1. See David Bates, A Bibliography of Domesday Book (Woodbridge and Dover,
1983). For an overview of the state of Domesday scholarship in general, consult William E.
Kapelle, "Domesday Book: F.W. Maitland and his Successors," Speculum, 64 (1989),
629-40.
2. The most accessible text is the recent Phillimore edition: Domesday Book, ed.
John Morris, 34 vols. (Chichester, 1975-86).
page 66
3. V.H. Galbraith, The Making of Domesday Book (Oxford, 1961), pp. 60-66;
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. and trans. Dorothy Whitelock, D.C. Douglas, and Susie
I. Tucher (New Brunswick, 1961), pp. 161-62; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex
Chronicis, ed. Benjamin Thorpe, 2 (London, 1844), 18-19; Orderic Vitalis, The
Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford, 1969-80),
2, 266-67; 4, 52-53. Elizabeth Hallam, Domesday Through Nine Centuries (London,
1986), pp. 20, 32-36.
4. My criteria for omitting certain explanations such as Stenton's which
connected the inquest with the threatened Danish invasion is the absence of extensive argument in
their defense, F.M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066-1166, 2nd ed.
(Oxford, 1961), pp. 149-50.
5. J.H. Round, Feudal England: Historical Studies in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,
repr. ed. (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 17-123. The satellite is known as the ICC:
Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton
(London, 1886).
6. F.W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of
England, 2nd ed. (Cambridge and New York, 1987), pp. 5-6, 59-60, 66, 120, 172-89,
418-46,
463-89.
7. See James Tait's review in the English Historical Review, 12 (1897), 768-77.
8. Galbraith, The Making of Domesday, pp. 12-27, 42-43.
9. See ibid., pp. 16, 29-44 for a concise statement of Galbraith's views. This
theory rests on the detailed arguments in the following chapters.
10. To maintain his theory, Galbraith had to portray the ICC as an aberration and
to minimize the significance of Peter Sawyer's discovery that in many shires manors in the same
hundred tend to appear in the same order in Domesday's accounts of different barons' lands,
ibid., pp. 35, 63-64, 123-45, 162; P.H. Sawyer, "The 'Original Returns' and Domesday
Book," English Historical Review, 70 (1955), 177-97; H.B. Clarke, "The Domesday
Satellites," in Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. Peter Sawyer (London, 1985), pp.
58-59, 62.
11. For the full-blown theory, see Sally P.J. Harvey, "Taxation and the Ploughland in Domesday
Book," in Domesday Book, ed. Sawyer, pp. 86-
103. For earlier recensions of the theory, see eadem, "Domesday Book and its
Predecessors," English Historical Review, 86 (1971), 753-73; eadem,
"Anglo-Norman Governance," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser, 25
(1975)
186-93; cf. eadem, "Taxation and the Economy," in Domesday Studies, ed. J.C.
Holt (Woodbridge and Wolfeboro, 1987), pp. 249-64. For criticism see Kapelle, "Maitland," p.
634. On the plowland, J.S. Moore, "The Domesday Teamland: A Reconsideration"
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., 14 (1964), 109-30.
12. Judith A. Green, "The Last Century of Danegeld," English Historical Review,
96 (1981), 243.
13. J.C. Holt, "1086," in Domesday Studies, ed. idem, pp. 41-64. cf. Kapelle,
"Maitland," p. 635.
page 67
14. Ingulf's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland, trans. Henry T. Riley, repr ed.
(Amsterdam,
1968), p. 160.
15. M.T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307 (Cambridge
Mass., 1979), pp. 18-20; Holt, "1086," p. 49; H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The
Governance of Medieval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta (Edinburgh, 1963), pp.
28-29.
16. This lack of a result is one of the major difficulties that stand in the way of
those who posit a fiscal purpose for Domesday, Holt, "1086," p. 64.
17. Majorie Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 1066-1166 (Oxford and New York, 1986),
pp. 121-22; Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042-1216, 4th ed. (London
and New York, 1988), pp. 44, 108; C.W.
Hollister, "The Origins of the English Treasury," English Historical Review, 93 (1978),
262-75.
18. Harvey, "Domesday Book and its Predecessors," pp. 753-73; eadem, "Anglo-
Norman Governance," pp. 175-81.
19. For criticism, see Clanchy, Written Record, pp. 15-16, 121; Clarke, "Domesday
Satellites," p. 63 and n. 73. Harvey added to her evidence in "Anglo-Norman Governance," pp.
