likely to have systematically omitted the same items from the document before them.

What then was the 'third document' from which they both copied? Obviously it was either the original returns of the Domesday jurors, or a copy (exhaustive or not) of these returns. Now we cannot suppose that two scribes, working, as I have said, independently, would both have worked, not from the original returns themselves, but from a copy, and that the same copy of these returns—a copy, moreover, of the existence of which we have no evidence whatever. Moreover, in this hypothetical copy, there would, we may safely assert, have been some clerical errors. These would have duly re-appeared in both the Inquisitiones, and collation with Domesday Book would enable us to detect them. Yet in no single instance, though each of them contains errors, have I found a clerical error common to both. We are thus driven to the conclusion that in both these Inquisitiones we have copies of the actual returns made by the Domesday jurors.

One of the postulates in the above argument is that the Inq. Com. Cant. and the Inq. Eliensis 'agree closely' in their versions. Here is an instance in illustration:¹⁰

These extracts are typical and instructive. They leave, in the first place, no doubt upon the mind that both are versions of the same original. This, which proves my postulate, will be shown below to possess a further and important bearing. But while these versions closely agree, we notice (1) independent blunders, (2) slight variants in diction. As to blunders, we see that the I.C.C. has 'sol[idis]' where the I.E. has the correct 'hidis', while, conversely, the I.E. reads 'hun[dredis]' where the I.C.C. has, rightly, 'hidis'. Again the I.C.C. allots to demesne an assessment of a hide and a virgate, but I.E. a hide and a half (i.e. two virgates). Collation with Domesday Book confirms the former version. Conversely, the I.C.C. assigns to the mill the value of three shillings and eightpence, but the I.E. of two shillings and eightpence. Collation with Domesday Book confirms the latter. Turning now to the variants, we may express them more clearly thus:

These prove that verbal accuracy was not aimed at by the transcribers. The same freedom from its trammels is seen in the transposition of the 'mill' and 'meadow' passages, and, indeed, in the highly abbreviated form of the I.E. entries (in which a single letter, mostly, does duty for a word), which shows that the original version must have been either extended in the I.C.C., or (more probably) abbreviated in the I.E.

We are now in a position to advance to the criticism of the text of the Inq. Com. Cant., and to inquire how far it can be trusted as a reproduction of the original returns. In other words, are its contents more or less trustworthy than those of Domesday Book?

It might, no doubt, be fairly presumed that a simple transcript of the original returns was less likely to contain error than such a compilation as Domesday Book, in which their contents were (1) rearranged on a different system, (2) epitomized and partly omitted, (3) altered in wording. Mr Hamilton, indeed, who was naturally tempted to make the most of his MS., appears to have jumped at this conclusion; for he speaks in his preface (p. xii) of its 'superior exactness', and gives us no hint of omissions or of blunders. There are, however, plenty of both, as will be seen from the lists below, which do not profess to be exhaustive.

But we will first examine the instances adduced by Mr Hamilton. Out of ten examples in proof of its value, five are cases in which 'the want of precision in Domesday' leaves the identity of the tenant-in-chief 'undefined'. It is difficult to comment on these statements, because in all five cases the name is as carefully recorded in Domesday as in the I.C.C. Mr Hamilton's error can only, it will be found, have arisen from comparing the I.C.C. not with Domesday Book, but with the extracts therefrom printed in his work, which, being torn from their place, do not, of course, contain the tenant's full name, which in Domesday itself is given at the head of the list from which they are taken. Moreover, as it happens, this test demonstrates not the inferiority, but (in one instance at least) the superiority of Domesday, the I.C.C. (fo. 97, col. 2) reading 'Hanc terram tenuit comes alanus' [sic], where Domesday has (rightly) 'Hanc terram tenuit Algar comes'. The former must have wrongly extended the abbreviated original entry.¹¹

Another of Mr Hamilton's examples is this:

'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' (Domesday) is abbreviated from a long account of the holdings of Harduuinus de Scalariis and Turcus homo abbatis de Rameseio in the Cotton MS.

But, on referring to the passage in question, we find that the Domesday passage: 'Hæc terra fuit et est de dominio æcclesiæ' has nothing to do with that 'long account', but corresponds to the simple formula in the I.C.C., 'Hanc terram tenuerunt monache de cet'ero T.R.E. et modo tenent'. The example which follows it is this:

At pp. 38, 39 we see a curious alteration in the value of the land, which had risen from xv. lib. 'quando recepit' and T.R.E. to xvii. lib. at the time the return was made, and dropped again to xvi. lib. in the Domesday