who had plotted to carry off the late earl's +corpse and present it to the nuns of Chicksand. The only person whose +presence need puzzle us is the Earl of Essex himself; for William fitz +Stephen[19] asserts that he was despatched from Henry's court after +the arrival there of the excommunicated prelates and the Archdeacon +of Poitou. Either, then, he had previously paid a flying visit to +Winchester, or he must have been absent when this transaction was +recorded. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Madox gives a misleading reference. The charter + occurs among the Clavering enrolments of m. 17 (not 19) of the + L.T.R. Memoranda of the Exchequer, containing the Michælmas + _communia_ of 5 Edward II.] + + [Footnote 2: Mr Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office, + kindly undertook to transcribe the charter for me.] + + [Footnote 3: Read _Ric[ardo_].] + + [Footnote 4: Read _constab[ulo_].] + + [Footnote 5: See my paper on 'Who was Alice of Essex?' in the + _Essex Arch. Transactions_.] + + [Footnote 6: 'Rogerus filius Ricardi i. militem et tres + partes unius militis.' Probably the quarter fee was a separate + holding.] + + [Footnote 7: Humfrey de Bohun also and Hugh de Gundeville were + left behind at Waterford.] + + [Footnote 8: Foss (_Judges of England_, i. 235) states + positively that Hugh de Gundeville did not leave Ireland + till 1173, at the time of the rebellion. This, if true, + would dispose at once of an 1172 date for our charter; but, + unfortunately, he does not give his authority, and I have not + succeeded in finding it.] + + [Footnote 9: _Court, etc., of Henry II_, pp. 147, 154. The + Archdeacon of Canterbury attests the Chinon charter, which Mr + Eyton 'safely' assigns to the middle of October 1170, adding + that he had 'apparently been with the king ever since the + peace of Fréteval' (July 22nd). But he is known to have been + with the young king at Westminster on October 5th, as indeed + Mr Eyton elsewhere observes (p. 151).] + + [Footnote 10: Becket, he says, visited London on his way, 'ad + videndam faciem novi regis, qui tunc temporis morabatur apud + Wdestoc' [_sic_].] + + [Footnote 11: 'Court of King Henry the Younger' (Eyton, pp. + 151-2).] + + [Footnote 12: _Materials_, p. 121. William of Canterbury + places Richard's despatch 'post aliquot dies reditus sui' + (_ibid._, i. 106).] + + [Footnote 13: _Ibid._, i. 106; so Garnier (p. 166, Ed. + Hippeua)-- + + 'Le juefne Rei aveit à Wincestre trové. + Là èrent del pais li barun assemblé.'] + + [Footnote 14: _Ibid._, 106; so Garnier-- + + 'Pur c'èrent assemblé cele genz à cel jur, + Et li prince et li cunte et des baruns plusur.'] + + [Footnote 15: 'Veniens itaque legatus ad curiam, convenit + tutores regis ... Willelmum de Sancto Johanne, Willelmum + filium Aldelinae, Hugonem de Gundulfivilla, Randulfum + Stephani' (i. 108-9).] + + [Footnote 16: 'Qui de portu Suthamtune transfretaturi erant' + (i. 111). Geoffrey sent back a scornful reply (see also + Garnier) expressing his wonder that the young king could think + of meeting a man who meant to disinherit him. This statement + agrees with Becket's own complaint (vii. 406) that his + _archidiabolus_ Geoffrey was instructed to make this charge.] + + [Footnote 17: III. 120. 'Duo archidiaconi ... jam in Cantiam + venerant, ad regem illac transfretaturi. Audito autem + quod archiepiscopus appulsus Cantuariae esset, lora statim + diverterunt, ad occidentals maris portus tendentes.' This + convicts Mr Eyton of error in asserting that on December 1st + the two archdeacons were at Dover, waiting to cross (p. 149).] + + [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, i. 111.] + + [Footnote 19: _Memorials_, iii. 127.] + + + + +THE FIRST KNOWN FINE (1175) + + +In his masterly introduction to _Select Pleas of the Crown_,[1] +Professor Maitland, with his usual skill, discusses the evolution of +the _Curia Regis_ and the relation of the central to the itinerant +courts. An appendix to this introduction is devoted to 'early fines'; +and the conclusion arrived at, as to the date when regular fines +began, is that 'the evidence seems to point to the year 1178 +or thereabouts, just, that is, to the time when King Henry was +remodelling the Curia Regis; thenceforward we have traces of a fairly +continuous series of fines' (p. xxvii). More definitely still, in his +latest work, he traces the existence of fines 'from the year 1179'. + +The earlier document I here print from the valuable cartulary of +Evesham (_Vesp._ B. xxiv., fo. 71, etc.) is, I contend, a true fine, +and is fortunately dated with exactitude (July 20th): + + Hæc est finalis concordia facta in curia domini Regis apud + Evesham ad proximum festum sancte Margarete post mortem + comitis Reginaldi[2] Cornub' coram Willelmo filio Audelini + et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo Basset et aliis + justiciariis domini regis qui ibi tunc aderant, inter Rogerum + filium Willelmi et Robertum Trunket de terra de Ragl' unde + placitum fuit inter eos in curia domini Regis. Scilicet quod + predictus Wibertus Trunket clamavit quietam predicto Rogero + terram illam de Ragl' et [_sic_] feud[um] et hereditatem suam + et totum jus suum quod in predicta terra habebat, et ipse + trunchet reddidit in curia domini Regis terram illam de Ragl' + in manu [_sic_] abbatis de Evesham, et ipse abbas ibi statim + in curia Regis reddidit eam predicto Rogero. Pro hac autem + concessione dedit predictus Rogerus predicto trunchet xx. + marcas argenti, et predictus abbas dedit truchet unum anulum + argenteum cum cural. + +The transcript of this fine is immediately followed by a royal charter +confirming it, and establishing Roger in possession: + + H. dei gratia ... Sciatis me concessisse et presenti carta + confirmasse finem que factus fuit in curia mea inter, etc., + etc. ... et Wibertus eam reddidit solutam et quietam in manu + abbatis de evesham de cujus feodo terra illa est.... Et + ideo volo et firmiter precipio.... Test. Willelmo Audelin', + Willelmo filio Radulfi, Willelmo Basset, Berteram de Verdun, + Gaufrido Salvagio. Apud Evesham. + +Mr Eyton, to whom this fine was unknown, does not, in his _Court and +Itinerary of Henry II_, include Evesham among the places visited by +the king in 1175, but makes him visit Feckenham about October (p. +196). But as we learn from the above fine that Henry was at Evesham +on July 20th, Mr Eyton's conclusions must be reconsidered. Henry, +according to him, was at Woodstock July 8th and at Nottingham August +1st. Now this latter date is derived from a Nottingham charter (p. +193), among the witnesses to which are William fitz Audelin 'Dapifer', +William Basset, and William fitz Ralf, the very three justices +before whom our fine had been levied at Evesham on July 20th. I hold, +therefore, that Henry proceeded (possibly through Lichfield, as +Mr Eyton asserts) from Woodstock to Nottingham _via_ Evesham; and, +further, that he visited Feckenham (to the north of Evesham) on +this occasion, and not, as Mr Eyton imagined, in October. We find +accordingly that of the Feckenham charters quoted by that writer (p. +196), one is witnessed by all three of our officers, William fitz +Audelin 'Dapifer', William fitz Ralf, and William Basset; one by +William fitz Audelin and William fitz Ralf; and the third by William +fitz Ralf and William Basset. + +Now, working from the Pipe-Rolls, Mr Eyton discovered that: + + while the king was in Staffordshire there were pleas held in + that county which are expressed to have been held by William + fitz Ralph, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset _in curia + Regis_ (p. 193). + +He also noted that + + the Pipe-Roll of 1175, after duly recounting the results of + the ordinary assizes, held by William de Lanvall and Thomas + Basset (who appear to have visited York while the king was + there), contains the following (in regard to a different kind + of judicature than that at which the two justiciars presided), + and which probably took place in a court of which the king in + person was president: + + 'Placita et conventiones per Willelmum filius Radulfi, + Bertram de Verdon, et Willelmum Basset, in curia Regis.' These + _Placita_ were apparently nothing more than fines with the + crown (p. 194). + +So, too, he found that at Northampton + + the three justiciars who had attended him in his special + _curia_ in Staffordshire and at York, negotiated a fine by + Robert de Nevill, 'pro rehabenda saisina de Uppetona quæ fuit + Radulfi de Waltervilla' (p. 194). + +My own evidence proves that the same three justiciars had been with +him, earlier in the summer, in his special _curia_ at Evesham, where +an actual fine was levied. + +Thus we have proof that in the summer of 1175 the king was accompanied +on his progress by a special group of justices, with whose assistance +he held pleas, just as, a generation later, John, in his ninth +year, 'was journeying about the country with three judges in his +train--Simon Pateshull, Potterne, and Pont Audemer'.[3] While he +was doing this, as Eyton has shown, two great eyres were going +on throughout the country, one of them conducted by William de +Lanvall[ei] and Thomas Basset, the other by Ranulf de Glanville and +Hugh de Cressi. It is noteworthy that all these four are found, with +William fitz Audelin, among the witnesses to a royal charter assigned +by Mr Eyton--rightly, no doubt--to the king's stay at York (_circ._ +August 10, 1175), as they also are among the witnesses to the +Nottingham charter mentioned above (p. 385), assigned by Eyton to +August 1st. The latter, therefore, brings together the king's own +party of three or four justices with the four justices in eyre. + +The great importance of this royal _iter_ consists in its bearing on +the evolution of the _curia regis_. The years 1175 and 1176 form a +critical epoch in this institutional development. Dr Stubbs, writing +on this subject, reminds us that 'the first _placita curiæ regis_ +mentioned by Madox are in 1175' (i. 600), and speaks of the 'two +circuits of the justices in 1175, and the six circuits of the judges +in 1176' (_ibid._). So far, indeed, all is clear. The two judicial +eyres of 1175 are known to us from the Pipe-Rolls; the six of 1176 are +found in the chronicles also, for they were settled by the Assize of +Northampton in January of that year (i. 484-5). The really difficult +subject is the king's own _iter_, for which, we have seen, there is +clear evidence, but of which Dr Stubbs, working from Madox, seems to +have been unaware. His words are: + + All the eighteen justices of 1176 were officers of the + Exchequer; some of them are found in 1175 holding 'placita + curiæ regis' in bodies of three or four judges, and not in the + same combinations in which they took their judicial journeys. + We can scarcely help the conclusion that the new jurisprudence + was being administered by committees of the general body of + justices, who were equally qualified to sit in the Curia and + Exchequer, and to undertake the fiscal and judicial work of + the eyre. + + [_Note_: For instance, in 1176, William fitz Ralf, Bertram de + Verdun, and William Basset hear pleas in Curia Regis touching + Bucks. and Beds.; yet on the eyre, these two counties are + visited by three other judges, etc.] + +These statements are based on Madox's extracts from the Pipe-Rolls,[4] +which afford, however, more definite evidence than Dr Stubbs +discovered. In the Pipe-Roll of 1175 and its immediate successor +we find 'Placita _in Curia Regis_' held by a single group of +judges--William fitz Ralf, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset +(Thomas Basset is a substitute in one case and William fitz Audelin, +we have seen, in another)--quite distinct from the 'placita' of the +justices in eyre, which were not described as 'in curia regis'. The +view, therefore, that I now advance is that these pleas, 'in curia +regis', were held by a separate group of judges in the train of the +king himself, whose _iter_ began at Reading, June 1175.[5] It was +there, I believe, that were held the 'placita' for Bucks and Beds, +duly recorded in the Pipe-Roll of 1175. That this royal _iter_ +was continued through the Exchequer year 1175-6 seems to be well +established, and the chronological difficulty of distinguishing +between the two years renders the discovery of a fixed point, such as +that afforded by the Evesham fine, of special value. Its evidence also +establishes the presence of the king in person,[6] whose charter of +confirmation should be carefully noted on account of its reciting the +fine. + +Having now traced the royal _iter_, of which the pleas are +distinguished on the Pipe-Rolls as held 'in curia regis', I turn to +the circuits of the judges. I have fortunately lighted, in the +course of my researches, on two more fines earlier than any known to +Professor Maitland. And, better still, one of these is the original +document itself. The date of the first is July 1 and of the second +June 29, 1176. The justices named in each case are those who are +known to have gone the circuits, in which Leicester and Oxford were +respectively comprised.[7] The importance of these documents demands +that they should be printed _in extenso_. + + +I + + Hec est finalis concordia facta apud Legr[ecestr]am proxima + die Jovis post proximum festum apostolorum petri et pauli + postquam Hugucio legatus Rome pervenit in Angliam,[8] coram + Hugonem de Gundevile et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo + Basset, Justiciariis domini Regis, et ceteris Baronibus qui + ibi tunc aderant Inter Galfridum Ridel et Bertramum de Verdun + de terra de Madeleye, unde placitum fuit inter eos in curia + Domini Regis, Videlicet quod Galfridus Ridel dedit Bertrammo + [_sic_] de Verdun feodum I militis in Leycest'syre, scilicet + servitium viii. car. terre quas Robert Devel tenet in + Swineford et in Walecote et servitium ii. car. terre quas + Walterus de Folevile tenet in parva Essebi et servitium I car. + terre quam peverel tenet in Flekeneye, et servitium i. car. + terre quam Hardeui[nus] tenet in eadem Flekeneye. Et has xii. + car. terre dedit ei et concessit in feodo et hereditate per + servicium unius militis. Et in Staffordesyre dedit predictus + Galfridus prenominato Bretamo [_sic_] xii. bov. terre quas + habebat in Crokestene de feodo de Madelye et servitium de + Foxwiss et de Hanekote per v. sol. inde annuatim reddendos + Galfrido pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent. Has vero terras + in Leycest'syre et in Staffordsyre dedit Galfridus Ridel et + concessit Bertramo et heredibus suis tenendas de illo et de + heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate libere et quiete per + prenominatum servitium pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent, et + pro ista donatione et concessione Bertrammus [_sic_] de Werdun + [_sic_] totam calumpniam quam habuit versus Galfridum in + Madeleye quietum clamavit de illo et de heredibus suis + Galfrido Ridel et heredibus suis.[9] + + +II + + Hec est finalis concordia que facta fuit apud Ox[eneforde] in + curia Regis coram Ricardo Giffard et Rogero filio Reinfr[idi] + et Johanne de Caerdif Justitiis Regis ... proximum festum + apostolorum petri et pauli postquam dominus Rex cepit + ligantiam baronum Scotie apud [Ebo]racum[10] inter Canonicos + Oseneie et Ingream et tres filias eius scilicet Gundream et + Isabella et Margaretam de terre de Oxenef[orde] unde placitum + fuerat inter eos in curia Regis scilicet quod Ingrea et tres + filie sue prenominate clamaverunt predictis canonicis quietam + terram illam in Oxenenef[orde] de se et de heredibus suis pro + xx. sol. quos canonici illi dederunt et omne jus quod in eadem + terra habebant quietum illis clamaverunt.[11] + +It will be observed that the Oxford fine is described as made 'in +curia regis', while the Leicester one is not. It would seem, then, +that in spite of the distinction drawn at first on the rolls, the +phrase 'curia regis' was already creeping in as describing a court at +which the king was not present. + +I have also discovered, in MS., a 'fine' of some ten or twelve years +earlier, most valuable for comparison with those which I have here +discussed. We have there a similar charter of confirmation, in +which the king describes the transaction as 'finem illum quem Abbas +Willelmus de Hulmo fecit coram me',[12] and the document confirmed, +moreover, describes itself as a 'finis' between the Abbot of Holme +and William and Henry de Neville, brothers.[13] But the form is very +different from that of the true fine, which is fully developed in +our example of 1175. The Holme 'fine' may be safely assigned to March +1163-March 1166,[14] and as it was 'made' at Westminster, it not +improbably belongs to the series of proceedings there _circ._ March 8, +1163. It may fairly be presumed that if, at the date of this fine, +the fully developed form existed it would have been duly employed +at Westminster on this occasion. We may therefore safely assert, +at least, that it came into use between the dates of these two +transactions. + +As bearing on the evolution of the fine, the charter of Henry II, +confirming a 'finis et concordia', and assigned by me to 1163-70,[15] +ought to be compared with the Holme charter, as indicating, perhaps, +some advance, through the close resemblance between the clauses, in +these royal charters, confirming the fine points to an almost common +stage of development. + + HOLME LEWES + + Quare volo et firmiter precipio Et ideo volo et firmiter precipio + quod finis ille sicut coram me ut finis iste et concordia + factus est stabilis sit, et stabilis sit et firma maneat et + firmiter et inconcusse ex inconcusse inter eos teneatur, + utraque parte teneatur. sicut facta fuit coram me et + utrobique concessa. + +The part played by William fitz Audelin in the affairs, at this time, +of Ireland, gives also some importance to this proof of his presence +at Evesham on July 20, 1175. It brings us, indeed, in contact with the +great 'Laudabiliter' controversy. Miss Norgate holds that William fitz +Audelin was sent to Ireland in charge (with the Prior of Wallingford) +of that contested document in 1175.[16] Professor Tout, in his +biography of William, writes on the contrary, oddly enough, that he +was 'sent in 1174 or 1175' [_sic_] on this mission, but 'soon left +Ireland, for he appears as a witness of the treaty of Falaise in +October 1174 [_sic_], and in 1175 and 1176 he was constantly +in attendance at court in discharge of his duties as steward or +seneschal'.[17] This confusion, however, is slight when compared with +the statements as to William's tenure of the government of Ireland. It +is agreed that he was sent to succeed Earl Richard (who died April 5, +1176); but while Miss Norgate holds that 'early in the next year +Henry found it necessary to recall him',[18] Professor Tout places his +recall in 1179, consequent on complaints against him to the king in +January of that year. Without undertaking to decide the question, I +may suggest that William had returned to England by May 1177--for +he is proved by charters to have attended the Oxford council of that +date--when Henry replaced him, as governor, by Hugh de Lacy, but +entrusted him, as Hoveden states, with Wexford. We have only to assume +that Gerald, by mistake, assigns to 1172 his Wexford appointment, +which really belonged to 1177 (Professor Tout thinks this probable), +and then the solution I suggest satisfies all the requirements. + +William fitz Audelin, I may add, has been peculiarly the sport of +genealogists. Having been selected by them as ancestor to the great +Irish house of Burke ('De Burgo') he was further transformed, by a +flight of fancy even wilder than usual, into a lineal descendant of +Charlemagne. Who he really was seems to have remained unknown, for his +life in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ treats with suspicion, +though duly mentioning, his alleged descent from Charlemagne. +Moreover, his very name would seem to have been left in doubt. +It would, of course, be difficult to distinguish 'Aldelinus' from +'Aldelmus' in MS., and I confess to having looked on the latter--which +is the form adopted by Professor Tout in the _Dictionary of National +Biography_, as by Miss Norgate and others--as probable enough from +its likeness to the English 'Aldhelm'. But the 'fitz Audeline' of +the Anglo-Norman poem on the Conquest of Ireland seems decisive. +'Willelmus filius Audelini, domini regis dapifer' was the style he +used in his own charters.[19] + +Having always kept a look-out for him in Yorkshire, I recognized +William at once in a charter which is among those abstracted in the +Report on the Portland MSS.[20] This is a confirmation by Roger de +Mowbray of a grant to Fountains by 'Aldelin de Aldefeld and Ralph +his son and his other sons'. Among the witnesses are 'Ralph son +of Aldelin, William his brother', and at the close, 'Amelin son +of Aldel'. Now, if we turn to the _cartæ_ of 1166, we find, under +Yorkshire, that Ralph 'filius Aldelin' held half a knight's fee of +Roger de Mowbray, and William filius Aldelin one fee of Henry de +Lacy. Here we recognize the two brothers mentioned in the charters +above.[21] The small fief of William 'filius Aldelin' himself is +entered under Hampshire, where it is described as 'terra quam dominus +Rex dedit Willelmo filio Aldelin, Marscallo suo, cum Juliana filia +Roberti Dorsnelli'. + +It is through this Juliana that we obtain the coping-stone of proof. +Her charter granting Little Maplestead, Essex, to the Hospitallers, +has for its first witness 'Radulfo filio Adelini', who, as we have +seen above, was her husband's brother.[22] And he is also the first +witness to William's confirmation of her gift.[23] + +The parentage and the true name of William fitz Audelin are thus, at +length, clearly established. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Vol. i. (Selden Society).] + + [Footnote 2: 'Reg.' MS. The earl died July 1, 1175. This fine + further confirms the accuracy of the _Gesta Henrici_ (see + Eyton, p. 192).] + + [Footnote 3: Maitland's _Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xv.] + + [Footnote 4: _History of the Exchequer_ (Ed. 1711), pp. 64, + 65.] + + [Footnote 5: Eyton's _Itinerary_ p. 191.] + + [Footnote 6: Prof Maitland has explained that this presence + was formal (_Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xiv).] + + [Footnote 7: Except that Robert fitz Bernard's place is taken + by John of Cardiff.] + + [Footnote 8: October 27, 1175.] + + [Footnote 9: Sloane Charter xxxi. 4, No. 34. See also + Addenda.] + + [Footnote 10: August 1175.] + + [Footnote 11: Cotton Charter, xi. 73 (original).] + + [Footnote 12: Galba, E., II. fo. 31_b_.] + + [Footnote 13: _Ibid._, 62_b_.] + + [Footnote 14: The witnesses to the fine and the charter + confirming it included Richard Archdeacon of Poitiers and + Robert Earl of Leicester. The former gives us the limit March + 1163, and the king was not in England in the lifetime of the + latter after March 1166.] + + [Footnote 15: See my _Ancient Charters_, pp. 67-8.] + + [Footnote 16: 'It is acknowledged on all hands that there is + no sign of any attempt on Henry's part to publish the letter + in Ireland ... before 1175. In that year Gerald states that + the letter was read ... at Waterford.' _English Historical + Review_, viii. 44. Cf. p. 31. See also _Angevin Kings_, ii. + 182.] + + [Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_. I differ + wholly from both writers, and take the view, based on record + evidence, that, contrary to the accepted belief, William + visited Ireland some two years earlier.] + + [Footnote 18: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 183.] + + [Footnote 19: The name of 'Audelin' is extant as a surname. I + have met with it in London.] + + [Footnote 20: 13th Report Hist. MSS., App. ii., p. 4. We are + indebted, I believe, to Mr Maxwell Lyte for these interesting + abstracts.] + + [Footnote 21: The name seems to be preserved in Thorpe-Audlin + (_vulgo_ Audling), a township in the West Riding of Yorkshire, + some 4-1/2 miles from Pontefract.] + + [Footnote 22: It seems to be printed only in a footnote to + Morant's _Essex_ (i. 282). 'Radulfo filio Willelmi domini mei' + is a witness, which certainly suggests that William had been + married before.] + + [Footnote 23: See _Monasticon_. Prof Tout seems to have been + unaware of these charters of William, one of which is dated. + Indeed he only says that William 'is said to have married' + Juliana, giving the _carta_ (1166) as his authority.] + + + + +THE MONTMORENCY IMPOSTURE + + +Many a jest has been levelled at the Irish family of Morres for +seeking and obtaining permission from the Crown, some eighty years +ago, to assume the glorious name of 'De Montmorency', in lieu of their +own, as having been originally that of their family.[1] They have +since borne, as is well known, not merely the name, but even the +arms and the proud device of that illustrious house. Moreover, +the introduction of the name Bouchard, borne by the present Lord +Mountmorres, proves the determination of the family to persist in +their lofty pretensions. + +I am not aware whether these pretensions have ever been regularly +exposed: they seem to have been thought too fantastic for serious +criticism. At the same time, it must be remembered that they have been +formally and officially recognized by Sir W. Betham as Deputy Ulster, +by the English crown (on the strength of his statement) and by the +Chevalier De la Rue, 'garde-général des archives du Royaume', on the +French side, in 1818. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that +MM. de Montmorency at the time, in spite of the repeated and strenuous +appeals of the Morres family, declined to admit their claim to be +members of the house of Montmorency. + +To the indignant protest of Col. Hervey Morres (styling himself 'de +Montmorency-Morres') against this action of the French house, we owe +the most complete exposition of the case on behalf of his family.[2] +On it, therefore, my criticisms will be based. Nor will these +criticisms be destructive only: they will show that the pedigrees +upheld by Col. Morres and his opponents were both alike erroneous, +and will establish the real facts, which, it will be found, completely +vindicate the accuracy of Giraldus Cambrensis. + +The controversy hinged on a well-known personage. 'Herveius de Monte +Mauricii', as Giraldus terms him. The French house, taking their +stand on the historians of their family, insisted that he was the only +Montmorency who had gone to Ireland in his time, and that as he had, +admittedly, left no legitimate issue, the Morres claim was untenable. +The Irish house contended that, on the contrary, others of the family +had come over also, and that they were lineally descended from one +of Hervey's brothers, but the whole story undoubtedly sprang from the +mention of this Hervey--the sole connecting link--and from the curious +form in which Giraldus chose to latinize his name. + +Now Duchesne, the historian of the house of Montmorency, whose version +Desormeaux and Père Anselme did but follow in the main, wrote thus of +Hervey: + + Il espousa Elizabeth de Meullent veuve de Gislebert de Claire, + Comte de Pembroc en Angleterre et mère de Richard de Claire, + surnommé Strongbow, Comte de Pembroke, dompteur de l'Hibernie, + duquel à raison de cette alliance un Autheur du temps le + qualifie parastre ou beaupère (p. 92).[3] + +But this 'Autheur' is Giraldus Cambrensis, on whom Duchesne based his +account, and who, we find, does not speak of Hervey as stepfather, but +as paternal uncle of Strongbow: + + Herveius de Monte Mauricii, vir quoque fugitivus a facie + fortunæ, inermis et inops, ex parte Richardi comitis cujus + _patruus_ erat, explorator potius quam expugnator advenit (i. + 3). + +Duchesne's version, therefore, is out of court, although it was +repeated by Père Anselme, and even adopted in the _Genealogist_ by so +skilled and able a genealogist as Mr G. W. Watson.[4] + +Col. Hervey Morres went so far as to accuse Duchesne and Desormeaux +'d'adulation, d'immoralité, et de mauvaise foi' in giving this account +of his great namesake; and he proceeded to substitute a version of +his own, severing the hapless man and converting him into two! To make +this clear, I must print the essential part of the pedigree as given +by him. + + Hervé + de Montmorency + | + ------------------------------------------- + | | | + Bouchard Geoffroi Hervé, + de Montmorency dit le Riche 1st Bishop + V | of Ely [1109-31] + | + ------------------------------- + | | + Adelaide = Hervé Robert, fils de + de de Montmorency Geoffroi, fils + Clermont | de Hervé + | | + | | + ---------------- ----------------------- + | | | | | + Guillaume, HERVÉ, Etienne, Jordan HERVÉ, + ob. s. p. fils de Hervé, d. 1136, V Connétable + chamberlain to aged 56 or 57 d'Irelande, + Henry II, 1182 | ob. s. p. 1205 + | + | + Robert, + fils d'Etienne + +The explanation is extremely simple: the whole pedigree is concocted +with a view to making the Irish Hervey uncle to Robert fitz Stephen. +This was done to satisfy the supposed requirements of Giraldus, whose +words Col. Morres thus triumphantly quoted: + + Robertus Stephanides ... Inter cæteros _Herveius de + Montemaurisco_ ROBERTI PATRUUS, _nepoti suo se_ comitem + præbuit (p. 77). + +Unfortunately for him, he had gone, not to Giraldus, but to +'Stonyhurst de rebus Hibernicis i. 69-70, _d'après Giraldus +Cambrensis'_. Stonyhurst had carelessly made Giraldus speak of Hervey +as uncle, not to Earl Richard, but to Robert fitz Stephen, and the +pedigree was accordingly constructed to fit this error. When the error +is corrected, the pedigree collapses; and the very passage which is +quoted to confirm it at once unmasks the concoction. + +And now having made it clear that both sides were in error, I shall +set forth the true explanation of the words of Giraldus. The clue is +given us by those Deeping charters which, oddly enough, Col. Morres +duly quoted and appealed to. The first is found in the _Monasticon_, +ii. 601: + + Adeliz, uxor Gilberti filii Ricardi et Gillebertus, et + Baldewinus, et Rohaisia pueri Gilberti episcopo Lincolniensi + ... salutem.... Hiis testibus, Gilberto filio Gilberti, + Galterio, _Hervæo_, Baldwino fratribus ejus et Rohaisia sorore + eorum, etc., etc. + +The next is the confirmation of this grant by Robert Bishop of Lincoln +(ob. 1123) as 'donum Adelidæ _de Montemoraci_' (p. 602). The third is +a charter of 'Adeliz, mater comitis Gilberti' (p. 603), who is also +styled in the Thorney Register 'Adelitia de Claromonte'. Col. Morres +also relied much on a grant to Castleacre by 'Adalicia de Claromonte', +to which the first witness is 'Her. de Montemorentino',[5] but the +relationship of the witness to the grantor is not stated. + + Gilbert (1) Adeliz (2) [? Bouchard] + fitzRichard = of Clermont = de Montmorenci + of Clare | + __________|__________________________ |_____ + | | | | | + Richard Gilbert Walter | Hervey + fitzGilbert, fitzGilbert, fitzGilbert | de Montmorenci, + slain 1136 Earl of of Clare | Constable + Pembroke | of Ireland + | __|________________ + | | | + Richard Baldwin Rohaisia + fitzGilbert, fitzGilbert + Earl of Pembroke, of Clare + 'Strongbow' +Hervey de Montmorency is also mentioned in the Bilegh Abbey +confirmation charter of Richard I, but it gives us no information. + +We have now, however, sufficient evidence to recover the true +genealogy, which is interesting enough. This shows us how Hervey was +'paternal uncle' to Strongbow,[6] and why he witnessed his mother's +charter (_ut supra_) with his brothers and sister, but did not join in +their grant. We see, also, how Duchesne's error arose from his making +the widow not of Gilbert, but of his son and namesake the first Earl +of Pembroke, marry a Montmorenci. The error is not surprising in the +case of such a family as the Clares, whose alliances and ramifications +are made specially puzzling by the repetition of their Christian +names. + +On the other hand, the 'dimidiation' of Hervey in the pedigree put +forward by the Morres family was merely the fruit of the resolve to +make him at all costs uncle to Robert fitz Stephen, as the words of +Giraldus were supposed to require, in their misquoted form. + +Poor Hervey has, indeed, been the sport of genealogists and +historians. Mr Dimock, in his Rolls edition of Giraldus, renders his +name as 'Mont-Maurice', Miss Norgate as 'Mountmorris',[7] Mrs Green as +Mount Moriss,[8] Mr Hunt, who has written his life in the _Dictionary +of National Biography_ as Mount-Maurice, and even Mr Orpen, in +his admirable edition of the Anglo-Norman poem on the Conquest, as +'Montmaurice' (p. 335). This last is the strangest case, because the +forms found in the poem are 'Mumoreci' and 'Momorci', while, as +Mr Orpen duly points out, it is 'Munmoreci' in the Register of St +Thomas's, and 'Mundmorici' in the Cartulary of St Mary's (p. 266). +Hervey was constable to his nephew Earl Richard's troops in Ireland, +and described himself as 'Marescallus Domini Regis de Hibernia, et +senescallus de tota terra Ricardi Comitis'. + +Having now shown that the alleged descent can be absolutely disproved +so far as concerns the only Montmorenci whose name occurs in +connection with Ireland, I proceed to glance at his supposed +relatives, none of whom, it is important to remember, even bore the +name of Montmorency. + +The chart pedigree printed above (p. 357) will show how Robert fitz +Stephen was converted into a Montmorenci, though the parentage of +his father Stephen, constable of Cardigan, is wholly unknown. It +need scarcely be said that no proof is, or can be, given for this +filiation; but the following passage on Stephen is an excellent +illustration of the sort of evidence which is vouched for this wholly +imaginary pedigree: + + Ce seigneur, très-jeune encore, en 1087, confirma + conjointement avec son père et son aïeul Hervé, fils de + Bouchard, la donation faite par Turillus le Gros à l'abbaye de + St. Florent de Saumur de certaines bénéfices. + + Sig. Hervei filii Burchardi, Sig. Roberti filii ejus, Sig. + Stephani militis ejus. + +All that is needed, we are told, is to read grandson ('petit fils') +instead of _filius_ for Robert, and great-grandson for _miles_--on the +ground that _miles_ sometimes meant 'un jeune homme'! Such is a type +of the 'proofs' on which this pedigree rests. But its absurdities +and inconsistencies go even further than this. The dates work out as +follows: + + Hervey de Montmorency + | + Geoffrey 'le Riche' + | + Robert fitzGeoffrey + tenant-in-chief 1166 + | + ------------------------------------------- + | | | + Stephen, Hervey, Geoffrey, + born. _circ._ 1080, d. 1205 d. 1211 + died 1136, having + witnessed above + charter in 1087 + | + Robert fitz Stephen + +Thus Stephen, who was born about 1080, and was a witness in 1087, +would be _son_ to a man who flourished in 1166, and _brother_ to men +who died in 1205 and 1211.[9] + +But what are we to say when we learn further that this Stephen, who +died in '1136', is the 'Stephanus de Marisco' who appears in the +_Liber Niger_ as a tenant of the Bishop of Ely in 1166! The probable, +and indeed only, explanation is that Col. Morres did not even know +when the returns in the _Liber Niger_ were compiled. Their real date +again destroys this cock-and-bull pedigree, or genealogical nightmare, +which, for sheer topsy-turveydom, has, I venture to assert, never been +surpassed. + +I strongly suspect that the whole story arose from the occurrence in +Ireland, in the thirteenth century, of the latinized name 'De Marisco' +or 'De Mariscis', which represents of course, neither Montmorenci nor +Morres, but simply Marsh. Genealogists, no doubt, were attracted by +the form 'De Monte Maurisco' into tracing a connection; but, so far +as can be understood, Col. Morres discarded this resemblance, and +represented his alleged ancestors as 'seigneurs de Mariscis ou +des marches' in England, connecting them with the fen district in +Cambridgeshire. It would be easy to show that the early pedigree +positively teems with absurdities similar to those I have already +exposed, but it would be sheer waste of time to devote any more +attention to proofs, which Col. Morres proudly boasted were 'vérifiés +avec la plus scrupuleuse attention par l'autorité competente et +sanctionnés désormais par l'autorisation du prince qui gouverne +aujourd'hui l'empire britannique' (p. 25). + +I do not hesitate to say that a more impudent claim was never +successfully foisted on the authorities and the public. The chief +sinner in the matter was, of course, Sir W. Betham, who certified +(June 29, 1815) that this audacious concoction was 'established +on evidence of the most unquestionable authority, chiefly from the +ancient public records' (p. 203). The Crown naturally could only +accept the statement of its own officer of arms, and accordingly +described the alleged descent as being duly proved and recorded.[10] +As for the French expert, the Chevalier de la Rue, of whose +investigation and favourable verdict (April 17, 1818) so much has been +made, it will scarcely be believed that he actually, with the sole +exception of the _Monasticon_, did not attempt to verify the 'proofs' +set before him! It will be seen from his own words that his decision +was subject to their genuineness: + + Toutes les citations puisées par monsieur de Morrès dans les + monuments, registres, et terriers publics d'Angleterre + étant, _comme je n'en doute pas_, aussi exactes que celles du + Monasticon (p. 37). + +The value of his loudly-trumpeted verdict may be estimated from this +admission. + +It is only right that MM. de Montmorency and all those in France who +are interested in historical genealogy should understand that no +one among ourselves, whose opinion is worth having, would dream of +defending this gross usurpation. We may hope and believe that in the +present day no officer of arms would behave like Sir W. Betham, +and certify, as 'established on evidence of the most unquestionable +authority' a descent which is not merely 'not proven', but can be +absolutely disproved. It cannot be stated too emphatically, or known +too widely, that the house of Morres has no more right, by hereditary +descent, to the name and arms of 'De Montmorency' than any of the +numerous families of Morris, or indeed, for the matter of that, the +family of Smith.[11] + + + + + [Footnote 1: See, for instance, the _Complete Peerage_ of G. + E. C. _sub_ 'Frankfort de Montmorency'.] + + [Footnote 2: _Les Montmorency de France et les Montmorency + d'Irlande, ou Précis historique des démarches faites à + l'occasion de la reprise du nom de ses ancêtres par la branche + de Montmorency-marisco-morres._ Paris, 1828.] + + [Footnote 3: _Histoire de la maison de Montmorency_. Paris, + 1624.] + + [Footnote 4: Vol. x., p. 6.] + + [Footnote 5: Blomefield's _Norfolk_, ix. 5.] + + [Footnote 6: Since this article was written, Mr Hunt's life of + Hervey has appeared in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._ He has arrived + at precisely the same conclusions as myself.] + + [Footnote 7: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 101, 112.] + + [Footnote 8: _Henry the Second_, p. 159.] + + [Footnote 9: 'Etienne de Mariscis [_sic_] ... fut tué en 1136 + par les Gallois lorsqu'il gouvernait ce pays' (p. 74). 'Il + n'était agé lors de sa mort que de cinquante six ou cinquante + sept ans' (p. 75).] + + [Footnote 10: _London Gazette_, September 9, 1815; _Dublin + Gazette_, August 12, 1815.] + + [Footnote 11: For an even more illustrious foreign descent, + see my paper, 'Our English Hapsburgs: a great delusion' + (_Genealogist_, N.S., x. 193).] + + + + +THE OXFORD DEBATE ON FOREIGN SERVICE (1197) + + +Great importance is rightly assigned to the first instances of 'a +constitutional opposition to a royal demand for money',[1] of which +the two alleged earliest cases are 'the opposition of St Thomas to the +king's manipulation of the danegeld [1163], and the refusal by St Hugh +of Lincoln to furnish money for Richard's war in France [1197]'.[2] +These two precedents are always classed together: Dr Stubbs writes of +St Hugh's action: + + The only formal resistance to the king in the national + council proceeds from St Hugh of Lincoln and Bishop Herbert + of Salisbury, who refuse to consent to grant him an aid in + knights and money for his foreign warfare ... an act which + stands out prominently by the side of St Thomas's protest + against Henry's proposal to appropriate the sheriff's share of + danegeld.[3] + +And Mr Freeman repeats the parallel: + + Thomas ... withstands, and withstands successfully, the + levying of a danegeld.... As Thomas of London had withstood + the demands of the father, Hugh of Avalon withstood the + demands of the son. In a great council ... [he] spoke up for + the laws and rights of Englishmen ... no men or money were + they bound to contribute for undertakings beyond the sea.[4] + +Having already discussed the earlier instance,[5] and advanced the +view that the Woodstock debate [1163] did not relate to danegeld at +all, but to an attempt of the king to seize for himself the _auxilium +vicecomitis_ (a local levy) I now approach the later instance. + +'This occasion,' we read, 'is a memorable one':[6] it is that of +an 'event of great importance',[7] of 'a landmark in constitutional +history'.[8] No apology, therefore, is needed for endeavouring to +throw some further light on an event of such cardinal importance. But, +to clear the ground, let us first define what we mean by 'opposition +to a royal demand for money'. However autocratic the king may have +been--and on this point there is not only a difference of opinion +but a difference in fact corresponding with his strength at any given +period--there were limits set by law or custom (or, should we rather +say, limits, both written and unwritten?) beyond which he could not +pass. 'Domesday', for instance, was a written limit: if the king +claimed from a Manor assessed at ten hides the danegeld due from +twenty, the tenant need only appeal to 'Domesday' (_poneret se super +rotulum Winton'_). Or, again, if from a feudal tenant owing the +forty days' service the king were to claim eighty days, he would be +transgressing unwritten custom as binding as a written record. But +outside these limits there lay a debatable ground where that elastic +term _auxilium_ proved conveniently expansive. It was here that the +crown could increase its demands, and here that a conflict would arise +as to where the limit should be placed, a conflict to be determined +not by law, but by a trial of strength between the crown and its +opponents. We have, then, to decide to which of these spheres the +action of St Hugh should be assigned, whether to that of the lawyer +appealing to the letter of the bond, or to that of the popular leader +opposing the demands of the king, though they did not contravene the +law. If one may use the terms, for convenience sake, it was a question +of law or a question of politics; and only if it was the latter had it +a true constitutional importance. + +The two chief accounts of the Oxford debate are found in _Roger +Hoveden_ and the _Magna Vita St Hugonis_. As they are both printed in +_Select Charters_, I need not repeat them here. There is, however, an +independent version in the _Vita_ of Giraldus Cambrensis, which it may +be desirable to add: + + In Anglicanam coepit [rex] ecclesiam duris exactionibus + debacchari. Unde collecto in unum regni clero, habitoque + contra insolitum et tam urgens incommodum districtiore + consilio, verbum ad importunas pariter et importabiles + impositiones contradictionis et cleri totius pro ecclesiastica + libertate responsionis, in ore Lincolnensis tanquam personae + prae ceteris approbatae religionis authenticae magis communi + omnium desiderio est assignatum (vii. 103-4). + +Gerald's editor impugns the correctness of these statements, on the +grounds that the assembly was not clerical merely and that the bishop +did not speak on behalf of the whole church. But the passage seems to +me to refer to a meeting of the clergy in which it was decided that St +Hugh should be their spokesman at the council. Of the other objection +I shall treat below. + +According to Hoveden, Richard asked for either (1) three hundred +knights who would serve him, at their own costs, for a year, or (2) a +sum sufficient to enable him to hire three hundred knights for a +year at the rate of three shillings a day. The _Magna Vita_, however, +implies that the former alternative alone was laid before the council. +The grounds on which St Hugh protested are thus given by our two +authorities: + + Respondit pro se, quod ipse in hoc voluntati regis nequaquam + adquiesceret, tum quia processu temporis in ecclesiae suae + detrimentum redundaret, tum quia successores sui dicerent, + 'Patres nostri comederunt uvam acerbam, et dentes filiorum + obstupescunt' (Hoveden). + + Scio equidem ad militare servitium domino regi, sed in hac + terra solummodo exhibendum, Lincolniensem ecclesiam teneri; + extra metas vero Angliae nil tale ab ea deberi. Unde mihi + consultius arbitror ad natale solum repedare ... quam hic + pontificatum gerere et ecclesiam mihi commissam, antiquas + immunitates perdendo, insolitis angariis subjugare (_Magna + Vita_). + +Two points stand out clearly--one that St Hugh took his stand on the +prescriptive rights of his church, rights infringed by the king's +demand; the other, that he spoke for himself alone, not for the +church, still less for the barons, and least of all for the nation. +Our authorities, however, are so vague that they leave in doubt the +precise point 'taken' by the saintly prelate. Mr Freeman, we have +seen, confidently assumes that he 'spoke up for the laws and rights of +Englishmen'; Miss Norgate holds that he took up the position of Thomas +and Anselm as 'a champion of constitutional liberty',[9] whatever that +may mean; even Dr Stubbs claims that he 'acted on behalf of the nation +to which he had joined himself'.[10] + +I venture to think that the clue to the enigma is to be found in quite +another quarter. In the chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelond we find a +most instructive passage, which refers, it cannot be doubted, to the +same episode. The story is told somewhat differently, but the point +raised is the same. King Richard, we are told, demanded that knights +should be sent him from England, in the proportion of one from every +ten due by the church 'baronies'. The _servitium debitum_ of St +Edmund's being forty, the abbot was called upon to send four.[11] That +the principle of joint equipment, which had been adopted under Henry +II in 1157,[12] and again I think by Longchamp in 1191,[13] was +resorted to on this occasion is the more probable because a few years +later (1205) we find King John similarly demanding 'quod novem milites +per totam Angliam invenirent decimum militem, bene paratum equis et +armis, ad defensionem regni nostri'. I admit, however, that it is not +mentioned in the other versions of our episode, and Jocelin speaks +only of the demand upon the church fiefs. But the point is that +when the abbot consulted his tenants as to sending the four knights +required, they protested that they were liable to pay scutage, but not +to serve out of England.[14] Now this is a _locus classicus_ on the +institution of scutage. Its bearing I shall examine below, after +finishing the story. The abbot, we read, finding himself in a strait, +crossed the sea in search of the king, who told him that a fine would +not avail; he wanted men, not money.[15] + +Surely we have here the key to the position taken by St Hugh. When he +claimed that his fief was not bound 'ad servitium militare ... extra +metas Angliae' he cannot have referred to the payment of scutage, for +that had been paid by his predecessors and himself without infringing +the liberties of their church.[16] He must, therefore, have referred +not to 'money', but to _personal_ service outside the realm. But was +this exemption peculiar to the church of Lincoln? If we find the same +privilege existing at St Edmund's and at Salisbury, may we not infer +that the church contingents were only bound to serve in person +for 'defence, not defiance',[17] and that we have here the perfect +explanation of the fact that scutage, as commutation for service, is +an institution, when it first appears, peculiar to church fiefs? The +mediaeval dread of creating a precedent preyed on the abbot as on the +saint. From the council of Lillebonne to the Bedford _auxilium_ (1224) +it was always the same cry: + + Creiment k'il seit en feu tornez + Et en costume seit tenu + Et par costume seit rendu. + +It was in this spirit that Hugh of Avalon, I take it, made his stand: +other prelates might waive the point, in consideration of the king's +necessities, but he, at least, would never allow a standing exemption +to be broken through and thus impaired for all time. + +His attitude, we are told, proved fatal to the scheme, compelling the +king and his ministers to abandon it in impotent wrath. But perhaps +his biographer exaggerates the defeat, for the Bishop of Salisbury, +we know, had to purchase the king's pardon for his action by a heavy +fine, while the Abbot of St Edmund's had to compromise the matter +by the payment of a large sum.[18] It seems probable that similar +compromises would be arranged in other cases where the request was not +complied with. + +If, then, I am right in the solution I offer, St Hugh must have taken +the narrowest ground, and have acted on behalf of ecclesiastical +privilege, and only incidentally even for that, his protest being +limited to his own church.