CHAPTER XII

DOMESDAY BOOK

The eventful life of the Conqueror was within two years of its close when he decreed the compilation of that record which was to be the lasting monument of his rule in England. It is probable that if due regard be paid to the conditions of its execution Domesday Book may claim to rank as the greatest record of medieval Europe; certainly it deserves such preference among the legal documents of England. For, while we admire the systematic treatment which the great survey accords to county after county, we must also remember that no sovereign before William could have had the power to draw such wealth of information from all England between the Channel and the Tees; and that the thousands of dry figures which are deliberately accumulated in the pages of Domesday represent the result of the greatest catastrophe which has ever affected the national history. Domesday Book, indeed, has no peer, because it was the product of unique circumstances. Other conquerors have been as powerful as William, and as exigent of their royal rights; no other conqueror has so consistently regarded himself as the strict successor of the native kings who were before him; above all, no other conqueror has been at pains to devise a record of the order of things which he himself destroyed, nor even, like William, of so much of it as was relevant to the more efficient conduct of his own administration. Domesday Book is the perfect expression of the Norman genius for the details of government.

It is needless to say that William had no intention of enlightening posterity as to the social and economic condition of his kingdom. His aim was severely practical. How it struck a contemporary may be gathered from that well-known passage in which the Peterborough chronicler opens the long series of commentaries on Domesday by recording his impressions of the actual survey:

“After this the king held a great council and very deep speech with his wise men about this land, how it was peopled and by what men. Then he sent his men into every shire all over England and caused it to be ascertained how many hundred hides were in the shire and what land the king had, and what stock on the land, and what dues he ought to have each year from the shire. Also he caused it to be written, how much land his archbishops, bishops, abbots, and earls had, and (though I may be somewhat tedious in my account) what or how much each land-holder in England had in land or in stock and how much money it might be worth. So minutely did he cause it to be investigated that there was not one hide or yard of land, nor even (it is shameful to write of it though he thought it not shameful to do it) an ox nor a cow or swine that was not set down in his writ. And all the writings were brought to him afterwards.”

Opinion at Peterborough was clearly adverse to the survey, and Florence of Worcester tells us that the proceedings of the king’s commissioners caused riots in various parts of England. The exact scope of the information demanded by the commissioners cannot be better expressed than in the words of a writer belonging to the neighbouring abbey of Ely, who took an independent copy of the returns made to those officers concerning the lands of his monastery, and describes the nature of the inquiry thus:

“This is the description of the inquiry concerning the lands, which the king’s barons made, according to the oath of the sheriff of the shire and of all the barons and their Frenchmen and of the whole hundred-court—the priests, reeves and six villeins from every vill. In the first place [they required] the name of the manor; who held it in the time of King Edward, and who holds it now, how many hides [_hidæ_] are there, how many ploughs in demesne and how many belonging to the men, how many villeins, cottars, slaves, freemen and sokemen; how much woodland, meadow and pasture, how many mills and fisheries; how much has been added to or taken from the estate, how much the whole used to be worth, and how much it is worth now; and how much each freeman or sokeman had or has there. All this thrice over; with reference to the time of King Edward, and to the time when King William gave the land and to the present time; and if more can be got out of it than is being drawn now.”[321]

Now, although the fact may not appear on a first reading of these passages, all these details were entirely subsidiary to one main object—the exact record of the local distribution of the king’s “geld” or Danegeld, the one great direct tax levied on the whole of England. Domesday is essentially a financial document; it is a noteworthy example of that insistence on their fiscal rights which was eminently characteristic of the Anglo-Norman kings, and was the chief reason why they were able to build up the strongest government in Western Europe. Every fact recorded in Domesday bears some reference, direct or indirect, to the payment of the Danegeld, for the king’s commissioners knew their business, and the actual scribes who arranged the results of the survey were remorseless in rejecting all details which did not fit into the general scheme of their undertaking. It should not escape observation that this fact prepares many subtle pitfalls for those who would draw a picture of English society based on the materials supplied by Domesday; but more of this will be said later, for there are certain questions of history and terminology which demand attention at the outset.

The most important of those points is the meaning of those “hides,” which are mentioned in both of the above extracts. This, indeed, is the essential clue to the interpretation of Domesday, and it is unfortunately very elusive, for the term can be traced back to a very early period of Anglo-Saxon history and more than one meaning came to be attached to it in the course of its long history. When we first meet the “hide,” the word seems to denote the amount of land which was sufficient for the support of a normal household; it is the average holding of the ordinary free man of Anglo-Saxon law. This much is reasonably certain, but difficulties crowd in upon us when we attempt to estimate the capacity of the hide in terms of acreage. Much discussion has arisen about this point, but we may say that at present there are two main theories on the subject, one assigning to the hide one hundred and twenty acres of arable land, the other some much smaller quantity, such as forty-eight or thirty acres, in either case with sufficient appurtenances in wood, water, and pasture for the maintenance of the plough and its oxen. Just now the prevailing view seems to be that the areal capacity of the hide may have varied from county to county—that, for instance, while we know that in the eleventh century the hide stood at one hundred and twenty acres in Cambridgeshire and Essex, it may not improbably have contained forty-eight acres in Wiltshire. Important, or rather vital, as is the question for students of Anglo-Saxon history, it does not concern us to quite the same extent, and we must pass on to a change which came over men’s conception of this tenement and intimately affects the study of Domesday.

Our normal free householder, the man who held a “hide” in the seventh century, was burdened with many duties towards the tribal state to which he belonged. He had to serve in the local army, the fyrd, to keep the roads and bridges in his neighbourhood in repair, to help to maintain the strong places of his district as a refuge in time of invasion, and to contribute towards the support of the local king or ealdorman. Out of these elements, and especially the last, was developed a rudimentary military and financial system which is recorded in certain ancient documents which have come down to us from the Anglo-Saxon period, and deserve our attention as the direct ancestors of Domesday Book. They may be described as a series of attempts to express, in terms of hides, the capacity of the several districts of England with which they deal, for purposes of tribute or defence. The eldest of these documents, which is now generally known as the Tribal Hidage,[322] is a record of which the date cannot be fixed within a century and a half, while very much of its text is quite unintelligible, but in form it is clear enough. It consists of a string of names with numbers of hides attached; thus, the dwellers in the Peak are assigned 1200 hides, the dwellers in Elmet 600, the Kentishmen 15,000, and the Hwiccas 7000. Now, it is obvious that all these are round numbers, as in fact are all the figures occurring in the document; and this is a point of considerable importance, for it implies that the distribution of hides recorded in this early list was a matter of rough estimate, rather than of computation, since we cannot suppose that there were just 1200 free householders in the Peak of Derbyshire, nor exactly 15,000 in Kent. These figures are intended to represent approximately the respective strength of such districts, and are expressed in even thousands or hundreds because numbers of this kind will be easy to handle, a practice which we can see to be inevitable, for a barbarian king of the time of Beda would be a very unlikely person to institute statistical inquiries as to the exact number of hides under his “supremacy.” But the point that concerns us is, as we shall see later, that the distribution of hides in Domesday, for all its appearance of statistical precision, is in reality just as much a matter of estimate and compromise as was the rough reckoning which is recorded in the Tribal Hidage.

These remarks apply equally to the next document in the series of fiscal records which leads up to Domesday. Probably in the reign of Edward the Elder, when Wessex was recovering from the strain of the great Danish invasion, some scribe drew up a list of strong places or “burhs,” mostly in that country, with the number of hides assigned to the maintenance of each, and here again we find round figures resembling those which we have noticed in the Tribal Hidage.[323] In this way 700 hides are said to belong to Shaftesbury, 600 to Langport, 100 to Lyng. Apparently the wise men of Wessex have decreed that an even number of hides, roughly proportional to the area to be defended, should be assigned to the upkeep of each of those “burhs,” and have left the men of each district to settle the incidence of burden among themselves. It will be seen that the system on which this document (which is conveniently called the “Burghal Hidage”) is based is much more artificial than that represented in the Tribal Hidage—in the latter we are dealing with “folks” or “tribes,” if the word be not expressed too strictly; here we have conventional districts, the extent of which is evidently determined by external authority. This being so, it becomes possible to make certain suggestive comparisons between the Burghal Hidage and Domesday Book. Thus the former assigns 2400 hides to Oxford and Wallingford, respectively, and 1200 to Worcester; and if we count up the number of hides which are entered in the Domesday surveys of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Worcestershire, we shall find that in all three cases the total will come very near to the number of hides assigned to the towns which represent these shires in the Burghal Hidage; the correspondence being much too close to be the result of chance. Hence, if the distribution of hides in the Burghal Hidage is artificial, we should be prepared for the conclusion that the similar distribution in Domesday is artificial also.

A century passed, and England was again being invaded by the Danes. In the vain hope of buying off the importunate enemy the famous Danegeld was levied, originally as an emergency tax, but one which was destined to be raised, at first sporadically, and then at regular intervals until the end of the twelfth century. This new impost must, one would suppose, have called for a re-statement of the old Hidages, but no such record has come down to us. On the other hand we possess a list of counties with their respective Hidages annexed, which is generally known as the “County Hidage,” and assigned to the first half of the eleventh century. This document[324] forms a link between the Burghal Hidage and Domesday; for, while it agrees with the older record in the figures which it gives for Worcestershire, Berkshire, and Oxfordshire, its estimate approximates very closely to the Domesday assessment of Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, and Bedfordshire.

And so we come to the Norman Conquest. At the very beginning of his reign, William, undeterred by the legend of his saintly predecessor, who had seen the devil sitting on the money bags, and had therefore abolished the Danegeld, laid on the people a geld exceeding stiff. At intervals during his reign a “geld” was imposed: in particular, in 1083, he raised a tax of seventy-two pence on the hide, the normal rate being only two shillings. It is not improbable that the grievance caused by this heavy tax may have been one chief reason why Domesday Book was compiled. We have seen enough to know that the system of assessment which underlies Domesday was, in principle at least, very ancient. It must have become very inequitable, for mighty changes had passed over England even in the century preceding the Conquest. We know that William had tried to rectify matters by drastic reductions of hidage in the case of individual counties, and it is by no means improbable that the Domesday Inquest was intended to be the preliminary to a sweeping revision of the whole national system of assessment. William died before he could undertake this, and so far as we know it was never attempted afterwards, for it has been pointed out that in 1194 the ransom of Richard I. was raised in certain counties according to the Domesday assessment.[325] This rigidity of the artificial old system makes its details especially worthy of study, for it is strange to see a fiscal arrangement which can be traced back to the time of Alfred still capable of being utilised in the days of Richard I. and Hubert Walter.

What, then, are the main features of this system? Much of its vitality, cumbrous and unequal as it was, may doubtless be ascribed to the fact that it was based on the ancient local divisions of the country, the shires, wapentakes or hundreds, and vills. Put into other words, the distribution of the hides which we find in Domesday is the result of an elaborate series of subdivisions. At some indefinitely distant date, it has been decreed that each county shall be considered to contain a certain definite number of hides, that Bedfordshire, for example, shall be considered to contain—that is, shall be assessed at—1200 hides. The men of Bedfordshire, then, in their shire court, proceeded to distribute these 1200 hides among the twelve “hundreds” into which the county was divided, paying no detailed attention to the area or population of each hundred, nor even, so far as can be seen, obeying any rule which would make a hundred answer for exactly one hundred hides, but following their own rough ideas as to how much of their total assessment of their county each hundred should be called upon to bear. The assessment of the hundreds being thus determined, the next step was to divide out the number of hides cast upon each hundred among the various vills of which it was composed, the division continuing to be made without any reference to value or area. And then the artificiality of the whole system is borne in upon us by the most striking fact—the discovery of which revolutionised the study of Domesday Book—that in the south and west of England the overwhelming majority of vills are assessed in some fraction or multiple of five hides.[326] The ubiquity of this “five-hide unit” is utterly irreconcilable with any theory which would make the Domesday hide consist of any definite amount of land; a vill might contain six or twenty real, arable hides, scattered over its fields, but, if it agreed with the scheme of distribution followed by the men of the county in the shire and hundred courts, that vill would pay Danegeld on five hides all the same. The Domesday system of assessment, then, was not the product of local conditions but was arbitrarily imposed from above. The hide was not only a measure of land, but also a fiscal term, dissociated from all necessary correspondence with fact.

But, before passing to further questions of terminology, it will be well to give some instances of the application of the “five-hide unit,” and, as Bedfordshire has been specially referred to above, we may take our examples from that county. Accordingly, if with the aid of a map we follow the course of the Ouse through Bedfordshire, we shall pass near to Odell, Risely, and Radwell, assessed at ten hides each; Thurghley and Oakley at five; Pavenham, Stagsden, Cardington, Willington, Cople, and Northill at ten; Blunham at fifteen; Tempsford at ten; Roxton at twenty; Chawston at ten; Wyboston at twenty, and Eaton Socon at forty. Thus, within a narrow strip of one county we have found seventeen instances of this method of assessment, and there is no need to multiply cases in point. On almost every page of the survey in which we read of hides, we may find them combined in conventional groups of five, ten, or the like.

