DOMESDAY SURVEY 



retained, was a source of anxiety, for on Anschil, its foreign tenant, 

 falling into disgrace some years later, William Rufus seized the manor, 

 and the abbey could get from it neither its quota of knight-service nor 

 its share of the ' geld ' till Henry I restored its rights in 1 105.* 



The loss entailed on the abbey by enfeoffing foreign knights was 

 bad enough, but when they did not contribute towards the knight 

 service, the case was worse. Some of its knights, we read, were crossing 

 to Normandy on the King's service, when they were captured by channel 

 pirates, who mutilated some of them by cutting off their hands. Among 

 these was Hermer, who had not yet secured from the abbey a knight's 

 fee. As the abbot was not disposed to give him one after his misfortune, 

 he appealed to the King, who directed the abbot to provide for him. 

 He was consequently given an estate at Denchworth for his life, though 

 unable to perform military service." He was clearly the Hermer 

 whom Domesday shows us holding seven hides at Goosey ' in dominico 

 victu monachorum,' for the chronicle describes the land as ' de victualio 

 monachorum,' and though the latter places the land at Denchworth, 

 Goosey adjoined that place. 3 We may possibly see another of these un- 

 fortunate knights in that Hubert to whom the abbot assigned five hides 

 in Wytham, a dependency of Cumnor. 4 



To the Domesday entry of the abbey's two hides at (Hole) 

 Benham there is appended the somewhat mysterious note : ' Haec terra 

 non fuit in abbatia T.R.E. sed est quieta regi.' The former possessor 

 is given as 'Eddid' (not commended to any lord), and Walter de Riparia 

 was holding it of the abbey in 1086. Twenty-four years later, in 1 1 10, 

 we have a charter of Henry I confirming to the abbey two hides there, 

 ' quas Walterus filius Gotscelini de la Rivera tenuit de Unfrido de 

 Bohun,' and which Humfrey had restored (reddidii)? Reading between 

 the lines I think we may gather from this that Humfrey had grabbed 

 the estate, and was prevailed upon to give it up. But the Norman did 

 not lightly part with what he had once held, and we find the abbey 

 asserting in 1166 that Humfrey de Bohun was robbing them of two 

 hides. 6 Later in this century it records that at Benham two hides are 

 of the fee of Humfrey de Bohun and used to perform the service of 

 half a fee, but do so no longer, 7 and we find accordingly, Robert de la 

 Harletre holding half a fee of the earl of Hereford under Henry III. 8 

 But, this being so, how did the abbey come to hold four hides there ' in 

 spite of it ? 



1 Cbron. Ab. ii. 36-7, 125. 



2 ' de militia: procinctu quoad vixit nil exercens ' (Ibid. ii. 6). 



3 It is worth noting that the chronicle describes Denchworth as ' curiae Offentune subjectam,' and 

 says that, in consequence of this grant, ' apud Offentunam dominium abbatias diminutum ' (ii. 7). 

 Domesday in no way suggests that Denchworth was subject to Uffington. 



4 Ibid. The chronicle describes his land as 'in Wichtham de terra villanorum curia; Cumenore obsequi 

 solitorum.' This is in close accordance with Domesday, which enters it, under Cumnor, as ' in Winteham 

 ... v hidas de terra villanorum.' 



Chron. Ab. ii. 107-8. 



8 ' quas Hunfridus de Boun aufert ' (Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 306). They were probably the 

 half fee held of him at that date by Robert de Harletre (ib. i. 243). 



7 Chron. Ab. ii. 304. 8 Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), in, 122. " Chron. Ab. ii. 304. 



I 297 38 



