A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



Dolfin, the founder of the NeviU family. i This dates from Dishop Phihp's time, for the witnesses' 

 including Aimeric, archdeacon of Durham, are mostly the same as those who figure in one of that 

 bishop's charters.* Now if, as seems very probable, the land in Heighington was granted to Simon 

 either by Bishop Hugh just before his death or by Bishop Philip just after his accession, some record 

 of the transaction would have been kept and might have been incorporated into the text of Boldon 

 Book when a new copy was being prepared for use in the exchequer. Some such process seems to 

 be reflected in the texts before us ; A, C, and D appear to be following an annotated copy of the 

 original ; B a later recension, which had taken up into itself the material written in or tacked on to 

 that copy. But we are not done with Simon yet. A, C, and D record that at Killerby ' Simon 

 hostiarius tenet dominium pro iii marcis,' but B reads ' Simon hostiarius tenet i carucatam terrae pro 

 servitio duodccimae partis feodi unius militis.' There would be no inherent difficulty in the transfor- 

 mation of a farmer of the demesne into a military tenant of the same land, but the reversal of the 

 process, at that time and place, is scarcely conceivable. We infer, then, that the bishop had 

 enfeoffed Simon with the demesne of Killerby some time after 1 183, that the change had been 

 recorded in some such manner as that suggested above, and then found its way into the text 

 of B. Now on turning to Hatfield's Survey we find the following passage, under the heading 

 Killerby : 'Johannes Killerby tenet i mess, et Ixi acras terrae per serv. forins. quondam Simonis 

 hostiarii vel Simonis dorwardi, et solebat red. p. a. 40^. per cartam, modo per xii partem feodi unius 

 militis 4.0s.' This goes far toward confirming our conjecture. The charter or indenture by which 

 Simon held the demesne would no doubt have been anterior to Boldon Book, for as we have seen the 

 demesne farmer commonly held ' per cirografum,' and the 40J. of Hatfield's Survey represents 

 nearly enough the four marks (53^- 4.d.) of the earlier record. But this text will yield us further 

 information. The writer must have had under his eye two versions of Boldon Book, else what could 

 he have known of Simon's original tenure ? What should these versions have been but X, the 

 annotated copy from which A, C, and D derive, and Z, which is the parent of B ? The reasoning 

 which we have applied to the record of Simon's tenure at Heighington and Killerby may be 

 repeated in respect to the holding of a certain Monachus Cocus,* at West Auckland. A, C, and 

 D note that William Scot, Elstan, and William Boie are holding an acre and a half of land at West 

 Auckland. In B, however, the entry is as follows : ' Monachus Cocus tenet pro servitio suo ad 

 voluntatem Episcopi i acram et dimidiam quas Willelmus Scot et Elstanus et Willclmus Boie 

 tencbant, et infra parcam et extra xix acras et dimidiam de terra lucrabili, et de terra non liicrabili 

 X acras.' Then we have a charter by which Bishop Pudsey grants to Monachus Cocus one toft 

 and croft in Auckland together with 31 acres, ' in campis ejusdem villa;,' in three parcels as follows : 

 10 within the park (parca), 3 within the enclosure of the old park (vivarium), and 18 within the 

 dry hedge* (infra halham).' This gives exactly the measure of the holding recorded in the text of 

 B. Then Bishop Philip of Poitou, desiring to enclose his park, effected an exchange by which 

 Monachus surrendered his 13 acres in the park in return for other 13 on the moor of Auckland.* 

 Finally, Monachus conveyed the whole of his Auckland tenement to the prior and convent. ^ Now 

 the inference from all this is plain enough. Pudsey 's grant must have been made after the 

 composition of Boldon Book, probably late in his pontificate, for we must allow time for the disap- 

 pearance of the three tenants recorded in the A C D text, and the survival of Monachus Cocus 

 well into the pontificate of Bishop Philip. Then, just as wc surmised in the case of Simon the 

 doorward, the record of the transaction was preserved at the exchequer and crept into that annotated 

 copy of Boldon Book which we have supposed B to be following. Finally, we have another passage 

 which goes to prove that X is an older and purer text than Z. At Escomb, A, C, and D have 

 the entry, ' Ulframming tenet v acras,' but in B the entry stands, 'Umfridus carectarius tenet 

 vi acras qua fucrunt Ulfi Ranning.' Canon Greenwell prints a fr.agmcnt of the charter by which 

 Bishop Pudsey conveyed this land to Humphrey,8 so we must regard this case as parallel with those 

 of Simon and Monachus Cocus. The incorrect form of the earlier entry, 'Ulframming,' for 'Ulfi 

 Ranning' serves to remind us that in X we have not to tlo with the original, but with a copy that 

 was earlier and nearer to the primitive text than Z could have been. 



X, then, although affording us a better text than Z, is itself fallible, and wc must not exclude 

 the possibility that in certain cases (though by no means in the m.ajority of them) Z will liave 



• Froi/. 53 n. ; cf. 56 n., .ind Round, 'Origin of the Nevilles,' in Feudal England, 488-490. 

 ' Feod. 53 n., 54 n. ; liohhn Book (Surtccs Sec), App. No. vi. 



• I am .It a loss for a transl.ition of his name. He certainly was not a monk, for he had a wife and could 

 acquire and dispose of land, sec Feod., 168 n., 169 n., 177 n., and Canon Grccnwcll's description of his seal with 

 tlic device of a griffin passant and the legend, ' Sigillum Monachi Coci.' Boldon Book (Surtccs See), 24 n. If 

 he were really a cook, he must be an early example of a 'cordon bleu.' * Feod., 177 n. 



' Probably a place enclosed by a hedge of dry or dead brushwood ; sec Ducangc, /. v. hala, and cf 

 Durham Account Ral/i (Surt. Soc), iii ; gloss. /. v. halland. 



• Feod. 177 n.-i78 n. ^ Ibid. 178 n. » Boldon Book (Surtccs Soc), p. 25. 



324 



