{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}
{\f4\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Helvetica;}{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f6\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603040505020304}Tms Rmn;}
{\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202030204}Helv;}{\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040503060506020304}New York;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;}
{\f10\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f11\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}MS Mincho{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f12\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f13\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimSun{\*\falt ???????????????\'a1\'ec????????};}{\f14\fnil\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02010601000101010101}PMingLiU{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}
{\f15\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}MS Gothic{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f16\fmodern\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Dotum{\*\falt \'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcEcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f17\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}SimHei{\*\falt o??????????????????????????????};}{\f18\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609000101010101}MingLiU{\*\falt 2OcuAe};}
{\f19\froman\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040305080305}Mincho{\*\falt ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f20\froman\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0600000101010101}Gulim{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f21\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604050505020304}Century;}{\f22\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Angsana New;}{\f23\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}Cordia New;}
{\f24\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Mangal;}{\f25\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Latha;}{\f26\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 010a0502050306030303}Sylfaen;}
{\f27\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010600010101010101}Vrinda;}{\f28\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Raavi;}{\f29\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Shruti;}
{\f30\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sendnya;}{\f31\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Gautami;}{\f32\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Tunga;}
{\f33\froman\fcharset1\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Estrangella Edessa;}{\f34\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}
{\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DejaVu Sans;}{\f38\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marlett;}
{\f39\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609040504020204}Lucida Console;}{\f40\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana;}{\f41\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a04020102020204}Arial Black;}
{\f42\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030f0702030302020204}Comic Sans MS;}{\f43\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806030902050204}Impact;}{\f44\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia;}
{\f45\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020102020204}Franklin Gothic Medium;}{\f46\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050505030304}Palatino Linotype;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202020204}Trebuchet MS;}
{\f48\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05030102010509060703}Webdings;}{\f49\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2 Estrangelo Edessa;}{\f50\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 MV Boli;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Microsoft Sans Serif;}
{\f52\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba;}{\f53\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba Matter;}{\f54\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Alba Super;}
{\f55\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Baby Kruffy;}{\f56\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000900000000000000}Chick;}{\f57\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Croobie;}
{\f58\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Fat;}{\f59\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Freshbot;}{\f60\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Frosty;}
{\f61\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}GlooGun;}{\f62\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Jenkins v2.0;}{\f63\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Jokewood;}
{\f64\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Poornut;}{\f65\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000900000000000000}Porky's;}{\f66\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Pussycat;}
{\f67\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Weltron Urban;}{\f68\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03090702030407020403}Mistral;}{\f69\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans Unicode;}
{\f70\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505051007020d02}Blackadder ITC;}{\f71\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070402050302030203}Bradley Hand ITC;}{\f72\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0705020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Bold;}
{\f73\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0507020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Light;}{\f74\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040404050702020202}Curlz MT;}{\f75\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020407070d0804}Edwardian Script ITC;}
{\f76\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090707080505020304}Engravers MT;}{\f77\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0805030504020804}Eras Demi ITC;}{\f78\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402030504020804}Eras Light ITC;}
{\f79\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostile;}{\f80\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505060202020a04}Felix Titling;}{\f81\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020102020204}Franklin Gothic Book;}
{\f82\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020102020204}Franklin Gothic Demi;}{\f83\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402020204}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond;}{\f84\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020402040607040605}French Script MT;}
{\f85\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020202020204}Century Gothic;}{\f86\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202030202}Kristen ITC;}{\f87\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans;}
{\f88\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0502030308020204}Maiandra GD;}{\f89\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403030d02020704}Matisse ITC;}{\f90\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502060502030205}Papyrus;}
{\f91\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060401020303}Perpetua;}{\f92\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060903040505020403}Rockwell Extra Bold;}{\f93\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404030d07020202}Tempus Sans ITC;}
{\f94\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vivaldi;}{\f95\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010507070707}Wingdings 2;}{\f96\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05040102010807070707}Wingdings 3;}
{\f97\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}@Arial Unicode MS;}{\f98\froman\fcharset129\fprq2{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}@Batang;}{\f99\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040602050305030304}Book Antiqua;}
{\f100\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}{\f101\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020404030301010803}Garamond;}{\f102\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706040902060204}Haettenschweiler;}
{\f103\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 02020609040205080304}@MS Mincho;}{\f104\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Outlook;}{\f105\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010201010101}Monotype Corsiva;}
{\f106\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimSun;}{\f107\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G2;}{\f108\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow;}
{\f109\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G2;}{\f110\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G1;}{\f111\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G1;}
{\f112\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G2;}{\f113\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G1;}{\f114\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503030404060203}Kartika;}
{\f115\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602030304020304}Albertus Medium;}{\f116\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702040304020204}Albertus;}{\f117\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0802040304020204}Albertus Extra Bold;}
{\f118\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020202020204}ITC Avant Garde Gothic;}{\f119\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0802020202020204}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi;}{\f120\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}ITC Bookman Light;}
{\f121\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050804040505020204}ITC Bookman Demi;}{\f122\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502050508020304}CG Omega;}{\f123\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}CG Times;}
{\f124\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020702040403080804}ITC Zapf Chancery;}{\f125\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604040505020204}Clarendon;}{\f126\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040706040705040204}Clarendon Condensed;}
{\f127\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040805050505020204}Clarendon Extended;}{\f128\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030502040406070605}Coronet;}{\f129\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070609020205020404}CourierPS;}
{\f130\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010704020609}ITC Zapf Dingbats;}{\f131\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020202030204}Helvetica Narrow;}{\f132\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0409020202030204}Letter Gothic;}
{\f133\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020702040402020504}Marigold;}{\f134\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020304}New Century Schoolbook;}{\f135\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antique Olive;}
{\f136\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904030504030204}Antique Olive Compact;}{\f137\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050505030304}Palatino{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f138\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}SymbolPS;}
{\f139\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202030204}Univers;}{\f140\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020202060204}Univers Condensed;}{\f141\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010205020202}MT Extra;}
{\f142\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}???????????????????????????????;}{\f143\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f144\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnames;}{\f145\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Gre;}
{\f146\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Bal;}{\f147\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Bal;}
{\f148\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}MS Reference Sans Serif;}{\f149\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000500000000000000}MS Reference Specialty;}{\f150\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 7;}
{\f151\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020104020203}Andale Mono IPA;}{\f152\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}MS Reference Serif;}{\f153\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana Ref;}
{\f154\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia Ref;}{\f155\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Reference 1;}{\f156\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference 2;}
