A HISTORY OF HEREFORDSHIRE in order to get all five into his hands. The identification, therefore, of the Domesday entries seems not open to question. Mr. Eyton started from this position : Where is Ludlow itself ? — Ludlow, a place whose very name bespeaks antiquity, whose very stones tell of an existence almost, if not quite, as early as Domesday — where is Ludlow in that Record ? Are we to conclude that architectural features are no tests of antiquity, and that Legends are wholly false, or are we to adopt the still more startling theory that Domesday is an imperfect and incomprehensive Record ? ^** Convinced, he wrote, that ' the Borough or Town of Ludlow ' existed ' long before the Conquest, and that among the Boroughs of Shropshire, Ludlow, in point of antiquity, ranks second only to Shrewsbury,' '^^^ he admitted that ' the mention of a Provost (preposkus) and a Smith ' at our Herefordshire manor of ' Lude ' may not be enough ' to suggest the idea of an existent borough, or the intended residence of a great feudal chief, but the ideas being suggested already, they are in strict harmony,' ^^^ which shows the power of self-delusion even in the greatest antiquaries. We further read that ■■ the prepositus said by Domesday to be resident at Lude must be taken as the Reeve, or chief officer of the borough, under Roger de Laci.' ^^^ Yet we have seen that prepositi and fabri are mentioned not unfrequently on rural manors in Herefordshire, and no unbiased person could discover in the entry in question the faintest hint that ' Lude ' was a borough or was diff^erent from any other small rural manor.** The fundamental assumption that Ludlow must be named in Domesday seems to me baseless. Even if a castle already stood there,^*' Domesday might well ignore it, as in other well-known cases, while the existence of a borough at the time finds no countenance in Domesday and certainly none in the ' Lude ' entry. The termination of Ludlow's name does not suggest an ancient settlement, and even if it did, the name of ' Lude ' in no way repre- sents it. Briefly, while agreeing with Mr. Eyton that the castle was a Laci foundation, I believe that it arose on their great manor of Stanton (Lacy), assessed at aoj hides and valued at £2^.^^° It is a significant fact that Domesday records thereon three holdings, each of a hide and a half, in the hands of men with Norman names, which is suggestive, if not of a castle, at least of the residence of a great lord.^^^ Where Stanton touched the Teme, opposite Ludford, the castle would be placed to grip the passage, and, as it grew in importance, would, as in some other cases, become the centre of a separate parish, named after it. It has been shown above that at the time of Domesday, ' boroughs ' were already forming around the Norman castles,^'^ and at Ludlow the process may have been helped by the Lacis granting to the burgesses who clustered about their stronghold, as their lord had done at Hereford, ' the laws of BreteuiL' ^'^ "" Op. cit. V, 233. >85 Qp_ j,;j_ y^ 279-80. "^ Op. cit. 236. This ' Lude' was valued at z^s. only T.R.E. and 30/. T.R.W. ='«' Op. cit. 280. ^°* Yet this identification was accepted without question by Clark {Med. Mil. Jrchii.), and Mackenzie {Castles of Engl.), and not rejected by Prof. Tait {F.C.H. Shrofs. i, 287.) ^™ Mr. St. John Hope is of opinion that there is nothing older at the castle than the days of William Rufus. '^ Dom. Bk. i, 260^. '" See pp. 273, 278, above. »»» See p. 300. ^" Eyton noted that a burgess, in 1 22 1, made a grant in frank-marriage 'according to the law of Bretoil,' but glossed the name as 'Bristol' (op. cit. v, 285). 306