Not all England, however, was assessed in hides; three other systems of rating are to be found in the country. In Kent, the first county entered in Domesday Book, a peculiar system prevailed in which the place of the hide was taken by the “sulung,” consisting of four “yokes” (_iugera_), and most probably containing two hundred and forty acres, thus equalling a double hide.[327] The existence of the sulung in Kent as a term of land measurement can be traced back to the time when that county was an independent kingdom; the process by which the word came to denote a merely fiscal unit was doubtless analogous to the similar development which we have noticed in the case of the “hide.” Taken in conjunction with the singular local divisions of Kent, and with the well-known peculiarities of land tenure found there, this plan of reckoning by “sulungs” instead of hides falls into place as a proper survival of the independent organisation of the county.

Another ancient kingdom also preserves an unusual form of assessment in Domesday. In East Anglia we get for once a statement in arithmetical terms as to the amount which each vill must contribute to the Danegeld. Instead of being told that there are, say, five hides in a vill, and being left to draw the conclusion that that vill must pay ten shillings or more according to the rate at which the Danegeld is being levied on the hide, we are given the amount which each vill must pay when the hundred in which it is situated pays twenty shillings. This form of sliding scale is unknown outside Norfolk and Suffolk, and is even more obviously artificial than the assessment of other counties. Each hundred in East Anglia seems to have been divided into a varying number of “leets,”—and it has been suggested that each leet had to pay an equal amount towards the Danegeld due from the hundred,[328] but the assessment of East Anglia in other respects presents some special difficulties of its own, although they cannot be discussed here.

Of much greater importance is the remaining fiscal unit to be found in Domesday. In Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, and Rutland all assessments are expressed in “carucates,” instead of hides, each carucate being composed of eight bovates, and each bovate containing, as is probable, fifteen (fiscal) acres. This distinction was remarked on in the twelfth century by Hugh “Candidus,” the historian of Peterborough, who says, “In Lincolnshire there are no hides, as in other counties, but instead of hides there are carucates of land, and they are worth the same as the hides.” It is evident that by derivation at least the Domesday _carucata terræ_ must originally have meant a ploughland, that is, the amount of land capable of being tilled in one year by the great plough-team of eight oxen, according to whatever system of agriculture may have then been current, and it is equally certain that the word “bovate” takes its derivation from the ox. But, just like the hide, the carucate, from denoting a measure of land, had come to mean an abstract fiscal quantity, subject to the same conditions of distribution as affected the former unit. This is proved by the fact that the carucates are found combined in the above counties into artificial groups according to exactly the same principle as that which determined the distribution of hides in the south, with one highly curious variation in detail. Whereas we have seen that in the south and west vills are nominally assessed at some multiple of five hides, in the north-eastern counties, with which we are now concerned, the prevailing tendency is for the vills to be rated at some multiple or fraction of six carucates. Put in another way: the assessment of the south and west was decimal in character, that of the north and east was duodecimal; while we should expect a Berkshire vill to be rated at five, ten, or fifteen hides, we must expect to find a Lincolnshire vill standing at six, twelve, or eighteen carucates.[329] We have in this way a “six-carucate unit,” to set beside and in distinction to the “five-hide unit,” which we have already considered.

Now, these details become very significant when we consider the geographical area within which these carucates are found combined after this fashion. The district between the Welland and the Tees has a historical unity of its own. As was the case with East Anglia and Kent, fiscal peculiarities are accompanied in this quarter also by a distinctive local organisation. The co-existence in this part of England of “Danish” place-names with local divisions such as the wapentake, which can be referred to northern influence, has always been considered as proving an extensive Scandinavian settlement to have taken place there; and we can now reinforce this argument by pointing to the above fiscal peculiarities, which we know to be confined to this quarter and which are invaluable as enabling us to define with certainty the exact limits of the territory which was actually settled by the Danes in the tenth century. In Denmark itself we find instances of the employment of a duodecimal system of reckoning similar to that on which we have seen the Domesday assessment of the above north-eastern counties to be based; and we may recognise in the latter the equivalent of the territory of the “Five Boroughs” of Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, and Stamford, together with the Danish kingdom of Deira (Yorkshire), across the Humber.

Tedious as these details may well seem, the conclusions to which they lead us are by no means unimportant. In the first place, we see how such ancient kingdoms as Kent, East Anglia and Deira, to which we may add the territory of the Five Boroughs, preserved in their financial arrangements many relics of their former independent organisation long after they had lost all trace of political autonomy. And then in the second place we obtain a glimpse into the principles which governed the policy of the Norman rulers of England towards native institutions. These were not swept away wholesale; centralisation was only introduced where it was absolutely necessary, and so long as local arrangements sufficed to meet the financial needs of the crown, they were not interfered with. Here, as elsewhere, it was not the policy of William or of his successors to disturb the ancient organisation of the country, for it could well be adapted to the purposes of a king who was strong enough to make his government a reality over the whole land, and in this respect the Conqueror and his sons need have no fear.

In the above account we have considered the Domesday system of assessment in its simplest possible form, but certain complications must now receive notice. In the first place the plan on which the survey itself is drawn up places difficulties in our way, for it represents a kind of compromise between geographical and tenurial principles. Thus, each county is entered separately in Domesday, but within the shire all estates are classified according to the tenant-in-chief to whom they belonged, and not according to the hundred or other local division in which they are situated. This is a fact to which we shall have again to refer, but it will be evident that more than one tenant-in-chief might very well hold land in the same vill, and this being the case, we can never be sure, without reading through the entire survey of a county, that we have obtained full particulars of any single vill contained in it. In other words, vill and manor were never of necessity identical, and in some parts of England, especially the north and east, such an equivalent was highly exceptional. In this way, therefore, in the all-important sphere of finance, the lowest point to which we can trace the application of any consistent principle in the apportionment of the “geld” was not the manor, but the vill; and accordingly before we can discover the presence of those five-hide and six-carucate units, which have just been described, we have often to combine a number of particulars which, taken individually, do not suggest any system at all. Two instances, one from Cambridgeshire and one from Derbyshire, will be in point here:

HASLINGFIELD (CAMBS.)[330]

Hides. Virgates. Acres. The King 7 1 Picot the Sheriff 4 3 Count Alan 1 ½ ” ” ½ Geoffrey de Mandeville 5 0 Guy de Reinbudcurt 1 1 3 Count Alan 12 —— —— —— 20 0 0

BREASTON (DERBY)[331]

Carucates. Bovates. Henry de Ferrers 3 Geoffrey Alselin 1 Gilbert de Gand 2 0 Roger de Busli 3 0 ” ” 4 —— —— 6 0

These examples show very clearly that no consistent principle governed the assessment of a fractional part of vills, and are typical of the neatness with which unpromising figures combine into even totals. As to the way in which the men of a vill apportioned their fiscal responsibility, we are left almost entirely in the dark; the vill or township seems to have had no court of its own capable of deciding such a matter. Largely, no doubt, it was a matter of tradition; a certain holding which had once answered for two hides would continue to do so, no matter into whose hands it might come, unless the assessment of the whole vill were arbitrarily raised or lowered from without, when the assessment of this particular parcel of land would almost automatically be affected in proportion. But these local matters do not come within the scope of our slender stock of early fiscal authorities, and so we hear nothing about them.

We are now in a position to examine a normal entry from Domesday Book in the light of the above conclusions. A Nottinghamshire manor will do very well:

“M[anor]—In Hoveringham Swegn had two carucates of land and two bovates assessed to the geld. There is land for four ploughs. There Walter [de Aincurt] has in demesne two ploughs, and five sokemen on three and a third bovates of this land, and nine villeins and three bordars who have four ploughs. There is a priest and a church and two mills rendering forty shillings, and forty acres of meadow. In King Edward’s time it was worth £4; now it is worth the same and ten shillings more.”

We ought first to see how each detail here fits into the general scheme of the survey. The statement as to the former owner of the manor was important; for, just as King William maintained that he was the lawful successor of King Edward, so also he was determined that each of his men should occupy in each manor which he might hold the exact legal position filled by the Englishman or group of Englishmen, as the case might be, whom he had dispossessed in that particular estate. In particular it was essential that he should take up his predecessor’s responsibility with reference to the “geld” due from his land, a point which is well brought out in the above entry, for Walter de Aincurt clearly is being debited with the same number of carucates and bovates as were laid to the account of “Swegn” before the Conquest. Probably fiscal in character also is the statement which follows, to the effect that in Hoveringham “there is land for four ploughs.” For all its apparent simplicity, this formula, which is extremely common in the survey, presents upon investigation an extraordinary number of difficult complications. Taken simply it would seem to denote the number of ploughs which could find employment on the manor, and most probably it has such an agricultural significance in many counties, the argument in the mind of the commissioners being: if this estate has land for more ploughs than are actually to be found there, it is undeveloped, and more “geld” may be got out of it some day; if it is being cultivated to the full extent of its areal capacity or in excess of it (for this often happens) its assessment probably represents its agricultural condition well enough, and it may therefore stand. By making this inquiry about “ploughlands” the commissioners are probably fulfilling the instruction which directed them to find out whether the king was drawing the largest possible amount from each manor, but great caution is needed before we decide that they are obtaining this information in quite the same way from every county surveyed. In one county, for example, the jurors may be stating the amount of land in their manor which has never been brought under the plough at all; in another we may be given the total number of ploughs, actual and potential, which could be employed in the estate; in yet a third the commissioners may have taken as an answer a statement of the number of ploughs that had been going in the time of King Edward. The commissioners are not in the least concerned with details about ploughs and ploughlands merely as such; their interest is entirely centred in a possible increase of the king’s dues from each manor surveyed. But it is well to remember this fact, for it throws most serious difficulties in the way of any estimate of the agricultural condition of England in the eleventh century.

More straightforward are the details which follow in our entry. It will be seen that the scribes have marked a distinction between three divisions of the land of the vill: first the lord’s demesne, then the land held of him by sokemen, then the holdings of the villeins and bordars. That such a distinction should be made was in accordance with the instruction given to the commissioners by which they were directed to find out not only how many ploughs were in demesne and on the villeins’ land respectively, but also how much each free man and sokeman in the manor possessed. These latter are so entered, not necessarily because they were more definitely responsible for their share of the manorial Danegeld[332] than were the villeins and bordars for their own portion, but largely no doubt because they were less directly under manorial control. We have seen that the sokemen and free men of Domesday most probably represent social classes which have survived the Conquest, and are rapidly becoming modified to suit the stricter conditions of land tenure which the Conquest produced. But in Domesday the process is not yet complete; the sokeman is still a somewhat independent member of the manorial economy, and as such it is desirable to indicate exactly the place which he fills in each estate. But that this part of the inquiry was not essential is proved by the fact that the holdings of the sokemen, whether in ploughs or land, are usually combined with those of the villeins and bordars, even in the surveys of the eastern counties, where the free population was strongest.

The communistic system of agriculture is sufficiently well brought out in this entry; the four plough teams which the men of Hoveringham possessed, so far as we can see, were composed of oxen supplied by sokemen, villeins, and bordars alike, and the survey is not careful to tell us what proportion of the thirty-two oxen implied in these teams was supplied by each of the above three classes. We should beware of the assumption that the sokemen of Domesday were invariably wealthier than the villeins; we know little enough about the economic position of either class, but we know enough to see that many a sokeman of the Conqueror’s time possessed much less land than was considered in the thirteenth century to be the normal holding of a villein. In the entry we have chosen we can see that the average number of oxen possessed by each man in the vill is something under two; and we may suspect that the three bordars owned no oxen, at all; but although the possession of plough oxen may here and there have been taken as a line of definition between rural classes, we cannot be sure that this is so everywhere, certainly we cannot assume that it is the case here.[333]

After its enumeration of the several classes of peasantry, with their agricultural equipment, the survey will commonly proceed to deal with certain incidental sources of manorial revenue; in the present case the church, the mills, and the meadow. Even in the eleventh century the relations between the lord of a manor and the church on his estate bear a proprietary character; the lord in most cases possesses the right of advowson and he can make gifts from the tithes of his manor to a religious house for the good of his individual soul. The village church and the village mill were both in their several ways sources of profit to the lord, and in the case we have chosen it will be noted that nearly half the value assigned to the manor by the Domesday jurors is derived from the proceeds of the latter. “Mill soke,” the right of the lord to compel his tenants to grind their corn at his mill, long continued to be a profitable feature of the manorial organisation. The peculiar value of the meadow lay in the necessity of providing keep for the plough-oxen over and above the food which they obtained by grazing the fallow portion of the village lands. The distribution of meadow land along the rivers and streams of a county determines to a great extent the relative value of the vills contained in it.[334]

The value which is assigned to a manor in Domesday Book seems to represent, as a general rule, a rough estimate of the rent which the estate would bring in to its lord if he let it on lease, stocked as it was with men and cattle. In general it is probable that the jurors were required to make such an estimate with regard to three periods, namely, 1066, 1086, and the time when King William gave the manor to its existing owner. The last estimate, however, is frequently omitted from the completed survey; but it is included often enough for us to be able to say that the disorder which attended the Conquest was commonly accompanied by a sharp depreciation in the value of agricultural land; and in many counties manorial values in general had failed to rise to their pre-Conquest level in the twenty years between 1066 and 1086. If the whole of England be taken into account, it has been computed that the average value of the hide or carucate will be very close to one pound, and the Nottinghamshire manor we are considering is sufficiently typical in this respect. But it must be remembered that the jurors on making their estimate of value would certainly have to take into consideration sources of local revenue which were not agricultural in character, and the tallage of the peasantry and the profits of the manorial court will be included in one round figure, together with the value of the labour services of the villeins and the rent of mills and meadows.

Our attempt to understand the terms employed in a typical entry may serve to introduce us to a matter of universal importance, the indefiniteness of Domesday. We are not using this word as a term of reproach. The compilers of Domesday had to deal with a vast mass of most intractable material, and the marvel is that they should have given so splendid an account of their task. But for all that, it is often a most formidable business to define even some of the commonest terms used in Domesday. It has been shown, for instance, that the word _manerium_, which we can only translate by “manor,” was used in the vaguest of senses. It may denote one estate rated at one hundred hides, and another rated at eighty acres; most manors will contain a certain amount of land “in demesne,” but there are numerous instances in which the whole manor is being held of a lord by the peasantry; in the south of England the area of a manor will very frequently coincide with that of the vill from which it takes its name, but then again there may very well be as many as ten manors in one vill, while a single manor may equally well extend over half a dozen vills. In many cases the vague impression left by Domesday is due to the indefiniteness of its subject-matter—if we find it hard to distinguish a free man from a sokeman this is in great measure due to the fact that these classes in all probability did really overlap and intersect each other. Just so if we cannot be quite sure what the compilers of our record meant when they called one man a “bordar” and another man a “villein,” we must remember that it would not be easy to give an exact definition of a “cottager” at the present day; and also that the villein class which covered more than half of the rural population of England cannot possibly have possessed uniform status, wealth, privileges, and duties over this vast area. But there exists another cause of confusion which is solely due to the idiosyncrasies of the Domesday scribes, and that is their inveterate propensity for using different words and phrases to mean the same thing. Thus when they wish to note that a certain man could not “commend” his land to anybody, without the consent of his lord, we find them saying “he could not withdraw without his leave,” “he could not sell his land without his leave,” “he could not sell his land,” “he could not sell or give his land without his leave”—all these phrases and many others describing exactly the same idea. This peculiarity runs through the whole of the survey; it is shown in another way by the wonderful eccentricities of the scribes in the matter of the spelling of proper names. So far as place names go, this variety of spelling does little more than place difficulties in the way of their identification; but when we find the same Englishman described in the same county as Anschil, Aschil, and Achi,[335] matters become more serious. For there is hardly a question on which we could wish for more exact evidence than that of the number of Englishmen who continued to hold land after the Conquest; and yet, owing to the habits of the Domesday scribes, we can never quite avoid an uneasy suspicion that two Englishmen whose names faintly resemble each other may, after all, turn out to be one and the same person. We cannot really blame the scribes for relieving their monotonous task by indulging in such pleasure as the variation of phrase and spelling may have brought them, but it is very necessary to face this fact in dealing with any branch of Domesday study, and the neglect of this precaution has led many enquirers into serious error.

Closely connected with all this is the question of the existence of downright error in Domesday Book itself. To show how this might happen, it will be necessary to give a sketch of the manner in which the great survey was compiled. “The king,” says the Anglo-Saxon chronicler, “sent his men into every shire all over England.” We cannot be quite sure whether they went on circuit through the several hundreds of each shire or merely held one session in its county town[336]; in either case there appeared before them the entire hundred court, consisting, as we have seen, of the priest, the reeve, and six villeins from every vill. But out of this heterogeneous assembly there seems to have been chosen a small body of jurors who were responsible in a peculiar degree for the verdict given. We possess lists of the jurors for most of the hundreds of Cambridgeshire, from which it appears that eight were chosen in each hundred, and, a very important point, that half of them were Frenchmen and half were Englishmen. Thus the commissioners obtained for each hundred the sworn verdict of a body of men drawn from both races and representing, so far as we can see, very different levels of society. We cannot assume that precisely the same questions were put to the jurors in every shire. The commissioners may well have been allowed some little freedom of adapting the form of the inquiry to varying local conditions, and the terminology of their instructions may have differed to some extent according to the part of England in which they were to be carried out; but the similarity of the returns obtained from very distant counties proves that the whole Domesday Inquest was framed according to one general plan. It is more likely that the differences which undoubtedly exist at times between the surveys of different counties are really due to the procedure of the scribes who shaped the local returns into Domesday as we possess it.[337]

It will be evident that the completed returns from each county must have consisted of a series of hundred-rolls arranged vill by vill according to the sequence followed by the commissioners in making the inquiry. The first task of the Domesday scribes was to substitute for the geographical order of the original returns a tenurial order based on the distribution of land among the tenants-in-chief in each shire. They must have worked through the returns county by county, collecting all the entries which related to land held by the same tenant-in-chief in each shire, and arranging them under appropriate headings, and we know that they paid no very consistent regard to local geography in the process. Where a vill was divided between two or more tenants-in-chief the division must have been marked by the jurors of its hundred in making their report; but, whereas the unity of the vill as a whole was respected in the original returns, it was disregarded by the Domesday scribes, for whom the feudal arrangements of the county were the first consideration. The first step to be taken in drawing a picture of the condition of any county surveyed in Domesday is the collection of their scattered entries and the reconstruction of the individual vills in their entirety. As any one who has attempted this exercise can testify, the risk of error is very great, and we may be sure that it was no less for the Domesday scribes themselves. We cannot often test the accuracy of Domesday by a comparison with other documents, but the few cases where this is possible are enough to destroy all belief in the literal infallibility of the great record. The work was done under great pressure and against time, and we should not cavil at its incidental inaccuracies.

Domesday Book as we possess it consists of two volumes, the second, known as Little Domesday, dealing with Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, the first containing the survey of the rest of England. The two volumes are very different in plan and treatment. In Essex and East Anglia, the scribes have followed as nearly as possible the directions which we have quoted on page 458. They enumerate the live-stock on the several estates with an abundance of detail which quite justifies the complaint of the Peterborough Chronicler that there was not an ox or a cow nor a swine that was not set down in the king’s writ. It is from the survey of these counties also that we draw the great body of our information about the different sorts and conditions of men, their tenurial relations and personal status. But this wealth of detail is accompanied by considerable faultiness of execution, and in the first volume of Domesday the plan is different. In compiling Great Domesday the scribes abandoned the idea of transcribing the original returns in full, and contented themselves with giving a _précis_ of them; the details which had been collected about sheep and horses are jettisoned and the whole survey is drawn within closer limits. The most reasonable explanation of this change is that the so-called second volume of Domesday represents the first attempt at a codification of the returns[338]; that the result was found too detailed for practical purposes, and that the conciser arrangement of the first volume was adopted in consequence. The volume combining Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk contains 450 folios and even the Conqueror might have been appalled at the outcome of his survey if all the thirty counties of England were to be described on the same scale. Whatever the reason, the change is accompanied by a marked improvement in workmanship and practicability.

The “first” volume of Domesday contains 382 folios and its arrangement deserves notice. In regular course the survey proceeds across England from Kent to Cornwall; the first 125 folios of the volume are in fact the description of the earldom of Wessex. Next, starting again in the east, the counties between Middlesex and Herefordshire are described; to be followed by the survey of the north midland shires from Cambridgeshire to Warwick, still following due order from east to west. Warwick is followed by Shropshire, for Worcestershire belongs to Domesday’s second belt, and the rest of the survey progresses from west to east from Shropshire to Notts, Yorkshire and Leicestershire completing the tale. In general the boundaries of the counties are the same as at the present day, but portions of Wales are included in Gloucester, Hereford, and Berkshire; the lands “between Ribble and Mersey” form a sort of appendage to Yorkshire, and Rutland in 1086 has not yet the full status of a county. It is not quite easy to explain why Domesday stops short at the Tees and the Ribble. Cumberland and Westmoreland were indeed reckoned parts of the Scotch kingdom at this time, but Northumberland and Durham were undoubtedly English. Possibly they had been too much harried in recent years to be worth the labour of surveying; possibly in that wild and lawless land an attempt to carry out the survey would have led to something more than local riots. At any rate Domesday’s omission is our loss, for it is in the extreme north that the old English tenures lingered the longest; we could wish for a description of them in the Conqueror’s day and conceived on the same plan as the full accounts which we possess of the feudalised south.

All over England the scribes so far as was possible followed a consistent plan in the arrangement of the returns for each county. The case of Oxfordshire will do for a typical instance. Here, as in nearly every shire to the north of the Thames, the county town is surveyed first; the interesting description which is given of Oxford filling a column and a half. The rest of the folio is occupied by a list of all those in the county who held land in chief of the crown, arranged and numbered in the order in which their estates are entered in the body of the survey. The scale of precedence adopted by the compilers of Domesday deserves remark, for it is substantially the same as the order which we find observed in the lists of witnesses to solemn charters of the time. First comes the king in the case of every county in which he held land. Then comes the body of ecclesiastical tenants holding of him within the shire, archbishops first, then bishops, then abbots, or rather abbeys, for the tendency is to assign the lands belonging to a religious house to the foundation itself rather than to its head. Among laymen the earls come first, foreign counts being placed on a level with their English representatives, the same Latin word (_comes_) expressing both titles. Then come the various “barons” undistinguished by any mark of rank, who of course form the larger number of the tenants-in-chief in any shire, and lastly, in most counties, the holdings of a number of men of inferior rank are thrown together under one heading as “the lands of the king’s servants, sergeants, or thegns.” Returning to the case of Oxfordshire we find the king, as ever, first on the list. He is followed by the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Winchester, Salisbury, Exeter, Lincoln, Bayeux, and Lisieux, who in turn are succeeded by the abbeys of Abingdon, Battle, Winchcombe, Préaux, the church of Saint Denis of Paris, and the canons of Saint Frideswide of Oxford. Earl Hugh of Chester stands first among laymen of “comital” rank, being followed by the counts of Mortain and Evreux, Earl Aubrey of Northumbria, and Count Eustace of Bologne. Then come the barons, twenty-three in number in Oxfordshire, whose order in the survey seems to be determined by no more subtle cause than a shadowy idea on the part of the scribes of grouping them according to the initial letter of their extra names. The list becomes a little miscellaneous towards the close; three great ladies appear: Christina, the sister of Edgar the Etheling; the Countess Judith, Waltheof’s widow; and a lady who is vaguely described as “Roger de Ivry’s wife,” bringing the total up to fifty-five. Then comes another baron, Hascuit Musard, an important Gloucestershire land-owner, whose Oxfordshire holding would seem to have been overlooked by the scribes, for it is squeezed in along the foot of two folios of the survey. He is followed by Turkill of Arden, an Englishman, who was powerful in Warwickshire but only held one manor in Oxfordshire, the description of which is succeeded by “the land of Richard Engayne and other thegns.” Richard Engayne was the king’s huntsman, and a Norman, as were many of his fellows, but about half the names entered under this comprehensive heading are unmistakably English and characteristically enough they are entered in a group after the members of the conquering race. The fifty-ninth and last heading in this varied list runs, “These underwritten lands belong to Earl William’s fee,” a formula which is explained by the fact that the manors surveyed under it had belonged to Earl William Fitz Osbern, who as we know had been killed in Flanders in 1071, while his son and heir had been disinherited in 1075. And so we see that, although the earl’s tenants had lost their immediate lord in consequence of his forfeiture, they were not recognised as holding in chief of the crown, but were kept apart in a group by themselves in anticipation of the later feudal practice by which the tenants of a great fief or honour in the royal hands were conceived of as holding rather of their honour than of the king himself.

In the present chapter we have mainly dealt with Domesday Book from its own standpoint as a fiscal register, but for the majority of the students its real value lies in the unique light which it throws upon legal and social antiquities and upon the personal history of the men of the Conquest. In these latter respects the different parts of the survey are by no means of equal value. The space assigned to each county in Domesday was determined solely by the caprice of the scribes; counties of approximately equal area are assigned very different limits of space in the record. Equally due to the action of the scribes is the amount of social and personal details, above the necessary minimum of fiscal information required, which is included in the description of each county. The surveys of Berkshire and Worcestershire, for instance, are many-sided records which throw light upon every aspect of the history of the times; while on the other hand for the counties of the Danelaw the fiscal skeleton of the record is left bare and arid; we get columns of statistics and little beside. The interest of Domesday of course is vastly increased when we are able to supplement its details with information derived from some other contemporary record; Buckinghamshire, for example, in which county there was no religious house in 1086, is at a disadvantage compared with Berkshire, where the local history of Abingdon Abbey fills in the outline of the greater record, and gives life to some at least of the men of whom the names and nothing more are written in its pages. Apart from this adventitious source of light, Domesday imparts some of its most precious information when recording a dispute between two tenants as to the possession of land, or noting new “customs,” tolls, and so forth, which have been introduced since the Conquest, for then we may look for some statement of local custom or some reconstruction of the “status quo ante conquestum.” And this leads naturally to the last division of our present subject—the legal theory which underlies Domesday Book.