[19] And, further, it follows that, like +St Thomas, he was acting strictly on the defensive. To say that his +action affords 'the first clear case of the refusal of a money grant +demanded directly by the crown, and a most valuable precedent, for +later times',[20] is, I submit with all respect, to set it in a quite +erroneous light. In 1197, as in 1163, the crown was trying to infringe +on well-established rights, and St Hugh like St Thomas, resisted that +infringement, so far as his own rights were concerned, just as he +would have resisted an attempt of the crown to deprive his see of a +Manor, of feudal services, or of goods. The crown might take its pound +of flesh, but more than that it should not have; never, through any +action of his, should his church be deprived of its prescriptive +rights.[21] + +Here this article originally closed; but I am tempted to refer to one +touching on the same subject which appeared a year later in the pages +of the same review.[22] Alluding to 'the question of foreign service' +as a prominent grievance under John,[23] I wrote: + + Ralf of Coggeshall, and Walter of Coventry, assert that the + northern barons denied their liability to foreign service + in respect of lands held in England. John retorted that the + principle had been admitted in the days of his father and + his brother, and therefore claimed it _tanquam debitum_. This + justifies the fears expressed sixteen years before by St + Hugh of Lincoln, and explains what I termed, in examining his + action, the mediaeval dread of creating a precedent.[24] + +The final loss of Normandy had, of course, altered the case, but even +while it still formed part of an English King's possessions, there +must always have been scope for argument as to feudal obligations. To +quote once more from the same article: + + The question must have been complicated by the growth of the + king's dominions. Did the feudatories owe service to the king, + as their lord, in whatever war he was engaged? Or were they + only bound to follow him as King of England? Or were they, as + holding _a conquestu_, only bound to serve in the dominions + of the Conqueror who enfeoffed them, i.e. in England and + Normandy?[25] + +On the death of the Conqueror, the question would arise for the King +of the English and the Duke of the Normans were no longer one and the +same. It comes to the front accordingly in a gathering of the barons +at Winchester, which Mr Freeman assigns to Easter, 1090.[26] Orderic, +here his authority, places it under 1089, and although his chronology +is not to be always blindly followed, there is no ground for supposing +here that the date is wrong. When he is following out a story or +carried on by allusion, Orderic, like other chroniclers, anticipates +or wanders in his dates; but this gathering has no connection with +what precedes or follows; there is, therefore, nothing to account for +his placing it under 1089, if it really belonged to 1090. + +But the point to which I would call attention is the nature and +intention of this gathering. Orderic writes: + + Confirmatus itaque in regno, turmas optimatum ascivit, et + Guentoniæ congregatis, quæ intrinsecus ruminabat sic ore + deprompsit. + +Mr Freeman attaches to the speech that follows no small importance. +Holding that the king 'was now ready to take the decisive step of +crossing the sea himself or sending others to cross it', he pointed +out that: + + even William Rufus, in all his pride and self-confidence, knew + that it did not depend wholly on himself to send either native + or adopted Englishmen on such an errand. He had learned enough + of English constitutional law not to think of venturing on + a foreign war without the constitutional sanction of his + kingdom. In a Gemot [_sic_] at Winchester, seemingly the + Easter Gemot of the third year of his reign, he laid his + schemes before the assembled Witan [_sic_], and obtained their + consent to a war with the Duke of the Normans.[27] + +Of course, in reading Mr Freeman's works we must reconcile ourselves +to 'Gemot' and 'Witan' being thrust upon us at every turn, however +radically false a conception these words may convey. At the close of +his dealing with this episode, he refers us, as a parallel, to the +'full Gemot' of 1047, in which 'the popular character of the assembly +still', we learn, 'impresses itself on the language of history'. Now +Orderic describes those who were summoned to our Winchester gathering +as 'turmas optimatum'; he makes William begin his speech 'nostri +egregii barones'; and he places in his mouth language essentially +feudal and Norman: + + Nunc igitur commoneo vos omnes, qui patris mei homines + fuistis, et feudos vestros in Normannia et Anglia de illo + tenuistis[28] ... c[oe]nobia quæ patres nostri construxerunt + in Neustria ... Decet ergo ut, sicut nomen ejus [_i.e._ + Willelmi] et diadema gero, sic ad defensionem patriæ inhæream + ejus [_i.e._ Normanniæ] studio. + +Mr Freeman expressed astonishment and delight at William's +'constitutional language', and declared that though, in its actual +wording, the speech, of course, was Orderic's: + + the constitutional doctrines which he has worked into his + speech cannot fail to set forth the ordinary constitutional + usage of the time. Even in the darkest hour in which England + had any settled government at all, etc., etc.[29] + +And then follows the usual lament for 'the days of King Eadward', +when it was not a 'cabinet', but a crowd, that dealt with the delicate +question of peace or war. + +Now even the late Professor's most ardent followers cannot represent +my criticism here as 'trifling', or unimportant. Mr Freeman, I hold, +had misconceived the matter altogether. The whole thing is sheer +delusion. William's appeal, as set before us, was not the fruit of +studies in English 'constitutional law': it was the appeal of a feudal +lord to 'barons' holding by feudal tenure. Should there be any one +who feels the slightest doubt upon the question, let him turn to Mr +Freeman's own account of the great 'Assembly of Lillebonne'. He could +not himself avoid a passing glance at the parallel, when he wrote +that 'William the Red had as good reasons to give for an invasion +of Normandy as his father had once had to give for an invasion of +England'.[30] Contrasting that Assembly (1066) with an English Gemot, +he wrote that 'in William's Assembly we hear of none but barons'.[31] +Precisely. But that remark is equally true of his son's Assembly at +Winchester.[32] And when we learn, a few years later, the +composition of his Assembly, we find it admittedly restricted to +tenants-in-chief.[33] Of the two Assemblies, that of Lillebonne +revealed a more active opposition, showed more 'parliamentary +boldness', than that of Winchester.[34] The latter merely applauded, +we read, the King's appeal. Like his father, he appealed to his barons +to follow him on foreign service; like him also, he pleaded his wrongs +and the justice of his righteous cause. + +Of the two, the father seems, as I have said, to have met with more +opposition than the son. One might therefore produce an argument _ad +absurdum_, and contend that, on Mr Freeman's showing, an English King +was not less, but more, absolute than a Norman Duke. In any case we +have now seen that the ideas about 'constitutional usage', and so +forth, imported here by Mr Freeman, were nothing but a figment of +his brain. The Assembly of Winchester no more resulted from 'English +constitutional law' than did the Assembly of Lillebonne, convened for +a similar purpose. William Rufus had to deal with barons who could not +be anxious to invade Normandy merely to make him Duke of the Normans. +If they had any preference in the matter, it would be rather for +Robert than for William, for a weak rather than a strong ruler; +but, apart from preference, the barons would be loth to engage in +internecine warfare merely for the personal advantage of one brother +or the other. This was seen in the peaceful close of the invasion +by Duke Robert, as with that of Duke Henry half a century later. The +question, in short, that arose in 1066, when a Duke of the Normans +asked his barons to make him King of the English, arose once more in +the days of his son, when a King of the English asked his barons to +make him Duke of the Normans. + +It was here no question of 'the laws and rights of Englishmen':[35] it +was to no folkmoot that William Rufus spoke. When we read of the King +in his court, composed of his tenants-in-chief,[36] as surrounded by +'no small part of the nation',[37] when we hear of the mass of +'the Assembly ... crying Yea, yea';[38] when we learn that 'a +great numerical proportion, most likely a numerical majority, were +natives',[39] we are fairly prepared for the astounding statement +that: + + The wide fields which had seen the great review and the great + homage in the days of the elder William, could alone hold the + crowd which came together to share in the great court of doom + which was holden by the younger.[40] + +For we see that in all these fantasies of a brain viewing plain facts +through a mist of moots and 'witan', we have what can only be termed +history in masquerade. + + + + + [Footnote 1: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._ (1874), i. 510.] + + [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 577.] + + [Footnote 3: _Select Charters_ (1870), pp. 28-9. So too, + preface to _Rog. Hoveden_ (1871): 'It may be placed on a par + with St Thomas's opposition to Henry II in 1163' (iv., pp. + xci-xcii). So also _Early Plantagenets_ (1876), p. 126, and + _Const. Hist._, i. 510.] + + [Footnote 4: _Norm. Conq._, v. 675, 695.] + + [Footnote 5: See above, p. 377.] + + [Footnote 6: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 126.] + + [Footnote 7: _Const. Hist._, i. 509.] + + [Footnote 8: _Ibid._, p. 510, and pref. to _Rog. Hoveden_, + iv., pp. xci-xcii.] + + [Footnote 9: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 350.] + + [Footnote 10: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 126.] + + [Footnote 11: 'Precepit rex Ricardus omnibus episcopis et + abbatibus Angliae ut de suis baroniis novem milites facerent + decimum, et sine dilacione venirent ad eum in Normanniam, + cum equis et armis in auxilium contra Regem Franciae. Unde et + abbatem oportuit respondere de iiii. militibus mittendis' (ed. + Camden Soc, p. 63).] + + [Footnote 12: 'Præparavit maximam expeditionem ita ut duo + milites de tota Anglia tertium pararent ad opprimendum + Gualenses.' _Robert de Torigni_.] + + [Footnote 13: 'Tertium cum omnibus armis totius Angliae + militem die nominato mandavit venire Wintoniam.' Ric. Devizes + (Rolls Series), p. 409.] + + [Footnote 14: 'Cumque summoneri fecisset omnes milites suos, + et eos inde convenisset, responderunt feudos suos, quos de + Sancto Ædmundo tenuerunt, hoc non debere, nec se nec patres + eorum unquam Angliam exisse, set scutagium aliquando ad + praeceptum regis dedisse' (_ibid._).] + + [Footnote 15: 'Abbas vero in arcto posito, hinc videns + libertatem suorum militum periclitari, illinc timens ne + amitteret saisinam baronie sue pro defectu servicii regis, + sicut contigerat Episcopo Lundonensi [? Lincolnensi] et multis + baronibus Angliæ, statim transfretavit, et ... in primis + nullum potuit facere finem cum rege per denarios. Dicenti + ergo se non indigere auro nec argento, sed quatuor milites + instanter exigenti', etc. (_ibid._).] + + [Footnote 16: 'In quibis conservandis sive exhibendis hactenus + fere per tredecim annos a rectis praedecessorum meorum + vestigiis non recessi' (_Magna Vita_).] + + [Footnote 17: 'Ad publicam rem tuendam' (_Abingdon Cart._, ii. + 3).] + + [Footnote 18: 'Quatuor milites stipendiarios optulit abbas. + Quos cum rex recepisset, apud castellum de Hou misit. Abbas + autem in instanti eis xxxvi. marcas dedit ad expensas xl. + dierum. In crastino autem venerunt quidam familiares regis, + consulentes abbati ut sibi caute provideret, dicentes werram + posse durare per annum integrum vel amplius, et expensas + militum excrescere et multiplicari in perpetuum dampnum ei et + ecclesiae suae. Et ideo consulebant ut, antequam recederet + de curia, finem faceret cum rege, unde posset quietus esse + de militibus predictis post xl. dies. Abbas autem, sano + usus consilio, centum libras regi dedit pro tali quietantia' + (_Jocelin_, p. 63). It is noteworthy that thirty-six marcs + would represent just three shillings a day (for forty days) + for each knight, the very sum named by Hoveden. In 1205 + the pay named in John's writ was two shillings a day (home + service), but both these sums are largely in excess of the + eight pence a day paid, as we have seen, under Henry II, the + discrepancy being incomprehensible, unless the higher wage + implied a larger following.] + + [Footnote 19: Dr Stubbs held [1870] that he acted 'not + on ecclesiastical but on constitutional grounds' (_Select + Charters_, p. 28), though he subsequently [1871] doubted + whether 'the grounds of the opposition' were 'ecclesiastical + or constitutional' (Pref. to _Hoveden_, iv., p. xci), and even + admitted that 'the opposition of St Hugh was based not on + his right as a member of the national council, but on the + immunities of the church' (_Const. Hist._, i. 578).] + + [Footnote 20: _Hoveden_, iv., xcii.] + + [Footnote 21: 'Antiquas immunitates perdendo.'] + + [Footnote 22: 'An Unknown Charter of Liberties.' _English + Historical Review_, viii. 288 _et seq._] + + [Footnote 23: See Dr Stubbs' Pref. to _W. Coventry_, p. lxiv.] + + [Footnote 24: _English Historical Review_, viii. 293.] + + [Footnote 25: _Ibid._] + + [Footnote 26: _Will. Rufus_, i. 222.] + + [Footnote 27: _Ibid._, i 222.] + + [Footnote 28: Mr Freeman quotes this passage and duly renders + it in his text (i. 232).] + + [Footnote 29: _Ibid._, i. 22.] + + [Footnote 30: _Ibid._, i. 222.] + + [Footnote 31: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 290.] + + [Footnote 32: 'Turmas optimatum'--'barones'. Cf. _supra_, pp. + 247, 262.] + + [Footnote 33: _Will. Rufus_, ii. 56-7.] + + [Footnote 34: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 294-6, 298.] + + [Footnote 35: _Supra_, p. 398.] + + [Footnote 36: At Salisbury, January 13, 1096.] + + [Footnote 37: _Will. Rufus_, ii. 57.] + + [Footnote 38: _Ibid._, 59.] + + [Footnote 39: _Ibid._, 57.] + + [Footnote 40: _Ibid._, 56.] + + + + +RICHARD THE FIRST'S CHANGE OF SEAL (1198) + + With the superficial student and the empiric politician, it + is too common to relegate the investigation of such changes + to the domain of archæology. I shall not attempt to rebut + the imputation; only, if such things are archæology, then + archæology is history.--STUBBS, Preface to _R. Hoveden_, IV, + lxxx. + + +Historical research is about to pass, if indeed it is not already +passing, into a new sphere--the sphere of Archæology. The central idea +of that great advance which the present generation has witnessed in +the domain of history has been the rebuilding of the historical +fabric on the relatively sure foundation of original and contemporary +authorities, studied in the purest texts. Chronicles, however, are not +inexhaustible: for many periods they are all too few. The reaper has +almost done his work; the turn of the gleaner has come. The smaller +_quellen_ of history have now to be diligently examined and made to +yield those fragments of information which will supplement, often +where most needed, our existing stock of knowledge. + +But this is not our only gain as we leave the broad highways trodden +by so many before us. Those precious fragments which are to form our +spoils will enable us to do more than supplement the statements of +our standard chroniclers: they will afford the means of checking, of +testing, by independent evidence, these statements, of submitting our +witnesses to a cross-examination which may shake their testimony and +their credit in a most unexpected manner. + +As an instance of the results to be attained by archæological +research, I have selected Richard the First's celebrated change of +seal. Interesting as being the occasion on which the three lions first +appear as the Royal arms of England--arms unchanged to the present +day--it possesses exceptional historical importance from the +circumstances by which it was accompanied, and which led, admittedly, +to its adoption. + +Historians have agreed, without the least hesitation, to refer this +event to the year 1194, and to place it subsequent to the truce of +Tillières or about the beginning of August. 'That Richard I,' writes a +veteran student,[1] 'adopted a new seal upon his return from the Holy +Land is a matter of notoriety.' Speed, in fact, had shown the way. We +are told by him that 'the king caused [1194] a new broad seale to +be made, requiring that all charters granted under his former seale +should be confirmed under this, whereby he drew a great masse of money +to his treasurie'.[2] The Bishop of Oxford, with his wonted accuracy, +faithfully reproduces the statement of Hoveden (the original and sole +authority we shall find for the story), telling us that 'Amongst other +oppressive acts he [Richard] took the seal from his unscrupulous +but faithful chancellor, and, having ordered a new one to be made, +proclaimed the nullity of all charters which had been sealed with the +old one.'[3] Mr Freeman similarly places the episode just before 'the +licenses for the tournaments' (August 20, 1194), and consistently +refers to Dr Stubbs's history.[4] Miss Norgate, in her valuable work, +our latest authority on the period, assigns the event to the same +date, and tells us that 'Rog. Hoveden's very confused account of the +seals is made clear by Bishop Stubbs'.[5] Mr Maitland, in his noble +edition of 'Bracton's Note-book', gives a case (ii. 69) in which a +charter sealed 'secundo sigillo Regis Ricardi' was actually produced +in court (1219), and explains that 'Richard had a new seal made in +1194', referring to Hoveden for his authority.[6] + +It should be observed that all these writers rely merely on Hoveden, +none of them throwing any light on the process of confirmation, or +telling us how it was effected, and whether any traces of it remain. +An independent writer, M. Boivin-Champeaux, in his monograph on +William Longchamp, discusses the episode at some length, and +asserts that the repudiated documents were 'assujettis, pour leur +revalidation, à une nouvelle et coûteuse scellure'. Like the others, +however, he relies on the authority of Hoveden, and consequently +repeats the same date. + +In the course of examining some ancient charters, I recognized one +of them as nothing less than an actual instance of a confirmation +consequent on this change of seal. But its incomprehensible feature +was that the charter was confirmed on August 22, 1198, having +originally been granted, 'sub primo sigillo', so recently as January +7th preceding. How could this be possible if the great seal had been +changed so early as August 1194, and if the first seal, as stated +by Dr Stubbs, was 'broken' on that occasion? Careful and prolonged +research among the charters of the period (both in the original and in +transcripts) has enabled me to answer the question, and to prove that +(as, of course, the above charter implies) the change of seal did +not take place in 1194, but 1198, and between January and May of that +year. + +Original charters under the second seal, confirming grants under +the first, are distinctly rare. I have found, as yet, but one in +the Public Record Office, and only two at the British Museum. But +of originals and transcripts together I have noted twenty-eight. The +dates of the original grants range from September 5, 1189, to January +7, 1198 (1197-8), and of the confirmations from May 27, 1198, to April +5, 1199.[7] + +In a single instance there is fortunately preserved not only the text +of the confirmation charter, but also that of the original grant.[8] +From this we learn that the charter of confirmation did not +necessarily give the wording, but only the gist ('tenor') of the +original grant. We are thus brought to the instructive formula +invariably used in these charters: + + Is erat tenor carte nostre in primo sigillo nostro. Quod quia + aliquando perditum fuit, et, dum capti essemus in alem[anniâ], + in aliena potestate constitutum, mutatum est. Huius autem + innovationis testes sunt Hii, etc., etc. + +We may here turn to the passage in Hoveden [ed. Stubbs, iii. 267] +on which historians have relied, and see how far the reasons for the +change given in the charters themselves correspond with those alleged +by the chronicler. + + Fecit sibi novum sigillum fieri, et mandavit, per singulas + terras suas, quod nihil ratum foret quod fuerat per vetus + sigillum suum; tum quia cancellarius ille operatus fuerat inde + minus discrete quam esset necesse, tum quia sigillum illud + perditum erat, quando Rogerus Malus Catulus, vicecancellarius + suus, submersus erat in mari ante insulam de Cipro, et + præcepit rex quod omnes qui cartas habebant venirent ad novum + sigillum ad cartas suas renovandas. + +In both cases we find there are two reasons given; but while one of +these is the same in both, namely the temporary loss of the seal +when Roger Malchael was drowned, the other is wholly and essentially +different. The whole aspect of the transaction is thus altered. To +illustrate this I shall now place side by side the independent glosses +of the Bishop of Oxford and of M. Boivin-Champeaux: + + Richard's first seal was lost Sur deux exemplaires usuels du + when the vice-chancellor was grand sceau, le premier, que + drowned between Rhodes and Cyprus portait le vice-chancelier + in 1190; but it was recovered Mauchien, avait été perdu lors + with his dead body. The seal that de l'ouragan qui, en vue de + was now broken must have been the Chypre avait assailli la flotte + one which the chancellor had used Anglo-Normande, le second était + during the king's absence. resté en Angleterre; mais il + Richard, however, when he was at avait subi, par suite de la + Messina, had allowed his seal to revolution du 10 octobre, de + be set to various grants for nombreuses vicissitudes. + which he took money, but which Richard se prévalut de ces + he never intended to confirm. circonstances jointes au + Therefore probably he found it désaveu de la trève de Tillières + convenient now to have a new pour publier un édit aux termes + seal in lieu of both the former duquels tous les actes publics + ones, although he threw the blame passés sous son règne, qui + of the transactions annulled upon avaient été légalisés avec les + the chancellor. The importance of anciens sceaux étaient frappés + the seal is already very great. de nullité et assujettis, pour + (_Const. Hist._, i. 506, note.) leur revalidation â une nouvelle + et coûteuse scellure. Cette + ordonnance aurait pu, à la + rigueur, se colorer, si elle + n'avait concerné que les actes + accomplis pendant l'expédition + et la captivité du roi; mais le + comble de l'impudence et de + l'iniquité était de l'appliquer + même à ceux qui avaient précéde + son départ ou suivi son retour + (p. 223). + +Thus both writers assume that there were two seals, one which remained +in England with the chancellor, and one which accompanied the king +to the east. They further (though Dr Stubbs is somewhat obscure) hold +that the two excuses given refer respectively to the two seals, thus +discrediting both. But when we turn to the charters themselves, we +find but one seal mentioned, and to that one seal alone both the +excuses refer. The king explains that on two occasions it was, so to +speak, 'out on the loose'--(1) when his vice-chancellor was drowned; +(2) when he himself was captured in Germany. This was, of course, the +seal which accompanied him to the east.[9] The king makes no allusion +to any other or to the chancellor. Such charters and grants as are +known to us all proceed from the king himself, either before he left +Messina or after he had reached Germany on his return. No charter or +grant of Longchamp, as representing him, is known. In short, the whole +of our record evidence points one way: the charters which the king +proclaimed must be confirmed, and which we find brought to him for +that purpose were those which he had himself granted, and no other. +Lastly, even had we nothing before us but the passage in Hoveden which +all have followed, I contend that it may, and indeed ought to be, +read as referring to a single seal. But it is, as Miss Norgate justly +observes, 'very confused', from its allusion to the chancellor's use +of the seal. That allusion, however, would most naturally refer to the +truce of Tillières, and not to the use of a separate seal in England. +Therefore even if we accepted, which I do not, Hoveden's statement, it +would not warrant the inference that has been drawn. + +Again, when Miss Norgate writes of the 'withdrawal of the seal from +William', and when Dr Stubbs tells us that the king 'took the +seal from' him, these statements may have two meanings. But M. +Boivin-Champeaux is more precise: 'L'emploi de ces procédés emportait +le mépris et la violation non seulement de tous les actes étrangers +au chancelier, mais encore de tous ceux où il avait mis la main. Il ne +pouvait décemment conserver les sceaux. Le roi les lui enleva.' This +is a distinct assertion that Longchamp was deprived of his office. Yet +all our evidence points to the conclusion that he remained chancellor +to the day of his death. + +Dismissing Hoveden for the time, and returning to the testimony of the +charters, we have seen that they point to the event we are discussing +having taken place in 1198, between January 7, at which date the first +seal was still in use, and May 27, when charters were already being +brought for confirmation under the second seal. Passing now from the +charters to the seals still in existence, we learn from Mr Wyon's +magnificent work[10] (which has appeared since I completed my own +investigation) that the first seal was still in use on April 1, +1198,[11] while an impression of the second is found as early as May +22, 1198.