{\f157\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 02000500000000000000}RefSpecialty;}{\f158\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed;}{\f159\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a06030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Extra Bold;}
{\f160\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0306030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Light;}{\f161\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020202020204}Agency FB;}{\f162\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020705040a02060702}Algerian;}
{\f163\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080602030302030203}Andy;}{\f164\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0704030504030204}Arial Rounded MT Bold;}{\f165\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}
{\f166\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030905020b02020c02}Bauhaus 93;}{\f167\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a05050d02020502}Beesknees ITC;}{\f168\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050806060905020404}Bernard MT Condensed;}
{\f169\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030202020406070a0903}Bickley Script;}{\f170\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030b070d0b02020403}Braggadocio;}{\f171\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903060703020204}Britannic Bold;}
{\f172\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040905080b02020502}Broadway;}{\f173\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}Brush Script MT;}{\f174\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050505030304}Calisto MT;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0402060406010301}Castellar;}{\f176\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404031007020602}Chiller;}{\f177\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208090404030b020404}Cooper Black;}
{\f178\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505060803040902}Edda;}{\f179\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020904090505020303}Elephant;}{\f180\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030405020f02020502}Enviro;}
{\f181\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060602040506080206}Fine Hand;}{\f182\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030804020302050b0404}Freestyle Script;}{\f183\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040504061007020d02}Gigi;}
{\f184\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020104020203}Gill Sans MT;}{\f185\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020104020203}Gill Sans MT Condensed;}{\f186\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a02020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold;}
{\f187\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f188\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0202090407030b020401}Goudy Stout;}{\f189\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030604020f02020d02}Harlow Solid Italic;}
{\f190\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040505050a02020702}Harrington;}{\f191\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020605060303030202}Imprint MT Shadow;}{\f192\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030604020304060b0204}Informal Roman;}
{\f193\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04090605060d06020702}Jokerman;}{\f194\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403040a02020202}Juice ITC;}{\f195\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040307050d0c02020703}Kino MT;}
{\f196\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030304020206070d0d06}Kunstler Script;}{\f197\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0a07050505020404}Wide Latin;}{\f198\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Calligraphy;}
{\f199\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Handwriting;}{\f200\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802060602070202}Matura MT Script Capitals;}{\f201\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02070704070505020303}Modern No. 20;}
{\f202\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609020202020204}OCRB;}{\f203\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040902040508030806}Old English Text MT;}{\f204\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04050602080702020203}Onyx;}
{\f205\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020206070c0b05}Palace Script MT;}{\f206\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080702040402020b04}Parade;}{\f207\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040708040804}Parchment;}
{\f208\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040502070804}Pepita MT;}{\f209\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060505020804}Perpetua Titling MT;}{\f210\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402050204}Placard Condensed;}
{\f211\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040506030a0602020202}Playbill;}{\f212\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02080502050505020702}Poor Richard;}{\f213\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060402040406080204}Pristina;}
{\f214\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502040507070304}Rage Italic;}{\f215\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603020205020403}Rockwell;}{\f216\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020a0606050403050204}Runic MT Condensed;}
{\f217\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040607080904}Script MT Bold;}{\f218\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040a07060a02020202}Snap ITC;}{\f219\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502030502020203}Viner Hand ITC;}
{\f220\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050402040407070305}Vladimir Script;}{\f221\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}normal verdana;}{\f222\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}IAGB5 Symbol;}
{\f223\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706030402020204}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond;}{\f224\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903020102020204}Franklin Gothic Heavy;}{\f225\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02010509020102010303}OCR A Extended;}
{\f226\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020802040602020201}American Uncial;}{\f227\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505051002080904}Augsburger Initials;}{\f228\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020505020e03040504}Desdemona;}
{\f229\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902040502070203}Forte;}{\f230\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080302020302020206}Gradl;}{\f231\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Mercurius Script MT Bold;}
{\f232\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 01010601010101010101}Monotype Sorts;}{\f233\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020102010208020808}Monotype Sorts 2;}{\f234\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040c0101020201010102}Ransom;}
{\f235\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040409050d0802020404}Stencil;}{\f236\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030805020b02020404}Stop;}{\f237\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020503060305020303}Bell MT;}
{\f238\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0207040306080b030204}Californian FB;}{\f239\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204060206030a020304}Footlight MT Light;}{\f240\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050506030303}High Tower Text;}
{\f241\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805050809020602}Ravie;}{\f242\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020904020102020604}Showcard Gothic;}{\f243\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 1;}
{\f244\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Bookshelf Symbol 3;}{\f245\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Bookshelf Symbol 4;}{\f246\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05010101010101010101}Bookshelf Symbol 5;}
{\f247\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond CE;}{\f248\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Cyr;}
{\f249\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Greek;}{\f250\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Tur;}
{\f251\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Balti;}{\f252\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy CE;}
{\f253\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Cyr;}{\f254\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Greek;}
{\f255\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Tur;}{\f256\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Franklin Gothic Heavy Baltic;}
{\f257\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif (Vietna;}{\f258\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-01T;}{\f259\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-05B;}
{\f260\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Brougham;}{\f261\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR-11U;}{\f262\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville;}
{\f263\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertville Extrabold;}{\f264\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Oakland;}{\f265\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BR Symbol;}
{\f266\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Demi;}{\f267\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Brussels Light;}{\f268\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cleveland Condensed;}
{\f269\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Conneticut;}{\f270\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Guatemala Antique;}{\f271\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helsinki;}
{\f272\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Maryland;}{\f273\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Oklahoma;}{\f274\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PC Tennessee Roman;}
{\f275\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tennessee Roman;}{\f276\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah;}{\f277\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Utah Condensed;}
{\f278\fdecor\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}W Dingbats;}{\f279\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier (W1);}{\f280\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000702030000020004}Twentieth Century Poster1;}
{\f281\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04010502060101010303}Creepy;}{\f282\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020c0804040000000001}EraserDust;}{\f283\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Figaro MT;}
{\f284\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}KidTYPEPaint;}{\f285\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Mistral AV;}{\f286\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904020202020204}Plump MT;}
{\f287\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000509000000000005}Space Toaster;}{\f288\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000800000000000004}Team MT;}{\f289\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020203020204}News Gothic MT;}
{\f290\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040506030f02020702}Westminster;}{\f291\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative;}{\f292\fmodern\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0809000000000003}Arial Alternative Symbol;}
{\f293\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020104020203}Tw Cen MT Condensed;}{\f294\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020000000004}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold;}{\f295\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0509000000000004}Andale Mono;}
{\f296\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT;}{\f297\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold ;}{\f298\fnil\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT CE;}
{\f299\fnil\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Uncial ATT Tur;}{\f300\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1){\*\falt Arial};}{\f301\fnil\fcharset255\fprq3{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Roman;}
{\f302\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) CE;}{\f303\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Cyr;}{\f304\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Greek;}
{\f305\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Tur;}{\f306\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Hebrew);}{\f307\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Arabic);}
{\f308\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) Baltic;}{\f309\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Arial (W1) (Vietnamese);}
{\f310\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f311\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f312\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f313\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f314\froman\fcharset177\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f315\froman\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f316\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f317\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New (W1) (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f318\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402020202020204}AvantGarde Bk BT;}{\f319\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04030205020b02020502}BernhardFashion BT;}{\f320\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Boink LET;}
{\f321\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}BookmanITC Lt BT;}{\f322\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060802040406070304}BrushScript BT;}{\f323\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0904040702060204}Compacta Blk BT;}
{\f324\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0508030702060204}Compacta Lt BT;}{\f325\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0208060305030b020404}Cooper Md BT;}{\f326\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0605020203020404}CopprplGoth BT;}
{\f327\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 0204050203030b020204}Dauphin;}{\f328\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030202020203}DomBold BT;}{\f329\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902030302020204}DomCasual BT;}
{\f330\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030306020406070f0b05}English111 Presto BT;}{\f331\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030702030607090b03}English111 Vivace BT;}{\f332\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040805071002020d02}FlamencoD;}
{\f333\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806020204020204}Futura XBlkCn BT;}{\f334\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020204020303}Futura Md BT;}{\f335\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020204030204}Humanst521 Cn BT;}
{\f336\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020203}Kids;}{\f337\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602070506020304}NewBskvll BT;}{\f338\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03030602040405080b03}Nuptial BT;}
{\f339\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET;}{\f340\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03050502040202020b03}Technical;}{\f341\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020f0702020204020204}VAGRounded BT;}
{\f342\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}VivaldiD;}{\f343\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 1;}{\f344\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Animals 2;}
{\f345\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Arrows2;}{\f346\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Balloons;}{\f347\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Buildings;}
{\f348\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}CommonBullets;}{\f349\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Computers;}{\f350\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Calligraphic Ornaments LET;}
{\f351\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversions LET;}{\f352\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}DF Diversities LET;}{\f353\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Festive;}
{\f354\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Food;}{\f355\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Household;}{\f356\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Hygiene;}
{\f357\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Kidnap;}{\f358\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Music;}{\f359\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Plants;}
{\f360\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}SportsFigures;}{\f361\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Transportation;}{\f362\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603050302020204}Weather;}
{\f363\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050705020303}CentSchbook BT;}{\f364\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03080402030202060204}Van Dijk;}{\f365\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 040b0500000000000000}Lithograph;}
{\f366\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 01010101010101010101}Adolescence;}{\f367\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020204040204}AntigoniBd;}{\f368\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0406020204020204}Antigoni Light;}
{\f369\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020204030204}Antigoni Med;}{\f370\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020204030204}Antigoni;}{\f371\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0806020206070204}MGI Archon;}
{\f372\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0802060808030204}AucoinExtBol;}{\f373\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020d0602050304030204}AucoinLight;}{\f374\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804040403020303}Banjoman Open Bold;}
{\f375\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0803080505070304}Bedini;}{\f376\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000503000000000004}Bermuda Solid;}{\f377\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0900020202060204}Eurostar Black Extended;}
{\f378\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020202050204}Eurostar;}{\f379\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0507020202060204}Eurostar Regular Extended;}{\f380\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000507000000000004}Falstaff Festival MT;}
{\f381\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0602060706020304}Gourmand;}{\f382\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0704030103070804}Metro Nouveau;}{\f383\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000504000000000003}Orbus Multiserif;}
{\f384\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02000306050000000002}Palace Script MT Semi Bold;}{\f385\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090502050106070304}Palladius;}{\f386\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0702050806020304}Peinaud;}
{\f387\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0302020206020904}Schindler;}{\f388\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0402020206020904}Schindler Small Caps;}{\f389\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Wendy Medium;}
{\f390\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020602050506090804}Vianta;}{\f391\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040604020b02020304}LcdD;}{\f392\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060200020303}GiovanniITCTT;}
{\f393\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00050102010706020507}Map Symbols;}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Balti;}{\f395\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy CE;}
{\f396\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Creepy Tur;}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust CE;}{\f398\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}EraserDust Tur;}
{\f399\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tw Cen MT Condensed CE;}{\f400\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono CE;}{\f401\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Cyr;}
{\f402\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Greek;}{\f403\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Tur;}{\f404\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Andale Mono Baltic;}
{\f405\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT CE;}{\f406\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Greek;}
{\f407\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AvantGarde Bk BT Tur;}{\f408\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT CE;}
{\f409\fdecor\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Greek;}{\f410\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BernhardFashion BT Tur;}{\f411\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Boink LET Greek;}
{\f412\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT CE;}{\f413\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Greek;}
{\f414\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BookmanITC Lt BT Tur;}{\f415\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT CE;}{\f416\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Greek;}
{\f417\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}BrushScript BT Tur;}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT CE;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Greek;}
{\f420\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Blk BT Tur;}{\f421\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT CE;}{\f422\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Greek;}
{\f423\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Compacta Lt BT Tur;}{\f424\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT CE;}{\f425\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Greek;}
{\f426\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Cooper Md BT Tur;}{\f427\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT CE;}{\f428\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Greek;}
{\f429\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CopprplGoth BT Tur;}{\f430\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT CE;}{\f431\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Greek;}
{\f432\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomBold BT Tur;}{\f433\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT CE;}{\f434\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Greek;}
{\f435\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}DomCasual BT Tur;}{\f436\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT CE;}
{\f437\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Greek;}{\f438\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Presto BT Tur;}
{\f439\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT CE;}{\f440\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Greek;}
{\f441\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}English111 Vivace BT Tur;}{\f442\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT CE;}
{\f443\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Greek;}{\f444\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura XBlkCn BT Tur;}{\f445\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT CE;}
{\f446\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Greek;}{\f447\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Futura Md BT Tur;}{\f448\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT CE;}
{\f449\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Greek;}{\f450\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Humanst521 Cn BT Tur;}{\f451\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT CE;}
{\f452\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Greek;}{\f453\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NewBskvll BT Tur;}{\f454\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT CE;}
{\f455\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Greek;}{\f456\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Nuptial BT Tur;}{\f457\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Scruff LET Greek;}
{\f458\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT CE;}{\f459\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Greek;}{\f460\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VAGRounded BT Tur;}
{\f461\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD CE;}{\f462\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}VivaldiD Tur;}{\f463\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT CE;}
{\f464\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Greek;}{\f465\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CentSchbook BT Tur;}{\f466\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd CE;}
{\f467\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Greek;}{\f468\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Tur;}{\f469\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AntigoniBd Baltic;}
{\f470\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light CE;}{\f471\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Greek;}{\f472\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Tur;}
{\f473\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Light Baltic;}{\f474\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med CE;}{\f475\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Greek;}
