¹ Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 28Google Scholar.

² King, E., ‘Domesday Studies’, History, lviii (1973), p. 407Google Scholar. Galbraith, V. H., Domesday Book: its place in administrative history (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholarwas published after this paper was read.

³ Round, J. H., Feudal England (2nd edn, London, 1964), pp. 17–26Google Scholar; Maitland, F. W., Domesday Book and Beyond (Fontana edn, 1960), pp. 27–8Google Scholar.

⁴ Galbraith, V. H., The Making of Domesday Book (Oxford 1961), pp. 2–54, esp. p. 54Google Scholar.

⁵ Harvey, S., ‘Domesday Book and its Predecessors’, English Historical Review, lxxxvi (1971), pp. 753–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Cartularium Ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. Hearne, T. (Oxford, 1723), p. 288Google Scholar.

⁷ Printed in Douglas, D. C., ‘Some early surveys from the Abbey of Abingdon’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xliv (1929), pp. 623–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ See Searle, W. G., Ingulph and the Historia Croylandensis (Cambridge Antiquarian Soc. Publs., xxvii, 1894), in which the unreliability, and otherwise, of its contents, and its borrowings from sound sources which include Florence of Worcester are analysed, and summarised pp. 206–8Google Scholar.

⁹ Chronicles of Crowland Abbey, ed. de Grey Birch, W. (Wisbech, 1883), pp. 140–41Google Scholar; Rerum Anglicarum Scriptorum Veterum, ed. Fulman, G., i (Oxford, 1684), pp. 79–80Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Printed in Hoyt, R. S., ‘A Pre-Domesday Kentish Assessment List’, Early Medieval Miscellany (Pipe Roll Soc., lxxvi, 1960, new ser. xxxvi, 1962), pp. 189–202Google Scholar, and The Domesday Monachorum of Christchurch, Canterbury, ed. Douglas, D. C. (London, 1944), pp. 99–104Google Scholar; the earlier list, ibid, pp. 80–81. For analysis of texts and relationships cited in this paragraph and for other examples, see Harvey, loc. cit. (n. 5 above).

¹¹ Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. (London, 1886)Google Scholar; cf. Round, Feudal England.

¹² D(omesday) B(ook), i (Record Commission, 1783), fos 379^a–82^d.

¹³ Harvey, , op. cit., (n. 5 above), pp. 761–63Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Public Record Office, MS. Museum Case 6; MS. Miscellaneous Books E.164.

¹⁵ British Library, Cotton MS. Vespasian B xxiv, fos 57–62; Harvey, , op. cit., p. 763Google Scholar; e.g., D.B. i, fo 180^b–c; D.B. ii, fos 191–201.

¹⁶ E.g., D.B. i, fos 2^b, 75–76, 154, 246.

¹⁷ Finn, R. W., The Liber Exoniensis (London, 1964), pp. 40, 145Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Op. cit. (above, n. 11), ed. Hamilton, , p. 97Google Scholar; English Historical Documents, ii (ed. Douglas, D. C., London, 1953), p. 882Google Scholar.

¹⁹ D.B. i, fo 203^b.

²⁰ D.B. i, fo. 178^a.

²¹ D.B. ii, fos 276^b, 176^a–b, 277–78^a. Other instances are quoted and discussed in my unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Aspects of Anglo-Norman Governance: the Definition of Data in Domesday Book (University of Birmingham, 1971), pp. 61–63Google Scholar.

²² Ellis, H. E., An Introduction to Domesday Book, ii (Record Commission, London, 1833), pp. 445–47Google Scholar; British Library, Cotto n MS. Vespasian B xxiv, fos 57–62.

²³ Herefordshire Domesday, ed. Galbraith, V. H. and Tait, J. (Pipe Roll Soc., lxiii, 1947–1948, new ser., xxv, 1950), pp. xxi–xxiiGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Stevenson, J., ii (Rolls Ser., 1858), pp. 115–16Google Scholar; cf. D.B. i, fo 156^d; e.g. Round, , Feudal England, pp. 120–21Google Scholar; Richardson, and Sayles, , The Governance of Medieval England, p. 29Google Scholar.

²⁵ Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Johnson, C. (London, 1950), pp. 62–65Google Scholar(my translation).

²⁶ Morris, W. A., The Medieval English Sheriff to 1300 (Manchester, 1927), pp. 3–5Google Scholar; Stubbs, W., Constitutional History of Medieval England, i (Oxford, 1896), p. 348Google Scholar.