[12] Thus our limit of time for the change is narrowed to +April 1-May 22, 1198.[13] The evidence of the charters and of the +seals being thus in perfect harmony, let us see whether this limit +of date corresponds with a time of financial difficulty. For, so +desperate a device as that of the king's repudiation of his charters +would only have been resorted to at a time of extreme pressure. What +do we find? We find that the time of this change of seal corresponds +with the great financial crisis of Richard's reign. The Church had +at length lost patience, and had actually in the Council at Oxford +(December 1197) raised a protest. The 'want of money', in Miss +Norgate's words, was 'a difficulty which ... must have seemed +well-nigh insurmountable'. Preparations were being made for a huge +levy at five shillings on every ploughland. It was at this moment +that the desperate king repudiated all the charters he had granted +throughout his reign, and proclaimed that they must be 'brought to him +for confirmation; in other words ... paid for a second time'.[14] + +Let us now look at the other chroniclers. R. Coggeshall is independent +and precise: + + Accessit autem ad totius mali cumulum, juxta vitæ ejus + terminum, prioris sigilli sui renovatio, quo exiit edictum + per totum ejus regnum ut omnes cartæ, confirmationes, ac + privilegiatæ libertates quæ prioris sigilli impressione + roboraverat, irrita forent nec alicujus libertatis vigorem + obtinerent, nisi posteriori sigillo roborarentur. In quibus + renovandis et iterum comparandis innumerabilis pecunia + congesta est (p. 93). + +This is in complete accordance with the now ascertained fact that +Richard changed his seal, and regranted the old charters, within the +last year of his life. Similarly independent and precise evidence is +afforded by the Annals of Waverley: + + MCXCVIII. Anno X. regis Ricardi præcepit idem rex omnes cartas + in regno suo emptas reformari, et novo sigilli sui impressione + roborari, vel omnes cassari, cujuscunque dignitatis aut + ordinis essent, qui vellent sua protectione defensari, vel + universa bona sua confiscari.[15] + +Further, we read in the Annals of Worcester[16] and in the _Historia +Major_ of M. Paris (ii. 450-451)[17] that in 1198, 'circaque festum +sancti Michaelis, mutatæ sunt carte quas prius fecerat rex Ricardus, +novo sigillo suo'. Now this Michaelmas fell just in the heart of the +period within which the process of confirmation is proved to have been +going on. + +We see, then, that the evidence (1) of the seals, (2) of the charters, +(3) of the circumstances of the time, (4) of other chroniclers, all +concur in pointing to the spring of 1198. And now we will lastly +appeal to Hoveden against himself. After telling us of the king's +proclamation on the refusal of the religious to contribute to the +carucage in the spring of 1198, he adds: + + Præterea præcepit idem rex ut omnes, tam clerici quam laici, + qui cartas sive confirmationes habebant de sigillo suo veteri + deferrent eas ad sigillum suum novum renovandas, et nisi + fecerint, nihil quod actum fuerat per sigillum suum vetus + ratum haberetur (iv. 66). + +This passage, which ought to be compared with Coggeshall, is merely +ignored by Dr Stubbs. Miss Norgate, however, boldly explains it as 'a +renewal of the decree requiring all charters granted under the king's +old seal to be brought up for confirmation under the new one' +(ii. 356). But the passage stands by itself, as describing a new +measure.[18] + +The only conclusion to be drawn from this cumulative evidence is that +the earlier passage in Hoveden (1194) which has been so universally +accepted, must be rejected altogether. Against the facts I have +adduced it cannot stand. + +Incredible though it may seem that a court official, a chronicler +so able and well informed, indeed, in the words of his editor, 'our +primary authority for the period',[19] should have misstated so +grossly an event, as it were, under his own eyes, we must remember +that 'Hoveden's personality is to a certain degree vindicated by a +sort of carelessness about exact dates'.[20] Yet even so, 'few are +the points', our supreme authority assures us, 'in which a very +close examination and collation with contemporary authors can detect +chronological error in Hoveden'.[21] Nor, of the eight anachronisms +laboriously established by Dr Stubbs, does any one approach in +magnitude the error I have here exposed. The importance of every +anachronism in its bearing on the authorship of the chronicle is by +him clearly explained. + +How far does the rejection of this statement on the change of seal +affect the statement which precedes it as to the Truce of Tillières? +Hoveden places the latter and the former in the relation of cause and +effect: + + Deinde veniens in Normanniam moleste tulit quicquid factum + fuerat de supradictis treugis, et imputans cancellario suo hoc + per eum fuisse factum, abstulit ab eo sigillum suum, et fecit, + etc. (iii. 267). + +This is rendered by Dr Stubbs in the margin: 'He annuls the truce and +all the acts of the chancellor passed under the old seal.' The passage +has also been so read by M. Boivin-Champeaux (p. 221); but if that is +the meaning, which I think is by no means certain, Hoveden contradicts +himself. For he speaks five months later of the truce ('Treuga quæ +inter eos statuta fuerat duratura usque ad festum omnium sanctorum') +as not having stopped private raids on either side.[22] R. de Diceto, +mentioning the truce (ii. 120), says nothing of it being annulled, nor +does R. Newburgh in his careful account. On the contrary, he implies +that it held good, though the terms were thought dishonourable to +Richard (ii. 420). I should, therefore, read Hoveden as stating simply +that Richard was much annoyed at ('moleste tulit') its terms, and was +wroth with the chancellor for accepting them. + +In addition to correcting the received date for Richard the First's +change of seal, the evidence I have collected enables us, for the +first time, to learn how and to what extent the confirmation of +the charters was effected. We find that it was no sweeping process, +carried out on a single occasion, but that it was gradually and slowly +proceeding during the last eleven months of the king's life. Here, +then, is the explanation of another fact (also hitherto overlooked), +namely that only a minority of the charters were ever confirmed +under the second seal.[23] For the king's death abruptly stopped the +operation of that oppressive decree which was being so reluctantly +obeyed. + +It should be superfluous for me to add that, in thus correcting +previous statements, I have not impeached the accuracy of our greatest +living historian, who could only form his judgment from the evidence +before him. The result of my researches has been to show that the +evidence itself breaks down when submitted to the test of fact. + + + _Granted_ _at_ _Confirmed_ + + 1. 16 April, 1194[24] Winchester 27 May, 1198 + 2. 2 December, 1189 Canterbury 15 June, 1198 + 3. 10 October, 1189 Westminster 1 July, 1198 + 4. 28 November, 1189 Canterbury 1 July, 1198 + 5. 1 July, 1190 Dangu 3 July, 1198 + 6. 5 September, 1189 Westminster 30 July, 1198 + 7. 17 September, 1189 Geddington 30 July, 1198 + 8. 25 April, 1194 22 August, 1198 + 9. 12 December, 1194 Chinon 22 August, 1198 + 10. 7 January, 1198 Vaudreuil 22 August, 1198 + 11. 8 December, 1189 Dover 10 September [1198] + 12. 6 December, 1189 Dover 15 September [1198] + 13. 14 March, 1190 Nonancourt 18 September, 1198 + 14. 23 March, 1190 Rouen 19 September, 1198 + 15. 29 November, 1189 Canterbury 9 October, 1198 + 16. 6 October, 1189 Westminster 20 October, 1198 + 17. 7 December, 1189 Dover 24 October, 1198 + 18. 23 March, 1190 Rouen 5 November, 1198 + 19. 7 December, 1189 Dover 10 November, 1198 + 20. 17 September, 1189 Geddington 12 November [1198] + 21. 28 November,[25] 1189 Canterbury 13 November, 1198 + 22. 27 July, 1197 Isle d'Andely 14 November, 1198 + 23. 10 November, 1189 Westminster 30 November, 1198 + 24. 5 August, 1190 Marseilles 7 December, 1198 + 25. September, 1197 Rouen 17 December, 1198 + 26. 1189 [No place] 24 January, 1199 + 27. 15 April, 1190 Evreux 3 March, 1199 + 28. 22 June, 1190 Chinon 11 March, 1199 + 29. 25 April, 1194 Portsmouth 5 April, 1199 + + + _at_ _Grantee_ _Authority_ + + 1. Lions Robert fitz Roger Cart. Ant. EE. 6 + 2. Château Gaillard Hugh Bardulf Cart. Ant. EE. 10 + 3. Château Gaillard Ely Cart. Ant. JJ. 43 + 4. Château Gaillard Ely Cart. Ant. NN. 26 + 5. Château Gaillard William Longchamp Cart. Ant. JJ. 46 + 6. Lire Rievaulx Abbey Rievaulx Cartulary + (Surtees Soc.), p. 308 + 7. Lire Rievaulx Abbey Rievaulx Cartulary + (Surtees Soc.), p. 308 + 8. Thomas Basset Hist. MSS., 9th + Report, ii. 404 + 9. Roche d'Orival Alan Basset Cott. Cart. xvi. 1 + (Rymer i. 67) + 10. Roche d'Orival Alan Basset Anc. Deeds, Ser. A. + No. 5924 + 11. Château Gaillard Shaftesbury Abbey Harl. MS. 61, fo. 26 + 12. Château Gaillard Peterborough Abbey Cart. Ant. EE. 21 + 13. Château Gaillard Waltham Abbey Cart. Ant. RR. 7 & 8 + 14. Château Gaillard Roger de Sancto Manveo Cart. Ant. BB. 6 + 15. Château Gaillard Fontevrault Cart. Ant. F. 1 + 16. Lions St Leonard's, Stratford Add. MS. 6, 166, + fo. 341 + 17. Château Gaillard Stratford Langthorne Abbey Cart. Ant. E. 1 + 18. Château Gaillard St Jacques de Boishallebout Add. Cart. (Brit. + Mus.) No. 3 + 19. Château Gaillard Boxley Abbey Cart. Ant. Q. 8 + 20. Château Gaillard St Alban's Abbey Ancient Deeds, + A. 1050 + 21. Château Gaillard Tynmouth Priory Cart. Ant. BB. 18 + 22. Château Gaillard Llanthony Abbey Cart. Ant. B. 26 + 23. Lions The Templars Deville's Transcripts + 24. Lions Church of Durham Surtees Soc., vol. + IX. p. lvi. + 25. 'Sanctum Ebruskum' Domus Dei (Southampton) Cart. Ant. D. 30 + 26. Cahagnes Spalding Priory Add. MS. 5844, fo. 228 + 27. Château du Loir Gilbert fitz Roger Hist. MSS., 10th + Report, 325 + 28. Chinon W. Briwerre Great Coucher II. + 1, 67 IV. (1, 2) + 29. [No place] Noel 'serviens' Cart. Ant. D. 30 + + + + + [Footnote 1: Canon Raine, _Historiæ Dunelmensis Scriptores + Tres_ (Surtees Soc.), p. 379.] + + [Footnote 2: Speed's History (1611).] + + [Footnote 3: _Const. Hist._, i. 506.] + + [Footnote 4: _Norman Conquest_, v. 693. Compare _The Office of + the Historical Professor_, pp. 16, 17: 'In a long and careful + study of the Bishop of Chester's writings ... I have never + found a flaw in the statement of his evidence. If I have now + and then lighted on something that looked like oversight, I + have always found in the end that the oversight was mine and + not his.'] + + [Footnote 5: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 343.] + + [Footnote 6: I have been able to identify this very charter.] + + [Footnote 7: This is the only confirmation I have found later + than March 3. If the date can be relied on, it is of special + interest as being the day before the king died.] + + [Footnote 8: Charters to W. Briwere, June 22, 1190, and March + 11, 1199 (1198-9), transcribed in the Great Coucher (Duchy of + Lancaster).] + + [Footnote 9: Dr Stubbs, indeed, writes, as we have seen, that + 'the seal that was now broken must have been the one which the + chancellor had used during the king's absence'. But Longchamp + had been ejected from the chancellorship in October 1191, + whereas Richard limits the period of abuse to the duration of + his captivity, which did not begin till December 20, 1192.] + + [Footnote 10: _The Great Seals of England_ (Stock), p. 149.] + + [Footnote 11: Its impression is attached to a charter tested + at Tours, now at Lambeth Palace. If the date of this charter + is correctly given, it is an important contribution to the + Itinerary of Richard.] + + [Footnote 12: _Ibid._, p. 19.] + + [Footnote 13: It is singular that Mr Wyon, while giving these + _data_, should himself assign the change to '_circ._ 1197', + and still more singular that he should elsewhere (p. 20) + accept the usual passage from Hoveden (iii. 267).] + + [Footnote 14: Miss Norgate (1194), ii. 343.] + + [Footnote 15: _Annales Monastici_, ii. 251.] + + [Footnote 16: _Ibid._, iv. 389 (Vespasian E, iv.).] + + [Footnote 17: Faust A. 8. fo. 136. It is a striking instance + of the confusion and blundering to be met with even in our + best chronicles that M. Paris (_Chron. Maj._, ii. 356) has + an independent allusion to the king's change of seal (as + a 'factum Ricardi regis enorme') in which he gives us a + circumstantial account of the event and of the prior of St + Alban's going over to France to secure the confirmation, 'cum + effusione multæ pecuniæ et laboris', but assigns it to the + year 1189. Hoveden's error pales before such a blunder as + this, which has been accepted without question by the learned + editor, Dr Luard.] + + [Footnote 18: Hoveden, by placing it wrongly (p. 66) _after_ + Hubert's resignation (p. 48), to which it was some two months + previous, has misled Miss Norgate into the belief that it was + the work of his successor, Geoffrey.] + + [Footnote 19: Stubbs' _Hoveden_, iv., xxxii.] + + [Footnote 20: _Ibid._, p. xxv.] + + [Footnote 21: _Ibid._, p. xxxi.] + + [Footnote 22: iii. 276. This distinctly implies that the truce + had been nominally in full force. Note that it is here spoken + of as '_till_ All Saints', while in the document itself (iii. + 259) it is made for a year _from_ All Saints. Miss Norgate + (ii. 367) speaks of it as 'till All Saints' (1195), but I + think it was made from July 1194 to All Saints 1195.] + + [Footnote 23: I have not found a single charter of municipal + liberties, though the reign was so rich in them, among these + confirmations. Nor since this article first appeared, in + 1888 (_Arch. Rev._, vol. i.), have I found more than four + additional cases of resealed charters, raising the total + to twenty-eight. Of these a detailed list is given on pp. + 442-15.] + + [Footnote 24: 'Scilicet die secunda coronationis nostræ.'] + + [Footnote 25: 'December' in Cart. Ant., which date is accepted + in Gibson's 'Monastery of Tynmouth'.] + + + + +COMMUNAL HOUSE DEMOLITION + + +There was a strange custom peculiar to the ancient community of the +Cinque Ports, which has not, so far as I know, been found elsewhere in +England. If a member of any one of these towns was elected to serve +as Mayor or 'Jurat' (the governing bodies consisting of a Mayor and +twelve 'Jurats'), and refused to accept the office, his house was +publicly demolished by the community. An extract from the Custumal of +Sandwich, headed 'Pena maioris electi recusantis officium suum', will +make the custom clear: + + Si maior sic electus officium suum recipere noluit, primo et + secundo et tercio monitus, tota communitas ibit ad capitale + messuagium suum, si habuerit proprium, et illud cum armis + omnimodo quo poterit prosternat usque ad terram.... Similiter + quicunque juratus fuerit electus, et jurare noluerit, simile + judicium.[1] + +Although the custom of house demolition is apparently, as I have +said, peculiar in England to the Cinque Ports, it was of widespread +occurrence abroad. Thither, therefore, we must turn our steps in order +to investigate its history. + +It is in Flanders and in Northern France, and in Picardy, most of +all, that we find this singular custom prevailing, and discover its +inseparable connection with the institution of the _Commune_. It would +seem that the penalty of house demolition was originally decreed for +offences against the _commune_ in its corporate capacity. Thierry, +basing his conclusions mainly on the charters of the _commune_ of +Amiens and the daughter-charter of Abbeville writes: + + Celui qui se soustrait à la justice de la Commune est puni + de banissement, et sa maison est abattue. Celui qui tient + des propos injurieux contre la Commune encourt la même peine. + Voilà pour les dispositions communes aux chartes d'Amiens et + d'Abbeville, c'est-à-dire pour celles qui authentiquement sont + plus anciennes que l'acte royal de 1190. Si l'on ne s'y arrête + pas et qu'on relève dans cet acte d'autres dispositions, + probablement primitives aussi, on trouvera les peines du crime + politique, _l'abatis de maison_ et le banissement, appliquées + à celui qui viole sciemment les constitutions de la Commune et + à celui qui, blessé dans une querelle, refuse la composition + en justice et refuse pareillement de donner sécurité à son + adversaire. + + Une peine moindre, car elle se réduit à ce que la maison du + délinquant soit abattue s'il n'aime mieux en payer la valeur, + est appliquée à celui qui addresse des injures au Maire dans + l'exercice de ses fonctions, et à celui qui frappe un de + ses Jurés devant les magistrats, en pleine audience. Ainsi + l'abatis de maison, vengeance de la Commune lésée ou offensée, + était à la fois un châtiment par lui-même et le signe + qui rendait plus terrible aux imaginations la sentence de + banissement conditionnel ou absolu. Il avait lieu dans la + plupart ... des communes du nord de la France avec un appareil + sombre et imposant; en présence des citoyens, convoqués à + son de cloche, le Maire frappait un coup de marteau contre + la demeure du condamné, et des ouvriers, requis pour service + public, procédaient à la démolition qu'ils poursuivaient + jusqu'à ce qu'il ne restât plus pierre sur pierre.[2] + +The public character of the ceremony, which was no less marked at +Sandwich (_vide supra_), is well illustrated in the _Ordonnances_ +of Philip of Alsace (_circ._ 1178) on the powers of his _baillis_ in +Flanders: + + Domus diruenda Judicio Scabinorum, post quindenam a scabinis + indultam, quandocunque comes præceperit, aut ballivus ejus, + diruetur a communia villæ, campana pulsata per Scabinos; et + qui ad diruendam illam non venerit, in forisfacto erit, etc., + etc. + +This ringing of the communal bell--parallel to the moot-bell of +England--is an important feature in the matter. Without insisting +upon a stray allusion, one may ask whether an entry in the Colchester +records in the sixteenth century, threatening that if an offending +burgess does not make amends, the town will 'ring him out of his +freedom', may not be explained by this practice. + +There are plenty of other early instances of this house demolition in +recognized _Communes_. At Bruges we read (_circ._ 1190): 'Si scabini +voluerint domum eius prosternere, poterunt', etc., etc. So, too, +at Roye, the charter (_circ._ 1183) provides: 'Domus forisfactoris +diruetur si Major voluerit, et si Major redempcionem accipiet de +domibus diruendis', etc., etc.... 'Si quis extraneus ... forisfactum +fecerit ... Major et homines ville ad diruendam domum ejus exeant; quæ +si sit adeo fortis ut vi Burgensium dirui non possit, ad eam diruendam +vim et auxilium conferemus'.[3] So essential was the power of +distraint, as we might term it, given to the community over its +members, by the possession of a house, that it was sometimes made +compulsory on a new member to become possessed of a house within a +year of his joining. This was the case at Laon, one of the oldest +of the _Communes_, the charter of Louis VI (1128) providing that +'Quicunque autem in Pace ista recipiatur, infra anni spatium aut domum +sibi edificet, aut vineas emet ... per que justiciari possit, si +quid forte in eum querele evenerit'. Where, in the absence of such +provision, the culprit had no house to be demolished, it would seem +that, in some cases, he had to procure one, for the express purpose of +being demolished, before he could be restored to his membership. Thus, +at Abbeville, the charter of _Commune_ provides that 'si domum +non habuerit, antequam villam intret, domum centum solidorum, quam +communia prosternat, inveniet'. + +Thierry pointed out how the 'commune' of north-eastern France found +its way, through its adoption in Normandy, to the opposite corner of +the country 'sur les terres de la domination Anglaise'.[4] The +form 'jurats' adopted by the Cinque Ports for the members of their +governing body suggests, indeed, some connection with Gascony, to +which region, as Thierry observed, it more especially belongs.[5] I +was much struck, when visiting Bayonne, with its interesting municipal +history. Thierry alludes to its peculiar character;[6] and, as the +town had commercial relations with the Cinque Ports, and illustrates, +moreover, the tendency of a commercial port to adopt, from other +regions, a constitution peculiar to itself, I shall here give from its +local customs the provisions as to house demolition. + +Appended to John's charter granting a _communa_ to Bayonne (April 19, +1215) we find a code of communal ordinances based partly on those +in the Rouen and Falaise charters and partly on the customs of La +Rochelle. In this code the penalty of destroying the offender's house +was decreed for a magistrate who accepted bribes,[7] for a citizen +who shirked his military service,[8] for a perjured man,[9] for a +thief.[10] + +It again appears as the penalty for receiving bribes in the local +Custumal assigned to 1273: 'La soe maison sera darrocade, et que +jameis ed ni son her no hage juridiccion en le communi.' In the +foundation-charter granted to Sanabria by Alphonso IX of Leon, in +1220, we find this penalty similarly assigned to perjury ('que la su +casa sea derribada por esta razon'); but when the charter was altered +by Alphonso X (September 1, 1258), the penalty was commuted for a +pecuniary fine of sixty 'sueldos', on the ground that the destruction +of the house was an injury to the city and to himself.[11] This is +important as affording an instance of the actual introduction of +commutation. + +Now, my contention is that, as the practice of communal house +demolition wandered down into Gascony, and thence actually crossed +the Pyrenees into Spain, so--in the opposite direction--it crossed the +channel and established itself in the Cinque Ports. As these +movements become better understood, we are learning to treat them +scientifically, and to trace them through their growth to their +origin. In the case of the _commune_, the principle of filiation +enables us to accomplish this with remarkable success. + +But, it may be asked, is there any instance, on the other side of the +channel, of house demolition being the penalty prescribed for refusal +to accept office as Mayor or Jurat? It is, I reply, at Amiens the very +penalty prescribed for that offence! The Custumal of Amiens contained +these two clauses: + + Et convient que chis qui pris est faiche le serment de le + mairie; et se il ne veult faire, on abatera se maison, et + demourra en le merchy du roy au jugement de esquevins. + + Derekief se li maires qui eslus seroit refusoit le mairie et + vausist souffrir le damage, jà pour che ne demouerroit qu'il + ne fesist l'office; et se aucuns refusoit l'esquevinage, on + abateroit sa maison et l'amenderoit au jugement de esquevins, + et pour chou ne demoureroit mie que il ne fesist l'office de + l'esquevinage.[12] + +Thierry, who was ignorant of the Cinque Ports custom--as the +historians of the Cinque Ports appear to have been ignorant of that +at Amiens--describes this provision as 'loi remarquable en ce qu'elle +faisait revivre et sanctionnait par des garanties toutes nouvelles ce +principe de la législation romaine, que les offices municipaux sont +une charge obligatoire'.