A HISTORY OF DERBYSHIRE 



Assessment. Payment. 



Levenoth") car. bov. ac. s. d. 



Elfric >... 2 2 10 048 

 Saulf j 



Soke to Mickleover .040 o i o 



Rocester .030 009 



'BelongingtoNorbury' o 5 20 017 



Total 400 080 



It will be evident from the above table that the thirds and sixths of 

 carucates which are met with in the Survey would in practice pay an 

 equally simple sum of money. 



We may now turn to certain miscellaneous points of interest which 

 occur in our portion of the Survey. On page 334 we have an abnormal 

 entry in which Domesday itself contrives to warn us not to place too 

 much reliance on its own statistics. Of Long Eaton which was assessed 

 at 1 2 carucates we read : 



Ibi xxii sochmanni et x bordarii sub ipsis habent ix carucatas de hac terra et xiii 

 carucas. Aliae iii carucatae terrae sunt villanorum. 1 



Here the presence of villeins on the land is distinctly stated, but their 

 number is left unspecified, and it is interesting to find this class so clearly 

 separated from the sokemen and bordars. But it is quite unique in this 

 county to find bordars holding of sokemen, 2 or at any rate to find the fact 

 directly stated. Moreover in this entry, as in that relating to Edensor 

 quoted above, we are brought into direct contact with actual carucates of 

 land, and here also they appear as just equal in number to the carucates 

 (assessed) to the geld, for the three carucates belonging to the villeins and 

 the nine held by the sokemen cannot well mean anything except the real 

 divisions of the soil called by that name. Another abnormal entry, the 

 peculiarity of which, however, consists merely in its general position in 

 the Survey, relates to (South) Wingfield. Standing as it does at the head 

 of a column which is occupied by it alone, and separated by a considerable 

 interval from the writing preceding it, it is not placed on the land of 

 any tenant in chief, and seems clearly intended to stand outside any tenurial 

 rubrication. 8 The reason can be gathered from the entry itself, in which 

 it is stated that ' Robert holds (the manor) of (de) Count Alan under (sub) 

 William Peverel, for Count Alan (of Richmond) held no other land in 

 Derbyshire.' Of the distinction between 'sub' and ' de ' implied in this 

 entry Professor Maitland writes : ' We catch a slight shade of difference 

 between the two prepositions ; "sub," lays stress on the lord's power, which 

 may well be of a personal or justiciary rather than of a proprietary kind, 

 while " de " imports a theory about the origin of the tenure, it makes the 

 tenant's rights look like derivative rights it is supposed that he gets his land 



1 Fol. 273. 



3 A good deal depends on the way in which we translate sub ipsis in this entry. It would be 

 possible to render it simply ' under themselves,' but this rendering would be so unusual in this connexion 

 that it is better to take sub ipsis as above. 



8 It is preceded by the land of Roger of Poitou, of which it is stated, ' Has terras habuit Rogerius 

 Pictavensis, modo sunt in manu regis.' This ' escheat ' of Roger's knd in Derbyshire has not yet been 

 explained. Fol. 273b. 



324 