{\f476\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Tur;}{\f477\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Med Baltic;}{\f478\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni CE;}
{\f479\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Greek;}{\f480\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Tur;}{\f481\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antigoni Baltic;}
{\f482\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon CE;}{\f483\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Greek;}{\f484\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Tur;}
{\f485\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MGI Archon Baltic;}{\f486\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol CE;}{\f487\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Greek;}
{\f488\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Tur;}{\f489\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinExtBol Baltic;}{\f490\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight CE;}
{\f491\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Greek;}{\f492\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Tur;}{\f493\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}AucoinLight Baltic;}
{\f494\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini CE;}{\f495\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Greek;}{\f496\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Tur;}
{\f497\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Bedini Baltic;}{\f498\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended CE;}
{\f499\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Greek;}{\f500\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Tur;}
{\f501\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Black Extended Baltic;}{\f502\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar CE;}{\f503\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Greek;}
{\f504\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Tur;}{\f505\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Baltic;}{\f506\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended CE;}
{\f507\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Greek;}{\f508\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Eurostar Regular Extended Tur;}
{\f509\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand CE;}{\f510\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Greek;}{\f511\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Tur;}
{\f512\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gourmand Baltic;}{\f513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau CE;}{\f514\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Greek;}
{\f515\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Tur;}{\f516\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Metro Nouveau Baltic;}{\f517\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius CE;}
{\f518\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Greek;}{\f519\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Tur;}{\f520\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Palladius Baltic;}
{\f521\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud CE;}{\f522\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Greek;}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Tur;}
{\f524\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Peinaud Baltic;}{\f525\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler CE;}{\f526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Greek;}
{\f527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Tur;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Baltic;}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps CE;}
{\f530\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Greek;}{\f531\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Tur;}
{\f532\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Schindler Small Caps Baltic;}{\f533\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Vianta Greek;}{\f534\fdecor\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD CE;}
{\f535\fdecor\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LcdD Tur;}{\f536\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????;}
{\f537\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a8\'ac???????;}{\f538\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????????????\'a1\'ec????;}
{\f539\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????????\'a8;}{\f540\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR;}{\f541\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR;}{\f542\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CYR;}
{\f543\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial TUR;}{\f544\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CYR;}{\f545\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New TUR;}{\f546\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Traditional Arabic;}
{\f547\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Arabic Transparent;}{\f548\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Andalus;}{\f549\fnil\fcharset178\fprq2{\*\panose 02010000000000000000}Simplified Arabic;}
{\f550\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1{\*\panose 02010009000000000000}Simplified Arabic Fixed;}{\f551\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}NSimSun;}{\f552\fmodern\fcharset134\fprq1{\*\panose 02010609030101010101}@NSimSun;}
{\f553\fnil\fcharset134\fprq2{\*\panose 02010600030101010101}@SimHei;}{\f554\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}MS PMincho;}{\f555\froman\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 02020600040205080304}@MS PMincho;}
{\f556\fmodern\fcharset128\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609070205080204}@MS Gothic;}{\f557\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS PGothic;}{\f558\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS PGothic;}
{\f559\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}MS UI Gothic;}{\f560\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0600070205080204}@MS UI Gothic;}{\f561\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}AngsanaUPC;}
{\f562\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}BrowalliaUPC;}{\f563\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Browallia New;}{\f564\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0304020202020204}CordiaUPC;}
{\f565\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}DilleniaUPC;}{\f566\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}EucrosiaUPC;}{\f567\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}FreesiaUPC;}
{\f568\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}IrisUPC;}{\f569\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}JasmineUPC;}{\f570\froman\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}KodchiangUPC;}
{\f571\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}LilyUPC;}{\f572\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Typographic Ext;}{\f573\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Iconic Symbols Ext;}
{\f574\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Math Ext;}{\f575\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Multinational Ext;}{\f576\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Greek Symbols;}
{\f577\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SPSS Marker Set;}{\f578\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010607020607}MapInfo Cartographic;}{\f579\fmodern\fcharset136\fprq1{\*\panose 02020309000000000000}@MingLiU;}
{\f580\froman\fcharset136\fprq2{\*\panose 02020300000000000000}@PMingLiU;}{\f581\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}(Use Asian text font){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f582\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}PMingLiU Western{\*\falt !Ps2OcuAe};}{\f583\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Western{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f584\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic CE{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f585\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f586\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f587\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}
{\f588\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Gothic Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ?S?V?b?N};}{\f589\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MingLiU Western{\*\falt 2OcuAe};}
{\f590\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese;}{\f591\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f592\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Greek (Vietname;}
{\f593\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese;}{\f594\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f595\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnam;}
{\f596\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}NSimSun Western;}{\f597\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@NSimSun Western;}{\f598\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Western;}
{\f599\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho CE;}{\f600\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f601\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Greek;}
{\f602\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Tur;}{\f603\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f604\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Western;}
{\f605\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho CE;}{\f606\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Cyr;}{\f607\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Greek;}
{\f608\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Tur;}{\f609\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PMincho Baltic;}{\f610\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Western;}
{\f611\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic CE;}{\f612\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Cyr;}{\f613\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Greek;}
{\f614\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Tur;}{\f615\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS Gothic Baltic;}{\f616\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Western;}
{\f617\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic CE;}{\f618\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f619\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Greek;}
{\f620\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Tur;}{\f621\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f622\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Western;}
{\f623\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic CE;}{\f624\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Cyr;}{\f625\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Greek;}
{\f626\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Tur;}{\f627\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS PGothic Baltic;}{\f628\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Western;}
{\f629\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f630\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f631\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Greek;}
{\f632\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f633\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f634\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Western;}
{\f635\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic CE;}{\f636\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Cyr;}{\f637\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Greek;}
{\f638\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Tur;}{\f639\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MS UI Gothic Baltic;}{\f640\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Browallia New (Thai);}
{\f641\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@MingLiU Western;}{\f642\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@PMingLiU Western;}
{\f643\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????????;}{\f644\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f645\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502040204020203}Segoe Media Center;}{\f646\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0702040200020203}Segoe Media Center Semibold;}{\f647\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0804030504040204}Tahoma Small Cap;}
{\f648\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Elite{\*\falt Arial};}{\f649\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}GothicPS{\*\falt Arial};}
{\f650\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}{\f651\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}
