²²⁶ Chertelinge, C.

²²⁷ Cheleia, C.

²²⁸ Wigeni, C. This was 'Wigonus de mara' (I.C.C.) or 'Wighen' (D.B.) Count Alan's under-tenant at Ditton.

²²⁹ Eurard[us] in D.B.

²³⁰ 'Juraverunt homines scilicet Alerann[us], Rogger[us] homo Walteri Giffardi' omitted in C.

²³¹ A sokeman of the Abbot of Ely at Suafham.

²³² Staplehoe Hundred.

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.

²³⁴ The I.E. version ('bans') is the right one.

²³⁵ Rectius 'I. hidam'.

²³⁶ C text.

²³⁷ Commend' 'S. ae.' is found on 386b, ad pedem.

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.

²³⁹ This is usually quoted 'inquirunt', which is the wrong reading.

²⁴⁰ The right reading.

²⁴¹ Quantum in C text.

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.

²⁴³ Hallow near Worcester.

²⁴⁴ Note, Ash—'Esch'—'Naisse'.

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'.

²⁴⁶ Ed. Hamilton, p. 137.

²⁴⁷ This also seems to have been taken from the detailed original returns.

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).

²⁴⁹ Domesday Studies, pp. 526, 626.

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).

* Author of Our Public Records.

²⁵¹ I am not sure that even the 'pertin[ent] ad rege[m]' of the 'first' volume (100b) is not a mistake for 'regnum'.

²⁵² On fo. 17 is a curious deleted list of church fiefs in Essex, which has no business there.

²⁵³ Introduction to Domesday, i. 354.

²⁵⁴ vide infra, p. 154.

²⁵⁵ Henry, says Orderic, in 1100, 'concito cursu ad arcem Guentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur, festinavit'.

²⁵⁶ This account of the Winchester placitum is taken from my second article on 'The Custody of Domesday Book' (Antiquary, xvi. 9-10).

²⁵⁷ Academy, November 13, 1886; Domesday Studies, p. 537 note; and Mr Hall's Antiquities of the Exchequer, chap. i.

²⁵⁸ Mon. Ang., iii. 86.

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).

²⁶⁰ Domesday Studies, 546-7.

²⁶¹ Supra, note 255.

²⁶² Athenæum, November 27, 1886.

²⁶³ See also Domesday Studies, 547 note².

²⁶⁴ Domesday Studies, 539 et seq.

²⁶⁵ It will be observed that I do not touch the Liber Exoniensis.

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 alias '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 subject⁵ 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.

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 3½ 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 3½ 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.

¹ I have found, since this was written, that it was printed by Mr T. O. Cockayne in his little-known Shrine (pp. 205-8), and pronounced by him (in error) to be 'evidently' of the date 1109-18.

² I opposed in 1886 (Domesday Studies, pp. 86, 87) the accepted view that no Danegeld was levied by the Conqueror till the winter of 1083-4 and discussed (Ibid., 88-92) the Inquisitio Geldi, which, as Mr Eyton showed (Key to Domesday), belongs to that date. It has been persistently confused with the Exon Domesday (being bound up with it), as by Mr Jones, in his Wiltshire Domesday (pp. xxxvii., 153 et seq.), and Professor Freeman (Quart. Review, July 1892, p. 22).

³ It was connected, I find, by Mr Cockayne with military service, not with Danegeld.

⁴ Quoted in Ellis's Introduction to Domesday, i. 315-6.

⁵ Norm. Conq., iii, 741-2.

⁶ The phrase employed by Mr Freeman in criticizing Professor Pearson.

⁷ See Ellis, ut supra.

⁸ 'Wered', like 'Wara' (supra, p. 100), refers to assessment and corresponds with the 'defendit se' phrase in Domesday. It seems here to represent the land which had actually paid.

⁹ Wrongly given by Ellis and Cockayne as 'xviii'.

¹⁰ Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx'.

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.

¹² There is no entry for 'waste' in this hundred, so that possibly the words 'xv. hida westa' are omitted.

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'.

¹⁴ Monasticon, vi. 1090.

¹⁵ Infra, p. 175.

¹⁶ Infra, p. 173.

¹⁷ See my paper on 'The great carucage of 1198' (English Historical Review, iii, 501 et seq.).

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.

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. 224b), 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. 221b, 345b). In the same way we are enabled to identify the 'Rogerius Infans' of our list with 'Rogerius' who held 'Pilchetone', according to Domesday (i. 221b), 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. 221b), 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:

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. 376b).

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 (364b-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 3¹⁄16 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. 376b), 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 him¹⁶ 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 Turfridæ' should clearly be 'mater Turfrida', 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: