A HISTORY OF ESSEX and that geography is thrown to the winds, for the order in which the returns were arranged has no conceivable relation to the position of the Hundreds on the map. The scribes, working from these returns, picked out in each Hundred the manors belonging to the fief they were dealing with in Domesday Book, and, in spite of the liability to confusion result- ing from this process, it is recognized that few errors resulted from the rearrangement. The most interesting of these are the duplicate entries of manors, which possess at times, as I have elsewhere shown, unique value for the light they throw on the treatment by the scribes of the original returns with which they had to deal. 1 The first of the examples which follow is taken from the fief of Geoffrey de Mandeville and relates to a manor in Dengie Hundred which I identify with Stow Maries. 2 FENNE tenet Hugo de G[oisfrido] quod PHENNAM tenet Hugo de verli quod tenuit tenuit Friebernus liber homo T.R.E. pro Friebernus pro Manerio et pro iii hidis. Sem- Manerio et pro iiii hidis T.R.E. Semper iiii per ii villani. Tune ii bordarii ; modo vii. villani. Tune ii bordarii; modo vii. Tune ii Tune ii servi ; modo nullus. Semper ii servi ; modo nullus. Semper ii caruce in do- caruce in dominio. Tune i caruca hominum ; minio. Tune i caruca hominum ; modo di- modo dimidia. Silva xl porcis. Pastura xxx midia. Silva xl porcis. Pastura xxx ovibus. ovibus. Tune v porci xxx oves, et modo Ixx Semper val[uit] Ix solidos. Habet etiam Idem porci. Val[et] Ix solidos. In eadem tenet Hugo i hidam quam tenuit liber homo. Valet Idem xxxvii acras. Tune dimidia caruca ; xx solidos. Et xxxvii acras habet Idem quas modo nulla. Valet v solidos (fo. 63). tenuit i liber homo. Tune dimidia caruca ; modo nulla. Valet v solidos (fo. 62). Here, it will be seen, dictation is suggested by the phonetic spell- ings of the name; the numbers of the hides and of the villeins are given differently ; and the tenant's name is in one case given and in the other omitted. Moreover the live stock is entered in one case and not in the other, while one of the entries omits a distinct holding of a hide. The next example is taken from the same Hundred of Dengie and relates to a manor on Suain's fief, which was probably, I have sug- gested, Asheldam. HAINCTUNAM tenet Garner' de S[ueno] HAINTUNAM tenet Radulfus de S[ueno] pro quod tenuit Godric' libere T.R.E. pro Man- Manerio et pro dimidia hida et xxxvii acris erio et pro dimidia hida et xxxvii acris. Tune quod tenuit I liber homo T.R.E. Semper i iii bordarii ; modo ii. Semper i caruca, v acre caruca. Tune iii bordarii ; modo ii. v acre prati. Tune nichil ; modo iii animalia, iiii prati. Valet xx solidos. Hanc terram habuit porci, xi cap[re]. Valet xx solidos. Hoc Robertus films wimarcae post adventum regis manerium habuit R[obertus] films wimarcae Willelmi (fo. 47). post adventum regis Willelmi (fo. 46). Here the points to observe are the sharp contradiction as to the name of Suain's tenant, the alternative use of manerium and terra> and the entry of the live stock in one case and not in the other. Its entry appears to have been deemed optional throughout the survey of Essex. 1 See Feudal England, pp. 21-7. And compare my paper on 'the Domesday manor' in Eng. Hitt. Review (xv. 299), where I print side by side the survey of Shelford, Cambs., under its own county (D.B. i. 190^) and that which is found under Newport, its head manor, in the Essex survey. The dis- crepancies are great. See p. 338 above and pp. 435-6 below. 2 See p. 394 above. 410
