APPENDIX 2
TEXTUAL GROUPS, TITLE
AND DEPENDENT ESTATES IN THE LINCOLNSHIRE DOMESDAY
It has already been shown that
spaces were employed in the Domesday text to distinguish one textual group from
another. In Lincs. DB no. 68, for
example, two entirely different sections of the breve are separated by a blank line.[4] The
device may not always be used in this way. It may distinguish one manor from
another, or mark the major divisions of the shire within a breve, although a rubric is rarely added.[5] In
neither case, however, is the usage necessarily different, for groups may
consist of one manor and be conterminous with wapentake boundaries. In a
significant number of cases, however, blank lines can be shown to delimit
groups of estates which have an identity which is other than merely
geographical. Walter de Aincurt's breve
no. 31 is a typical example.[6] Its
structure is represented diagramatically in figure 20, with obliques indicating
one line spaces in the text. Three distinct sections are defined by the device.
Each is nominally discrete, that is, named individuals only appear in one
group, although this is normally a tendency rather than an invariable feature.
But more significantly, in at least the first two sections there was a
different predecessor, forTori and Haminc both had sake and soke,
toll and team.[7]
Moreover, in the first group, there is evidence to suggest that Siward and
Elwi's estate in (Great) Gonerby was held from Tori for the same Elwi was
Walter de Aincurt's tenant in 1086.[8] As in
Nottinghamshire, continuity of person implies continuity of tenure and status.
A tenant at the time of the Domesday Survey, Elwi is likely to have been of
subordinate status before the Conquest.[9]
|
LINCS DB |
HOLDERS OF LAND IN 1066 |
DIVISION & WAPENTAKE |
|
1. |
31/1-8 |
Tori, Siward, Elwi |
K30, 24, 21/ |
|
2. |
31/9-16 |
Archil, Haminc,
Godric |
K21, 26, 23/ |
|
3. |
31/17-18 |
Aldene, his 2
brothers |
K23 |
Some
vestige of a distinct wapentake sequence is also evident in each section of
Walter's breve.[10]
It is inverted in the first, and so the only real irregularity occurs in the
second group. Ingoldsby, the manor responsible, however, was locally in
the wapentake of Beltisloe (no. 21),
although administratively in wapentake no. 26 Aswardhurn.[11]
The disparity may, then, be more apparent than real. But repetition of
wapentake sequence is more pronounced in other breves.[12] The
phenomenon is not confined to Lincolnshire, and elsewhere it has been explained
as a function of multiple records produced by the commission-ers as juries were
successively recalled.[13] This
explanation, however, is inherently implausible for it supposes that whole
sequences of panels were assembled in exactly the same order on several occasions. It is more
likely to relate to overlordship and title for, like the use of blank lines,
with which it is sometimes coupled, it too defines tenurial groups. The
mechanism is illustrated by the abbot of Peterborough's breve no. 8, which is among the best documented in the East
Midlands.[14]
It is divided into two sections by the repetition of wapentake sequence (figure
21). Spacing, again indicated by obliques,
is widely,
Figure 21: the lands of the abbot of Peterborough.