It is abundantly plain from all our narratives of the Conquest that King William regarded himself, and was determined that he should be regarded, as the lawful successor of his cousin King Edward; he was the true heir by blood as well as by bequest. Unfortunately wicked men had usurped his inheritance so that he was driven to regain it by force and arms; the earl of Wessex had taken upon himself the title of king and the whole nation had acquiesced in his unlawful rule. But the verdict of battle had been given in William’s favour; he had been accepted as king by the great men of the realm, and he had been duly crowned; it would be no more than justice for him to disinherit every Englishman as such for his tacit or overt rebellion. Moreover even after he had been received as king his rebellious subjects in every part of the land had risen against him; they had justly forfeited all claim to his royal grace; their lands by virtue of these repeated treasons became at his absolute disposal. Some such ideas as these underlie that “great confiscation” of which Freeman considered Domesday to be essentially the record, and two all-important conclusions followed from them. The first is that the time of King Edward, that phrase which meets us on every page of Domesday, was the last season of good law in the land; should any man claim rights or privileges by prescription he must plead that they had been allowed and accepted under the last king of the old native line. Just as his subjects cried for “the law of King Edward” as the system of government under which they wished to live, so to the king himself these words expressed the test of legality to be applied to whatever rights claimed an origin anterior to his own personal grant. Rarely does Domesday refer to any of the kings before Edward; the Conqueror’s reign has already become the limit of legal memory; never, except by inadvertence, does it refer to the reign of Harold by name. And then in the second place he who would prove the lawful possession of his land must rely in the last resort upon “the writ and seal” of King William. The whole tenor of Domesday seems to imply that all Englishmen as such were held to have been disinherited by the result of the Conquest. Save for the lands of God and his Saints all England had become the king’s; the disposition he might make of his vast inheritance depended solely upon his own will. If he should please to allow to an Englishman the possession of his own or others’ lands, this was a matter of pure favour, and Thurkill of Warwick and Colswegn of Lincoln could put forward no other title than that which secured their fiefs to the Norman barons around them. But then comes in that principle which is above all distinctive of the Norman Conquest—if William stepped by lawful possession into the exact position of the native kings who were before him, so each of his barons in each of his estates must be the exact legal successor, the “heir,” of the Englishman whom he supplanted. The term used by Domesday to express the relationship of the old and the new landlord is very suggestive: the Englishman is the Norman’s _antecessor_, a word which we only translate inadequately by the colourless “predecessor.” We are probably right in calling the Norman Conquest the one catastrophic change in our social history, but the change as yet was informal; it went on beneath the surface of the law; the terminology of Domesday testifies to the attempt to bring the social conditions of 1086 under formulas which would be appropriate to the time of King Edward. When we are told that there were ten manors in such a vill in the time of King Edward, or that there used to be twenty villeins in a certain manor but now there are only sixteen, we may gravely doubt whether the terms “manor” and “villein” were known in England before the Conquest, and yet we may recognise that the employment of these words in relation to the Confessor’s day is of itself very significant. King William as King Edward’s lawful heir wishes consistently to act as such so far as may be; his scribes in their terminology affect a continuity of social history, which does not exist.

Perhaps nothing could be more illustrative of these principles than a few extracts taken from the Lincolnshire “Clamores”—the statement of the various disputed claims which had come to light in the course of the survey, and the record of their settlement by the Domesday jurors. The following are taken at random in the order in which they are entered in Domesday:

“Candleshoe wapentake says that Ivo Taillebois ought to have that which he claims in Ashby against Earl Hugh; namely one mill and one bovat of land, although the soke belongs to Grainham.

“Concerning the two carucates of land which Robert Dispensator claims against Gilbert de Gand in Screnby through Wiglac, his predecessor [_antecessor_], the wapentake says that the latter only had one carucate, and the soke of that belonged to Bardney. But Wiglac forfeited that land to his lord Gilbert, and so Robert has nothing there according to the witness of the Riding.

“In the same Screnby Chetelbern claims one carucate against Gilbert de Gand through Godric [but the jurors], say that he only had half a carucate, and the soke of that belonged to Bardney, and Chetelbern’s claim is unjust according to the wapentake, because his predecessor forfeited the land. The men of Candleshoe wapentake with the agreement of the whole Riding say that Siwate and Alnod and Fenchel and Aschel equally divided their father’s land among themselves in King Edward’s time, and held it so that if there were need to serve with the king and Siwate could go the other brothers assisted him. After him the next one went and Siwate and the next assisted him and so on with regard to all, but Siwate was the king’s man.”

In these passages the actual working of the Domesday Inquest is very clearly displayed. In the first place we see that all really turns on those ancient local assemblies the wapentake and hundred courts. Not only do they supply the requisite information through the representative jurors to the commissioners, but it is by their verdict that the latter are guided in their pronouncements upon disputed claims. If Ivo Taillebois receives his seisin of that mill and oxgang of land in Ashby it will be because the wapentake court of Candleshoe has assigned it to him rather than the earl of Chester. This simple procedure has a great future before it; if the king can compel the local courts to give a sworn verdict to his officers, so in specific cases he can of his grace permit private persons to use these bodies in the same way. The Domesday Inquest is the noble ancestor of the Plantagenet “assizes,” and through them, by direct descent, of the jury in its perfected form. But the action of the local courts becomes doubly significant when we remember their composition. The affairs of the greatest people in the land, of the king himself, are being discussed by very humble men, men, as we have seen, carefully chosen so as to represent Frenchmen and Englishmen alike. Nothing is a more wholesome corrective of exaggerated ideas as to the severance and hostility of the two races than a due remembrance of the part which both played in the Domesday Inquest.

Equally important is the respect which is clearly being paid in the above discussions to the strict forms of law, of English law in particular. No very knotty problems arise in the course of our simple extract, but we can see that a Norman baron will often have to stand or fall in his claim according to the interpretation of some old English legal doctrine. We know from other sources that the intricacies of the rules which in King Edward’s time determined the rights and status of free men became a thing of wonder to the men of the twelfth century, and we may suspect that the Domesday commissioners were frequently tempted to cut these obsolete knots. But so far as is practicable, they are maintaining that the Norman must succeed to just the legal position of his English “antecessor”; Robert the Dispensator cannot claim the land which has been forfeited by Wiglac to Gilbert de Gand.

Lastly, one is always tempted to forget that twenty years had passed between the death of King Edward and the making of the Domesday Survey. Our attention is naturally and rightly concentrated on the great change which substituted a Norman for an English land-holding class, so that we are apt to ignore the struggles which must have taken place among the conquerors themselves in the division of the spoil; struggles none the less real because, so far as we can see, they were carried on under the forms of law. Death and confiscation had left their mark upon the Norman baronage; the personnel of Domesday Book would have been very different if the record had been drawn up a dozen years earlier. But, even apart from this, it was inevitable that friction should arise within the mass of Norman nobility as it settled into its position in the conquered land. The Domesday Inquest afforded a grand opportunity for the statement and adjustment of conflicting claims, and examples may generally be found in every few pages of Domesday Book.

The last point in connection with the survey which calls for special notice is the origin of the name by which it is universally known. “Domesday Book” is clearly no official title; it is a popular appellation, of which the meaning is not quite free from doubt. Officially, the record was known as the “Book of Winchester,” from the city in which it was kept; it was cited under that name when the abbot of Abingdon, in the reign of Henry I., proved by it the exemption of certain of his estates from the hundred court of Pyrton, Oxfordshire. The best explanation of its other, more famous name may be given in the words of Richard Fitz Neal, writing under Henry II.:

“This book is called by the natives, ‘Domesdei,’ that is by a metaphor the day of judgment, for as the sentence of that strict and terrible last scrutiny may by no craft be evaded, so when a dispute arises concerning those matters which are written in this book, it is consulted, and its sentence may not be impugned nor refused with safety.”[339]

On the whole this explanation probably comes near the truth. We may well believe that to the common folk of the time, this stringent, searching inquiry into their humble affairs may have seemed very suggestive of the last great day of reckoning. Viewed in this light the name becomes invested with an interest of its own; it is an abiding witness to the reluctant wonder aroused by the making of this, King William’s greatest work and our supreme record.

Genealogical Tables

TABLE A

_THE DUCAL HOUSE OF NORMANDY_

‘Rollo’ │ William I. │ Richard I. │ ┌──────────────┬──────┼──────────┬────────┬───────────┬───┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Richard II. = Judith │ Malger William Mahaut = Odo II.│Hawise = Geoffrey I │ of Brittany │ count of count of │ of Brittany │ │ Mortain of Eu Blois │ ↓ │ │ │ │ │ (Table B) │ │ │ │ ┌───────────┘ │ Robert, │ │ Emma = Ethelred II. │ archbishop William │ ┌─────┴──────┐ │ of Rouen ‘the │ Alfred the Edward the │ │ Warling’ │ Etheling Confessor │ │ │ │ Ralf de Wacy └─────────────────────┐ ┌──┴─────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬──────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Richard Robert I. │ Malger William │ III. │ Adeliz = Reginald, archbishop count │ Nicholas │ count of of Rouen of Arques │ abbot of │ Burgundian │ St. Ouen │ Palatinate ┌───────┼──────────┐ ┌────┴──────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ Guy of Robert William Hugh, bishop William II. Adeliz Brionne count ‘Busac’ of Lisieux │ ↓ of Eu Robert II. (Table C.) nf- .ll .pb

TABLE B .ti 0 _THE COUNTS OF BRITTANY_ .ll 80 .nf l Geoffrey I. = Hawise of Normandy †1008 │ │ ┌──────────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Alan III. †1040 Éon, count of Penthièvre │ †1079 │ ┌─────────────────-┼─────────────┐ ┌──────┴───────┐ │ │ │ │ │ Conan II. Geoffrey ‘Grenonat’ Hawise = Hoel, Brian, Alan, o. s. p. 1066 (claimant 1075) │ count of earl of Richmond earl of │ Cornouaille Richmond │ †1084 │ Alan Fergent = Constance †1119 of Normandy

TABLE C

_THE DESCENDANTS OF ARLETTE_

Robert of Normandy = Arlette = Herlwin de Conteville │ | ┌─────────┘ └────────────┐ │ │ ┌─────────┴───────┐ ┌────────────┼──────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ William Adeliz = Enguerrand Odo, bishop Robert, Muriel count of Ponthieu of Bayeux count of │ Mortain ┌────────────────┴──────────┐ │ │ Adeliz = Eudes, count of Judith = Waltheof, earl of │ Champagne │ Northampton │ │ Stephen, count of Maud = David I. Aumâle king of Scots (claimant for England, 1095) ↓

TABLE D

_THE COUNTS OF MAINE_

Hugh II. │ ┌─────────┴──────────────┐ │ │ Hugh III. Herbert ‘Baccon’ │ (regent of Maine, 1036–1040) │ Herbert I. ‘Eveille-chien’ †1035 │ │ ┌──────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Hugh IV. Biota = Walter of Mantes †1051 count of the Vexin │ Français │ ┌───┴──────────┬─────────────────────────┬───────────┐ │ │ │ │ Herbert II. Gersendis = Azo, marquis Margaret Paula = John de la Flèche †1063 │ of Liguria (betrothed to │ Robert of Normandy) │ Hugh (claimant in 1073)

TABLE E

_THE COUNTS OF THE VEXIN_

Walter II. │ ┌──────────────────┴─────────────────────┐ │ │ Drogo = Goda, d. of Ethelred II. Ralf II., count of Valois │ │ ┌─────────┴──────────────────┐ Ralf III., count of Valois │ │ │ and the Vexin Walter III. = Biota of Maine Ralf, earl of Hereford │ o.s.p. 1063 │ Simon de Crepy o.s.p.

