Page:VCH Derbyshire 1.djvu/412

 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