|
LINCS DB |
HOLDERS OF LAND IN 1066 |
DIVISION & WAPENTAKE |
|
1. |
8/1-12 |
Peterborough Abbey |
LWR14/, K20/, 21/,
28, H31, K24 (add.)/ |
|
2. |
8/12-39 |
Alnod, Rolft,
Aschil, Hereward, Alnod |
LWR14, 17, 19, K20,
21, 20 (add.?) |
if not consistently
employed in the first group to distinguish manor from manor, and section one from
two. In 1066 all the land had belonged to the abbey, and most was in demesne in
1086. The second group is of a different character. It describes land held by
Alnod, Rolft, Aschil, and Hereward TRE, and
was mostly tenanted
in 1086. According
to Hugh Candidus, all of the
land in the West Riding was given to Peterborough by Abbot Brand and his
brothers Aschil, Siric, and Siworth.[15]
There is independent evidence to support this assertion. A charter of 1055×1060
is a confirmation by King Edward of Walcot (-on-Trent) in which Aschil is
described as his thane.[16] A
second of 1060×1066 is a confirmation of an agreement made in the king's
presence by which the monk Brand leased to his brother Aschil Scotton, which
Brand himself had bought, Scotter which his brother Siric had given him, and
Manton which his father had given him by word of mouth. The lease was in these
terms: Aschil should pay a yearly rent as long as he lived. After his death,
the first two estates should revert to the monastery, together with another
estate called Northorpe in the place of Manton.[17] Hart
considered that the charters were forgeries, although he saw no reason to
believe that the transactions had not taken place. Whitelock concurs with this
judgement.[18]
In the Clamores, however, it is
stated that 'The shire bears witness that on and after the day when king Edward
was alive and dead, Aschil had these three manors, Scotton, Scotter, and Ravensthorpe, of the king at
his own disposal. In the same way, he had Muskham in Nottinghamshire, and one
manor, Manton, he had of his brother, Brand the monk'.[19]
Hugh Candidus describes these lands as belonging to the family.[20]
According to Domesday Book, in 1066 Aschil held the land which later went to
the abbey in Scotton, Walcot, Appleby, Risby and Sawcliffe, and Ravensthorpe.[21]
Manton, supposedly held
by Aschil on lease from Brand, was held by Rolft, who also held in
Yawthorpe and Hibaldstow, which Hugh Candidus said was given by Aschil and his
brothers.[22]
Scotter was divided between Aschil and Alnod who also held land in Riseholm,
Cleatham, and Messingham.[23]
The detail is confusing and
sometimes contradictory, but it is clear that all of these lands were closely
related. Stenton argued that Rolft and Alnod were probably the sons of Siric
and Siworth who had apparently died before the Conquest.[24]
But since Domesday Book records that Aschil had Manton by lease and Scotter
freely, and this information is confirmed by charter evidence, then it is seems
more likely that Rolft and Alnod held their land from Aschil, especially since
Scotter is a multiple manor entry. The whole of the abbey's lands in the West
Riding, then, can be seen to have constituted a single interest. As for the
lands that follow in Kesteven, textually they may be part of the same group,
but there is no evidence that they were dependent upon Aschil, unless the Elnod
of 8/39 can be identified with the Alnod who held in the West Riding of
Lindsey. However, it is probably more likely that the south Lincolnshire lands
constituted a separate group. Since the account begins at the top of column
f.346b, the fact cannot be demonstrated from the text. But it is known that
Hereward was a man of the abbey, and there is no evidence that he held his estate
in Witham (-on-the-Hill) under
Aschil.[25]
The two textual groups defined by
repetition of wapentake sequence and spacing, then, correspond very neatly with
two pre-Conquest tenurial groups, with the possible exception of
Hereward's manor. Clearly, the compiler of the text consulted
the same geographically arranged source on two separate occasions with a
different purpose in mind. A division between demesne and tenanted estates
occurs in the abbot's Northamptonshire breve,
although no indication of the pre-Conquest tenants is given,[26]
thereby suggesting a return related to estate management. The dichotomy in the
Lincolnshire Domesday, however, is not so sharp. The first section is mostly
demesne, but includes two manors and two berewicks which were held by the
abbot's men, while the second, although mostly tenanted, contains two demesne
manors.[27]
Thus, it is unlikely that the economy of the abbot's estates in 1086
constituted the criterion for the organisation of entries. There seems no
alternative to the conclusion that it was the tenurial status of the various
manors in 1066 which was the decisive factor in determining the groups. It
seems likely that the abbot of Peterborough returned an account of his estates
in this way because it demonstrated the basis of his title. The manors of the
first section were each held by book, and were therefore independent of each
other and so distinguished in the text by spacing. The Domesday compiler merely
enrolled them in the order in which they appeared in the official
geographically arranged source. In the second, however, all the estates formed
an extended tenurial group in which title to individual estates was
inter-linked with the whole. The scribe, therefore, enrolled them separately,
again by reference to his official source. Thus, the separate wapentake
sequences reflect the right to title, and thereby indicate two different types
of estate.