{\f652\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????????\'a1\'a7?????;}{\f653\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????\'a1\'a7???????;}
{\f654\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times (W1){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f655\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times 12pt;}
{\f656\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????????????????????\'a8\'ac?????????;}{\f657\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????\'a1\'ec???;}
{\f658\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}????\'a1\'a7???;}{\f659\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Prestige;}{\f660\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}?????????????????\'a1\'ec?????????;}
{\f661\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????\'a1\'a7??????????;}{\f662\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}o{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f663\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}ome{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f664\fnil\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f665\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Plain text{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f666\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}boscombe{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f667\froman\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}??????????????????????????\'a8\'ac???;}{\f668\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Rockwell CE;}
{\f669\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif CE;}{\f670\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Cyr;}
{\f671\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Greek;}{\f672\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Tur;}
{\f673\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Sans Serif Baltic;}{\f674\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif CE;}
{\f675\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Cyr;}{\f676\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Greek;}
{\f677\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Tur;}{\f678\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif Baltic;}
{\f679\froman\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Reference Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f680\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref CE;}{\f681\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Cyr;}
{\f682\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Greek;}{\f683\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Tur;}{\f684\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref Baltic;}
{\f685\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana Ref (Vietnamese);}{\f686\froman\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref CE;}{\f687\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Cyr;}
{\f688\froman\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Greek;}{\f689\froman\fcharset162\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Tur;}{\f690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Georgia Ref Baltic;}
{\f691\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT CE;}{\f692\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans MT Condensed CE;}
{\f693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Gill Sans Ultra Bold CE;}{\f694\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}Sydnie;}{\f695\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Sydnie Greek;}
{\f696\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f697\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f698\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f699\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f700\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Greek;}
{\f701\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f702\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f708\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f709\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f711\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f713\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f714\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f716\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f717\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f718\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}
{\f719\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f720\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f721\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}
{\f726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}
{\f730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f743\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica CE;}{\f744\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Helvetica Cyr;}{\f746\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Helvetica Greek;}
{\f747\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Tur;}{\f748\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Helvetica (Hebrew);}{\f749\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Helvetica (Arabic);}{\f750\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Baltic;}
{\f751\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Helvetica (Vietnamese);}{\f815\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 MS Mincho Western{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f813\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 MS Mincho CE{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f814\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 MS Mincho Cyr{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f816\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 MS Mincho Greek{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f817\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 MS Mincho Tur{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}
{\f820\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 MS Mincho Baltic{\*\falt ?l?r ??\'81\'66c};}{\f825\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Batang Western{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f823\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Batang CE{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f824\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Batang Cyr{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f826\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Batang Greek{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f827\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Batang Tur{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}
{\f830\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Batang Baltic{\*\falt \'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7E\'a2\'aeEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE\'a1\'cb\'a2\'e7EcEcE\'a2\'aeE\'a1\'cbcE};}{\f835\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 SimSun Western{\*\falt ???????????????\'a1\'ec????????};}
{\f913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Century CE;}{\f914\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Cyr;}{\f916\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Greek;}{\f917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Tur;}{\f920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Baltic;}
{\f925\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Angsana New;}{\f935\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Cordia New;}{\f963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Sylfaen CE;}{\f964\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Sylfaen Cyr;}{\f966\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Sylfaen Greek;}
{\f967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Sylfaen Tur;}{\f970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Sylfaen Baltic;}{\f1045\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1043\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;}
{\f1044\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1046\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1047\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1048\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);}
{\f1049\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1050\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1051\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1052\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS (Thai);}
{\f1053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f1054\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f1056\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f1057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f1058\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}
{\f1059\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f1060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f1061\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f1062\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}
{\f1063\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1064\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1066\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1067\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1068\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1069\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1070\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1071\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f1093\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Lucida Console CE;}
{\f1094\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Lucida Console Cyr;}{\f1096\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Lucida Console Greek;}{\f1097\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Lucida Console Tur;}{\f1103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f1104\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}
{\f1106\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f1107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f1110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;}{\f1111\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (Vietnamese);}{\f1113\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Black CE;}
{\f1114\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Black Cyr;}{\f1116\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Black Greek;}{\f1117\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Black Tur;}{\f1120\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Black Baltic;}
{\f1123\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Comic Sans MS CE;}{\f1124\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Cyr;}{\f1126\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Greek;}{\f1127\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Tur;}
{\f1130\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Baltic;}{\f1133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Impact CE;}{\f1134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Impact Cyr;}{\f1136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Impact Greek;}{\f1137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Impact Tur;}
{\f1140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Impact Baltic;}{\f1143\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia CE;}{\f1144\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Cyr;}{\f1146\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Greek;}{\f1147\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Tur;}
{\f1150\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Baltic;}{\f1153\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium CE;}{\f1154\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cyr;}{\f1156\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Greek;}
{\f1157\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Tur;}{\f1160\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Baltic;}{\f1163\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino Linotype CE;}{\f1164\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Cyr;}
{\f1166\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Greek;}{\f1167\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Tur;}{\f1170\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Linotype Baltic;}{\f1171\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Palatino Linotype (Vietnamese);}
{\f1173\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f1174\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Cyr;}{\f1176\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Greek;}{\f1177\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;}
{\f1180\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Baltic;}{\f1213\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif CE;}{\f1214\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Cyr;}{\f1216\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Greek;}