[13] But this brings us face to face with +the difficult and disputed question of the persistence of Roman +institutions. Personally, I have always thought it rash to accept +similarity as proof of continuity. Here, for instance, the occurrence +of this practice at Sandwich might lead to the inference that the +institutions of Sandwich were of direct Roman origin. Yet, if this +practice was imported from France, we see how erroneous that inference +would be. A _reductio ad absurdum_ of this rash argument, as I have +elsewhere pointed out, would be found in the suggestion that every +modern borough rejoicing in the possession of aldermen had derived its +institutions continuously from Anglo-Saxon times. In the particular +instance of this practice, we should note that it occurs (_a_) in that +portion of France where the municipal development was least Roman +in character; (_b_) in a peculiar and original form--the 'garanties +toutes nouvelles' of Thierry. + +Again, we find the infliction of fines for non-acceptance of municipal +office a familiar custom in England even to the present day. These +fines were undoubtedly commutations for an original expulsion from +the community; and at Colchester, for example, we have a case of a man +being deprived of 'his freedom' for declining the office of alderman, +and of his having to make 'submission' and pay a fine before it was +restored. The fact is, that in every community, whether urban or +rural, where office was a necessary but burdensome duty--like modern +jury-service or mediaeval 'suit'--a penalty had to be imposed upon +those who declined to discharge it. The peculiarity of the Sandwich +and Amiens cases consists not in the imposition of a penalty, but in +the character of the penalty imposed. + +Pass we now from the consideration of this penalty to the wider and +important conclusions suggested by its local occurrence. + +I have always been puzzled by the peculiar phenomena presented by the +'Cinque Ports' organization. To other writers it would seem to +present no such difficulty; but to me it is unique in England, and +inexplicable on English lines. In that able monograph of Professor +Burrows,[13] which is the latest contribution on the subject, the +writer, I venture to think, leaves the problem as obscure as ever. +I shall now, therefore, advance the suggestion, which has long been +taking form in my mind, that the 'Cinque Ports' corporation was +of foreign origin, and was an offshoot of the communal movement in +Northern France. + +From Picardy, which faced the Cinque Ports, they derived, I believe, +their confederation. To quote Thierry: + + La région du nord, qui est le berceau, et pour ainsi dire la + terre classique des communes jurées, comprend la Picardie, + l'Artois, etc.... Parmi ces provinces, la Picardie est celle + qui renferme le plus grand nombre de communes proprement + dites, où cette forme de régime atteint le plus haut degré + d'indépendance et où dans ses applications, elle offre le plus + de variété. Les communes de Picardie avaient en général toute + justice, haute, moyenne et basse. Nonseulement dans cette + province les chartes municipales des villes se trouvaient + appliquées à de simples villages, dont quelques-uns n'existent + plus, mais encore _il y avait des confédérations de plusieurs + villages ou hameaux réunis en municipalités sous une charte et + une magistrature collectives_.[14] + +Let me briefly summarize the arguments on which I base my hypothesis: + +(1) There is no parallel to the Cinque Ports confederation in +England,[15] but there is in Picardy. + +(2) The very name 'Cinque Ports' betrays a foreign origin,[16] as does +the fact that the oath taken by the King's Warden to the Corporation +was termed, not an oath, but a 'serement' (as in France). + +(3) The English Merchant-Guild[17] and the English 'Alderman'[18] were +unknown to the Cinque Ports constitutions; but they all possessed the +typical constitution of the _communes_ of Northern France, namely a +Mayor, with a Council of twelve, these twelve councillors having the +French name of _Jurats_.[19] + +(4) In the Cinque Ports, as in the French _Communes_, we find side +by side with this elective administration, a royal officer, with us a +Warden, with them the _Sénéchal_ (or _Prévôt_ or _Bailli_) _du Roi_. + +(5) The very same penalty of house demolition for refusal to accept +office as Mayor or Jurat was exacted in the Cinque Ports (and nowhere +else in England) as at Amiens. + +I do not contend that the French 'commune' was adopted intact by the +Cinque Ports, for, of course, it was not so. In the matter of names +alone, they are not styled a 'commune', nor are the members of their +community termed 'jurés' (_jurati_), but 'barons' (_barones_). +The study, however, of the 'commune' in France itself reveals the +adaptation to environment it underwent on transplantation. And, the +salient feature of the Cinque Ports organization, the fact that they +formed a single community, possessing a single assembly, and receiving +a joint charter, is paralleled most remarkably in the joint 'communes' +of Picardy, containing from four to eight separate 'Vills'.[20] + +It would be very satisfactory if the French 'communes' could throw +light on the obscure title of 'barons' appertaining to the men of the +Cinque Ports, and to them, I maintain (against Professor Burrows), +alone among English burgesses. I have elsewhere shown that there +is evidence of the use of this term at an earlier period than is +supposed, viz., in the early years of Stephen;[21] but on its origin +the 'commune' throws no light. One can only quote the parallel +afforded by the 'commune' of Niort, and this is taken from a late +document (1579). Its officers are said to hold of the King 'à droit +de baronie, à foi et homage-lige, au devoir d'un gant ou cinq +sols tournois, pour tous devoirs, payables à chaque mutation de +seigneur'.[22] This 'devoir' is parallel, it will be seen, to the +'canopy-service' (or 'Honours at Court') of the Cinque Ports, rendered +as it was, in practice, 'à chaque mutation de seigneur'. It is +noteworthy that a French royal charter of 1196 contains the clause: +'prefati quatuor ville exercitum et equitationem novis debent _sicut +alie communie nostre_';[23] but one can scarcely connect this with the +naval service of the Cinque Ports. Yet it was part, undoubtedly, of +the communal principle that the 'commune' should hold directly of the +King, and not of any mediate lord, and this principle would explain +the style 'barones regis' applied to the men of the Cinque Ports. + +To sum up, there are features about the Cinque Ports organization +which can only be accounted for, it seems to me, by the hypothesis +here advanced. If this novel solution be accepted,[24] a question +at once arises as to the date at which this communal confederacy was +established. From what we know of the origin of the 'commune', we can +scarcely believe in its adoption here till a generation, at least, +after the Conquest. 'Only the least informed and most sceptical,' +writes Professor Burrows, 'have placed the act of incorporation +later than the date of the Conqueror',[25] but a wider knowledge of +municipal institutions would lead to the opposite conclusion. It +is possible that the reign of Henry I may have witnessed the +superimposing of a communal confederacy on the existing institutions +of the several ports; it is impossible, at any rate, to trace it in +Domesday, and difficult, indeed, to reconcile with its existence the +evidence afforded by the Great Survey. It is conceivable that the +position already attained, in the Conqueror's days, by Dover, may have +served as a model for the other Ports, when they learnt the power of +the principle that lay at the root of the _commune_--'L'union fait la +force'.[26] + + + + + [Footnote 1: Boys' _Sandwich_, p. 431.] + + [Footnote 2: _Monographie de la Constitution communale + d'Amiens_ (_Essai sur l'Histoire ... du Tiers-Etat_, pp. + 347-8). The charter of Abbeville prescribed this penalty + ('domus ejus et omnia ad ejus mancionem pertinentia + prosternantur') for homicide, which lies outside the class of + 'political offences'. Giry, in his _Etablissements de Rouen_ + (1883), speaks of the 'abattis de maison' as 'caractéristique + du droit municipal du Nord' (i. 431), but I do not find that + he anywhere mentions it as the penalty appointed for refusing + office.] + + [Footnote 3: _Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France_, + xi., p. 228.] + + [Footnote 4: So also p. 263, where he calls attention to + 'l'établissement de la constitution communale de Rouen et de + Falaise dans quatre des provinces annexées au XII^{e} siècle à + la domination anglo-normande'; and to 'cette adoption de la + commune jurée selon le type donné par les grandes villes de la + Normandie, événement auquel contribua sans doute la politique + des rois d'Angleterre'.] + + [Footnote 5: 'À Bordeaux ... le principal titre de + magistrature était celui de Jurats, titre qu'on retrouve dans + une foule de villes, depuis la Gironde jusqu'au milieu de la + chaîne des Pyrénées' (p. 247).] + + [Footnote 6: 'Au milieu de cette unité d'organisation + administrative et judiciaire la ville de Bayonne se + détache, et contraste avec toutes les autres. On la voit, au + commencement du XIII^e siècle, abandonner le régime municipal + indigène et chercher de loin une constitution éstrangère, + celle des communes normandes, transportée et perfectionée + dans les villes du Poitou et de la Saintonge; c'est une double + cause, la suzeraineté des rois d'Angleterre étendue de la + Normandie aux Pyrénées, et le commerce d'une ville maritime, + qui amène ainsi aux extrémités de la zone municipale du Midi + la commune jurée dans sa forme native, avec toutes ses règles + et ses pratiques' (p. 249).] + + [Footnote 7: 'La soe maizon, so es del marie o d'aquet quiu + loguer aura pres, sera darrocade seins contredit.'] + + [Footnote 8: 'E en merce de la comunie, de sa maizon + darrocar.'] + + [Footnote 9: 'Sera en merce dou maire e dous pars de sa maizon + darrocar.'] + + [Footnote 10: 'La maison ons ed estaue sera abatude per les + justizies de la comunie.'] + + [Footnote 11: 'Ca esto tornarie en dano de Nos e de la nuestra + Puebla.' (_Boletin de la real Academia de la Historia_, + October 1888.)] + + [Footnote 12: 'Ancienne Coutume d'Amiens' (_Recueil des Monum. + ined. de l'Histoire du Tiers-Etat_, I. pp. 159, 160).] + + [Footnote 13: He refers us to the Theodosian Code. Lib. + XII, tit. 1, 'de decurionibus', and D., Lib. I, tit. 4, 'de + muneribus et honoribus'.] + + [Footnote 13 (sic): _Cinque Ports_ (Historic Towns Series), by + Montagu Burrows.] + + [Footnote 14: _Essai sur l'Histoire du Tiers-Etat_, p. 240. + (The italics are my own.)] + + [Footnote 15: The Danish 'Five Boroughs' stand apart, as a + temporary confederation, the character of which we do not + know.] + + [Footnote 16: Professor Burrows makes light of this name, + asserting that 'it is hard to say when the French form came + into common use' (p. 56). But 'the five Cinque Ports', which + he admits to be the correct style, is a pleonasm which proves + the 'Cinque' to be older than the 'Five'.] + + [Footnote 17: 'London and the Cinque Ports stand isolated + from their fellows in the common absence of the institution' + (Burrows, p. 43).] + + [Footnote 18: 'The same may be said of the office of + "Alderman" ... The term seems to be only accidentally, if not + erroneously, used' (_ibid._, p. 44).] + + [Footnote 19: The mayor and his twelve _pairs_, _jurats_ + (or _jurés_) or _échevins_, were an essential feature of the + _commune_, and spread with the communal movement.] + + [Footnote 20: _Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France_, + xi. 231, 237, 245, 277, 291, 308, 315. The text must now be + modified in the light of my further criticism, in the next + paper, of the early date alleged for the confederation of the + Ports.] + + [Footnote 21: This was written in reliance on the statement by + Mr Howlett (_Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II + and Richard I_, vol. iii., p. xl) that an interesting writ he + quoted from 'the cartulary of St Benet-at-Hulme' was 'safely + attributable to the year 1137'. It is a writ of Robert, Earl + of Leicester, acting as justiciary, and 'gives', says Mr + Howlett, 'a clear idea of the Earl's position at the opening + of the reign'. As he has made himself master of the period, + and has specially studied its manuscript sources, I accepted + his assurance without question. But as it subsequently struck + me that such a writ was more likely to be issued by the Earl + when justiciary under Henry II, I referred to the cartulary + and found that the writ contained the words 'avi regis', + proving it, of course, to belong to the reign, not of Stephen, + but of Henry II: + + 'R. Com(es) leg(recestriæ) Baronibus regis de Hastingg' salutem. + Precipio quod abbas et monachi de Hulmo teneant bene et in pace + et juste terras suas in Gernemut ... sicut eas melius tenuerunt + tempore Regis H. _avi regis_ ... T. R. Basset per breve + regis de ultra mare' (Galba E. 2, fo. 33_b_). + + We can only, therefore, say of its date that it is previous to + the Earl's death in 1168. In any case, however, it is of much + interest as connecting Yarmouth with Hastings alone, not, as + alleged, with the Cinque Ports as a whole. This is in perfect + accordance with the fact that John's charter to Hastings in + 1205 duly mentions its rights at Yarmouth, of which there is + no mention in his charters to the other ports. + + I have noted in this same cartulary, and on the same page, an + interesting confirmation by Henry II to the Abbey of the land, + 'quam lefwinus et Robertus presbyteri et Bonefacius et ceteri + barones mei de Hastingges eidem ecclesie dederunt in Gernemut' + apud Den ... Test' Thom' cancellario. Apud Westmonasterium'. + The name of Thomas fixes the date as not later than 1158. + In the charters of 1205, the people of Hastings are styled + 'barons', but those of the other ports only 'homines'.] + + [Footnote 22: This represents the 'esporle' of South-Western + France (cf. p. 243, n. 278).] + + [Footnote 23: _Recueil_ (_ut supra_), xi. 277.] + + [Footnote 24: I can find no trace of it in Professor + Burrows' careful _résumé_ of the factors in the Cinque Ports + organization.] + + [Footnote 25: _Cinque Ports_, p. 56.] + + [Footnote 26: Professor Burrows is very severe on those who + question the alleged charter of Edward the Confessor to the + Ports and 'the sweeping franchises' that it conferred (pp. + 55-6, 59). But the sole evidence for its alleged existence is + the charter of 1278, which does not even, I think, necessarily + imply it. For the allusion to the liberties the Ports + possessed in the days of Edward and his successors might well + be taken from such a charter as that of Henry II to Lincoln, + in which he grants to the citizens all the liberties 'quas + habuerunt tempore Edwardi et Willelmi et Henrici regum + Anglorum'. This does not imply that those kings had granted + charters. + + [The result of my further investigation has been to develop + much further the position here _Arch. Rev._, December 1889, + adopted, and to modify accordingly the closing paragraph in + the text.]] + + + + +THE CINQUE PORTS CHARTERS + + +I have allowed the preceding paper to stand as it was written, in +spite of the rejoinder by Professor Burrows, entitled, 'The Antiquity +of the Cinque Ports Charters'.[1] + +So far as regards my French analogies, Professor Burrows adopts the +argument that I have not proved a parallel sufficiently close and +complete. But this does not meet my contention: (1) that in the Cinque +Ports organization we find peculiar words and things; (2) that these +peculiarities are not found elsewhere in England; (3) that they are +found in France. Admitting, however, that 'the earliest title is +Norman French', the Professor urges that Edward the Confessor was +a 'half-Norman king', and that 'nothing is more likely than that he +should grant his charter to the Confederation under a Norman name'.[2] + +This brings us at once to Edward's alleged charter; and, indeed, my +critic recurs at the outset to his belief in 'the Ports having been +chartered as a Confederation by Edward the Confessor' (p. 439). At the +close of the article he reminds us again that he 'accepted the charter +of Edward the Confessor as a faithful landmark, and showed how the +history of our early kings and their institutions appeared to coincide +with the statement'. But he adds that 'if proof can be brought against +the issue of such a charter', he will be 'the first to recognize it'. + +It is curious that my critic cannot perceive what must be obvious to +all those who are familiar with 'the history of our early kings and +their institutions', namely that the _onus probandi_ rests, not, as +he alleges, on those who question, but on those who maintain the +startling proposition that Edward the Confessor issued such a charter +of incorporation. Nothing short of proof positive could induce us +to accept so unheard-of an anticipation of later times. That proof +Professor Burrows claims to find in the great charter of Edward I to +the Ports. He contends that, according to this document, Edward 'saw' +the Confessor's charter,[3] and blames me for omitting its statement +to that effect (p. 443). Unfortunately he quotes the words, as indeed +he had done in his book, from an English translation only, and that a +misleading one. The actual words (as given by Jeake), confirms to the +Ports their liberties as held: + + temporibus Regum Angliæ Edwardi, Willelmi primi et secundi, + Henrici regis proavi nostri, et temporibus Regis Richardi + et Regis Johannis avi nostri et Domini Henrici Regis patris + nostri per cartas eorundem, sicut cartæ illæ quas iidem + Barones nostri inde habent, et quas inspeximus, rationabiliter + testantur. + +In this peculiar wording we notice two points: (1) that it divides the +kings into two groups, and that Henry II is placed in the first group, +not, as we should expect, with his sons; (2) that Edward does not +say that he has 'inspected' charters of all the kings named, but only +'cartæ _illæ_ quas iidem Barones nostri inde habent'.[4] I claim, +therefore, to read the words as not implying that Edward had actually +seen any charter older than that of Richard, whose name heads what I +have termed the second group of kings. It is noteworthy that Richard's +is the earliest charter of which the contents are known to ourselves. + +But let us see how the matter stands with reference to previous +charters. Professor Burrows holds that the form of Edward I's charter +'certainly supposes that the former charters were granted' also to the +Ports collectively.[5] Indeed, he 'need not point out', we read, 'that +the charters referred to are charters to the Confederation, not to +separate Ports' (p. 444). Where do we find them? 'That the charter of +Henry,' we are told (p. 439), 'which we know about from those of his +sons, has no more survived than those of his predecessors, has always +seemed to me an argument of some weight.' But no charter of Henry II +to the Confederation is spoken of by his sons. We have in the _Rotuli +Chartarum_ what Professor Burrows terms, 'the series of six charters, +dated June 6, and 7, 1205'. Each Port on this occasion received a +separate charter, and in each case reference is made to that Port's +charter from Henry II. Of a collective charter we hear nothing. +Nor are John's charters even identical in form: to quote once more +Professor Burrows: + + It should also be noted that the franchises of Sandwich are + to be such as the town enjoyed in the reigns of 'William and + Henry'; of Dover, as in that of Edward'; of Hythe, as in those + of 'Edward, William I, William II, and Henry'.[6] + +And in none of them is any charter mentioned earlier than that of +Henry II. + +These charters of John are most important, but have not, so far as +I know, received scientific treatment. The charter to Hastings is in +many ways distinct from the others. It alone speaks of the 'Honours +at Court', the rights at Yarmouth, and the ship-service due, and alone +mentions that this service was rendered 'pro hiis libertatibus'. The +charter to Rye and Winchelsea is modelled on that of Hastings, and +neither of them goes back beyond the charter of Henry II. The charters +to Dover and to Hythe, it will be found, are closely parallel, and in +both cases the privileges are to be enjoyed as in the times of Edward, +William I, William II, and Henry (I). Sandwich has her liberties +confirmed as in the days of Henry I, King William, 'and our +predecessors'; Romney as in the days of Henry I. + +If it be urged that the rights of Yarmouth, though only specified in +the Hastings charter, were included under general liberties in the +charters to the other Ports, I appeal, in reply, to that writ of +Henry II[7] which treats the Barons of Hastings alone as possessing +authority at Yarmouth. The charter and the writ confirm one another. + +We see, then, that when we interpret the great charter of Edward I to +the Ports (1278) in the light of evidence, not of supposition, we find +that Henry II and John did grant separate charters to the different +Ports as to other towns (not a collective charter to them all), and +that these therefore must have been the charters referred to in the +general confirmation of 1278. In other words, it was Edward I, +not Edward the Confessor, who granted the first 'Charter to the +Confederation', as a whole. Utterly subversive though it be of +Professor Burrows' view, this is the only conclusion in harmony with +the known facts. + +Thus the sole result of examining my critic's evidence is to make me +carry my scepticism further still. I now hold that even so late as +the days of John, the Ports had individual relations to the crown, +although their relations _inter se_ were becoming of a closer +character, as was illustrated by the fact that their several charters +were all obtained at the same time. Hastings alone, as yet, had rights +at Yarmouth recognized: hers were the only portsmen styled 'barons' by +the crown. + +It is always, in these matters, necessary to bear in mind that the +local organization was apt to be ahead of the crown, and that communal +institutions and municipal developments might be winked at for a time +to avoid formal recognition. In this way I believe the rights and +privileges belonging in strictness to Hastings alone were gradually +extended in practice to the other ports. There is, for instance, a St +Bertin charter granted by the so-called 'barons of Dover', although +the formal legend on their seal styles them only 'burgesses'. The +portsmen may all in practice have been loosely styled 'barons', +even though Hastings alone had a special right to that distinction. +Professor Burrows speaks of 'its acknowledged claim to be the +Premier Port of the Confederation' as 'a circumstance of the greatest +significance in our inquiry',[8] and here I entirely agree with him. +But I cannot think his explanation of that pre-eminence in any way +satisfactory. He lays great stress on 'the identification lately +established beyond any reasonable doubt between the town in the Bourne +valley and the "New Burgh" of Domesday Book'. I have searched long and +in vain for this identification, but, whether it be accepted or not, +it throws no light on the old town, the King's town, of Hastings.[9] + +The importance of Hastings before the Conquest is shown not only by +the action of its ships in 1049, but also by its possessing a mint. +Yet the only mention of this town in Domesday is the incidental entry +that the Abbot of Fécamp had 'in Hastings' appurtenant to his Manor of +Brede, 'iiii. burgenses et xiiii. bordarios'.[10] One is fairly driven +to the bold hypothesis that Hastings, which ought to have figured at +the head of the county survey (as did Dover in Kent), was one of the +important towns wholly omitted in Domesday.[11] The fact that its +ship-service, when first mentioned, was as large as that of Dover is a +further proof of its importance. + +The geographical position of Hastings also severs its case, as widely +as do its privileges, from those of the Kentish ports. It is therefore +difficult to resist the impression that the distinction in John's +charter had a real origin and meaning. The 'barons' of Hastings were, +I believe, the men of the _King's_ town (not, as alleged, the +Abbot's) and so far from the Abbot's men being admitted to share their +distinction, we find the latter, at Rye and Winchelsea, styled in +John's charter 'homines', not even 'homines nostri'. + +The accepted view as to Rye and Winchelsea is thus set forth by +Professor Burrows: + + The Confessor had evidently intended to make the little group + of Sussex towns, the 'New Burgh', Winchelsea, and Rye, a + strong link of communication between England and Normandy; but + Godwin and Harold had contrived to prevent the two latter from + becoming the property of the Abbey of Fécamp, to which Edward + granted them in the early part of his reign; and this formed + one of the Norman grievances. William promised to restore them + to the Abbey, and when he had conquered England he kept his + word.... Of the grant of Winchelsea and Rye to the same Abbey + as part of the lands of Steyning we have distinct evidence in + the charter of resumption issued by Henry III in 1247 (p. 27; + cf. _supra_, p. 248). + +Although this view has always been held by local historians and +antiquaries, it seems to me obvious that there must be error +somewhere. Rye and Winchelsea belonged geographically to the Abbey's +lordship of Brede in the extreme west of the county; its lordship of +Steyning was in East Sussex. On examining for myself the charter of +resumption and comparing it with the Abbey's claims as to Brede at the +_quo warranto_ inquiry, I discovered the solution of the mystery. +Rye and Winchelsea were not, as alleged, appurtenant to Steyning, but +belonged to the Manor of Brede. The Abbey, however, claimed on +behalf of its Manor of Brede (including Rye and Winchelsea) all the +franchises granted to Steyning, contending that they were meant to +extend to all its lands in Sussex. This claim was urged and recognized +in the case of the charter of resumption (1246), the source of the +whole misapprehension. + +But to return to the 'barons', Professor Burrows, discussing the +title, writes thus:[12] + + It is admitted that the title was at first only held by the + Portsmen in common with the citizens of several other places, + as that of a responsible man in a privileged community, of a + 'baro' or 'vir' of some dignity; but, of course, not in the + least in the sense of a 'baron' such as the word came to mean + in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. + +I do not know which were these 'several other places'; but I think the +word 'baron' can be shown to have here had a definite connotation. +The exemption from 'wardship and marriage', for instance, granted +by Edward I (1278), implies that these 'barons' were subject to the +burdens of tenants-in-chief, while their extraordinary appeal, after +the battle of St Mahé (1293), to 'the judgment of their peers, earls, +and barons'[13] has not, so far as I know, received the attention it +deserves. By such a phrase the Cinque Ports 'barons' virtually claimed +the privilege of peers of the realm. + +But one must not wander too far along these tempting paths. When +tradition is replaced, as it may be in part, by evidence, we shall +have, not improbably, to unlearn much that now passes current as +genuine Cinque Ports history. On the other hand, there may be in store +for us glimpses of much that is interesting and new.