TABLE F

_THE SUCCESSION IN 1066_

Richard I. of Normandy Swegn Forkbeard Thorgils Sprakalegg │ │ │ ┌─────────┴──────────────────────────┐ ┌────┴───┐ ┌────┴────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ Richard II. Ælfgifu=(1)Ethelred II.=(2)Emma = Cnut Estrith=Ulf Gytha=Godwin │ │ │ │viceroy │ │ │ │ │of Norway │ │ │ │ │ │ Robert I. Edmund Ironside Edward Swegn Estrithson Harold II. │ │ the Confessor │ │ William Edward the Etheling │ Edgar the Etheling

TABLE G

_THE COUNTS OF FLANDERS_

Baldwin IV. †1036 │ ┌─────────────────────────────┴───────────┐ │ │ Baldwin V. = Adela of Tostig = Judith = Welf, duke of Bavaria †1067 │ France earl of Northumbria │ ┌──────┴───────────────────┬────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Baldwin VI. = Richildis, Robert = Gertrude, widow Matilde = William †1070 │ heiress ‘le Frison’ of Florence I. │ duke of │ of Hainault †1093 │ count of Holland │ Normandy │ │ │ ┌────────┴────────┐ ┌────┴──────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ Arnulf Baldwin Robert II. Adela = Cnut, king Robert (inherited (inherited †1111 │ of Denmark duke of Flanders) Hainault) │ │ Normandy │ Charles ‘le Bon’ | Baldwin VII. †1127 William †1119 (claimant in 1127)

TABLE H

_THE EARLS OF NORTHUMBRIA_

(1)Ecgfryth = Uhtred = (2)Ælfgifu, daughter earl of Northumbria of Ethelred II. †1016 │ Crinan │ lay abbot of │ (1) (1) 2 Dunkeld ┌────────────────┴──┬────────┬────────┐ ┌─────┴────┐ Ealdred Eadwulf Gospatric Ealdgyth = Maldred(2)│ earl of Bernicia earl of †1064 │ │ †circ. 1038 Bernicia │ Duncan(1) │ †1041 Gospatric king of ┌───┴──────┐ │ earl of Scots │ │ │ Bernicia †1040 Ligulf = Ealdgyth Ælflœd=Siward Oswulf 1067–1068 │ (favourite of │ earl of earl of 1069–1072 Malcolm III. Bishop Walcher) │ North- Bernicia ↓ king of †1080 │ umbria †1067 Scots ↓ │ †1055 1057–1093 │ ↓ Walther earl of Bernicia Huntingdon ↓

End Matter

INDEX

A

Abernethy, 323, 325 Abingdon, chronicle of, 178 —— knight service of, 449 —— Ethelhelm, abbot of, 399, 450 —— history of, 416, 494 Adeliz, countess of Ponthieu, 64, 234 Ælfwold, abbot of St. Benet of Holme, 173 Agelwig, abbot of Evesham, 333 Agriculture, system of, 479, 480 Aire, river, passage of, 278, 279 Alan III., count of Brittany, 66, 72, 137, 341 Alan Fergant, duke of Brittany, 342 Alan, earl of Richmond, 200, 324, 361 Aldreth, Cambridgeshire, 298, 300 Alençon, 63, 91, 299 —— siege of, 94, 95 Alfred the Etheling, 47, 51 Alfred, King, 6, 12, 22, 25, 179, 394 Algar, English prisoner, 372 Alney, treaty of, 214 Ambrières, 118, 119 Angevin succession war, 126, 127, 130, 160, 304 Anjou, county of, 66, 88, 126, 127 —— counts of, _see_ Fulk Nerra, Fulk le Rechin, Geoffrey Martel, Geoffrey le Barbu. Anselm of Aosta, 42, 43 Ansgar the Staller (Esegar), 224, 238, 241, 424 Apulia, 97, 99 Aquitaine, 141 Archil, Northumbrian thegn, 265, 268 Argentan, 78, 79 Arlette, mistress of Robert I., 63, 64, 234 Army, the feudal, 456 —— —— numbers of, 450, 451 —— —— at Hastings, 196 Arnold, bishop of le Mans, 310, 312 Arnulf, son of Baldwin VI., of Flanders, 305, 306 Arnulf, count of Flanders, 27 Arques, county of, 101 —— siege of, 102-105 —— _see_ William, count of. Arthur of Brittany, 233 Arundel, castle of, 428 Arve, valley of, 76, 77, 123 Asbiorn, Earl, 271, 285, 291, 321 Ascelin, son of Arthur, 375 Assessment, principles of, 466-472 Athelstan, King, 19, 27, 28 Aubrey, earl of Northumbria, 353 Aversa, battle of, 106 Avranchin, the, 25, 138 Axholme, Isle of, 275 Azo, marquis of Liguria, 308

B

Baile Hill, York, 269 Baldwin, sheriff of Devon, 257, 422 Baldwin V., count of Flanders, 91, 105, 106, 108, 109, 126, 160, 171, 172, 305 Baldwin VI., count of Flanders, 305 Baldwin, son of Count Baldwin VI., 305, 307 Bamburgh, 317 Barking, 227, 233, 238 Battle, abbey of, 197, 397 Baudri de Guitry, 372, 373 Bavinkhove, battle of, 306 Bayeux, 102, 115 —— bishop of, _see_ Odo. Beaumont (Maine), castle of, 313, 360 Beaurain, 154 Beauvoisis, 112 Bec, schools of, 41-43 Bedfordshire, assessment of, 467-469 Bellême, county of, 39, 91, 105, 128, 429 —— _see_ Mabel of. _Beneficium_, 32 “Beorcham,” 221 Berengar of Tours, 42 Berkhamstead, Little, 222 Bertha of Blois, 130 Bessin, the, 25, 81, 121 Beverley, church of, 385 Bilsdale-in-Cleveland, 282 Biota of Mantes, 129, 131, 136 Blanchelande, peace of, 314-316, 344-346 Bleddyn, king of Gwynedd, 248, 262, 276 Blois, county of, 38, 66, 67 —— _see_ Odo II., Theobald III., counts of. Blyth (Notts), 441 Bonjen, valley of, 361 Bonneville, council of, 180 Border, the Scotch, 317, 318, 323, 324 Boscherville, 351 Brand, abbot of Peterborough, 228, 290 Bresle, river, 24 Breteuil, 117 —— laws of, 117 Bretford (Wilts), 67 Brian of Penthievre, 270, 277, 324 Brill (Bucks), 420 Brionne, siege of, 85 —— county of, 114 Bristol, 258 Brittany, 66, 138, 141 —— volunteers from, 168 —— —— at Hastings, 200, 201 —— _see_ Alan, Conan, Hoel, counts of. Broken Tower, the, 217 Buckingham, earldom of, 167 “Burh-bot,” 300 Burton-on-Trent, 420

C

Caen, 122, 351, 374, 375, 401 —— abbey of, Holy Trinity, 180, 358 —— —— St. Stephen’s, 42, 180 —— burial of William I. at, 374 Cambridge, 266, 298, 333 Canterbury, 217 —— _see_ Anselm, Dunstan, Lanfranc, Robert of Jumièges, Stigand, archbishops of. Capetian House, 360 —— in alliance with Normandy, 29, 33, 67, 68, 73, 79 Capital punishment, 87, 340 Cardiff, castle of, 354 Cardigan, 429 Carham, battle of, 317 Carisbrooke, castle of, 356 Carlisle, 323 Carolingian Empire, 1 Carolingian House, in alliance with Normandy, 26, 27, 29 Carucates, 470, 471 Castles, in England, 242, 243, 263, 264, 451-453 Castle-guard, 451, 452 Celibacy, clerical, enforcement of, 396, 397 Champagne, county of, 67, 141; _see_ also Blois. Chancellor, the, 418 Chancery, the royal, 53 Charles III., king of West Franks, 25, 26 Chartres, schools of, 41 Chateauneuf, castle of, 346 Chaumont, 368 Chester, 276, 281, 283-285, 388, 429 —— earldom of, 167, 425, 429-431 —— _see_ Gerbod, Hugh, earls of. Christian, bishop of Aarhus, 271 Cicely, daughter of William I., 180 Claim of fealty, papal, 404, 405 Claire-sur-Epte, treaty of, 24, 25, 26, 40, 79 “Clamores” in Lincolnshire Domesday, 497, 498 Clarendon, constitutions of, 357 Cleveland, 176, 282, 317, 320 Clifford’s Tower (York), 265 Cluny, abbey of, 379 Cluniac movement, 40, 385-387 Cnut, king of England and Denmark, 5, 15, 18, 44, 65, 147, 150-152, 211, 253 Cnut II. (Saint), king of Denmark, 271, 334, 335, 363, 365

Coesnon, river, 139 _Commune concilium_, 408-415 Conan, duke of Brittany, 67, 137-140 Confiscation, the great, 235-240 Constance, widow of King Robert I., 68 “Consul Palatinus,” 427 Copsige, earl of Northumbria, 233, 247 Corbie, 307 Cornwall, 259, 260 Cotentin, the, 25, 81, 101, 172 Councils, ecclesiastical, 392, 393 Court, the shire, 421, 422, 433, 437, 442 —— the hundred, 393, 394, 433, 442, 444 Coutances, church of St. Mary at, 137 —— _see_ Geoffrey, bishop of. Crowland, abbey of, 288, 290, 338 Cumberland, 317, 318, 321, 322 Curia, the papal, 55, 163, 164, 377 Curia Regis, 416, 419, 456

D

Danegeld, 460, 465, 466 Danelaw, 9, 10, 12, 24, 253, 272, 273 Dean, forest of, 272 Denmark, kings of, _see_ Cnut I. and II., Gorm, Harold Blue-Tooth, Harold Hein, Swegen Forkbeard, Swegen Estrithson. Derwent (Yorkshire), 178 Dieppe, 251 Dinan, siege of, 140 Dive, river, 81 —— —— estuary of, 102, 121, 182, 183 —— Church of Notre Dame at, 245 Dol, 138, 139, 341 Domesday Book, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 33, 57, 117, 173, 234, 235, 237-240, 257, 273, 280, 325, 327, 345, 367, 392, 411, 414, 415, 430, 457-501 —— Inquest, 437, 485, 486, 498, 499 —— arrangement of, 489-493 —— composition of, 486, 487 —— indefiniteness of, 482-485 —— legal theory underlying, 494-498 —— meaning of name, 500, 501 Domfront, 91-95, 101 Donald, son of Malcolm III., 323 Dover, 50, 156, 216, 217, 249-251 Downton (Wilts), 355, 420 Dreux, county of, 76, 77 Drogo, count of the Vexin, 367 Droitwich, 420 Dunbar, 317-325 Duncan, king of Scots, 318 Dunstan, Archbishop, 18, 20, 381, 406 Durham, 268, 324, 334 —— modern county of, 321

E

Eadgyth, wife of Edward the Confessor, 218 —— marriage of, 144 Eadmer, historian, 382 Eadric Streona, earl of Mercia, 15, 18, 45, 248 Eadric the Wild, 228, 248, 276 Ealdgyth, wife of Harold II., 171 Ealdred, archbishop of York, 71, 157, 221, 225, 230, 260, 263, 275, 384-387, 390 Ealdwulf II., earl of Northumbria, 58 Earldoms, the great, 14-17, 46, 424, 425 East Anglia, assessment of, 469, 470 Edgar the Etheling, 148, 151-153, 159, 212, 228, 289, 320, 325 —— elected king, 213 —— submission of, 221 —— accompanies William to Normandy, 244 —— flight of (1068), 262, 265 —— attacks York, 268 —— joins Danish fleet, 273 —— in Scotland, 295 —— final flight of, 321 —— receives offer of Montreuil, 326 —— returns to England, 327 Edgar, king, 9, 20, 394 Edington, battle of, 6 Edith the Swan-necked, 207 Edmund Ironside, 15, 21, 147, 209, 211 Edmund, sheriff of Hertfordshire, 231 Ednoth the Staller, 259 Edred, King, 19 Edward the Confessor, 21, 36, 49, 52, 54, 60-62, 66, 76, 91, 143-147, 331, 411 —— death of, 157 —— ecclesiastical appointments by, 385 Edward the Elder, 7, 19, 26 Edward the Etheling, 147, 148 Edward, sheriff of Wiltshire, 423 Edwin, earl of Mercia, 59, 61, 153, 177, 191-193, 212-215, 227, 230, 234, 412 —— accompanies William I. to Normandy, 244, 245 —— first revolt of, 261-264 —— flight and death of, 295-297 Edwy, king of Wessex, 8, 20 Elf, the, treaty of, 48 Ely, abbey of, 288, 432 —— Domesday Inquest relating to, 459 —— Isle of, 290-300, 321 —— private jurisdiction over, 440, 441 Emma, wife of Ethelred II., 29, 30, 31, 47, 65, 143 Emma, wife of Earl Ralf, 330, 334 English sheriffs, 424 Enguerrand, count of Ponthieu, 64, 76 —— death of, 104, 111, 234 Eon, count of Penthievre, 119, 200, 324 Epte, river, 24, 68 Eric, earl of Northumbria, 45 Eric of Upsala, 2 Esegar, _see_ Ansgar. Estrith, sister of Cnut, 65 Ethelmer, bishop of Elmham, 389 Ethelnoth, Kentish thegn, 244 Ethelred II., 8, 15, 18, 20, 29, 30, 44, 143 Ethelric, bishop of Selsey, 389 Ethelwine, bishop of Durham, 266, 268, 389 Ethelwold, prior of Peterborough, 292, 295 Eu, 24, 105 —— county of, 100 —— _see_ Robert, William, counts of. Eudo fitz Hubert (de Rye), 418 Eustace, count of Boulogne, 50, 169, 228, 231, 249, 250, 300 Evesham, abbey of, 281 —— _see_ Agelwig, abbot of. Evreux, county of, 70 —— _see_ William, count of. Exeter, 30, 252, 254, 259, 277, 454 —— revolt of, 253-257, 267 —— see of, 383 Exning, 330, 332, 340