Breves
nos 8 and 31 are the best documented examples of this process, but it may be
suspected that many textual
groups have been formed in this way. It is clearly
significant that where a tenant-in-chief can be shown to have had only one
predecessor, the wapentake sequence in his Domesday breve is regular, and never repeated, and spacing is rare.[28]
But, of course, not every sub-section of a breve
necessarily defines the interests of a single predecessor. In breve no. 24, for example, they seem to
define different elements in Ulf Fenisc's great pre-Conquest estates.[29]
Each group was probably formulated by reference to major soke centres and the
estates of Ulf's more important tenants such as Tonna.[30]
But again the form is probably not unrelated to the need to establish title.
Finally, there are instances in which no rationale can be detected, and it is
possible that such groups are purely ad
hoc formations in the process of compilation of the text.
[1] See chapter 4.
[2] See chapter 5.
[3] Northants DB; Leics. DB.
[4] See chapter 4; Lincs. DB,
200-4.
[5] See, for example, Lincs. DB,
15-37.
[6] Lincs. DB, 143-6.
[7] Lincs. DB, p13.
[8] Lincs. DB, 31/2.
[9] See chapter 4.
[10] The wapentake sequence in the Lincolnshire breves is, with the exception of the South Riding of Lindsey, here
reconstructed from the text, identical with that found in the Clamores: Lindsey, South Riding (LSR), 1.
Wraggoe 2. Horncastle 3. Candleshoe 4. Louthesk 5. Calcewath 6. Hill; Lindsey,
North Riding (LNR), 7. Yarborough 8. Bradley 9. Walshcroft 10. Haverstoe 11.
Ludborough 12. Bolingbroke 13. Gartree; Lindsey, West Riding (LWR) 14. Lawress
15. Well 16. Aslacoe 17. Corringham 18. Axholme 19. Manley; Kesteven (K), 20.
Ness 21. Beltisloe 22. Flaxwell 23. Langoe 24. Winnibriggs 25 Graffoe 26.
Aswardhurn 27. Loveden 28 Aveland 29. Roteland
30. Threo; Holland (H), 31 Kirton, 32. Skirbeck 33. Elloe. Bolingbroke and Gartree
were locally in LSR, but were accounted for the geld in LNR; Boothby Wapentake
cannot be located within the sequence. The Divisions do not always appear in
the same order, but that preferred is LWR, LNR, LSR, K, H. The sequence of
wapentakes is well-established in LWR, LNR, and K, with the possible exception
of no. 25, but that in LSR is the nearest fit possible, and that in H cannot be
tested since the three wapentakes do not appear consecutively in any breve. The detailed evidence for this
analysis, and the method of verification, will be discussed in D. R. Roffe, The Making of the Lincolnshire Domesday, (in preparation).
[11] Lincs. DB, 31/10.
[12] Lincs. DB, breves nos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 26,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 44, 57.
[13] MDB, 159; but see P. H.
Sawyer, 'The Original Returns and Domesday Book', EHR 70. (1955), 183.
[14] Lincs. DB, 54-8.
[15] The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus,
trans. W. Mellows, Peterborough 1961, 36-7.
[16] ECEE, 105.
[17] ECEE, 105.
[18] ECEE, 105; S 1059.
[19] Lincs. DB, 71/15.
[20] Hugh Candidus, 36-7.
[21] Lincs. DB, 8/15, 23, 27, 28.
[22] Lincs. DB, 8/14, 20, 22;
71/15.
[23] Lincs. DB, 8/13, 17, 19, 31.
[24] Lincs. DB, xl.
[25] FE, 159-64.
[26] Northants DB, breve no. 6.
[27] Lincs. DB, 8/6, 7, 14, 17.
[28] See, for example, Lincs. DB, breves nos 35, 37, 39, 43, 64.
[29] Lincs. DB, 105-115.
|
1. |
24/1-36
|
Ulf |
LWR14, 19/ 19/ LNR7/ |
|
|
|
LSR1,2, LNR12, K21/22/ |
|
2. |
24/37-71 |
Tonna |
K26, LSR(6),(3)/ 5/ 5/ |
|
3. |
24/72-5 |
Siward, Odincarle |
LSR2, 3/ |
|
4. |
24/76-81 |
Tonna, Ulf, Siwate |
K26, 27, 29, 30/ |
|
5. |
24/82-105 |
Ulf |
K28 |