{\f1217\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Tur;}{\f1218\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Hebrew);}{\f1219\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Arabic);}{\f1220\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Baltic;}
{\f1221\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f1222\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Thai);}{\f1226\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Greek;}{\f1236\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Matter Greek;}
{\f1246\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Alba Super Greek;}{\f1256\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Baby Kruffy Greek;}{\f1266\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Chick Greek;}{\f1276\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Croobie Greek;}{\f1296\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Freshbot Greek;}
{\f1306\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Frosty Greek;}{\f1316\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 GlooGun Greek;}{\f1326\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Jenkins v2.0 Greek;}{\f1366\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Pussycat Greek;}{\f1376\fnil\fcharset161\fprq2 Weltron Urban Greek;}
{\f1383\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Mistral CE;}{\f1384\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Mistral Cyr;}{\f1386\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Mistral Greek;}{\f1387\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Mistral Tur;}{\f1390\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Mistral Baltic;}
{\f1393\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;}{\f1394\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f1396\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f1397\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;}
{\f1398\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode (Hebrew);}{\f1513\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book CE;}{\f1514\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Cyr;}{\f1516\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Greek;}
{\f1517\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Tur;}{\f1520\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Baltic;}{\f1523\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi CE;}{\f1524\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cyr;}
{\f1526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Greek;}{\f1527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1530\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1533\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond CE;}
{\f1534\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Cyr;}{\f1536\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Greek;}{\f1537\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Tur;}
{\f1540\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Baltic;}{\f1553\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Century Gothic CE;}{\f1554\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Gothic Cyr;}{\f1556\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Gothic Greek;}
{\f1557\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Gothic Tur;}{\f1560\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Gothic Baltic;}{\f1675\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Western;}{\f1673\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS CE;}
{\f1674\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f1676\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f1677\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f1678\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Hebrew);}
{\f1679\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Arabic);}{\f1680\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}{\f1681\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Vietnamese);}{\f1682\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 @Arial Unicode MS (Thai);}
{\f1685\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 @Batang Western;}{\f1683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 @Batang CE;}{\f1684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 @Batang Cyr;}{\f1686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 @Batang Greek;}{\f1687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 @Batang Tur;}
{\f1690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 @Batang Baltic;}{\f1693\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;}{\f1694\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f1696\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}{\f1697\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;}
{\f1700\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;}{\f1703\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f1704\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f1706\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;}
{\f1707\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f1710\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f1713\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Garamond CE;}{\f1714\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Garamond Cyr;}
{\f1716\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Garamond Greek;}{\f1717\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Garamond Tur;}{\f1720\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Garamond Baltic;}{\f1723\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Haettenschweiler CE;}{\f1724\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Cyr;}
{\f1726\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Greek;}{\f1727\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Tur;}{\f1730\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Baltic;}{\f1735\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 @MS Mincho Western;}
{\f1733\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 @MS Mincho CE;}{\f1734\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 @MS Mincho Cyr;}{\f1736\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 @MS Mincho Greek;}{\f1737\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 @MS Mincho Tur;}{\f1740\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 @MS Mincho Baltic;}
{\f1753\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva CE;}{\f1754\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Cyr;}{\f1756\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Greek;}{\f1757\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Tur;}
{\f1760\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Monotype Corsiva Baltic;}{\f1765\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2 @SimSun Western;}{\f1783\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f1784\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;}
{\f1786\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f1787\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;}{\f1790\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}{\f1853\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Medium CE;}
{\f1857\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Medium Tur;}{\f1860\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Medium Baltic;}{\f1863\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus CE;}{\f1867\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Tur;}{\f1870\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Baltic;}
{\f1873\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold CE;}{\f1877\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Tur;}{\f1880\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Albertus Extra Bold Baltic;}{\f1883\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic CE;}
{\f1887\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Tur;}{\f1890\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Baltic;}{\f1893\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi CE;}
{\f1897\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f1900\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Avant Garde Gothic Demi Baltic;}{\f1903\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light CE;}{\f1907\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Tur;}
{\f1910\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Light Baltic;}{\f1913\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi CE;}{\f1917\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Tur;}{\f1920\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Bookman Demi Baltic;}
{\f1923\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Omega CE;}{\f1927\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Omega Tur;}{\f1930\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Omega Baltic;}{\f1933\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 CG Times CE;}{\f1937\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 CG Times Tur;}
{\f1940\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 CG Times Baltic;}{\f1943\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery CE;}{\f1947\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Tur;}{\f1950\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 ITC Zapf Chancery Baltic;}
{\f1953\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon CE;}{\f1957\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Tur;}{\f1960\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Baltic;}{\f1963\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed CE;}
{\f1967\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Tur;}{\f1970\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Condensed Baltic;}{\f1973\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Clarendon Extended CE;}{\f1977\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Tur;}
{\f1980\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Clarendon Extended Baltic;}{\f1983\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Coronet CE;}{\f1987\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Coronet Tur;}{\f1990\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Coronet Baltic;}{\f1993\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 CourierPS CE;}
{\f1997\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 CourierPS Tur;}{\f2000\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 CourierPS Baltic;}{\f2013\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow CE;}{\f2017\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Tur;}
{\f2020\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Helvetica Narrow Baltic;}{\f2023\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Letter Gothic CE;}{\f2027\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Letter Gothic Tur;}{\f2030\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Letter Gothic Baltic;}
{\f2033\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Marigold CE;}{\f2037\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Marigold Tur;}{\f2040\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Marigold Baltic;}{\f2043\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook CE;}
{\f2047\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Tur;}{\f2050\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 New Century Schoolbook Baltic;}{\f2053\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive CE;}{\f2057\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Tur;}
{\f2060\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Baltic;}{\f2063\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact CE;}{\f2067\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Tur;}{\f2070\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Antique Olive Compact Baltic;}
{\f2073\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Palatino CE{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2077\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Palatino Tur{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2080\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Palatino Baltic{\*\falt Book Antiqua};}{\f2093\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers CE;}
{\f2097\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Tur;}{\f2100\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Baltic;}{\f2103\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Univers Condensed CE;}{\f2107\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Univers Condensed Tur;}
{\f2110\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Univers Condensed Baltic;}{\f6103\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR CE;}{\f6104\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Cyr;}{\f6106\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Greek;}