F

Fagadun, 334 Falaise, 63, 78, 121 Falkirk, 350 Feasts, 409 Fécamp, 39, 71, 76, 245, 401 —— council at, 70, 71 Feigned flight at Hastings, 203-205 Fenland, 288 Feudal rights, 34 _Feudum_, 32 Five Boroughs, 7 —— assessment of, 472, 473 Flanders, county of, 27, 38, 52, 108, 109, 141, 160, 305-307 —— volunteers from, 168 —— visited by Robert Curthose, 346, 348 —— _see_ Baldwin V. and VI., Robert, Arnulf, counts of. Flat Holme, the, 258 Fleet, the English, 173, 174, 178 —— the Norman, 165-168 Fresnay, castle of, 312, 313, 360 Fulford, battle of, 177 Fulk the Lame, 167 Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou, 71-89 Fulk le Rechin, count of Anjou, 127, 304, 308, 312-315 Fyrd, the English, 255, 323, 333, 341, 445, 454, 455

G

Gainsborough, 272 Gamel, the son of Orm, 59 Gateshead, 352 Gatinais, the, 127 Gebuin, Archbishop of Lyons, 404 Geoffrey Alselin, 238 Geoffrey “le barbu,” count of Anjou, 127 Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, 128, 225, 277, 384, 400, 408, 409, 454 Geoffrey “Grenonat,” count of Rennes, 341 Geoffrey de Mandeville, 238, 241, 424 Geoffrey “Martel,” count of Anjou, 89, 112, 116, 160, 304 —— war of 1048, 90-95 —— refrains from war of 1054, 112-116 —— attacks Ambrières, 118, 119 —— count of Maine, 118, 128, 130 —— death, 126 Geoffrey of Mayenne, 118-120, 308, 310-312 Gerald the Seneschal, 167 Gerbevoi, castle of, 347, 360 —— battle of, 347, 348 Gersendis of Liguria, 308, 311 Gertrude of Holland, 305 Gervaise, bishop of Le Mans, 128 Gherbod, earl of Chester, 429, 430 Gilbert, count of Brionne, 72, 74, 76 Gilbert Crispin, castellan of Tillières, 77 Gilbert of Ghent, 170 Gilbert Maminot, bishop of Lisieux, 369 Gilbert, Bishop Walcher’s deputy, 351, 352 Gloucester, 51, 415, 453 Gloucestershire, 426 Godwine, earl of Wessex, 16, 18, 47, 49, 50, 51, 109, 145, 146, 156 —— House of, 319 Gorm, king of Denmark, 2 Gospatric, Northumbrian thegn, 59 Gospatric, earl of Northumbria, 268, 319, 320 —— appointed earl (1068), 248 —— flight of (1068), 262 —— joins Danish army, 273 —— makes submission, 282 —— harries Cumberland, 321, 322 —— deposition of, 325 Gratian, 394 Grimbald de Plesis, 82, 87 Guildford, 47 Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, 401 Gunhild, daughter of Earl Godwine, 258 Guntard, abbot of Jumièges, 370 Gustavus Vasa, 4 Guthrum of East Anglia, 6, 24 Guy of Brionne, 71 —— revolt of, 80-88 Guy-Geoffrey of Aquitaine, 105, 111 Guy, count of Ponthieu, 111, 115, 154, 183 Gyrth, earl of East Anglia, 57, 202 Gytha, wife of Earl Godwine, 150, 207, 257, 258

H

Hacon, earl of Worcestershire, 45 Hacon, Danish earl, 334 Hainault, county of, 305 Hamon de Thorigny, 82 Hamon, viscount of Thouars, 223 Harold “Blue Tooth,” king of Denmark, 45 Harold “Hein,” king of Denmark, 271, 335, 363 Harold I., king of England, 47 Harold II., king of England, 49, 52, 56, 57, 257, 302 —— joins in Breton war, 139, 155 —— earl of Wessex, 147 —— continental tour of, 148, 149 —— designs upon English throne, 148 —— visit to Normandy and oath, 154-157 —— becomes king of England, 157-160 —— refuses papal arbitration, 161, 163 —— marriage of, 171 —— campaign of Stamfordbridge, 177-179 —— campaign of Hastings, 191-194 —— battle of Hastings, 194-205 —— death, 205, 206 —— character, 208-210 —— illegitimate sons of, 258, 259, 270 Harold Fair Hair, king of Norway, 2 Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, 3, 48, 49, 175-179, 183, 253, 273 Harthacnut, 46, 48 Hastings, battle of, 54, 133, 194-206, 286 —— castle of, 187 —— base of Norman army, 188, 195, 211 Hayling Island, grant of, 231 Helie de la Flèche, 362 Henry de Beaumont, 264, 408, 451 Henry IV., emperor, 160 Henry I., king of England, 219, 233, 260, 369, 370, 419 Henry II., king of England, 348, 419, 423 Henry, son of Henry II., 349 Henry de Ferrers, 169, 408 Henry I., king of France, 34, 37, 68, 71, 77, 100, 160 —— guardian of William, 74 —— raids in Normandy, 78 —— at Val-es-dunes, 83-85 —— war with Anjou, 90 —— supports William of Arques, 103, 104 —— invades Normandy, 110-117 —— retreat of, 116 —— defeated at Varaville, 121, 122 —— character of reign, 125 —— death, 126 —— grants Vexin to Robert I. of Normandy, 367 Herbert “Bocco,” regent of Maine, 129 Herbert “Eveille-Chien,” count of Maine, 129 Herbert II., count of Maine, 118, 130, 131 Hereford, earldom of, 49, 53, 167, 243, 328, 329, 342, 425-427 —— castle of, 248 —— county of, 276 Hereward, 289-295, 297-303, 316 Herlwin, abbot of Bec, 41 Herlwin of Conteville, 64 Herlwin, knight, 374 Hidage, the Tribal, 462, 463 —— the Burghal, 463, 464 —— the county, 465 Hides, 460, 461 Hiesmois, county of, 70, 78, 83, 105, 121 Hildebrand, _see_ Pope Gregory VII. Hoel, duke of Brittany, 140, 314, 341, 342 Holderness, 176, 320 Housecarles, 445 Hoveringham (Notts), Domesday description of, 476-482 Hubert, papal legate, 404 Hubert of Fresnay, 312 Hubert, viscount of Maine, 360-363 Hugh fitz Baldric, 423 Hugh de Chateauneuf, 346 Hugh, earl of Chester, 78, 167, 356, 430, 433 Hugh of Gournai, 113 Hugh de Grentmaisnil, 243, 348 Hugh of Liguria, 308 Hugh IV., count of Maine, 118, 129 Hugh the Great, count of Paris, 26 Hugh de Montfort, 113, 167, 243, 249 Hugh de Montgomery, 428 Hugh of Sillé, 310, 311, 313 Humber, the, 58 Humphrey de Tilleul, 243 Huntingdon, 191, 266 —— earldom of, 329

I

Iceland, 3 Ingelric the Priest, 232 Ingibiorg, wife of Malcolm III., 323 Ipswich, 271

J

Jersey, 66 John, king of England, 162 John de la Flèche, 308, 313-315 John, archbishop of Rouen, 246 Judith, wife of Earl Tostig, 109 Judith, wife of Earl Waltheof, 234, 332, 337, 342 Jumièges, 39, 245 Junquené, archbishop of Dol, 76, 138 Jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, 386, 387

K

Kent, earldom of, 167, 425, 431 Knight service, institution of, 444, 446-451 Knights’ fee, 446, 447

L

La Flèche, siege of, 314 —— _see also_ Helie and John. Land-loan, 33 Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, 214, 358, 389 —— head of school of Bec, 41 —— opposes William’s marriage, 107 —— abbot of St. Stephen’s, Caen, 180 —— visits Rome (1067), 245, 246 —— relations with Roger of Hereford, 328, 329 —— conduct in 1075, 334-336 —— suggests arrest of Bishop Odo, 357 —— letter to, 371 —— policy as archbishop, 390-397 —— dispute with the Curia, 403 Law, Old English, 10, 499 —— canon, 394 Leicester, 264 —— earldom of, 167 Le Mans, 127, 132-134, 309-313 —— see of, 127-129 —— _see_ Arnold, Gervase, Vulgrin, bishops of. Leobwine, favourite of Bishop Walcher, 352 Leofgar, bishop of Hereford, 384 Leofric, earl of Mercia, 18, 45, 49, 145 —— House of, 262, 296, 319 Leofric, abbot of Peterborough, 228 Leofwine, Earl, son of Godwine, 57, 202 Leofwine, bishop of Lichfield, 230 Lewes, priory of, 397 Ligulf, Northumbrian thegn, 352 Lijmfiord, 364 Lillebonne, council of (1066), 165, 170, 172, 408 —— —— (1080), 351, 406 Lincoln, 187, 191, 266, 273 Lindsey, 173, 275, 276, 278 Lisois de Monasteriis, 278, 279 London, 133, 192 —— citizens of, 153, 224 —— citizens of, charter to, 240 —— Tower of, 227 —— Bridge, 57, 219 Lothian, 317, 323, 325 Louis d’Outremer, 9, 28, 29 Lugg, river, 248 Lyting, bishop of Worcester, 384

M

Mabel of Bellême, 39, 120 Macbeth, king of Scots, 318 Magnus I., king of Norway, 46, 48, 49 Magnus Bareleg, king of Norway, 4 Maine, 39, 88, 92, 118-120, 160 —— revolt of (1072), 307-316 —— revolt of (1084), 359-362 —— baronage of, 129, 308 —— _see_ Hugh, Herbert, counts of. Malcolm I., king of Scots, 317 Malcolm II., king of Scots, 317, 318 Malcolm III., king of Scots, 173, 265, 266, 317-323, 350 —— marriage of, 322 Malger, archbishop of Rouen, 71 —— deposition of, 106, 107 Malger, count of Mortain, 70 Malmesbury, abbey of, 289 —— schools of, 398 Mantes, 112, 368, 369 Margaret of Maine, 130, 131, 136 Margaret, wife of Malcolm III., 322 Marleswegen, sheriff of Lincoln, 192, 229, 262, 268, 273, 321 Marmontice, abbey of, 181, 397 Matilda, the empress, 163, 233 Matilda, wife of William I., 105-110, 143 —— contributes to the fleet, 167 —— regent of Normandy (1066), 181, 241 —— regent of Normandy (1068), 251 —— regent of Normandy (1069), 269 —— coronation of, 260, 261 —— assists Robert her son in exile, 346 —— death and character, 358, 359 Mauritius, archbishop of Rouen, 42, 245 Maxines, abbey of, 306 Mayenne, castle of, 134 Monasteries, foundation of, 380 Monasticism, in Normandy, 40 —— revival of, in England, 397-400 Mons, 306 Montacute (Somerset), siege of, 277 Montgomery (Normandy), castle of, 67, 72 Montgomery (England), castle of, 427 —— _see_ Hugh, Roger, William de. Montlouis, battle of, 89, 90 Montreuil-sur-Mer, 326, 347 Mora, the, 167, 185 Morcar, earl of Northumbria, 59, 60, 153, 171, 177, 191-193, 212-215, 227, 261, 319, 372, 412 —— accompanies William to Normandy, 244, 245 —— first revolt of, 261-264 —— flight to Ely, 295, 296 —— imprisonment of, 299 Morecambe Bay, 265 Mortain, _see_ Malger, Robert, William, counts of. Mortemer, campaign and battle of, 114, 115, 183, 367 Moulins, 105, 111

N

Nantes, county of, 137 Neel de St. Sauveur, 82, 85 Newburn on Tyne, 247 Newcastle on Tyne, 323 —— castle of, founded, 350 Nicæa, 72 Nicholas, abbot of St. Ouen, 71, 167 Normandy, boundaries of, 24, 25 —— condition of (1035), 74, 75 —— condition of (1066), 141 —— dukes of, _see_ Robert I., II., Rollo, Richard I., II., III., William I., II. Northampton, 59, 60 Northamptonshire, 59 —— French barons of, 171 Northumbria, 8, 9, 58, 213, 214, 230, 259, 262, 273, 391 —— revolt of (1065), 59, 60 —— opposition to Harold, 171 —— revolt of (1068), 262, 263 —— revolt of (1069), 273-279 —— harrying of, 279-283, 286, 287 —— earls of, _see_ Aubrey, Copsige, Gospatric, Morcar, Oswulf, Robert de Comines, Robert de Mowbray, Siward, Tostig, Walcher, Waltheof. Norway, kings of, _see_ Harold Fair Hair, Harold Hardrada, Magnus I., II., Olaf (Saint), Olaf Tryggvasson, Olaf Kyrre, and Sigurd. Norwich, 244, 254, 272, 333, 334 Nottingham, 264, 278