[14] + +Apart, however, from problems as yet difficult and obscure, we shall +be standing on sure ground in asserting that the charter of Edward I +is the first that was granted to the Ports collectively, and that the +rights and liberties it confirmed were those which had been granted +to the separate ports by Henry II and John, and which it then made +uniform and applicable to the whole confederation. As at London,[15] +we have always to remember that communal institutions might develop +locally before their existence is proved by the crown's formal +recognition. Delay in that recognition is not proof of their +non-existence. What complicates so greatly the study of the Cinque +Ports polity is the difficulty of disentangling its three component +elements: the old English institutions common to other towns; the +special relation to the crown in connection with their ship-service; +and the foreign or communal factor on which I have myself insisted. No +impartial student, I believe, will deny that I have fairly established +the existence of this third element. Its relative importance and its +sphere of action must remain, of course, as yet matter of conjecture. + + + + + [Footnote 1: _Archæological Review_, iv. 439-44.] + + [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 441.] + + [Footnote 3: _The Cinque Ports_, p. 64.] + + [Footnote 4: Had he seen them all, the wording would have run, + 'per cartas eorundem, quas iidem', etc.] + + [Footnote 5: _The Cinque Ports_, p. 63.] + + [Footnote 6: _Ibid._, p. 71.] + + [Footnote 7: _Supra_, p. 421.] + + [Footnote 8: _The Cinque Ports_, p. 26.] + + [Footnote 9: The Professor's argument that 'the lordship of + St Denis over the Saxon Hastings had ceased--probably when the + Northmen took possession of the Seine valley and blocked out + the French; that of Fécamp was the renewal of the old idea + on an adjoining territory' (_Cinque Ports_, p. 27), is as + baseless as that which follows it as to Winchelsea and Rye. + For the 'charter of Offa, king of the Mercians' (p. 25), + granting Hastings to St Denis, has been conclusively shown by + Mr Stevenson to be a forgery.] + + [Footnote 10: One cannot, of course, speak positively without + seeing that 'identification' on which Professor Burrows + relies. But, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it + seems difficult to resist the conclusion that this estate + of the Abbey 'in Hastings' was identical with that which it + actually possessed in the Bourne Valley. For this by no means + included the whole 'town in the Bourne Valley', but only that + portion of it at the foot of the West Hill, which is bordered + by Courthouse Street, Bourne Street, John Street, and High + Street, together with St Clement's Church and its block of + buildings (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, xiv. 67). And this conclusion + is strengthened by the fact that in Domesday its rents are 63s + 'in Hastings', and 158s in the 'novus burgus', while at the + Dissolution they were only 35s 4d in Hastings. In that case + we must after all look for the 'novus burgus' of Domesday at + Winchelsea or Rye. + + Nor is the history of Hastings harbour at all as clear as + could be wished. 'The ancient Harbour once occupied', no + doubt, 'Priory Valley' (_Cinque Ports_, p. 9); but I can find + no trace of a haven 'formed by the Bourne between the East + and West Hills', which replaced it on its silting-up. On + the contrary, the old map of Hastings in 1746 (_Sussex Arch. + Coll._, vol. xii) shows us the 'haven' (with ships) in the + Priory Valley to the west of the Castle Hill. Was not this + a later harbour (1637), and the real original one out to the + south?] + + [Footnote 11: Chichester, Lewes, and Pevensey are all duly + entered, under the names of their respective lords.] + + [Footnote 12: _The Cinque Ports_, pp. 77-9.] + + [Footnote 13: _The Cinque Ports_, p. 123. Compare the + banishment of the Despencers (1321) by the 'piers de la terre, + countes et barouns'.] + + [Footnote 14: The courts of the Cinque Ports, for instance, + greatly need investigation. One can only throw out as a mere + conjecture the suggestion that if the Court of Guestling + derived its name, as Professor Burrows admits is probable, + from Guestling (the _caput_ of a Hundred), midway between + Hastings and Winchelsea, it may have been originally a + _Sussex_ Court for the Hastings group, while the Court of + Broadhill--afterwards 'Broderield' and 'Brotherhood' (_The + Cinque Ports_, p. 178)--may have been the Kentish one. The + admitted corruption in the traditional derivation of both + names, together with the court's change of _locale_, shows + how much obscurity surrounds their true origin. Few, I + think, would accept Professor Burrows' view that, because the + Brodhull, when we first have record of it, was held 'near the + village of Dymchurch' (p. 46), it was named from 'the "broad + hill" of Dymchurch, which may well have been some portion of + the wall which extended for three miles along the beach' (p. + 47). As the Guestling was not a court of 'Guests', so 'the + broad hill', from which the meeting derived its name, must + have been originally somewhere else than down 'on Dymchurch + beach' (p. 75), between Romney Marsh and the sea.] + + [Footnote 15: See my paper on the origin of 'The Mayoralty of + London', in _Archæological Journal_ (1894).] + + + + +ADDENDA + + +Pages 20, 107. In case I should not have made sufficiently clear my +views as to the filiation of the Domesday MSS., it may be well to +explain that what I deny on p. 21 is that the _Inq. Com. Cant._ +and the _Inq. El._ can both have been copied from a third document +intermediate between them and the original returns. But, as I state +on pp. 20, 123, it cannot be _proved_ that the _Inq. Com. Cant._ was +itself transcribed direct from the original returns, as it might, +possibly, be only a copy of an earlier transcript of these returns. + +Page 30. A remarkable instance of the occasional untrustworthiness of +the figures given in these texts is afforded by the Manors of Stretham +and Wilburton, co. Cambridgeshire, which were farmed together. The +correct figures for their ploughteams were these: + + Dominium Homines Total + Stretham 4[1] 5 9 + Wilburton 3[2] 4 7[3] + __ __ + 7 9 + +The footnotes show the errors. + +Thus the A text, which is the best known, gives two figures out of +three wrongly for Wilburton, and Mr Pell, by accepting as genuine +these two erroneous figures, was led to quite erroneous conclusions. + +Pages 68-9. The parallel for this system of counting by threes and +sixes is found in the wergild of Scandinavia, with its _rétt_ of 3 +marcs, or 6, or 12, the 6 or the 12 _aurar_, the 12 ells or the 12 +feet of _vadmal_. + +For the _formulæ_ on p. 68 an instructive parallel is found in the +Frostathing's Law: + + If a _haulld_ wounds a man, he is liable to pay 6 + _baugar_ (rings) to the king, and 12 _aurar_ are in each ring + ... a _lendrmann_ 12, a jarl 24, a king 48, 12 _aurar_ being + in each ring. + +Thus we find in Scandinavia the counterpart of the system of counting +found in the 'Danish' districts of England, just as we find in Angeln +and Ditmarsh the counterpart of the 'hide', with its four 'yards', +found in southern England (_Archæologia_, xxxvii. 380). + +Page 105. For the election of _juratores_ we may compare the +Abingdon Abbey case, under Henry II: 'ex utroque parte seniores viri +eligerentur qui secundum quod eis verum videretur ... jurarent; ... +segregati qui jurarent diversis opinionibus causam suam confundebant'. +For juries of eight or sixteen we may compare Jocelin de Brakelonde's +narrative of a suit for an advowson in 1191: 'delatum est juramentum +per consensum utriusque partis sexdecim legalibus de hundredo'. + +Page 126. Compare here Mr Freeman's text (iii. 413-4): + + There can be little doubt that William's ravages were not only + done systematically, but were done with a fixed and politic + purpose.... It is impossible to doubt that the systematic + harrying of the whole country round Hastings was done with the + deliberate purpose of provoking the English king.... The work + was done with a completeness which shows that it was something + more than the mere passing damage wrought by an enemy in need + of food. + +Domesday is appealed to, as in the Appendix, for this view. + +Page 205. Though I have spoken in the text of _William_ de Montfichet, +following, like Dugdale, the _Liber Niger_, I have since found that +the tenant of the fief, in 1166, was his son Gilbert, the _carta_ +being wrongly assigned in the _Liber Niger_ itself to William. There +are similar and instructive errors to be found in it. + +Page 244. The succession of Schelin, the Domesday under-tenant by his +son Robert, in 1095 identifies the former with Schelin, the Dorset +tenant-in-chief, from whom Shilling Ockford took its name, and who was +succeeded in Dorset also by his son Robert (_Montacute Cartulary_). + +Pages 293-4. To guard (as I have to do at every turn) against +misrepresentation, I may explain that the Battle Chronicle is the +primary authority I follow for the feigned flight. Its words 'fugam, +cum exercitu duce simulante', distinctly assert that the Duke himself, +with the main body of his army, 'turned in seeming flight'. It must, +surely, be because this evidence is quite opposed to Mr Freeman's view +that he ignored it in his text (pp. 488-90). The essential point to +grasp, according to my own view, is that a detachment, told off for +the purpose, thrust itself between the pursuing English and the hill +to cut off their retreat, and that the main body of the Normans then +faced about. The English, one may add, are hardly likely to have +ventured down into the plain unless the feigned flight was so general +as to make them think they could safely do so. + +Pages 311-12. 'Mainly from oral tradition.' This refers, of course, to +Mr Archer's contention. + +Page 356. On the great influence, by their connection, of the Clares +see also the _Becket Memorials_ (iii. 43), where Fitz Stephen writes +(1163): + + Illi autem comiti de Clara fere omnes nobiles Angliæ + propinquitate adhærebant, qui et pulcherrimam totius regni + sororem habebat, quam rex aliquando concupierat. + +We are reminded here of the curious story in the _Monasticon_ (iv. +608) that, some forty years before, Roheis de Clare, the wife of Eudo +Dapifer, was, on his death (1120), destined by her brethren for the +second wife of Henry I, a story which illustrates, at least, the +position attributed to the family. + +Pages 357-8. The Montfichet match is not shown in the chart pedigree, +nor is the important marriage of Adeliza, another daughter of Gilbert +(fitz Richard) de Clare, to Aubrey de Vere, the Chamberlain, which is +well ascertained (_Geoffrey de Mandeville_, pp. 390-2). By him she had +_inter alios_ a daughter, with the Clare name of 'Rohese', who married +Geoffrey de Mandeville, first Earl of Essex (_ibid._). The existence +of this Adeliza may be held to be against my affiliation of 'Adelidis +de Tunbridge', which avowedly is only a conjecture. + +Page 360. A chart pedigree is here given to illustrate the connection +of Robert fitz Richard (de Clare), through his wife, with the Earls of +Northampton and the Scottish kings: + + Earl (1) = Maud = (2) David + Simon | dau. of Earl | of Scotland + d. '1115'| Waltheof | King 1124 + | | d. 1153 + ___________| |__________ + | | | + Earl Maud = Robert Henry + Simon de Senlis | fitz Richard of Scotland + d. 1153 d. '1140' | d. 1136 d. 1152 + ____________________| ______________|________ + | | | | | + Walter Maud Malcolm William David + fitz Robert 'de Senlis,' King 1153 King 1166 Earl 1184 + d. 1198 'aged 60' d. 1166 d. 1214 d. 1219 + in 1185 + +Robert fitz Richard and his children (see p. 389) are included in this +pedigree, in order to show that their ages present no chronological +difficulty, and that the length of time they survived him is clearly +due to his marrying rather late in life. + +Page 388. I have identified a third fine, since this book was in type, +as belonging to the great circuits of 1176. It proves that they began +early in the year. + +As a corollary to my conclusions on pp. 386-7, I should like to allude +to the well-known changes in 1178-80. Great importance is attached to +the passage in the _Gesta Regis Henrici_, which describes how the king +selected five justices 'de privata familia sua' in the place of the +eighteen previously appointed, who as I read the passage, were to +accompany his court. I cannot think that this reform, if it took +place, enured, for the central body that we really meet with from 1179 +onwards is, it seems to me, distinctly different. It consists of the +Bishops of Winchester, Ely, and Norwich, whom, says R. de Diceto, in a +passage to which the Bishop of Oxford rightly draws attention, Henry, +in 1179, appointed 'archijustitiarios regni', with Glanvill, who soon +became a chief justiciar with them. These four continue to hold a +position severed from that of the other justices, of whom some act +with them at one time and some at another. The earliest appearance at +present known to me of this well-defined central group is at Oxford, +February 11, 1180. We there find the three bishops associated with +five justices, headed by Ranulf Glanvill, recorded on a fine. Now, we +happen to know that the king was at Oxford about this very time, for +he decided there on the issue of his new coinage.[4] His presence +would account for this gathering of the four leading justiciars, so +that we need not hesitate to connect the two phenomena. We have +then here record evidence of the true _personnel_ at the time of the +central judicial body, together with the fact of its presence with +the king, the fact which had not till now been proved, on his progress +through the land. + + + + + [Footnote 1: A, B, and C give this figure as 3 (p 141). Their + own title requires 4.] + + [Footnote 2: A, B, and C give this figure as 3 (p. 141), but + elsewhere (wrongly) as 4 (p. 101).] + + [Footnote 3: A gives this figure as 6 (p. 101), but B and C, + rightly, as 7.] + + [Footnote 4: So Eyton (p. 230), not giving his authority; nor + have I found it.] + + + + +INDEX + + + Abetot, Urse d', 129, 141-5^{12}, 147-8, 159, 238^{250}, 239, 245, + 324, 356 + + Abingdon Abbey: its knights, 179, 239-40 + + Airy, Revs. W. and B. R., 55-6 + + Albini 'Brito', William de, 172, 173; + his wife, 359-60 + + Albini, Henry de, 163, 171, 173-4 + + ---- Nigel de, 174, 179 + + Alfred, the name of, 254; + _see also_ Lincoln + + Alfred of Espagne (not Spain), 254, 255 + + Alfred of Marlborough, 252, 254 + + Alneto, Herbert de, 369 + + Amiens: Custumal of, 419 + + Andrews, Dr, 303^{161} + + 'Anglicus numerus'--_see_ Hundred + + Archer, Mr T. A., 256^{37}, 263^{4}, 264, 265, 266-7, 269, 270-3, + 284^{106}, 289, 290, 364, 431; + his remarkable statement, 273^{41}; + champions Prof Freeman, 300; + throws him over, 300-1; + contradicts him flatly, 301-2, 306; + opposes him wrongly, 274-7; + his tactics, 302, 307-8, 309; + his knowledge of Old French, 309^{22}; + on Wace's age and sources, 311-12; + on his sobriety, 313; + on Prof Freeman's errors, 334^{13}, 340^{1} + + Archers: use of, 280, 283^{104}, 284-7 + + 'Archijustitiarii,' the, 433 + + Ardres, the lords of, 351-2 + + Armorial bearings: earliest, 357^{1}, 359^{5} + + Arms of England, Royal, 406 + + Arques, The relief of, 294-6 + + Arundel, Earl of: his _carta_ [1166], 196 + + ---- Earldom of, 153 + + Assessment, the system of, 430; + Anglo-Saxon, 48 _sqq._; + reduced, 51-5, 64; + independent of area or value, 62; + said to be determined by area, 80, 82, + by value, 63; + origin of, 82 _sqq._ + + Assessment for danegeld, 378-9 + + ---- in East Anglia, 88-91; + in Kent, 91 _sqq._, 95; + exemption from, 95-7; + changes of, 129; + of Abingdon and Worcester Abbeys, 140; + in Lindsey, 149: + _see also_ Vills; _Wara_ + + _Auxilium_--_see_ Scutage + + Aynho, Northants, 381 + + + Bainard, Ralf, 350, 360 + + Baldwin (de Clare), the Sheriff, 256^{37}, 340, 341^{46}, 359, 394-5; + his sons, _ib._ 357-8, 369 + + Bampton, Robert of, 367, 369 + + Barbery Abbey, 157 + + Barnstaple, Fief of, 369; + Honour of, 212 + + _Barones_ were tenants-in-chief, 102 + + Barons--_see_ Cinque Ports + + Basset family and fief, 129 + + ---- Ralf, 160, 169 + + ---- Richard, 161-5, 172-3 + + ---- Thomas, 381, 384, 386, 387 + + ---- William, 385-8 + + Bath, Godfrey, Bishop of, 366, 367-8 + + Baudri: his poem, 269, 284, 286, 287-8 + + Bayeux Tapestry, 264, 269, 270-2, 276-7, 280^{88}, 288-9, 290, 300, + 310, 318 + + Bayonne, Custumal of, 418 + + Beauchamp, family and fief, 141-8, 159, 160-3 + + Beauchamp, Maud de, 156, 158-9 + + ---- Philip de, 163 + + Beaumont, Robert de, 273^{41} + + Becket, Thomas; his opposition in 1163, 377, 379-80, 398; + his movements in 1170, 383, 402 + + Bedfordshire, Assessment in, 55-8 + + Bell: Ringing of the town, 417 + + Bémont, M. Ch., 334 + + Berkshire, Hidation in, 63-4 + + Betham, Sir W., 392, 397 + + Bigot, Roger, 255 + + Birch, Mr de Gray, 18, 118^{250}, 140 + + Bishops: knight service of, 198-9, 220; + their style before consecration, 327^{11}, 367-8 + + Blois--_see_ Peter + + Boivin-Champeaux, M., 407, 408-10, 412 + + Bosham: _Capellaria de_, 199^{62}, 201, 249 + + Boulogne, Eustace, Count of, 250, 256, 293, 324, 325, 349, 351 + + Boulogne, Eustace (the younger), Count of, 214 + + Bourne (Cambridgeshire), Honour of, 204 + + Bourne (Lincoln): descent of, 136-7 + + Brakelond, Jocelin de, 400-1, 402^{18}, 431 + + Bretons, 254-5, 256-7, 291; + their alleged inferiority, 279^{81} + + _Breve abbatis_, the: its meaning, 35, 36, 115-6 + + Brihtric, son of Ælfgar, 323, 324-5 + + Bristol: its trade with Ireland, 354 + + Britanny, Honour of, 196 + + Buci, Robert de, 129, 172-3 + + Buckinghamshire, Hidation in, 64 + + Burkes: origin of the, 390-1 + + 'Burna' (Westbourne), 327 + + Burrows, Prof Montagu, 248, 420-1, 422-9 + + + Cahors, Patrick de, 95 + + Cambridge: its wards, 68; + its 'lawmen', 79; + alleged earldom of, 152-3 + + Cambridgeshire, hundreds of: analysed, 48-55--_see also Inquisitio_; + Picot + + _Camerarius_, Aubrey de Vere, 175, 178-9, 432; + his son Robert, 179 + + 'Candidus'--_see_ Hugh 'Candidus' + + Canterbury, See of: its knights, 199, 236 + + Canterbury, Geoffrey (Ridel), Archdeacon of, 381, 382, 383-4, 388 + + _Cartæ_ of 1166, 189 _sqq._, 210-11, 225, 228, 396; + sealing of, 194; + their evidence, 198-9 _sqq._; + errors in, 226-7, 234, 431 + + _Caruca_, the Domesday: contained eight oxen, 40, 41 + + Carucate: 120 acres in the, 42^{75}, 67; + as a measure of assessment, 66 _sqq._, 73, 78, 79-82; + connected with the plough team, 95 + + Castle-guard, 200^{64}, 232^{216} + + Castles built in England, 249-53 + + Chancellors--_see_ Geoffrey, Ranulf, Regenbald, Waldric + + Charters, the re-sealed [1198], 412-15 + + Chester: Earls of, 151-3; + 'lawmen' of, 79; + its trade with Dublin, 353-4 + + Chokes, Anselin de, 177 + + Church, the: exactions from the, 221, 242-3, 400, 410 + + Cinque Ports: their system of 'purses', 88^{183}; + peculiar penalty in, 416 _sqq._; + confederation of, 420-1, 422-4; + its name, 421 + + Cinque Ports: Barons of, 421-2, 428-9; + 'honours at court', 422, 425 + + Cinque Ports: their charters, 424-6, 429; + their courts, 429^{14}; + their complex polity, 429 + + Cirencester Charters, The: 323, 326 + + Civic League, an alleged, 331-3 + + _Civitas_, meaning of, 262 + + Clare family and fief, 226, 355-60, 394, 431-2. + _See_ Baldwin + + Clare, Baldwin Fitz Gilbert de, 134, 179, 359, 394 + + Clare, Richard Fitz Gilbert de, 255, 355 + + Clermont, Adeliz de, 394 + + Cleveland, Duchess of, 297, 358, 371 + + Clinton--_see_ Glynton + + Cockayne, Mr T. O., 124^{1}, 125^{3}, 128^{9} + + Colchester: Charter to, 363; + municipal custom at, 417 + + _Commendatio_, 36-40 + + Commune: offences against the, 416-420; + spread of the, 418-19; + its independent growth, 426, 429 + + _Constabularia_, the, 206, 208, 227 + + _Consuetudines_: due from sokemen and freeman, 36-9 + + Corfe Castle, 263 + + Cornhill, Gervase de, 357 + + ---- Henry de, 363 + + Cornwall, assessment in, 62; + low, 84, 86; + _see also_ Devon + + Cornwall, earldom of, 369 + + ---- Reginald, Earl of, 381, 384, 385 + + Counties, groups of: defined by assessment, 85-6 + + Courcy, William de, 180 + + Coutances, Geoffrey, Bishop of, 114-15, 238^{250} + + Craon, Alan de, 164, 172, 174 + + Crown, Power of the, 399 + + _Curia Regis_, The, 385-9, 405, 432-3; + mention of, 120. + _See Placita_ + + + Danegeld: normal, 55, 91; + its origin, 82-83; + its local incidence, 84-6; + its connection with the Hundred, 88-91, 125, 128, 130; + early levy of, 124-5; + remitted on 'waste', 125; + unpaid, 128-9; + its assessment, 165-6, 379; + alleged debate on, 377; + not compounded for, 378 + + Danish districts: assessment of the, 66, 67-8, 430; + the 'long' hundred in, 66-7; + limits of, 67-8, 79, 94; + carucated, 82-3. + _See_ 'Six carucates' + + _Dare_--_see Recedere_ + + _Defensio_: represents assessment, 102, 166 + + De La Rue, Chevalier, 392, 397 + + Delgove, M. l'Abbé, 361-2 + + Democracy: its failure, 302-5 + + Derbyshire: a Danish district, 68; + low assessment of, 85; + possible Hundreds in, 165-6 + + Devon: assessment in, 61-2; + low, 84, 86; + earldom of, 358, 369; + Sheriffs of, 236^{239} + + _Dialogus de Scaccario_, 121-2 + + 'Dispensator', Robert, 141-5, 147-8, 155, 158-9, 245 + + Distraint, 243 + + Domesday Book: omissions in, 26-7, 35, 41; + errors in, 28-30, 41, 44^{76}, 44^{77}, 44^{78}, 47, 74, 113, 119, + 180-1, 326; + general excellence, 29-30; + duplicate entries in, 30-5, 350; + not a verbal transcript, 31-5; + analysis required, 56, 64, 82, 88; + its love of variety, 31, 34, 77, 223-4; + Leets mentioned in, 90; + its compilation, 118; + _Liber de Wintonia_, 118; + its two volumes, 119-20; + its date, 118, 209-10; + used by the pseudo-Ingulf, 120; + first mention of, 120-1; + _Liber de thesauro_, 121; + preserved at Winchester, 121-2; + removed to Westminster, 121-2; + names of tenants in, 131-3, 137-9; + its alleged silence as to feudal tenures, 184-5, 240; + contrasted with returns of 1166, 189-90; + mentions knight service, 236 + + Domesday Hide--_see_ Hide + + ---- MSS: pedigree of, 122-3, 430 + + ---- Survey, the: how executed, 102-6, 114-15; + styled _Descriptio_, 118, 122 + + ---- of St Paul's, The, 92-4 + + ---- tenants, and their heirs, 104-5, 106, 109-10, 128-30, 131-4, + 137-9, 141-8, 150-2, 154-5, 158-9, 166-74, 179-81, 231-2, 232-3, + 237, 240-1, 244-5, 251-2, 254, 256, 350, 355-6, 358, 369, 431 + + _Dominium_: meaning of, 193 + + _Donum_--_see_ Scutage + + Dorset boroughs in Domesday, 99, 331-4, 341; + _see_ Civic League + + Dorset, the _firma unius noctis_ in, 96, 99 + + Dover: as a Cinque Port, 425, 426; + Garrison of, 216 + + Droitwich, survey of, 146, 148 + + Dublin: its trade with Chester, 353-4 + + Dugdale, Sir William: his errors, 356, 359-60 + + + Eadgyth--_see_ Edith + + Eadric the wild, 253^{22} + + Eadric (? the wild), 323, 325 + + Earldoms of two counties, 328 + + East Anglia--_see_ Norfolk, Suffolk + + Edith, wife of Edward the Confessor, 124, 129, 340, 342 + + Edward the Confessor: his foreign tastes, 248, 428; + his priest, Regenbald, 323; + his alleged charter to the Cinque Ports, 422-6 + + Edward I: his Cinque Ports charter, 424, 425, 426, 428-9 + + Ellis, Mr A. S., 249^{7}, 257^{43} + + ---- Sir Henry: ignored the _Inq. Com. Cant._, 18; + misrepresented the Northamptonshire geld-roll, 59; + edited the _Inq. El._, 107; + on