175-81.
20. Ibid., pp. 183-84; eadem, "Domesday Book and its Predecessors," pp. 772-73.
21. For the latest discussion on how the land transfer to the Normans was
effected, see Robin Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge and New
York, 1991), pp. 145-214.
22. R. Welldon Finn, The Norman Conquest and the Making of Domesday Book
(London and New York, 1961), pp. 100-102, cf. 16. For a more recent discussion and for
Freeman's views, see James Campbell, "Some Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon
State," in Domesday Studies, ed. Holt, p. 214.
23. I hope to go into this phenomenon in detail in the future. For some examples see
Domesday Book, I, fols. 141d bis, 218b.
24. Ibid., fols. 21 1 a- 18d.
25. Ibid., fols. 36a, 36b, 62b, 218.
26. Clarke, "Domesday Satellites," p. 67.
27. For the date of the Conqueror's geld rolls, see Galbraith, Domesday Book,
pp. 221-30; cf. Harvey, "Domesday Book and its Predecessors," pp. 768-69; R.R. Darlington,
"Introducfion to the Wiltshire Geld Rolls," in A History of Wiltshire, ed. R.B. Pugh and
Elizabeth Crittail, 2 (London, 1955), 174-76. The basis for the collection of the geld in the twelfth
century is quite obscure. The fact that sheriffs accounted for the geld due from their shires might
be taken to show that the hundred was still the unit for collection within shires, and a geld
document arranged by hundreds does survive from Middlesex, "Hidagium Comitatus Totius
Middlesexe," ed. T. Cl. Pinder, in A History of the County of Middlesex, ed. J. S.
Cockburn, H.P.F. King and K.G.I. McDonnell, 1 (N.P., 1969), 135-38. On the other hand, a list
from Herefordshire is arranged by landholder, Herefordshire Domesday, circa
page 68
1160-70,
ed. V.H. Galbraith and James Tait (London, 1947-48), pp. 77-8. The subject needs a modern
investigation.
28. Green, "Danegeld," pp. 253-54; J.J.N. Palmer, "The Domesday Manor," in
Domesday Studies, ed. Holt, pp. 139-53; R.H.C. Davis, "Domesday Book: Continental
Parallels," in Domesday Studies, ed. Holt, p. 15.
29. See Harvey's "examples" in "Anglo-Norman Governance," pp. 184-85; for the best statement
of the case, see Hallam, Domesday Book, pp. 37, 47-48. V.H.
Galbraith, Domesday Book: Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford, 1974), pp. 100-
III.
30. Maitland, Domesday Book, pp. 462-66, 470.
31. John McDonald and G.O. Snooks, Domesday Economy: A New Approach to
Anglo-Norman History (Oxford, 1986);
Kapelle, "Maitland," p. 638. R.A. Leaver, "Five Hides in Ten Counties," Economic History
Review, 2nd ser., 41 (1988), 525-42.
32. A.R. Bridbury, "Domesday Book: A re-interpretation," English HistoricalReview 105 (1990), 284-309. 1 hope to show that this theory rests on an unsustainable
definition of the plowland.
33. The chronology of the Norman settlement has not been a problem traditionally. See David C.
Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1964), pp. 265-75; cf. John Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976),
pp. 31-35. For attempts to stretch out the settlement, consult William E. Kapelle, The
Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transfornmation (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp.
142-46, 193-200, and Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 145-
82. Helena Chew, The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service
(Oxford, 1932), p. 144.
34. Domesday, 1, fols. 83c-84a (Hugh fitz Grip); 157c, 231c-d (Earl Aubrey);
89a, 269c-270b, 273c, 290a, 332a-b, 352a-c; 2, 242b-244b (Roger of Poitou).
35. Walter Giffard died in 1084; Walter of Lacy in 1084-85, I.J. Sanders, EnglishBaronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-132 7 (Oxford, 1960), pp. 62, 95.
36. Sally Harvey, "The Knight and the Knight's Fee in England," Past and Present, 49
(1970), 15; Clarke, "Domesday Satellites," p. 68. The two groups do not correspond exactly
because some knights held directly from a baron.
37. J.C. Holt, "Politics and Property in Early Medieval England," Past andPresent, 57 (1972), 3-52.
38. James Campbell, "Some Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon State," in
Domesday Studies, ed. Holt, pp. 201-18.