²⁷ Chronicle of Crowland Abbey, p. 140 (n. 9 above).

²⁸ Wigorniensis, Florentii, Chronicon, ed. Thorpe, B., ii (London, 1849), pp. 44–46Google Scholar; Henry, of Huntingdon, , Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, T. (Rolls Ser., 1879), p. 232Google Scholar.

²⁹ Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, 9th Report, pt. 1 (1833), App. 1, p. 65.

³⁰ Harvey, S., ‘Royal Finance and Domesday Terminology’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xx (1967), pp. 221–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Dialogus de Scaccario, pp. 85–86.

³² D.B. i, fo 162^c; D.B. i, fo 11^d.

³³ E.g., D.B. i, fos 172^b, 172^c, 38^c.

³⁴ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Whitelock, D. (London, 1961), pp. 160–61Google Scholar.

³⁵ See for instance, Searle, E., ‘Hides and Virgates at Battle Abbey’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xvi (1963), pp. 290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the continued working of this process.

³⁶ Domesday, Exon refers to an inquisitio gheldi, D.B. iv, p. 493Google Scholar; Mason, J. F. A., ‘The Date of the Geld Rolls’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxix (1954), pp. 283–89CrossRefGoogle Scholarshows that land which in Domesday ‘never paid geld’ appeared in the geld rolls which are to be dated to 1086. Finn suggested that some hundredal reorganisation took place as well, op. cit. (above, n. 17), p. 42.

³⁷ Harvey, , ‘Domesday Book and its Predecessors’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxxxvi, pp. 755–60Google Scholar.

³⁸ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Whitelock, , p. 161Google Scholar.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 161–62.

⁴¹ English Historical Documents, ii, p. 853, no. 202.

⁴² D. C. Douglas argues that Domesday must be regarded as ‘a great judicial inquiry’, though it does not always ‘settle the disputes’ as he suggests, in ‘Odo, Lanfranc, and the Domesday Survey’, Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. Edwards, J. G., Galbraith, V. H., Jacobs, E. F. (Manchester, 1933), pp. 47–57Google Scholar, and ‘The Domesday Survey’, History, xxi (1937), pp. 249–57Google Scholar; Miller, E., ‘The Ely land pleas in the reign of William I’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxii (1947), pp. 438–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ E.g. D.B. i, fos 78^d, 373^a–77^d; D.B. ii, fos 197^b–201^b.

⁴⁴ D.B. i, fo 377^b.

⁴⁵ D.B. i, fo 377^a.

⁴⁶ Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. Dugdale, W., i (edn of Caley, J., Ellis, H., Bandinel, B., 1846), pp. 601–2Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ The Laws of the Kings of England (from Edmund to Henry I), ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1925), p. 215Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 163.

⁴⁹ Anglia Sacra, i (ed. Wharton, H., 1691), pp. 337–38Google Scholar; Macdonald, A. J., Lan-franc (1926), p. 244Google Scholar; D.B. i, fo 143^d.

⁵⁰ Pipe Roll 11 Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc., 8, 1887), p. 108Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 12 Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc., 9, 1888), p. 114Google Scholar.

⁵¹ E.g., Canterbury Literary MS., B.16.

⁵² Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 176.

⁵³ Select Charters, ed. Stubbs, W. (9th edn, Oxford, 1921), pp. 117–19Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Ed. J. H., Hound (Pipe Roll Soc., 35, 1913).

⁵⁵ Both the obvious definition and its difficulties are recognized in Stenton, F. M., ‘Introduction’, The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, ed. Foster, C. and Longley, T. (Lincoln Record Soc., 19, 1924), p. xvGoogle Scholar. Lack of an accepted definition has prevented the full use of the ploughland data in the Domesday Geographies edited by H. C. Darby. The problem, the interpretations that have been put forward, and the evidence for the theory which I present here are dealt with much more fully in chapter III of my thesis (above, n. 21) which I hope to publish.

⁵⁶ A typical entry runs: ‘in Fulham the bishop of London holds 40 hides, there 40 ploughlands. In demesne 4 ploughs, the freemen and villani have 26 ploughs, and there could be 10 ploughs more.’ D.B. i, fo 127^c.