date of Domesday, 118^{250}; + on its mention, 120; + prints the Northamptonshire geld-roll, 124; + on Domesday jurors, 140; + unduly depreciated by Prof Freeman, 334, 341; + on Walter Tirel, 355 + + Elmley Castle, descent of, 145^{12} + + Elton, Mr C., 95 + + Ely: charters to church of, 213; + its knights, 236; + despoiled of lands, 349-50; + _see also Placitum_ + + Ely, Nigel, bishop of, 327, 368^{2} + + ---- William, bishop of: _see_ Longchamp + + Enfeoffment: _sine carta_, 206; + antiquity of, 232, + special, 132; + _See_ Feoffment + + Engaine family and fief, 124, 129-30, 132, 179 + + Eschalers, Hardwin d', 31, 32, 117 + + 'Escuz', meaning of, 307-8, 317-18 + + Essex, Alice of, 381 + + ---- Geoffrey, Earl of, 381, 432 + + ---- William, Earl of, 381, 384 + + Eudo Dapifer, 131, 180; + his fief, 350 + his wife, 356, 358, 432 + + Euremou (Envermeu), Hugh de, 132-134, 137 + + Eustace, sheriff of Hunts, 138, 180-1 + + Evesham: Henry II at, 385-6, 390 + + ---- Abbey: its knights, 237-8; + its service, 238; + Æthelwig, abbot of, 238-9; + Walter, abbot of, 237-8^{247} + + Evidence, treatment of historical, 291-292, 336-7, 343, 344, 346, 376 + + Ewald, Mr A. C., 118^{250} + + Ewyas Harold, 252 + + Exaggerations of chroniclers, 222, 228-9 + + Exchequer: early mention of, 146-7; + at Winchester, 381 + + Exchequer Rolls, 199-200, 209 _sqq._ + + Exeter: military service of, 65; + the Conqueror's siege of, 330 _sqq._; + breaching of its walls, 335-7; + besieged by Swegen, 335-6; + offends William, 338-9; + is favoured by him, 339; + its alleged penalty, 340; + its tribute, 340-2, 344-5; + baffles William, 343; + is 'betrayed', 344; + parallel with Le Mans, 345 + + Exeter, Baldwin of: _see_ Baldwin + + _Exoniensis, Liber_: _see Liber Exoniensis_ + + Eyton, Mr: on the Domesday hide, 42, 47^{83-5}, 63; + his methods, 46, 62, 98-100, 150; + his Somerset book, 61, 98; + on the Leicestershire hide, 76; + on the Devonshire hide, 84; + on assessment in Lincolnshire, 86; + on the _firma unius noctis_, 99; + on the comital Manors of Somerset, 100; + his 'Key to Domesday', 99-100, 165^{44}; + on Domesday Book, 118; + on the Lindsey Survey, 153-4; + on Danegeld, 378; + on Henry II, 382-4, 385-7, 433^{4} + + + Falvel (Fauvel), Gilbert, 138, 180 + + Faritius, Abbot, 120 + + Fécamp Abbey, grants to, 248-9, 427-8 + + Feoffment: the 'old' and 'new', 190-2, 194, 196-7. + _See_ Enfeoffment + + Feudal Court, the, 205-6 + + Feudalism in England: underrated, 7-8, 208, 245, 248, 403-5. + _See_ Knight-service + + Fiefs: descent of, 171-4; + 'Mouvance' of, 357; + the chief lay ones, 201-5; + succession to, 129-30, 132-3, 134, 138-9, 144-5, 147-8, 160, 171-4 + + Fifield: origin of the name, 66 + + Finance--_see_ Danegeld + + Fine, an early Leicestershire, 173 + + Fines: Introduction of, 385 _sqq._, 432-3; + development of, 389-90 + + _Firma unius noctis_, 96-100 + + Fitz Audelin, William, 353, 381-2, 385-6, 387, 390-1 + + Fitz Count, Brian, 177 + + Fitz Dolfin, Patrick, 370 + + ---- Uchtred, 370 + + Fitz Maldred, Gilbert, 370 + + ---- Robert, 370 + + Fitz Odo, William, 369 + + Fitz Osbern, Earl William, 328, 329^{19} + + Fitz Ralf, William, 385-8 + + Fitz Richard, William, 369 + + Fitz Stephen, Robert, 394-6 + + Fitz Uchtred, Dolfin, 370, 371-2 + + Fitz Walters, Origin of the, 359-60, 432 + + Fitz Winemar, Walter, 179 + + Five boroughs, the, 67^{136}, 68 + + Five hides: a unit of assessment, 47 _sqq._; + even in towns, 48, 130; + connected with military service, 48, 65-6, 187-8; + conspicuous in Oxon and Berks, 63-4; + in Bucks, Wilts and Middlesex, 64; + originates place-names, 66; + its origin, 82 _sqq._; + its antiquity, 83; + not a knight's fee, 231-2; + _see also_ Towns + + Five knights: unit of military service, 204-5, 206, 227, 232-3 + + Flambard, Ranulf: his alleged action, 182-4, 186; + his real action, 241-3, 256^{37} + + Fleming, Ralf and Guy, 175 + + Foliot, Richard, 178 + + Food-rents--_see_ Wales + + Foreign Service: Liability to, 398 _sqq._; + exemption from, 399-400, 401-2; + a moot obligation, 403, 405 + + Freeman, Professor: unacquainted with the _Inq. Com. Cant._, 18; + ignores the Northamptonshire geld-roll, 125; + confuses the _Inquisitio geldi_, 124; + his contemptuous criticism, 126, 261, 295-6, 332, 346; + when himself in error, 126-7; + his charge against the Conqueror, 127, 431; + on Hugh d'Envermeu, 132-3; + on Hereward, 133-6; + his 'certain' history, 251, 331; + his 'undoubted history', 134-5, 360-1; + his 'facts', 333; + on Heming's cartulary, 140; + on Mr Waters, 155^{23}; + on the introduction of feudal tenures, 183-6, 207, 213^{121}, + 236^{239}, 239^{258}; + on the knight's fee, 188; + on Ranulf Flambard, 184; + on the evidence of Domesday, 185-6; + underrates feudal influence, 198, 404-5; + on scutage, 213^{121}; + overlooks the Worcester relief, 241; + influenced by words and names, 247, 262; + on Normans under Edward, 248 _sqq._; + his bias, 248, 302-4; + on Richard's castle, 249 _sqq._; + confuses individuals, 251-2, 296-7, 358; + his assumptions, 251; + on the name Alfred, 254; + on the Sheriff Thorold, 255-6; + on the battle of Hastings, 258 _sqq._; + his pedantry, 259-63; + his 'palisade', 264 _sqq._, 273-4, 285, 287, 297, 300, 309; + misconstrues his Latin, 265-6, 333-4; + his use of Wace, 267-9, 270, 272^({40}), 274, 289; + on William of Malmesbury, 268, 314-17, 336; + his words suppressed, 269^{24}, 301-2; + on the Bayeux Tapestry, 269-72; + imagines facts, 272-3, 285^({117}), 297, 331; + his supposed accuracy, 273^{41}, 274, 295, 333-4, 336, 340-1, 342; + right as to the shield-wall, 273-7; + his guesses, 277-8, 279-80, 282, 289, 291-2, 297, 298-9, 331-3, + 347, 351; + his theory of Harold's defeat, 278, 292-3; + his confused views, 280-1, 309, 335-6, 340-1, 342; + his dramatic tendency, 282; + evades difficulties, 287-8, 346; + his treatment of authorities, 290, 343-4; + on the relief of Arques, 295; + misunderstands tactics, 293-4, 297; + on Walter Giffard, 296-7; + his failure, 298; + his special weakness, 298, 300; + his splendid narrative, 298, 301; + his Homeric power, 300; + on Harold and his Standard, 308; + on Wace, 309-11, 313; + on Regenbald, 326; + on Earl Ralf, 327-8; + on William Malet, 329; + on the Conqueror's earldoms, 328-9; + his Domesday errors and confusion, 126-7, 326, 328, 333-4, 339-42, + 351-2; + on 'the Civic League', 331-3; + his wild dream, 335; + his special interest in Exeter, 330; + on legends, 336-7; + on Thierry, 344, 348; + his method, 346; + on Lisois, 350; + on Stigand, 350; + on Walter Tirel, 360-1; + on St Hugh's action [1197], 398; + on the Winchester Assembly, 403-5; + distorts feudalism, 404; + on the King's court, 405; + on Richard's change of seal, 407; + necessity of criticizing his work, 11-12, 273 + + Fyfield--_see_ Fifield + + + Gant, Walter de, 155 + + Gardiner, Prof, 307 + + Gaunt, Agnes de, 165 + + Geld-roll--_see_ Danegeld, Northamptonshire + + Genealogy--_see_ Domesday tenants, Fitz Audelin, Marmion, + Montmorency, Neville, Tirel + + 'Gemot', the: not feudal, 404-5 + + Geoffrey the Chancellor, 366, 368 + + Geroy and his offspring, 355 + + Gervase, Chronology of, 373-4 + + _Gesta Stephani_, authority of, 374-6 + + 'Gewered', 124--_see Wara_ + + Giffard, the aged Walter, 296; + his daughter Rohese, 355, 356 + + ---- William, Bishop of Winchester, 356 + + Giffards, greatness of the, 355-6, 357-8 + + Glanvile, Ranulf de, 381, 384, 433 + + Glastonbury Abbey: its knights, 237, 239^{257} + + Gloucester, Family of De, 244-5 + + ---- Robert, Earl of, 154, 179, 180, 369, 374-5 + + ---- William, Earl of, 375 + + Glynton, Geoffrey de, 175 + + Gneist, Dr R.: on knight-service, 182^{2}, 186^{24}, 206^{97}, + 208^{106}, 228 + + Godwine, Prof Freeman on, 304 + + Grantmesnil, Ivo de, 347-8 + + Green, Mr J. R.: on Chester, 353; + on the Danish districts, 67^{136}, 79; + + Greenstreet, Mr J., on the Lindsey Survey, 149-50, 153-4 + + Gresley, William de, 163, 174 + + Gross, Dr C., on the Coroner, 105^{212} + + Grouping of Vills for assessment, 48 _sqq._; + _see also_ Vills + + Guines, Count of, 352 + + Gundeville, Hugh de, 381, 382^{7}, 382^{8}, 383^{15}, 388 + + + Hale, Archdeacon, 92 + + Hall, Mr Hubert, 121, 122, 209, 245, 321, 381^{2} + + Hamilton, Mr N. E. S. A.: edits the _Inq. Com. Cant._, 18, 349; + rates it too highly, 22-3; + edits the _Inq. El._, 107 + + Hampshire, the _firma unius noctis_ in, 96-7 + + Hanslape, Michael de, 179 + + Hapsburgs, the English, 397^{11} + + Harding, son of Eadnoth, 256^{37} + + Harold: half a Dane, 248; + his tactics, 265-6, 276, 277-9, 280-3; + styled king by William, 323, 325 + + Hardy, Sir T. D., 18 + + Harrison, Mr F., 261, 263^{3} + + Hastings, 248; + in Domesday, 427; + its barons, 422, 426-7, 428; + its charter, 425; + its harbour, 427-8 + + Hastings, Battle of, 258 _sqq._, 431 (_see_ Table of Contents) + + Hastings, ravages near, 126-7, 431 + + Henry I: his favourites, 160, 172-3, (358); + charters of, 213, 236^{239}, 237, 358, 364-5; + he exacts military service, 239; + and the Church, 243; + his Cirencester charter, 326-7; + his Plimpton charter, 366-9 + + Henry II: his alleged invasion in 1147, 373; + his movements in 1142-9, 373-4, 375-6; + his action in 1163, 377, 379, 380, 398; + his movements in 1175-6, 385-8; + confirms fines, 385, 389; + his Cinque Ports charters, 422^{21}, 425-6, 429; + his writ for Chester, 353; + his legal reforms, 432-3 + + Henry (King), son of Henry II: his court at Winchester, 381 _sqq._; + his movements in 1170-1174, 382 + + Hereford Castle, 252-3. + _See also_ Ralf + + Herefordshire, Normans in, 249-54 + + Hereward 'the Wake', 132-6 + + Hertford, earldom of, 358 + + Hertfordshire, assessment in, 59 + + Hesdin, Ernulf de, 95 + + _Hidarii_: their relation to the hide, 94 + + Hide, the Domesday: four virgates in, 24^{14}, 41-2, 430; + a hundred and twenty acres in, 43-7; + not an areal measure, 62-3, + but a term of assessment, 63, 82-3, 96; + peculiar use of the word in Leicestershire, 76-8, + and in Lancashire, 79; + the alleged double, 92-4; + its origin, 430 + + Hide, the areal, 66-7 + + ---- of Lancashire, 79 + + ---- of Leicestershire, 76 + + Historical evidence, treatment of--_see_ Evidence + + Historical Research, present sphere of, 406 + + Historical Truth, 332 + + 'Honour': the term, 243 + + 'Hostiarius', Robert: his fief, 34-5 + + House, Communal demolition of, 416, _et seq._ + + Hoveden, accuracy of, 407, 408-9, 410, 412-413 + + Howlett, Mr R., 373-6, 422^{21} + + Hugh 'Candidus': value of his chronicle, 133-4, 135^{15}; + on the Peterborough fees, 137 + + Hundred: quartering of the, 49 _sqq._, 58, 90; + it was assessed as a whole, 51-55, 62, 82; + the unit for the Domesday Survey, 54; + and for collection of Danegeld, 54, 85-6, 88-91; + the 'double', 58; + and the 'half', 59, 70, 83; + the triple, 60; + its relation to 100 hides, 59, 87-8; + its origin, 87; + how named, 165 + + Hundred Court: used for the Domesday Survey, 102-4, 105, 114; + witness of, 170 + + Hundred, the Leicestershire, 74-6, 160, 165-6 + + Hundred: the 'Long', 66-8 + + ---- of twelve carucates, the, 69-74, 77-8, 166 + + Hunt, Rev. W., 250^{13}, 253^{23}, 259, 275, 276, 299, 358, 395 + + Hunter, Rev. J., 56 + + Hunting: connected with Pytchley, 129-30; + with Langham, 362-3 + + Huntingdonshire, assessment in, 58 + + Husting, the Court of, 105 + + Hythe: its charter, 426 + + + Ilbert, the sheriff, 350 + + Ingulf, the pseudo-, 120, 122, 132, 136-7, 154, 255^{34}; + uses William of Malmesbury, 321-2 + + _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_, the: + its discovery, 17; + is a transcript of the Domesday returns, 19, 123, 430; + its system, 20; + collated with the _Inq. El._, 20-2; + specimen of, 21; + its omissions, 23-5; + errors in, 25-6, 31, 36, 45, 46; + special information in, 36; + illustrates the _caruca_, 41, + and the Domesday hide, 42; + often omits _terra regis_, 46-7, 50^{88}; + value of its Vill-assessments, 47 _sqq._, 52; + its lists of jurors, 102 _sqq._; + its variants from the _Inq. El._, 108-11 + + _Inquisitio Comitatus Eliensis_, the, 17-18, 19, 106-18; + edited by Sir Henry Ellis, 106-7; + again by Mr Hamilton, 18; + its origin, 20-1; + specimen of, 21; + its value, 28-9; + its texts, 30, 103-4, 107, 112, 114-15, 123, 430; + represents a return, 114; + ordered by the Conqueror's writ, 105, 114; + errors in, 107-8, 113; + its variants from the _Inq. Com. Cant._, 108-10; + its lost original, 111; + its constituents, 111, 115; + its special information, 112-13; + its heading and its date, 115; + materials employed for it, 115, 430; + including Domesday Book (Vol. II), 116, 120; + analysis of its contents, 116-18 + + _Inwara_, 101 + + Irvine, Mr Fergusson, 79 + + + Jeaffreson, Mr J. Cordy, 353 + + John, King: demands service abroad, 402-3; + his charters to the Cinque Ports, 425-6, 429 + + Jones, Mr: on Wilts, in Domesday, 125^{2} + + Jumièges, William of, 314, 318, 319 + + _Jugum_, the Kentish: its four 'virgates', 95 + + Juhel: a Breton name, 254-5 + + ---- 'of Lincoln', 255; + _see also_ Thorold + + 'Jurats', the, 416, 421 + + Jurors of the Domesday Survey, 102-6, 430-1; + half English and half foreigners, 104; + variants in lists of, 108-10; + in Herts, 115 + + + Kemble, Mr J. M.: on the hide, 62 + + Kent: low assessment of, 86; + the _sulung_ of, 92-5; + the 'lathes' of, 94^{197}; + its landowners, 95; + under Stephen, 125-6 + + Knight-service; its introduction into England, 182 _sqq._; + how determined, 186-9, 206; + returns of, 189 _sqq._; + '_super dominium_', 191-2, 193-194; + the '_servitium debitum_', 194-195, 197 _sqq._, 212, 219, + 220, 225, 227, 228, 234, 239; + in Normandy, 206^{96}, 207, 230; + in Ireland, 207; + introduced by the Conqueror, 207, 234-6; + the author's theory of, 206-8; + aggregate of, 228, 230 + + Knight-service: of bishops, 399-401 + + Knight's fees: standard of, 186-9, 231-232; + return of, 189-90 _sqq._; + views on, 208; + number of, 210-11, 228-30; + Old-English list of, 241 + + Knights: Inquest of [1166], 185, 189-190 _sqq._, 210-11; + through the sheriffs, 191-2; + its object, 193 _sqq._; + how conducted, 195-6; + effect on Church fiefs, 196-7; + depends on tradition, 205-6 + + Knights: Joint Equipment of, 400; + Payment of, 214-6, 235-6; + wages of, 399-400, 402^{18} + + + Laci family and fief, 141-4, 145, 244 + + Lancashire, the 'hide' in, 79 + + Lanfranc, Archbishop, 114, 235^{232}, 236 + + Langham, Essex, 355, 357, 362 + + 'Laudabiliter', the 'Bull', 390 + + Laund Priory: when founded, 368 + + Law, Constitutional: studied by William Rufus, 403 + + Leets: mentioned in Domesday, 90, 166; + found a century later as groups of Vills, 89 + + Leicester: alleged destruction of [1068], 331^{7}, 347; + Justices at [1176], 388; + Military Service of, 68 + + Leicester, Hugh de, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 + + Leicestershire Survey, the, 74-6, 80-2, 160, _sqq._ + + _Liber Exoniensis_: 42^{72}, 122^{265}, 125^{2} + + ---- _Niger_, 179, 189, 226, 431. + _See_ 'Cartæ' + + ---- _Rubeus_, 179, 189, 192^{44}, 209, 226, 245 + + _Liberi homines_: their tenure, 37^{52}, 38-40 + + Liebermann, Dr F., 256 + + Lincoln: Alfred of, 255; + Colswegen of, 131, 132; + Earldom of, 151-3; + the 'long' hundred at, 66; + William's treatment of, 342: + _see also_ Juhel, Thorold + + Lincoln, Alexander, Bishop of, 327, 366, 367, 368 + + ---- St Hugh of: opposes the Crown, 398 _sqq._; + in the cause of privilege, 402 + + Lincoln, Simon, dean of, 173^{63} + + Lincolnshire: a Danish district, 67, 68; + assessment in, 86 + + Lindsey Survey, the, 69-73, 149 _sqq._, 160, 180^{13}, 186^{23}, 196 + + L'Isle, Robert de, 164, 165, 174 + + Lisures, Fulc, de, 130 + + ---- William de, 176, 177 + + Little, Mr: on the five-hide unit, 65 + + London: its Norman port at Dowgate, 249 + + Londoners and the chase, 324^{4} + + Longchamp, William, 400, 407, 409-10, 414-15 + + Longevity, remarkable, 296 + + Lords, the House of: its feudal origin, 198^{60} + + Luard, Dr H. R., 411^{17} + + Luci, Richard de, 381, 384 + + Lucy, The Countess, 151-2, 153, 154, 255 + + + Madeley (Staffs.), descent of, 173 + + Madox: on church fees, 197^{58} + + Maitland, Prof: on the Hundred, 87; + on the Leet, 90; + on the Ramsey knights, 234; + on fines, 385, 388; + on Richard's seals, 407 + + Malchael, drowning of Roger, 408-9 + + Maldon, Battle of, 266, 268, 277 + + Malet, William, 255, 256, 329, 349; + his death, 134 + + Malmesbury, William of, 268, 276, 277, 291, 295; + used by Wace, 313-18; + by 'Ingulf', 322; + his legends, 315-316, 336 + + Man, Isle of: 'sheaddings' in, 71^{145} + + Mandeville, Geoffrey de, 256. + _See_ Essex + + Mandeville, William de, 177, 179 + + Manor, the two-field and the three-field, 79-82 + + Manors 'de Comitatu', 100 + + Marmion family and fief, 143, 145, 155-9, 176, 179, 180, 181; + name, 158 + + Marriage, rival claims settled by, 159 + + Marsh (_De Marisco_), Family of, 396-7 + + Marten skins: Ireland exports, 354 + + Martinwast, Ralf de, 162, 168 + + Matilda, wife of King Stephen, 352^{1} + + Maud, Queen of Henry I, presides over suit, 120 + + Mayoralty, Compulsory, 416, 419-20, 421 + + Merc (Marck) family and fief, 351-2 + + ---- Alouf de, 177, 179 + + Meschin, Ranulf, 150-2 + + ---- William, 152-3, 164, 171, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 360 + + Meulan, Robert, Count of, 140, 142-3, 145, 154-5, 347-8 + + Meyer, M. Paul, 307 + + Middlesex, Hidation in, 64 + + Monasteries, knight-service of, 200-1, 220, 233-8 + + Montfichet, William de, 202, 205; + his wife, 358; + their son Gilbert, 431 + + Montfort, Hugh de, 255 + + Montmorency claim, the, 392 _sqq._ + + Moore, Mr Stuart, 124 + + Morkere, Earl, 125 + + Morres--_See_ Montmorency + + Mortain, Robert, Count of, 124, 128; + his wife, 124, 128 + + Mortain, Stephen, Count of, 160, 164-165, 172, 180 + + Moustiers, Lisois de, 38, 349-50 + + Mowbray, Roger de: his fief, 171 + + Mustere, Walter de, 162 + + + Nepotism, Ecclesiatical, 236-8, 326-7 + + Neville family and fief, 137-8, 370 + + ---- their origin, 370-2 + + ---- Alan de, 381, 384 + + Nomenclature, loose Norman, 138^({21}), 178-9, 360-1 + + Norfolk, assessment in, 88 _sqq._ + + ---- Ralf, Earl of, 327-8, 349 + + Norgate, Miss Kate, 213^{121}, 217-18, 222, 224, 266^{16}, 269^{24}, + 279^{82}, 280^({84, 86}), 281^{96}, 282, 289^{122, 123}, 293^{133}, + 311, 365, 374, 375^{7}, 377^{1}, 378, 379^{10}, 390-1, 395, 400, 407, + 409, 410-12, 412^{18, 22}; + on scutage, 217-18, 222 + + Norman Conquest, the: a starting point, 247-8 + + Normans under Edward, 247 _sqq._ + + Northamptonshire: its geld-roll, 124-130; + its devastation in 1065, 125; + its Hundreds, 59, 128; + its 'hidation', 67^{136} + + Northamptonshire Survey, the, 175-81 + + Nottinghamshire: a Danish district, 68; + low assessment of, 85-6 + + + Odards, two, 371 + + Oger 'Brito': his son Ralf, 176, 179 + + Olifard family, 181 + + ---- William, 176 + + Oliphant--_see_ Olifard + + Oman, Mr, 265^{10}, 276, 286, 299 + + _Oppidum_, meaning of, 262 + + Ordericus Vitalis, 260-2, 291, 331, 336, 347-8, 360-1, 362 + + Osbern, Bishop of Exeter, 249 + + ---- the son of Richard, 249-52, 253 + + ---- 'Pentecost', 251-2 + + Osmund, 'the King's writer', 124 + + Oswaldslow Hundred, 141-4 + + Oxen--_see Caruca_ + + Oxford, justices at [1176], 389, [1180], 433 + + Oxford, Aubrey, first Earl of, 352 + + Oxfordshire, Hidation in, 63 + + + Palgrave, Sir Francis, 17-18, 332, 341, 346 + + Palmer, Mr C. F. R., 157^{29} + + Paris, M. Gaston, 307 + + Paynel, Fulk, 148, 177, 178 + + Pearson, Prof.: on knight service, 231 + + Pedantry is not accuracy, 262 + + Pedigree-makers, 134, 390-1, 394-7 + + Pell, Mr O.: his theories, 30, 41, 46, 63, 66, 74^{149}, 76, 101, 430 + + Pembroke, Gilbert, Earl of, 357, 393-4 + + ---- Richard, Earl of, 393-4 + + Pepys, Samuel: on Domesday Book, 185 + + Percy, William de: his wife, 358-9 + + Peter of Blois: his alleged chronicle, 120, 154 + + Peterborough, Cartulary of, 124; + its _scriptorium_, 124--_see_ Hugh + + Peterborough, Turold, Abbot of, 135-6 + + Peterborough, knights of, 131-9, 181, 214, 240 + + Picardy, the Commune in, 416-17, 418, 420-1 + + Picot, Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, 31, 103, 104, 117, 138, 204^{92}, + 349 + + Pistres, Roger de, 244-5, 364 + + _Placita_, 115, 214^{125}, 349, 387-8; + _regia_, 255; + _regalia_, 256^{37}; + _in curia regis_, 386-8; + _abbatis_, 132 + + _Placita_, early: in Cambridgeshire, 104; + in Dorset, 105; + in London, 105; + in Hants, 214^{125} + + _Placitum_, the great Ely, 37-8, 39, 349 + + Plagiarism, medieval, 285^{117} + + Plimpton Priory, royal charter to, 366 + + Plough--_see Caruca_ + + Ploughland--_see Carucate_ + + Plumpton Plain, 262 + + Pluralist, the first great, 326-7 + + Poitiers, William of, 270, 273^{41}, 276, 284, 285-6, 287, 288, 291, + 292-4, 295, 336, 343-5 + + Pomerey family, 369 + + Port, Henry de, 161 + + Precedent, dread of creating a, 401, 403 + + Puher family, 145, 244 + + + Quency, William de, 177 + + + Raimbercurt, Guy de, 31, 35, 117, 170, 178^{6}; + his son Richard, 175, 179 + + Ralf, Earl of Hereford, 252-4 + + Ramis, Roger de, 162 + + Ramsey Abbey: knight-service of, 233-234; + its _carta_, 234 + + Ranulf, the chancellor, 365, 367, 368 + + _Recedere, potuit_: a phrase distinguishing tenure, 28, 31, + 32-4, 35-40 + + Records, historical value of, 406 + + Red Book of the Exchequer--_see Liber Rubeus_ + + Redvers, Baldwin de, 367, 369 + + Regenbald, the chancellor, 257, 323 _sqq._ + + Regent, the Justiciar as, 329^{19} + + Relief, the feudal, 241-3 + + 'Ricardi': Clares so styled, 355 + + Richard I: his demand in 1197, 398-402; + his change of seal [1198], 406 _sqq._; + his captivity, 408, 409; + his want of money, 399, 410; + angry with Longchamp, 412-13; + his movements, 414; + his Cinque Ports charter, 425 + + Richard the son of Scrob, 249-54 + + Richard's castle: descent of, 145, 147-8; + building of 249 _sqq._ + + Ridel, Geoffrey (I and II), 173; + (II), 388 + + Robert, son of Wimarc, 251^{16}, 256-7 + + Rochester, See of: its knight-service, 199^({63}) + + Rollos, Richard de--_see_ Rullos + + _Rotuli Wincestrie_, 175 + + Rouen: its trade with Ireland, 354; + Henry I at, 364 + + Roumare, William de, 151-3, 202 + + Rullos, Richard and William de, 136-7, 161 + + Rutland in Domesday, 68^{137}, 73, 84^{173} + + Rye--_see_ Winchelsea + + + _Saca_--_see Soca_ + + St Bertin, Abbey of, 351, 361^{12} + + St Edmund's Abbey: its knights, 400-1; + Baldwin, Abbot of, 255, 329 + + St John, Thomas de, 173^{63} + + ---- William de, 381, 383^{15} + + St Medard, Anschetil de, 131, 240 + + Salisbury, Edward of, 162, 171, 173, 174 + + Salisbury, Herbert, Bishop of, 398, 401-402 + + Salisbury, Roger, Bishop of, 213, 214, 327 + + Sandwich: Custumal of, 416, 419-20; + its charter, 425 + + Sawley, the 'Hundred' of, 73, 165-6 + + _Scalariis_--_see_ Eschalers + + Scotland, David, King of, 160-5, 174, 175, 176, 432 + + Scotland, Malcolm, King of, 124, 432 + + Scrivelby, descent of, 158 + + Scutage, 209 _sqq._; + antiquity of, 212-15, 217 _sqq._; + on church fiefs, 401 + + Seal, Richard I's change of, 406 _sqq._ + + Seebohm, Mr F., 40, 83-4, 86, 92, 93-5, 97, 189, 215^{129} + + 'Senlac', the name of, 259-63 + + Senlis, Matilda de, 360, 432 + + _Servientes_, pay of, 215-16, 223-4 + + Sheriff's aid, the, 379 + + Sheriffs named from county town, 138-9 + + Sherstone, battle of, 280-1 + + Shield-wall, the, 264, 265, 266, 268-9, 273-7, 284, 300-1, 306, 307, + 317-18, 321. + _See_ 'Testudo' + + Sicily, Prof Freeman on, 303 + + Six carucates a unit of assessment, 66-76, 79-82, 160; + Scandinavian, 430 + + 'Sixty thousand', loose use of, 228-9 + + Skeat, Prof: on 'leet', 90 + + Snorro, 321 + + _Soca_, 28-9, 31, 32-3, 35-40, 112; + detached from tenure, 100-101 + + Soke of Eadulfsness, the, 94 + + Sokemen, 28-9, 31, 32-3, 35-40 + + _Solanda_: not identical with _solinum_, 91-4; + referred to a prebend, 93 + + _Solinum_: the Kentish _sulung_ or ploughland, 91-5; + its four _juga_, 95 + + Somerset: assessment in, 61; + the _firma unius noctis_ in, 96-9; + comital Manors of, 100 + + Stafford, Robert de, 173 + + Staffordshire, low assessment of, 85-6 + + Stamford: its wards, 68 + + Standard, battle of the, 276^({62})-277^{67}, 279-80 + + Stapleton, 131, 132^{4}, 352; + on the Lindsey Survey, 149; + on William Meschin, 151-2, 153^{14}; + on the Marmions, 155-9; + Lambert's statement disproved by, 352 + + Stephen, King, devastation under, 125; + _see also_ Mortain + + Stevenson, Mr W. H., 149; + on Mr Pell's theories, 63; + on the 'long' hundred, 66; + on the hundred of land, 70^{143}; + on the Leicestershire 'hide', 77-8; + on the St Denis charters, 427^{9} + + Steyning: granted to Fécamp, 249, 428 + + Stigand, archbishop, 349-50 + + Stubbs, Dr (Bishop of Oxford): on the hide, 47^{85}; + on the hundred, 54, 87-8; + misled by Ellis, 59, 124; + on Stephen's earldoms, 152; + on the origin of knight-service, 182-4; + on the knight's fee, 187-9, 232; + on the _Cartæ Baronum_, 189 _sqq._; + on personal assessment, 195^{56}, 196^{57}; + on scutage, 217-18; + on joint equipment, 218^{143}; + on feudal tenures, 208^{108}, 234; + on aggregate of knights, 228-9; + on knights' fees, 233; + his insight, 54, 242, 245, 334^{14}, 335^{15}; + on 