O

Oath of Harold, 153-157 Odensee, 364-365 Odo, bishop of Bayeux, 40, 64, 128, 231, 249, 250, 259, 384, 390, 415, 416, 434 —— contributes to the fleet, 166 —— at Hastings, 202 —— joint regent (1067), 243, 246 —— earl of Kent, 423, 431, 433 —— harries Northumberland, 352, 353 —— arrested and imprisoned, 355-358 —— released, 372 Odo, brother of Henry I. of France, 113, 115 Odo II., count of Blois, 68, 77 Oise, river, 68 Olaf (Tryggvasson), king of Norway, 4 Olaf (Saint), king of Norway, 8 Olaf (Kyrre), king of Norway, 363 Olne, river, 85, 122 Ordericus Vitalis, 287, 336, 337, 339, 429 Orkneys, 3, 176 —— Paul and Erling, earls of, 176 Osbern the Seneschal, 72, 76, 427 Osbern, bishop of Salisbury, 401 Ostmen of Dublin, 52 Oswulf, earl of Northumbria, 247, 319 Ouse (Yorkshire), river, 176, 265, 273, 279, 282 Oxford, 60

P

Paula of Maine, 308 Peterborough, abbey of, 288-295 —— abbots of, _see_ Brand, Leofric, Therold. —— knight service due from, 449 Peter’s Pence, 404 Pevensey, 7, 54, 179, 185-187, 226, 244 Philip I., king of France, 160, 304 —— succeeds, 126 —— temporary alliance with Flanders, 307 —— grants Montreuil to Edgar the Etheling, 326 —— supports Breton insurgents, 341 —— supports Robert of Normandy, 347 —— acquires Vexin, 368 —— war of 1087, 368, 369 Poissy, 83 Pontefract, 278, 279 Ponthieu, county of, 183 —— _see_ Enguerrand, Guy, counts of. Pontoise, 368 Pope, Alexander II., 161, 402, 405 —— Benedict X., 389 —— Gregory VII., 162, 357, 358, 402-406 —— Innocent II., 163 —— Innocent III., 162 —— Leo IX., 107 —— Nicholas II., 107 Porlock (Somerset), 54 _Precarium_, the, 32, 33 Private jurisdiction, 35 —— —— after 1066, 438-443 Private war, in Normandy, 35

R

Raimalast, castle of, 346 Ralf of Mantes, earl of Hereford, 49, 53 Ralf III., count of Valois, 368 Ralf de Wacy, 72, 78 Ralf de Wader, earl of East Anglia, 272, 329, 330, 333-335, 341-342 Ramsey, abbey of, 288, 294, 295 Randolf de Brichessart, 81, 85 Redemption of land by English, 234-236 Reginald of Clermont, 113-115 Remigius (Remi), bishop of Lincoln, 167, 401 Rennes, counts of, 137 —— county of, 138 Rheims, General Council of, 106, 107 Rhiwallon of Dol, 138, 139 Rhiwallon, king of Powys, 248 “Ricardenses,” the, 69, 101 Riccall (Yorkshire), 176, 179 Richard I., duke of Normandy, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 379 Richard II., duke of Normandy, 29, 38, 41, 101, 379 Richard III., duke of Normandy, 64 Richard of Hugleville, 103 Richard, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne, 261 Richard, second son of William I., 260 Richildis of Hainault, 305, 306 Richmond, earldom of, 324 Ripon, church of, 385 Rippingdale (Lincolnshire), 290 Robertian House, 25, 27, 29 Robert, duke of Burgundy, 360 Robert de Comines, earl of Northumbria, 267, 268, 319 Robert, count of Eu, 100, 113, 166, 261, 276 Robert “the Frisian,” count of Flanders, 160, 305-307, 326, 346, 363 Robert, bishop of Hereford, 401 Robert of Jumièges, archbishop of Canterbury, 53, 245, 385 Robert, count of Mortain, 64, 166, 259, 260, 261, 276, 277, 414 Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumbria, 353 Robert d’Oilly, 169 Robert, count of Paris, 25 Robert I., duke of Normandy, 34, 37, 63-72, 143, 245, 367 Robert II. (Curthose), duke of Normandy, 130, 136, 181, 233, 260, 404 —— joint regent of Normandy (1068), 251 —— recognised as count of Maine, 314-316 —— revolt of, 345-349 —— character of, 349, 350 —— Scotch expedition of, 350 —— designated heir of Normandy, 371 Robert fitz Richard, castellan of York, 265, 268, 269 Robert, archbishop of Rouen, 70, 75 Robert de Vieux-Pont, 314 Robert, the son of Wymarc, 189, 190 Roche-Mabille, foundation of, 120 Rochester, 219 —— church of, suit relating to, 434-436 —— _see_ Gundulf, bishop of. Roger de Beaumont, 166, 181, 251, 264, 299, 348 Roger de Busli, 441 Roger, earl of Hereford, 372, 408, 426 —— revolt of, 328-335 Roger de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, 39, 120, 166, 261, 287, 314, 348, 358, 408, 425, 427-429, 433 Roger de Toeny, 75 Rollo, duke of Normandy, 24-27, 30 Romney, 215, 216 Rotrou, count of Mortagne, 346 Rouen, 87, 351, 369 —— priory of St. Gervase at, 369, 373 Rudolph of Burgundy, king of West Franks, 26 Rye, 83

S

St. Albans, abbey of, 449 —— schools of, 398 St. Aubin, 103, 234 St. Benet of Holme, abbey of, _see_ Alfwold, abbot. —— knight service due from, 449 St. Davids, visited by William I., 353 St. James, castle of, 138 St. Omer, 258 St. Suzanne, siege of, 359-362, 372 St. Valery, 166, 183, 184 St. Wandville, 39, 68 Saintonge, 88-90, 127 Salisbury, 277, 285 —— oath of, 364-366 —— _see_ Osmund, bishop of. Samson, Queen Matilda’s messenger, 347 Sandwich, 172, 173 Sarthe, valley of, 134, 312 “Sawold,” sheriff of Oxford, 231 Sees, translation of, 391, 392 Seine, valley of, 25, 112 Sheriffs, Norman, 422 —— English, 423 Shrewsbury, 276, 283 —— earldom of, 167, 425, 427, 428 —— _see_ Hugh, Roger, de Montgomery, earls of. Sicily, volunteers from, 168 Sigurd (Jerusalem-farer), king of Norway, 4 Sillé, castle of, 310-313 —— _see_ Hugh of. Simon de Crepy, count of Valois and the Vexin, 368 Siward Barn, 372 Siward, earl of Northumbria, 49, 57, 58, 145, 318, 319 —— House of, 325 Sogne Fiord, 176 Soissons, county of, 100 Somme, estuary of, 183 Sorel, castle of, 346 Southwark, 51, 54, 219 Southwell (Notts), church of, 385 Stafford, 252, 276, 278, 285, 388 Stamford, 191 Stamfordbridge, battle of, 48, 177-179, 187, 189, 192 —— saga of, 176 Stephen, king of England, 163, 219, 249 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, 55, 56, 225, 300 —— submits at Wallingford, 153, 220 —— accompanies William to Normandy, 244 —— deposition of, 389 Subinfeudation, 446-450 Sulung, the, 469 Sussex, devastation of, 188 —— earldom of, 428 —— ports of, 53 Swegen Estrithson, king of Denmark, 160, 253, 255, 270, 271, 290, 291, 294, 334, 335 Swegen Forkbeard, king of Denmark, 4, 15, 44, 46, 272 Swegen, son of Cnut, 46 Swegen, son of Earl Godwine, 49

T

Tactics, 197, 198 Tadcaster, 177, 191 Tapestry, the Bayeux, 166, 201, 202 Taw, river, 270 Tees, river, 58, 282, 317, 320, 323 Telham, 199 Terouenne, 306 Thegns, 238-240, 447, 448 Theobald III., count of Blois, 141 Theodoric, count of Holland, 305 Thomas I., archbishop of York, 390 Thorney, abbey of, 288 Thorold, abbot of Peterborough, 289-291, 295 Thurcytel de Neufmarché, 72 Thurstan, abbot of Ely, 300 Thurstan, abbot of Glastonbury, 399 Thurstan Goz, revolt of, 78 —— Richard, son of, 78, 97 Tillières, 76-78, 117, 123 Title to English crown, 149-153, 232, 233 Tochi (Tokig), son of Outi, 169, 238 Tokig of Wallingford, 348 Tostig, earl of Northumbria, 9, 57-60, 109, 171-179, 319 Tours, schools of, 41 Trade, 53, 65, 109 Treaty of 1054, 116, 117, 130 Truce of God, 36, 380 Tyne, river, 176, 350

U

Ulfketil, abbot of Crowland, 290 Units of assessment, 467-469, 471, 472, 474, 475 Urse d’Abetot, 333, 423, 424

V

Val-es-dunes, battle of, 79, 80, 84, 85, 380 Valognes, 82, 87, 101 Valois, House of, 368 —— _see_ Simon, Ralf, counts of. Value of manors in Domesday, 480-482 Varaville, battle of, 37, 122, 123, 149 Vermandois, county of, 27 Vernon, castle of, 82, 86 Vexin Français, 68, 129, 131, 167 Vire, estuary of, 83 Vulgrin, bishop of Le Mans, 167

W

Walcher of Lorraine, 351 —— bishop of Durham, 324 —— earl of Northumbria, 342, 343 —— murder of, 352, 416 Waleran, brother of Guy, count of Ponthieu, 115 Waleran, count of Meulan, 75 Wales, 432 —— expedition into, 353, 354 Wallingford, 220 Walter Giffard, 102, 167, 408 Walter de Lacy, 333 Walter of Mantes, 129, 131, 135, 368 Walter Tirel, 170 Waltham, minster of, 207 Waltheof, earl of Huntingdon, 60, 231, 261, 295, 302, 345, 414 —— submits at Barking, 234 —— accompanies William to Normandy, 244 —— joins Danish attack on York, 273, 274 —— submits by the Tees, 282 —— created earl of Northumbria, 325 —— disaffection of (1075), 329-332 —— condemnation and execution, 336-340 Warwick, 264 —— earldom of, 167 Watling Street, 13, 420 Wearmouth, 321 Wedmore, treaty of, 25 Westminster, 157, 251, 287, 364 —— abbey of, 225, 260, 261 —— charters relating to, 229, 230 Wharfe, river, 176, 177 Wight, Isle of, 54, 172, 356, 366 Wigod of Wallingford, 169 William, duke of Aquitaine, 119 William, count of Arques, 70, 71, 96 —— revolt of, 101-105 William Busac, 96 —— revolt of, 99, 100 William, count of Eu, 70 William, count of Evreux, 314 William of Jumièges, chronicler, 65, 69, 381 William Malet, 269, 275 William of Malmesbury, historian, 382 William de Montgomery, 72 William, count of Mortain, 97-99 William de Moulins, 314 William I. (Longsword), duke of Normandy, 27, 28 William II., duke of Normandy and king of England, 4, 5, 7, 9, 25, 37, 40, 48, 56; birth of, 63, 64; recognised as heir of Normandy, 70, 71; minority of, 72-80; ward of King Henry I., 73, 74; in war of Tillières, 76-80; suppresses revolt of 1047, 80-88; besieges Brionne, 85, 86; supports Henry I. against Geoffrey Martel, 90; captures Domfront and Alençon, 91-95; banishes William, count of Mortain, 97-99; suppresses revolt of William Busac, 99, 100; suppresses revolt of William of Arques, 101-105; marries Matilda of Flanders, 105-110; resists invasion of 1054, 110-117; concludes peace with King Henry I., 116, 117; founds Breteuil, 117; engages in war of Ambrières, 118-120; founds Roche-Mabille, 120; defeats invasion of 1058, 120-123; wins battle of Varaville, 122, 123; receives commendation of Herbert II. of Maine, 118, 130; invasion and conquest of Maine, 132-135; takes possession of Le Mans, 133, 134; illness of, 136, 137; engages in Breton campaign of 1064, 137-139; relief of Dol and siege of Dinan, 139, 140; position of, at close of 1064, 140-142; first visit to England, 146; claim to English throne, 150-152; receives oath from Harold, earl of Wessex, 153-157; negotiations with foreign powers, 160; submits his cause to the pope, 161-163; gathers an army, 164, 165, 168; and fleet, 165-168; demands fulfilment of Harold’s oath, 170; receives Earl Tostig, 172; preparations for the invasion of England, 180, 181; delayed at the Dive estuary, 182, 183; at St. Valery, 183, 184; voyage to England, 185; lands at Pevensey, 185, 186; builds castles at Pevensey and Hastings, 187, 188; devastations in Sussex, 188; receives a message from Harold, 189, 190; battle of Hastings, 195-206; generalship of, 197, 198; moves out of Hastings to the English position, 199; details of battle, 200-206; causes Harold’s burial on the shore of Hastings, 207; takes quarters at Hastings, 211; march on London, 215-219; burns Southwark, 219, 220; crosses Thames at Wallingford, 220; receives submission of English leaders, 221, 222; receives offer of the crown, 222, 223; dealings with “Esegar” the Staller, 224, 225; coronation, 225, 226; builds Tower of London, 227; extent of his authority 1066–7, 230, 231; at Barking, 227, 233, 234; grants charter to citizens of London, 240, 241; visits Normandy, 241, 243-246; return, 246; suppresses revolt of Exeter, 253-257; progress in Cornwall, 259, 260; at Westminster for Matilda’s coronation, 260; northern campaign of 1068, 262-266; receives submission of Malcolm III., 265, 266; appoints Robert de Comines earl of Northumbria, 267; second visit to York, 269; in forest of Dean, 272; march on Lindsey, 275, 276; at Stafford, 276, 277; at Nottingham, 278; at Pontefract, 278, 279; harrying of Northumbria, 279-281, 286, 287; Christmas feast at York, 282; march to the Tees and return to York, 282, 283; march to Chester, 283-285; agreement with Earl Asbiorn, 285; campaign of Ely, 297-299; relations with Robert the Frisian, 306, 307; suppression of Mancel rising, 312, 313; campaign of La Flèche, 313, 314; concludes peace of Blanchelande, 314-317; relations with Malcolm III., 317-323; treaty of Abernethy, 323; creation of earldom of Richmond, 324; dealings with Edgar the Etheling, 325-327; relations with, and condemnation of, Earl Waltheof, 336-340; engages in Breton war of 1076, 341, 342; last phase of reign, its character, 344, 345; relations with Robert, 345, 346, 348-350; campaign of Gerberoi, 347, 348; movements during 1080, 351; expedition into Wales, 353, 354; arrest of Odo of Bayeux, 355-358; death of Queen Matilda, 358, 359; campaign of St. Suzanne, 359-361; prepares for a Scandinavian invasion, 363, 364; takes Oath of Salisbury, 364-366; last departure from England, 366; campaign of Mantes, 368, 369; mortal injury of, 369; illness of, 370-373; disposition of inheritance, 371; release of prisoners, 372; death, 373; burial, 374, 375; ecclesiastical ideas of, 376-378, 381; reform of English church, 388-402; relations with the Curia, 402, 403; administrative changes introduced by,—_see under_ castles, _Commune Concilium_, _Curia Regis_, earldoms, fyrd, knight service, private jurisdiction, sheriffs, writs; orders taking of Domesday Inquest, 457 William II., king of England, 219, 233, 369, 371 William fitz Osbern, earl of Hereford, 93, 117, 230, 231, 261, 269, 287, 328, 414, 425-427, 433, 492 —— contributes to fleet, 166 —— regent of England, 243, 246, 415 —— death, 306 William Peverel, 451 William of Poitiers, biographer, 90, 381 William, archbishop of Rouen, 403, 404 William de Warenne, 243, 397 Wimund, commander of Moulins, 105 Winchelsea, 251 Winchester, 218, 219, 254, 260, 269, 277, 282, 337, 364, 419 Witanagemot, 17, 20 —— nature of, 410-414 Woodstock (Oxfordshire), 420 Worcestershire, 333, 426 Writs, the king’s, 168, 254, 420, 421 —— early Anglo-Norman, 227-231 Wulf, son of King Harold, 372 Wulfnoth, son of Earl Godwine, 212, 372 Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, 230, 333, 391 Wulfwig, bishop of Dorchester, 232 Wyce, valley of, 354