⁵⁷ E.g., Hartland: ‘There 110 ploughlands; in demesne are 15 ploughs and 30 slaves, 60 villani and 45 bordarii with 30 ploughs’, D.B. i, fo 100^d; cf. Otterton: ‘There 20 ploughlands; in demesne are 6 ploughs, 1 villanus and 20 bordarii with 40 ploughs’, D.B. i, fo. 104^b.

⁵⁸ In Leicestershire there is sometimes the phrase ‘in King Edward's time there was land for x ploughs’. Maitland's, argument that the phrase is thus synonymous with the ploughland is no more compelling than to suggest that a different phrase is used because something different was intended, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 484–86Google Scholar. The Leicestershire phrase probably has the same function but it falls back on different criteria, and tells us so.

⁵⁹ Jones, A. H. M., ‘Capitatio et Iugatio’, Journal of Roman Studies, xlvii (1957), pp. 88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id, The Later Roman Empire 282–602, i (Oxford, 1964), pp. 448–69.

⁶⁰ D.B. i, fo 356^b.

⁶¹ Walmsley, J. F., ‘The Censarii of Burton Abbey and the Domesday Population’, North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, viii (1968), pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

⁶² E.g., D.B. i, fos 305^c, 306^b, also in the Lincolnshire wolds. In some hundreds there is a consistent ratio of 2:1 or 3:2.

⁶³ D.B. i, fo 186^d; other examples D.B. i, fos 187^a, 252^c.

⁶⁴ Stenton, , Lincolnshire Domesday, pp. xvi–viiGoogle Scholar, where the observation is made in reverse.

⁶⁵ Terra est totidem carrucis, D.B. i, fo 244^c.

⁶⁶ Terra dupliciter ad arandum, D.B. i, fo 365^a.

⁶⁷ D.B. i, fo 275^b.

⁶⁸ Eng. Hist. Docs., ii, 853.

⁶⁹ Lennard, R., Rural England (Oxford, 1959), pp. 351–55Google Scholar; id. ‘The Economic Position of the Domesday Villani’, Economic Journal, lvi (1946), pp. 244–63.

⁷⁰ Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 464–65, 525, 536Google Scholar; Hart, C., The Hidation of Northamptonshire (Occasional Papers, 2nd ser., no. 3, Dept. of English Local History, Leicester, 1970), p. 25Google Scholar. I have rounded the figures and taken Hart's not Maitland's sum for the current Domesday hidage.

⁷¹ The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, M., iv (Oxford, 1973), p. 172Google Scholar. I have varied the translation somewhat.

⁷² Pollock, F., ‘A brief survey of Domesday’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xi (1896), p. 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Southern, R. W., ‘Ranulf Flambard’, in his Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970), p. 190Google Scholar.

⁷³ Laws of the Kings of England, p. 190.

⁷⁴ Stubbs' Charters, pp. 249–50, 267.

⁷⁵ ‘The Burton Cartulary’, ed. Wrottesley, G., Collections for a History of Stafford-shire (William Salt Archaeological Soc., pt. 1, v, 1884), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; Fowler, G., An Early Cambridgeshire Feodary', Eng. Hist. Rev., xlvi (1931), pp. 442–43Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ D.B. i, fo 6^a–11^d.

⁷⁷ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Whitelock, , p. 163Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ MrSouthern's, study (above n. 72) is a version of his earlier and important paper ‘Ranulf Flambard and Early Anglo-Norman Administration’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, xvi (1933), pp. 95–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar, both of which characterize Rannulf's activities in William II's reign; see also Finberg, H. P. R., Lucerna (1964), pp. 177–78Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Making of Domesday Book, pp. 141–42, 136–37.

⁸⁰ Ed. Hamilton, pp. 101–73.

⁸¹ Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, E. O. (Camden Soc., 3rd ser., xcii, 1962), p.219Google Scholar.

⁸² Southern, , Medieval Humanism, p. 187Google Scholar.

⁸³ Ecclesiastical History, iv, p. 172.

⁸⁴ Southern, , Medieval Humanism, p. 187Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ D.B. i, fo 1–2; Craster, H. H. E., ‘A Contemporary Record of the Pontificate of Ranulf Flambard’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., vii (1930), p. 47Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Ed. Hamilton, p. 97; see Galbraith, , Making of Domesday Book, pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Ecclesiastical History, p. 172.

⁸⁸ De Gestis Pontificum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. (Rolls Ser., 1870), p. 274Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Southern, , Medieval Humanism, pp. 196–98Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Southern, , ‘Ranulf Flambard and Anglo-Norman Administration’, p. 127Google Scholar.