'Ingulf' 298; + on the Woodstock debate, 377, 398; + on danegeld, 377-8; + on Becket's opposition, 380^{13}; + on the _curia regis_, 387-8, 432-3; + on St Hugh's opposition [1197], 398, 400, 402^{19}; + on archæology, 406; + on Richard's change of seal, 407-10, 411-15 + + Sudbury, peculiar position of, 90 + + Sudely, John de, 147 + + Suffolk: assessment in, 88 _sqq._; + Nordman, sheriff of, 327, 329 + + Sussex ports, Normans at, 249; + _see also_ Cinque Ports + + Swereford, errors of, 118^{250}, 198, 209-10, 212, 217-18, 225, 228 + + + Tamworth, descent of, 156, 158-9 + + Tavistock Abbey, military service of, 201, 236 + + Taxation--_see_ Danegeld, Assessment + + Taylor, Canon Isaac: his theory of assessment, 62, 80^{166}-81; + on the carucate, 66^{133}; + on the hundred, 74^{151} + + 'Testudo' (shield-wall), 277, 317-18, 321 + + Thegn, the: qualification of, 65-6; + in Yorkshire, 69 + + 'Thegnland', 35-40 + + Thierry, Mons.: on the Commune, 416-17, 418 + + Thinghoe, hundred of: inquest on, 88 + + Thorold (of Lincoln) the Sheriff--_see_ Turold + + Tillières, Truce of, 406, 409, 412-13 + + Tirel, Walter, 355 _sqq._; + his parentage, 360-1; + his wife Adeliz (de Clare), 355-6, 362-3; + their son Hugh, 355, 357, 361, 362-3; + the family, 360-2 + + Toeni family and fiefs, 146 + + Toni, Robert de--_see_ Stafford + + Totnes, Honour of, 369^{4} + + ---- Juhel de, 254-5, 367, 369^{4} + + Toulouse, the 'scutage' of, 209-10, 215, 218-23 + + Tout, Prof T. F.: on Hereward, 134^{11}-136; + on William Fitz Audelin, 390 + + Towns: assessed on same system as Vills, 48, 55, 58, 59, 60, 64-5, + 130 + + Tracy family--_see_ Sudeley + + Treasury, the Royal: at Winchester, 121-2; + its contents, 121-2 + + Trithing: in Lindsey, 70; + an equal division, 71 + + Tuchet, Henry, 165, 172, 174 + + Turold, the sheriff, 202^{76}, 255-6 + + + Vautort, Reginald de, 369 + + _Vendere_--_see Recedere_ + + Verdon, Bertram de, 387-8 + + Verdon, Norman de, 161-3, 166-7 + + Vere, Aubrey de--_see Camerarius_ + + Vills, grouping of, 49 _sqq._, 63^{122}, 71-3, 75, 88-91, 96-7, 99 + + Vinogradoff, Prof P., 92, 93-5, 101, 303^{161} + + Vincent, Mr J. A. C., 67, 154^{15} + + Virgate, the Domesday: 30 acres in, 42; + essentially a quarter, 50, 430; + in Kent a quarter of the _jugum_ and even of an acre, 95; + the 'parva', 175 + + + Wace: Master, 306 _sqq._; + Prof Freeman's use of, 267-9, 289, 309-11, 319-20; + the disputed passage in, 267, 302, 306; + its four or five renderings, 307, 317-18; + Prof Freeman's final view of it, 268, 300-1, 306, 308, 317; + contradicted by Mr Archer, 301-2, 306; + his accuracy, 271, 309-10, 313-14; + on the 'fosse' disaster, 289-91; + on the feigned flight, 294-5; + his 'escuz', 307; + lacks corroboration, 309; + his errors, 310; + his anachronism, 310-11; + his late date, 311; + his sobriety, 312-13; + his sources, 313-20 + + Wake family and fief, 134, 136-7; + pedigree of, 359 + + Walchelin, Bishop of Winchester, 114-15 + + Waldric, the Chancellor, 364 + + Wales, food-rents in, 84, 97 + + Waltheof, Earl, 349 + + Walton, garrison of, 216 + + Wapentake, the: in Lindsey, 70, 76, 149; + in Holland, 73; + in Rutland, 73; + in Yorkshire, 80; + in Leicestershire, 160 + + _Wara_, 35, 60^{114}, 166; + its meaning in Domesday, 100-2; + in the Burton Cartulary, 101 + + Warenne, William de, 37 + + Warwick: military service of, 68 + + ---- Roger Earl of, 367, 368 + + 'Waste': on the rolls, 125-6, 128; + in Domesday, 126-8; + under Stephen, 126 + + Waters, Mr Chester, 62; + on the Lindsey Survey, 149-52, 153-4, 155, 160, 166^{46} 180^{13}; + on the Marmions, 158-9 + + Webb, Mr P. C., 17-18, 118^{250} + + William I: introduces knight-service, 207, 232, 234-6, 239; + writs of 114, 238; + his tactics, 285-6, 293, 294, 299; + his charter to Regenbald, 324; + his English writs, 324-5, 327-8, 329; + his 'licentia', 326-7, 329; + his siege of Exeter, 330 _sqq._; + his great danger [1067], 330; + his alleged harrying, 333; + his policy, 337-8, 343, 346; + his vengeance, 339; + raises castles, 339; + increases town tributes, 342; + his treatment of Exeter and Le Mans, 345; + favours Ely Abbey, 349; + his Lillebonne assembly, 401, 405 + + William II: exacts military service, 235, 239; + did not introduce it, 182-4; + his extortions, 241-3; + his dealings with the Church, 241-3; + his appeal to the barons, 403-5; + studies constitutional law, 404; + his court at Salisbury, 405^{36} + + Wiltshire: the _firma unius noctis_ in, 96, 98. + _See also_ Jones + + Winchelsea and Rye, 248; + their charter, 425-6; + members of 'Brede', 428 + + Winchester: early suit at, 120; + the Royal treasury in its castle, 120-2, 175; + Exchequer at, 381; + feudal assembly at, 403-405 + + Winchester, Henry Bishop of, 237 + + Windows, strange use of, 308^{14} + + Winemar, Walter Fitz, 179 + + Wirral peninsula, the, 79 + + Witan--_see_ Gemot; Lords + + Woodstock, council at, 377, 398-9 + + Worcester, see of: its knights, 231, 236, 240, 241 _sqq._ + + Worcestershire: assessment of, 60; + survey, 140-8 + + Wording, alteration of, 22, 34-5 + + Writs addressed through sheriff [1166], 192-3 + + Wyon, Mr, 410 + + + Yarmouth, rights of Hastings at, 422^{21}, 425-6 + + Yorkshire: a Danish district, 68-9; + its assessment, 73-4, 79-81 + + * * * * * + + + + +Transcriber's Note: + + + ^ denotes a superscript. + + The ligature æ is not necessarily consistent in its use, e.g. + 'mediæval' is used more in Part I of this book, but not in Part II; + 'mediaeval' is used in both parts. + + The original book contained a Foreword, which is not present in the + scans from which this book derives. + + 'Foreword ... page 7' has been removed from the Table of Contents. + + Page 51: Text and table were slightly re-arranged for better flow. + + Page 138: 'Lincolnshire' could be an error for 'Lincolnescire' + or 'Lincolnescira', both appearing on page 137. + + (p. 137): "Hugh Candidus wrote of the former: + + Heres Galfridi de Nevile tenet in Lincolnescire,..." + + Page 251: "as we gather from Florence [?] ..." + + 64 Floriacensis Vigorinensis: John of Worcester (fl. 1095-1140), + chronicler, the author of the world history formerly attributed to + Florence of Worcester. + + Survives in five twelfth-century manuscripts. + + Holinshed's last citation is under 1115, ... ~ CATALOGUE OF + PRINCIPAL SOURCES USED IN 1577 EDITION OF HOLINSHEDS CHRONICLES + COMPILED BY HENRY SUMMERSON [http://www.cems.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/ + Catalogue%20of%20principal%20sources.....pdf] + + 'Stamford Bridge' and 'Stamfordbridge' both appear more than once + in this book, and in the First edition. Two instances of + 'Stamfordbridge' have been corrected to 'Stamford Bridge', to + correspond to the First edition. + + Page 323 (in Chaper 'REGENBALD, PRIEST AND CHANCELLOR'): A Charter + in Anglo-Saxon has been restored from the 1st edition (1895). + + Anglo-Saxon letters in this Charter include: + + þ = (lower-case) thorn; + [W] representing Capital Wynn; + [w] representing lower-case wynn; + ð = (lower-case) eth; + [þt] representing thorn with stroke, an abbreviation for þæt + + þ and ð are also used elsewhere in the book. + + Page 381: The printer has used a symbol to simulate a mediaeval + scribe's abbreviarion of 'et'. + + This has been replaced in this .txt version of the book by [et]. + + Pages 412-415: The 2-page table which interrupted the text has been + removed to the end of the chapter (as it was in the First edition), + and the page numbers and footnote numbers amended. + + As the table is spread across two pages, line numbers have been + added to connect the two pages. + + The column headings run: + _Granted_ _at_ _Confirmed_ _at_ _Grantee_ _Authority_ + + Line 1. of the first table is followed by line 1. of the second + table, and so on. The brackets between lines 6. and 7. have been + removed, and the common information duplicated, to enable the two + sets of line-numbers to co-relate. + + + Page 432: 'enured' = 'inured' = (legal) 'took effect', etc. + + + Errata: + + Many printer's errors, nearly all absent from the first edition, + appear to have been introduced by a careless printer working from a + copy of the first edition. Abbreviated titles, 'Mr.', 'Prof.', etc., + in the First edition have mostly appeared in this edition as 'Mr', + 'Prof', etc. These have been retained. Incorrect punctuation has + been repaired without comment, except in the Index. Here the printer + of this edition has replaced many of the colons of the First edition + with commas, and added extra commas after sub-listings. These have + been retained. Double quotes were used in the first edition; single + quotes in this edition. This has led to some confusion where ' is + used for both an abbreviation and a following end quote (''). + Other errors are listed below. + + + Page 10, Footnote 3: '1404' corrected to '430'. + + "See p. 430." + + Page 24: 'invinit' corrected to 'invenit'. (Correct in 1895 ed.) + + "... et vendere potuit, et iiii^{tam.} partem unius Avere + vicecomiti invenit." + + Page 26: 'defend [ebat]' corrected to 'defend[ebat]'. + + "Pro v. hidis se defend[ebat] semper." + + Page 29: 'vig.' corrected to 'virg.', (as 1895 ed.). + + "i. 198 (_b_) 1. 'tenet Durand ... i. hidam et i. virg.', _for_ + 'tenet Durand i. hidam et dim. virg.'" + + Page 30, footnote 38: 'earucis' corrected to 'carucis'. + + 'carucis' is a ploughland; 'earucis' does not exist. + + "... 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See _Addenda_.]" + + Page 33: 'licentiat' corrected to 'licentia', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Absque eius licentia dare terram suam potuerunt,..." + + Page 33: 'receder' corrected to 'recedere', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Potuerunt recedere cum terra ad quem dominum voluerunt." + + Page 34: 'teræ' corrected to 'terræ', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Robertus hostiarius tenet de rege ii. car. terræ in Howes." + + Page 34, footnote 44: 'ne musad' corrected to 'nemus ad' + + "'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' + (D.B.)." + + Page 36: 'abbats' corrected to 'abbatis', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Non potuit dare nec vendere absque licentia abbatis." + + Page 37, footnote 54: 'commdantione' corrected to 'commendatione', + (as 1895 ed.). + + "[... 'In soca et commendatione abbatis de eli' (D.B., ii. 441).]" + + Page 66, footnote 133: 'Curacate' corrected to 'Carucate', (as 1895 + ed.). + + "Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe on Canon Taylor's + 'Carucate' remarks in the _New English Dictionary_." + + Page 68: 'emenadtionis' corrected to 'emendationis', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Hujus emendationis habet rex ii. partes, comes terciam." + + Page 72: '65' corrected to '63'. + + "Lastly, to complete the parallel with the Leicestershire Hundreds + _infra_, we may take this case (_cf._ p. 63, note 122.)" + + Page 81, footnote 169: '43' (11 (2 + 3 + 3 + 43).) corrected to '3'. + + "... These assessments would give us 24 (6 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 3) + 24 + (4 + 6 + 10 + 2 + 2) + 18 (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) + 11 + (2 + 3 + 3 + 3)." + + Page 89, footnote 184: 'constituuntut' corrected to 'constituuntur', + (as 1895 ed.). + + "'In hundredo de Tinghowe sunt xx. villæ ex quibus constituuntur + ix. lete, quas sic distinguimus.' Gage's Suffolk, p. xii." + + Page 90: eim[idium] corrected to 'dim[idium]', (as 1895 ed.) + + "'Hund[redum] et dim[idium] de Clakelosa de x. leitis' (ii. + 212_b_)." + + Page 93: '_sullung solanda_'corrected to '_sullung_ or _solanda_', + (as 1895 ed.). + + "... shows that in the Kentish district, and in Essex, where the + _sullung_ or _solanda_ takes the place of the hide,..." + + Page 95: 'basse' corrected to 'bases'. + + "Mr Seebohm bases this statement on Anglo-Saxon evidence,..." + + Page 95: 'Cland. A. IV' corrected to 'Claud. (for Claudius) C. IV'. + ('The bookcases of Sir Robert Cotton's library were identified by + busts of Roman emperors. + Cf. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h2p8tEBZ9YYC&pg=PA193> + + 'A. IV' corrected to 'C. IV' (Wrong in 1895 ed., correct in + Elton's book).) + + "Mr Elton, in his well-known _Tenures of Kent_, attaches + considerable importance to a list, 'De Suylingis Comitatus Kantiæ + et qui eas tenent;...' in the Cottonian MS., Claud. C. IV, which + he placed little subsequent to Domesday." + + Page 96: 'numquam' and 'nunquam' are interchangeable; they both mean + 'never', or 'not'. + + Page 96: 'indominio' corrected to 'in dominio', (as 1895 ed.). + + "Rex tenet in dominio _Basingestoches_." + + Page 101: 'p. 61' corrected to 'p. 60'. + + "in those Worcestershire Manors which were annexed as estates to + Hereford, but which were assessed in those Worcestershire Hundreds + where they actually lay (see p. 60)." + + Page 107: Missing tag for footnote 219 added to page (as 1895 ed.). + + Page 109: 'p[ræ] fectus' corrected to 'p[ræ]fectus' and 'hui [us]' + corrected to 'hui[us]' + + "Ric[ardus] p[ræ]fectus hui[us] hundreti" (TN: words italicised + in text). + + Page 113: 'Abllot's' corrected to 'Abbot's'. + + "Abbot's sokeman 8(Acres) 20(Pence)" + + Page 116: '_brere_' corrected to '_breve_'. + + "et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178)." + + Page 117: "... by by...." First 'by' replaced with 'but'. + + "is arranged not by Hundreds but by fiefs." + + Page 117: 'dermodesdun a' corrected to 'dermodesduna', (as 1895 + ed.). + + "In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. liberi homines...." + + Page 122: 'Huntington' corrected to 'Huntingdon', (as 1895 ed.). + + "and Henry of Huntingdon states that '... inter thesauros reposita + usque hodie servantur'." + + Page 147: 'hidæet' corrected to 'hidæ et'. + + "Summa lx. hidæ et dimidia." + + Page 151: '1212' corrected to '1122'. + + "Consequently Hugh, the youngest brother, can have been only a boy + in 1122." + + Page 151: '50' corrected to '60'. + + "... two knights' fees of Stafford in 1166,[59] and that another + is Robert Bagot, who held a quarter of a fee,[60] while Geoffrey + Ridel himself then held one, namely, Madeley.[61]" + + Page 161: 'ed' corrected to 'de'. (Roger de Moubray) + + "In Picwell et in Lucerthorp de feudo Rogeri de Moubray xv. car." + + Page 173: 'June 31st'. This agrees with the 1895 ed., but may refer + to a document of 1st July, 1176. (see page 388, paragraph beginning: + "Having now traced the royal _iter_, of which the pleas are...."). + + Page 177: 'Comitis[is]' corrected to 'Comit[is]', to match similar. + + "In Evenle i. hid. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] + Leyc[estrie]." + + Page 189 (et seq.): 'I. THE CARTAE OF 1166'. The 3rd impression + agrees with the 1st Edition (1895). Subsequent 'cartæ' in this + chapter (3rd impression) do not. All instances of 'cartæ' in this + chapter have been corrected to 'cartae', as 1895 ed. + + Page 208, Footnote 106: 'Gnesit' corrected to 'Gneist'. + + "[Footnote 106: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 129, 156.]" + + Page 212: _cartae_ corrected to '_carta_. + + "For while the _carta_ of William de Braose returns twenty-eight + fees,..." + + Page 212: 'xxxviij. lij. s. vj. d.' corrected to + 'xxxviij. l. ij. s. vj. d.' (38 pounds, 2 shillings, 6 pence) + + "Abbas Gloucestriæ de promissione, sed non numeratur quid; + sed in rotulo praecedenti dicitur:--Abbas Gloucestriæ debet + xxxviij. l. ij. s. vj. d. de veteri scutagio Walliae." + + Page 213: 'Charteris Abbey' corrected to 'Chatteris Abbey'. + + Chatteris is a town about ten miles from Ely. Charteris appears to + be in Scotland. r/t is a not uncommon printer's error in older + books. + + Page 215, Footnote 128: 'millitum' corrected to 'militum'. + + "So too Bishop Wulfstan is found 'pompam militum secum ducens qui + stipendiis annuis', etc. (W. Malmesb.)" + + Page 217: 'Archibishop' corrected to 'Archbishop'. + + "... Archbishop Theobald...." + + Page 224, Footnote 161: This edition used single quotes, where + earlier editions used double quotes. Sometimes this leads to + confusion: + + 'Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi. libris et v. + solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'' (p. 84). + + where the following would have been clearer: + + [... "Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi. libris et v. + solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'" (p. 84).] + + (Heref' and Wal' are abbreviations). + + Page 230: 'restoring' corrected to 'resorting'. + + "It is a hopeless undertaking to reconcile the facts with the wild + figures of mediæval historians by resorting to the ingenious + devices of apocalyptic interpretation." (as 1895 ed.) + + Page 253, Footnote 22: 'pa' corrected to 'þa', as in 1895 ed. + + "... but the words of the Worcester chronicler 'þa castelmenn on + Hereforda' seem to fix the meaning to the city itself'" + + Page 254: 'Althelings' corrected to 'Athelings', as in 1895 ed. + + "The two former would naturally be given to godsons or dependants + of the two Athelings while in Normandy [_i.e._ after 1013]." + + Page 254: 'Britio' corrected to 'Brito' as in 1895 ed. + + "... we have another Breton tenant-in-chief, 'Alvredus Brito'." + + Page 255: 'Al veredus' corrected to 'Alveredus'. + + "... et Hispaniensis Alveredus, cum aliis compluribus." + + Page 256: 'Leibermann' corrected to 'Liebermann'. + + "I can now, by the kindness of Dr Liebermann, add the instance of + the Mandeville fief in Surrey,..." + + Page 256: 'Wesmam' corrected to 'Wesman' as in 1895 ed. + + "'De his hidis tenet Wesman vi. hidas de Goisfrido filio comitis + Eustachii;..." + + Page 261: 'pæt mysnter æt pære Bataille' corrected to + 'þæt mynster æt þære Bataille'. + + "... the usual title is 'ecclesia Sancti Martini de Bello', + 'ecclesia de Bello', or, as we have seen, in English + 'þæt mynster æt þære Bataille'." + + Page 261: 'pære' corrected to 'þære'. + + "('He com him togenes æt þære haran apuldran')." + + Page 273: 'in' corrected to 'it'. + + "... the palisade, and that it figures 'now in every history'." + + Page 285, Footnote 117: '_stravil_' corrected to '_stravit_.' as + 1895 ed. + + "As the writer had just described how the Duke '_stravit_ adversam + gentem',..." + + Page 289, Footnote 122: 'foosse' corrected to 'fosse'. + + "... than that they did not notice the fosse." + + Page 289, Footnote 123: 'smewhat' corrected to 'somewhat'. + + "'The passage,' as she says, 'is somewhat obscure.'" + + Page 292, Footnote 129: 'quas ivolante' corrected to 'quasi + volante'. + + "'Ausa sunt, ut superius, aliquot millia quasi volante cursu, + quos fugere putabant urgere' (_Will. Pict._).]" + + Page 295: '_d' Arches_' corrected to '_d'Arches_' (as 1895 ed.) + + "_À la tur d'Arches fist porter_," + + Page 300, Footnote 148: 'Coonq.' corrected to 'Conq.' + + "[Footnote 148: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 469; and _supra_, p. 356.]" + + Page 301, Footnote 152: missing 'is' inserted, as in 1985 ed. + + "[Footnote 152: 'The Reviewer ... tells us that ... Mr Freeman + ... is wrong, completely wrong,...']" + + Page 318: 'II.' corrected to 'll.' (lines), as in 1895 ed. + + "it is hard to believe that the writer of ll. 8103-38 had not + seen that famous work." + + Page 327: 'Buro nam' corrected to 'Burnam', as 1895 ed. + + "The charter was granted 'apud Burnam in transfretatione mea anno + incarnationis Domini MCXXXIII...." + + Page 329, Footnote 17: '14, 314' but corrected to '14,314'. + + "Add. MS., 14,314, fo. 32_b_ (pencil)." + + Page 335: 'Lubeck' corrected to 'Lübeck'. + + "... we see that the path was opening by which Exeter might have + come to be another Lübeck, the head of a Damnonian Hanse,..." + + Page 355: 'daous' corrected to 'dacus', as 1895 ed. + + Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro ii. + hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (_Domesday_, ii. 41). + + Page 358, Footnote 1: 'Guillelum' corrected to 'Guillelmum', as 1895 + ed. + + "'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum,...'" + + Page 358, Footnote 6: 'Boynard's' corrected to 'Baynard's', and + 'Fatome' corrected to 'Fantôme' as 1895 ed. + + "Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of Baynard's Castle, + who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as 'Clarreaus'--a word + which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett." + + Page 360: 'Acheres' corrected to 'Achères', as 1895 ed. + + "... Lord of Poix in Ponthieu and of Achères by the Seine'..." + + Page 368: 'p. 481' corrected to p. 365'. + + I have already determined (p. 365) the date of Ranulf's accession + to the post. + + Page 369: (Richard fitz Baldwin, a sheriff of Devon): + 'page 237' corrected to 'page 236, note 239' + + "... Ricardo filio Baldwini vicecomiti...." + + Page 369, footnote 4: 'pp. 330, 472' corrected to 'pp. 256, + footnote 37; 358' + + "... in conjunction with William fitz Baldwin (see pp. 256, + footnote 37; 358") + + Page 369, Footnote 4: Three instances of 'Nunant' corrected to + 'Nonant', as 1895 ed. + + [1st ed. has Nunant for the previous 3 occurrences of the name, but + Nonant here and the next 2 occurrences. Possibly the variation may + be deliberate and reflect the spelling in the sources.] + + Page 371: There would appear to be some error here. The family + tree (also in the 1st ed.) disagrees with the text, where Dolfin + is said to be the son of Uchtred and brother of Eadwulf. + + Page 377: 'notros' corrected to 'nostros', as 1895 ed. + + "... et servientes vel ministri + provinciarum, et homines nostros manutenuerint,..." + + Page 381: 'pertinen [ciis]' corrected to 'pertinen[ciis]', as 1895 + ed. + + "... suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis]...." + + Page 394: 'ROBERT I' corrected to 'ROBERTI', as 1895 ed. + + "Robertus Stephanides ... Inter cæteros _Herveius de + Montemaurisco_ ROBERTI PATRUUS, _nepoti suo se_ comitem + præbuit (p. 77)." + + Page 400: 'sevitium' corrected to 'servitium', as 1895 ed. + + "Scio equidem ad militare servitium domino regi,..." + + Page 402, Footnote 18: 'consuelentes' corrected to 'consulentes', as + 1895 ed. + + "In crastino autem venerunt quidam familiares regis, consulentes + abbati ut sibi caute provideret,..." + + Page 417, Footnote 2: 'donus' corrected to 'domus', as 1895 ed. + + "('domus ejus et omnia ad ejus mancionem pertinentia prosternantur')" + + Page 424: 'confirms' corrected to 'confirm', as 1895 ed. + + "The actual words (as given by Jeake), confirm to the Ports their + liberties as held:..." + + Page 430, Footnote 10: 'sitting' corrected to 'silting', as 1895 ed. + + "... but I can find no trace of a haven 'formed by the Bourne + between the East and West Hills', which replaced it on its + silting-up." + + Page 432: 'p. 389' corrected to 'p. 359'. + + "Robert fitz Richard and his children (see p. 359) are included in + this pedigree," + + Page 438: 'habour' corrected to 'harbour' + + "Hastings, harbour, 427-8, and Footnote 10." + + Page 442: Index numbers: 555, 558-60 removed. Correct for First + Edition; too high for 3rd Impression. + + + Index: The Index was unreliable. + + Though most page numbers were correct, some page numbers belonged + to the first edition, and had not been correctly translated, or + not removed after translation; some were merely incorrect. All + page numbers were checked, and retained, amended, or deleted + without TN comment, except where the error was not simply numerical. + + As the Footnotes have now been removed from the ends of pages to + the ends of Chapters, there is no longer the connection from the + Index page reference to a footnote, which may have held the only + information on the page to the Index topic. Accordingly, where the + information sought is only in the footnote, the footnote number, as + a superscript, has been added to the page number in the Index, e.g. + + "Ellis, Mr A. S., 249^{7}, 257^{43}" + + Index: 'Feif' corrected to 'Fief'. + + "Barnstaple, Fief of,..." + + Index: 'Beauchamp, Maud de, 156, 158-9'. + + The reference to p. 158 is to 'Matilda Beauchamp'. 'Matilda' and + 'Maud' were apparently interchangeable, so this reference would + be correct. + + However, p. 159 has: + + "... in their rivalry for Tamworth,[36] the Marmions embraced + the cause of Stephen, and the Beauchamps that of Maud, their + variance being terminated under Henry II by a matrimonial + alliance." + + Surely this Maud is not Maud de Beauchamp, as the entry implies, + but the Empress Maud, daughter, and surviving heir, of Henry I, + and mother of Henry II; and bitter rival of her cousin, Stephen + of Blois, crowned King of England, while she was not quite + crowned Queen. + + Index: 'Couut' corrected to 'Count'. + + "Fitz Count, Brian,..." + + Index: 'Hamslape' corected to 'Hanslape'. + + "Hanslape, Michael de, 179" + + Index: 'Knight's-fees' corrected to 'Knight's fees', as 1895 ed. + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Feudal England -- Historical Studies +On The Eleventh And Twelfth Centuries, by J.H. Round + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44021 *** |