Y

York, 49, 171, 177, 190, 191, 252, 254, 262-265, 268, 269, 273-275, 279, 282-285 —— church of, 335, 385 —— kingdom of, 7

Footnotes

Advertisements

A Selection from the Catalogue of

G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

Complete Catalogues sent on application

Heroes of the Nations.

----------

A series of biographical studies of the lives and work of a number of representative historical characters about whom have gathered the great traditions of the Nations to which they belonged, and who have been accepted, in many instances, as types of the several National ideals. With the life of each typical character will be presented a picture of the National conditions surrounding him during his career.

The narratives are the work of writers who are recognized authorities on their several subjects, and, while thoroughly trustworthy as history, will present picturesque and dramatic “stories” of the Men and of the events connected with them.

To the Life of each “Hero” will be given one duodecimo volume, handsomely printed in large type, provided with maps and adequately illustrated according to the special requirements of the several subjects.

-------

Nos. 1–32, each $1.50

Half Leather 1.75

No. 33 and following Nos., each (By mail, $1.50, net 1.35)

Half Leather (by mail, $1.75) net 1.60

-------

_For full list of volumes see next page._

HEROES OF THE NATIONS

NELSON. By W. Clark Russell. GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS. By C. R. L. Fletcher. PERICLES. By Evelyn Abbott. THEODORIC THE GOTH. By Thomas Hodgkin. SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. By H. R. Fox-Bourne. JULIUS CÆSAR. By W. Warde Fowler. WYCLIF. By Lewis Sergeant. NAPOLEON. By W. O’Connor Morris. HENRY OF NAVARRE. By P. F. Willert. CICERO. By J. L. Strachan-Davidson. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By Noah Brooks. PRINCE HENRY (OF PORTUGAL) THE NAVIGATOR. By C. R. Beazley. JULIAN THE PHILOSOPHER. By Alice Gardner. LOUIS XIV. By Arthur Hassall. CHARLES XII. By R. Nisbet Bain. LORENZO DE’ MEDICI. By Edward Armstrong. JEANNE D’ARC. By Mrs. Oliphant. CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. By Washington Irving. ROBERT THE BRUCE. By Sir Herbert Maxwell. HANNIBAL. By W. O’Connor Morris. ULYSSES S. GRANT. By William Conant Church. ROBERT E. LEE. By Henry Alexander White. THE CID CAMPEADOR. By H. Butler Clarke. SALADIN. By Stanley Lane-Poole. BISMARCK. By J. W. Headlam. ALEXANDER THE GREAT. By Benjamin I. Wheeler. CHARLEMAGNE. By H. W. C. Davis. OLIVER CROMWELL. By Charles Firth. RICHELIEU. By James B. Perkins. DANIEL O’CONNELL. By Robert Dunlop. SAINT LOUIS (Louis IX. of France). By Frederick Perry. LORD CHATHAM. By Walford Davis Green. OWEN GLYNDWR. By Arthur G. Bradley. HENRY V. By Charles L. Kingsford. EDWARD I. By Edward Jenks. AUGUSTUS CÆSAR. By J. B. Firth. FREDERICK THE GREAT. By W. F. Reddaway. WELLINGTON. By W. O’Connor Morris. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. By J. B. Firth. MOHAMMED. By D. S. Margoliouth. CHARLES THE BOLD. By Ruth Putnam. WASHINGTON. By J. A. Harrison. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. By F. M. Stenton.

Other volumes in preparation are:

MOLTKE. By Spencer Wilkinson. JUDAS MACCABÆUS. By Israel Abrahams. SOBIESKI. By F. A. Pollard. ALFRED THE TRUTHTELLER. By Frederick Perry. FREDERICK II. By A. L. Smith. MARLBOROUGH. By C. W. C. Oman. RICHARD THE LION-HEARTED. By T. A. Archer. WILLIAM THE SILENT. By Ruth Putnam. GREGORY VII. By F. Urquhart.

New York—G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, PUBLISHERS—London

The Story of the Nations.

----------

In the story form the current of each National life is distinctly indicated, and its picturesque and noteworthy periods and episodes are presented for the reader in their philosophical relation to each other as well as to universal history.

It is the plan of the writers of the different volumes to enter into the real life of the peoples, and to bring them before the reader as they actually lived, labored, and struggled—as they studied and wrote, and as they amused themselves. In carrying out this plan, the myths, with which the history of all lands begins, will not be overlooked, though these will be carefully distinguished from the actual history, so far as the labors of the accepted historical authorities have resulted in definite conclusions.

The subjects of the different volumes have been planned to cover connecting and, as far as possible, consecutive epochs or periods, so that the set when completed will present in a comprehensive narrative the chief events in the great STORY OF THE NATIONS; but it is, of course, not always practicable to issue the several volumes in their chronological order.

12^o Illustrated, cloth, each $1.50 Half leather, each 1.75

_For list of volumes see next page_

THE STORY OF THE NATIONS

GREECE. Prof. Jas. A. Harrison. ROME. Arthur Gilman. THE JEWS. Prof. James K. Hosmer. CHALDEA. Z. A. Ragozin. GERMANY. S. Baring-Gould. NORWAY. Hjalmar H. Boyesen. SPAIN. Rev. E. E. and Susan Hale. HUNGARY. Prof. A. Vámbéry. CARTHAGE. Prof. Alfred J. Church. THE SARACENS. Arthur Gilman. THE MOORS IN SPAIN. Stanley Lane-Poole. THE NORMANS. Sarah Orne Jewett. PERSIA. S. G. W. Benjamin. ANCIENT EGYPT. Prof. Geo. Rawlinson. ALEXANDER’S EMPIRE. Prof. J. P. Mahaffy. ASSYRIA. Z. A. Ragozin. THE GOTHS. Henry Bradley. IRELAND. Hon. Emily Lawless. TURKEY. Stanley Lane-Poole. MEDIA, BABYLON, AND PERSIA. Z. A. Ragozin. MEDIÆVAL FRANCE. Prof. Gustave Masson. HOLLAND. Prof. J. Thorold Rogers. MEXICO. Susan Hale. PH[OE]NICIA. George Rawlinson. THE HANSA TOWNS. Helen Zimmern. EARLY BRITAIN. Prof. Alfred J. Church. THE BARBARY CORSAIRS. Stanley Lane-Poole. RUSSIA. W. R. Morfill. THE JEWS UNDER ROME. W. D. Morrison. SCOTLAND. John Mackintosh. SWITZERLAND. R. Stead and Mrs. A. Hug. PORTUGAL. H. Morse-Stephens. THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE. C. W. C. Oman. SICILY. E. A. Freeman. THE TUSCAN REPUBLICS. Bella Duffy. POLAND. W. R. Morfill. PARTHIA. Geo. Rawlinson. JAPAN. David Murray. THE CHRISTIAN RECOVERY OF SPAIN. H. E. Watts. AUSTRALASIA. Greville Tregarthen. SOUTHERN AFRICA. Geo. M. Theal. VENICE. Alethea Wiel. THE CRUSADES. T. S. Archer and C. L. Kingsford. VEDIC INDIA. Z. A. Ragozin. BOHEMIA. C. E. Maurice. CANADA. J. G. Bourinot. THE BALKAN STATES. William Miller. BRITISH RULE IN INDIA. R. W. Frazer. MODERN FRANCE. André Le Bon. THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Alfred T. Story. Two vols. THE FRANKS. Lewis Sergeant. THE WEST INDIES. Amos K. Fiske. THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. Justin McCarthy, M.P. Two vols. AUSTRIA. Sidney Whitman. CHINA. Robt. K. Douglass. MODERN SPAIN. Major Martin A. S. Hume. MODERN ITALY. Pietro Orsi. THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. Helen A. Smith. Two vols. WALES AND CORNWALL. Owen M. Edwards. MEDIÆVAL ROME. Wm. Miller. THE PAPAL MONARCHY. Wm. Barry. MEDIÆVAL INDIA. Stanley Lane-Poole. BUDDHIST INDIA. T. W. Rhys-Davids. THE SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS. Thomas C. Dawson. Two vols. PARLIAMENTARY ENGLAND. Edward Jenks. MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND. Mary Bateson. THE UNITED STATES. Edward Earle Sparks. Two vols. ENGLAND. THE COMING OF PARLIAMENT. L. Cecil Jane. GREECE: EARLIEST TIMES TO A.D. 14. E. S. Shuckburgh. ROMAN EMPIRE, THE, B.C. 29-A.D. 476. By N. Stuart Jones, M.A.

Transcriber’s note

There are a number of editorial oversights wherein external and internal page references are left blank. Where the references could be found, they have been supplied.

87.27 on Waltheof’s case below, page [338.] Supplied. 116.31 See note, page [112] above. Supplied. 136.31 See the table on page [506] Supplied.

The missing page references to De la Borderie’s _Histoire de Bretagne_ on pp. 138 (footnote 89), and 139 (footnote 90) could not be resolved. Nor could the reference to a prior quotation of William of Malmesbury be definitely made (p. 414). These are noted in this text as [missing].

The list of illusatrations includes a reference at p. x.13 to the image of a coin on p. 406, but no image was included in the text.

Footnote 260, on p. 339, had no reference in the text. One has been added at the most likely point in the narrative, given the context.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.

24.14 the orig[i]nal settlers of Normandy Inserted. 26.26 the [enemity] of all his fellow-nobles Obsolete. 40.15 the influence of the g[r]eat Cluniac movement Inserted. 72.20 the s[ei/ie]ge of Montgomery Castle Transposed. 76.13 to see two of Wil[l]iam’s unlucky guardians Inserted. 79.17 inflict gratuit[i]ous injury Removed. 81.30 The B[a/e]ssin and Cotentin Replaced. 129.30 which was de[s]cribed in the last chapter Inserted. 267.16 appointing a No[r]man baron Inserted. 327.18 in peaceable posses[s]ion Inserted. 338.1 the mo[ton/not] of his imprisonment Transposed. 339.7 based his accou[n]t Inserted. 424.21 upon his ag[g]ressive course as sheriff Inserted. 441.4 [“]infangenethef” is the right of trying Inserted. 441.36 a great baron cert[ia/ai]nly Transposed. 455.1 on a level w[i]th the Norman Inserted. 458.6 for the details of government[.] Added. 505.34 Clun[i/y], abbey of, 379 Replaced.