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 un trustworthiness of the figures given in these texts is afforded by the Manors of Slretham 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 ritt 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 (Archaologia, 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 (hi. 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 undertenant 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:
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.