{\f6107\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Tur;}{\f6108\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6109\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Arabic);}{\f6110\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR Baltic;}
{\f6111\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6113\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR CE;}{\f6114\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Cyr;}{\f6116\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Greek;}
{\f6117\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Tur;}{\f6118\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6119\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Arabic);}{\f6120\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR Baltic;}
{\f6121\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman TUR (Vietnamese);}{\f6123\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CYR CE;}{\f6124\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CYR Cyr;}{\f6126\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CYR Greek;}
{\f6127\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CYR Tur;}{\f6128\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6129\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CYR (Arabic);}{\f6130\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CYR Baltic;}
{\f6131\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CYR (Vietnamese);}{\f6133\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial TUR CE;}{\f6134\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial TUR Cyr;}{\f6136\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial TUR Greek;}{\f6137\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial TUR Tur;}
{\f6138\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6139\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial TUR (Arabic);}{\f6140\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial TUR Baltic;}{\f6141\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial TUR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6143\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CYR CE;}{\f6144\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CYR Cyr;}{\f6146\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CYR Greek;}{\f6147\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CYR Tur;}
{\f6148\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Hebrew);}{\f6149\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Arabic);}{\f6150\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CYR Baltic;}{\f6151\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CYR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6153\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New TUR CE;}{\f6154\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New TUR Cyr;}{\f6156\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New TUR Greek;}{\f6157\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New TUR Tur;}
{\f6158\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Hebrew);}{\f6159\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Arabic);}{\f6160\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New TUR Baltic;}{\f6161\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New TUR (Vietnamese);}
{\f6613\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek CE;}{\f6614\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Cyr;}{\f6616\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Greek;}{\f6617\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Tur;}
{\f6618\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Hebrew);}{\f6619\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Arabic);}{\f6620\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek Baltic;}
{\f6621\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f6643\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic CE;}{\f6644\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Cyr;}{\f6646\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Greek;}
{\f6647\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Tur;}{\f6648\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f6649\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f6650\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic Baltic;}{\f6651\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7663\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Baltic CE;}{\f7664\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Baltic Cyr;}
{\f7666\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Baltic Greek;}{\f7667\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Baltic Tur;}{\f7668\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7669\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f7670\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic Baltic;}{\f7671\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7673\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Baltic CE;}{\f7674\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Cyr;}
{\f7676\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Greek;}{\f7677\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Tur;}{\f7678\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Hebrew);}{\f7679\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Arabic);}
{\f7680\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic Baltic;}{\f7681\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Baltic (Vietnamese);}{\f7683\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE CE;}{\f7684\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Cyr;}
{\f7686\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Greek;}{\f7687\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Tur;}{\f7688\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Hebrew);}{\f7689\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Arabic);}
{\f7690\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman CE Baltic;}{\f7691\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7693\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE CE;}{\f7694\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial CE Cyr;}
{\f7696\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial CE Greek;}{\f7697\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial CE Tur;}{\f7698\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial CE (Hebrew);}{\f7699\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial CE (Arabic);}{\f7700\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial CE Baltic;}
{\f7701\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7703\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Greek CE;}{\f7704\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Greek Cyr;}{\f7706\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek Greek;}
{\f7707\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Greek Tur;}{\f7708\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7709\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial Greek (Arabic);}{\f7710\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Greek Baltic;}
{\f7711\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial Greek (Vietnamese);}{\f7713\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE CE;}{\f7714\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New CE Cyr;}{\f7716\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New CE Greek;}
{\f7717\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New CE Tur;}{\f7718\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New CE (Hebrew);}{\f7719\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New CE (Arabic);}{\f7720\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New CE Baltic;}
{\f7721\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New CE (Vietnamese);}{\f7723\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New Greek CE;}{\f7724\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Greek Cyr;}{\f7726\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek Greek;}
{\f7727\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Greek Tur;}{\f7728\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Hebrew);}{\f7729\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Arabic);}{\f7730\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Greek Baltic;}
{\f7731\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New Greek (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;
\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\s2\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa120\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f4\fs28\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Heading;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{
\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f36\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon16 \snext17 List;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sb120\sa120\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\i\f36\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \ssemihidden caption;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f36\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Index;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{\s21\ql \fi-1134\li1134\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1134\tx1418\tx9781\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1134\itap0 
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 dday;}{\s22\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Table Contents;}{
\s23\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon22 \snext23 Table Heading;}{\*\cs24 \additive \f3 RTF_Num 2 1;}{\*\cs25 \additive RTF_Num 2 2;}{\*\cs26 \additive RTF_Num 2 3;}{\*\cs27 
\additive RTF_Num 2 4;}{\*\cs28 \additive RTF_Num 2 5;}{\*\cs29 \additive RTF_Num 2 6;}{\*\cs30 \additive RTF_Num 2 7;}{\*\cs31 \additive RTF_Num 2 8;}{\*\cs32 \additive RTF_Num 2 9;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid460933\rsid548649\rsid5969831\rsid8993062
\rsid10361692\rsid16319603}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6612;}{\info{\author matt}{\operator John Palmer}{\creatim\yr2007\mo7\dy21\hr20\min51}{\revtim\yr2007\mo7\dy31\hr12\min2}{\printim\yr2113\mo1\dy1}{\version5}{\edmins13}{\nofpages222}
{\nofwords102795}{\nofchars585934}{\*\company  University of Hull}{\nofcharsws687355}{\vern16389}}\deftab1080\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\makebackup\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120
\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot10361692 \fet0\sectd \sbknone\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2
\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang 
{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s21\qc \fi-1134\li1134\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1134\tx1418\tx9781\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin1134\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid10361692 NOTES
\par }{\insrsid10361692\charrsid460933 (version 1a)}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\cf1\insrsid10361692 DERBYSHIRE. The }{\insrsid10361692 
main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title }{\i\insrsid10361692 DERBYSCIRE}{\insrsid10361692 
 in vermilion capitals across the top of each of folios 272ab to 278cd, centred above both columns. On folio 276ab he wrote it as two words. On folio 277cd the first }{\i\insrsid10361692 R}{\insrsid10361692 
 is missing: for some reason the scribe simply failed to write it. He did not write anything on the last folio of the quire (folio 279), which is blank.
\par }{\insrsid5969831 
\par }{\insrsid10361692 AT THE TOP of folio 272a Arthur Agarde, keeper of Domesday Book from 1570 to 1615, wrote 'looke the Towne of Derbie in the Firste leafe of Snotingh'scire'. He was deputy chamberlain of the Ex
chequer and a noted scholar and archivist. On the various annotations made by him on blank pages and in the margins of Domesday Book, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 133-34 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 201), and Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 211-17). Agarde normally wrote in Latin, but (apart from 'Snotingh'scire') this note is in English, written in a mock Domesday script. It is on
e of a series of practical instructions to the reader, here alerting him to the fact that (the entry for the borough of) Derby is to be found on the first leaf of Nottinghamshire (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Snotingh'scire}{\insrsid10361692 
): folio 280b. For other such useful instructions, see RUT 'Roteland' note, HEF A1 Agarde note, and, for a rather obscure reference, see LEC 1,4 margin note.
\par }{\insrsid5969831 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 letters thorn (\'fe) and eth (\'f0) are reproduced as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 th}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .
\par }{\insrsid10361692 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 {\cf1\insrsid10361692 LIST 1\tab 
LANDHOLDERS. On the descendants of the Domesday landholders in Derbyshire, see Statham, 'Later Descendants of Domesday Holders of Land in Derbyshire', and Statham, 'Later Descendants of Domesday Tenants in Derbyshire'.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab L9[8]. The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 VI}{\insrsid10361692  and then interlined two minims (= }{\i\insrsid10361692 VIIII}{\insrsid10361692 ) instead of one (= }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VIII}{\insrsid10361692 ).
\par 1\tab LAND OF THE KING. He was born in 1027 or 1028, the son 
of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette, daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at the battle of Hasting
s
. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25th December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders; she predeceased him. Among his children were Robert Curthose,
 
William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by his son Henry (Henry 
I, 1100-1135).
\par \tab \tab In some other counties the land of the king, having probably at first been arranged by hundreds or wapentakes, was reordered into sections according to who held in 1066. In the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 
 for Derbyshire, the main scribe of Great Domesday p
rovided two of the five wapentake heads that he allotted to the county as a whole (1,1;11). However, when the Domesday places are collated with the wapentakes in which they are found later, a simple pattern emerges; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. With the exceptions of the marginal entry at 1,17 which disrupts the sequence, of the entry for Tibshelf (1,36) which is in the same wapentake ('Scarsdale' Wapentake) as 1,1-10, and of Darley (1,11) which appears to have been dra
wn subsequently into another wapentake, there is a clear pattern: it is evident that the manors were entered in groups by wapentake.
\par \tab \tab 1,1-10 'Scarsdale' Wapentake (heading supplied by the scribe)
\par \tab \tab 1,11-15 Hamston Wapentake (heading supplied by the scribe)
\par \tab \tab 1,16-26 ["Walecros" Wapentake]. Among these is a marginal entry (1,17) which}{\insrsid8993062  }{\insrsid10361692 appears to relate to 1,37)
\par \tab \tab 1,27-34 [Blackwell Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 1,35 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 1,36 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake] out of sequence (see 1,36 'Scarsdale' note)
\par \tab \tab 1,37-38 [Litchurch Wapentake].
\par \tab The numbering of the Phillimore edition is in a straightforward sequence, apparently based on the occurrence of the marginal letters }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{
\insrsid10361692 , and makes no distinction between manors and their dependencies. Although there are 38 entries, there are only 23 manors (the }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 with }{\i\insrsid10361692 II
}{\insrsid10361692  above it, of 1,9 relating to the tenure in 1066). These are listed below with the wapentake in which they lay and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder.
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx4266\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard 
\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10361692 {\b\insrsid10361692 Wapentake and Manor\cell }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10361692 {
\b\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\b\insrsid10361692  Holder}{\insrsid10361692 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid10361692 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx4266\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row 
}\trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx4266\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\pard 
\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10361692 {\insrsid10361692 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE
\par 1,1-8 Newbold
\par 1,9 Unstone
\par 1,10 Walton
\par HAMSTON WAPENTAKE
\par 1,11 Darley
\par 1,12 Matlock Bridge
\par 1,13 Wirksworth
\par 1,14 Ashbourne
\par 1,15 Parwich
\par ["WALECROS" WAPENTAKE]
\par 1,16 Walton-on-Trent
\par (1,17 Weston-on Trent, Smalley and Kidsleypark, apparently attached to Walton-on-Trent, but in other wapentakes)
\par 1,18 Newton Solney
\par 1,19 Melbourne
\par 1,20-26 Repton
\par [BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE]
\par 1,27 Bakewell
\par 1,28 Ashford-in-the-Water
\par 1,29 Hope
\par 1,30 Longdendale
\par 1,31 Beeley
\par 1,32 'Langley'
\par 1,33 Eyam
\par 1,34 Stoney Middleton
\par ['MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE]
\par 1,35 Mapperley
\par ['SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE]
\par 1,36 Tibshelf (apparently misplaced)
\par [LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE]
\par 1,37-38 Weston-on-Trent
\par \cell 
\par (not given)
\par Leofwin and Edwin
\par Hundulf
\par King Edward
\par King Edward
\par King Edward?
\par King Edward?
\par King Edward?
\par Earl Algar
\par (not given)
\par [Earl] Algar
\par King Edward
\par Earl Algar
\par King Edward
\par King Edward
\par King Edward
\par "Ligulf"
\par Godric
\par Leofnoth and Ketil
\par Karski
\par Godgyth
\par Staplewin
\par "Ligulf"
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\pararsid10361692 {\insrsid10361692 Earl Algar\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid10361692 
\trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx4266\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4374\clshdrawnil \cellx8640\row }\pard 
\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 {\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab The way the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders are listed (with minor holders interspersed with major tenants) reinforces the impression that this chapter is arranged by wapentakes. The five manors 1,11-15 are different from the others because of their renders of money and honey in 1066 and m
oney and silver in 1086, but they lie in the same wapentake (Hamston Wapentake) which contains no other royal manors, so their presence as a single block does not undermine the arrangement by wapentake.
\par \tab \tab Alternative views of the structure of this chapter are offered by the Victoria County History and by Roffe. According to Stenton in}{\i\insrsid10361692  VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 297-98, King William acquired lands from King Edward (1,11-15;19;27-29), the forfeited estates of Earl Edwin (attributed in Domesday to Earl Algar: 1,16-18;20;37-38) and from various other }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
holders (he mentioned 1,1-8;10;31-36). He stated of this last group that 'it looks almost as if the addition of the first five of these manors to the royal demesne [that is, 1,10;31-34] marks a deliberate attempt 
on the part of the king to round off his possessions in the north of the county'. This statement is unconvincing.
\par \tab \tab In contrast, Roffe}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ('Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 5) }{\insrsid10361692 regards the chapter as falling into two sections, one held by the king in pe
rson and the other held 'in custody' for the king by William Peverel. He does not detail the contents of these two sections, only allotting folio numbers to them (folios 272-272v; 272v-273) and stating that the 'division is neatly emphasized by the layout
 
of the text - spaces distinguish individual manors in the first, while the second is written in one block without interruption'. This is an over-simplification, however: there are only spaces between 1,13-14. 1,14-15 and 1,19-20 and these may have another
 significance (1,13 after note). See also \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. For his suggestion that the last two entries were probably 'postscriptal', see 1,37 entry note and 1,38 entry note. Certainly William Peverel had charge
 of a number of royal manors (1,27-29;32;35-36). There is, however, no reason to think that he was managing more than he was assigned by Domesday, that the Land of the King ends with a block of such manors, and that this has dictated the arrangement of th
e whole chapter, except perhaps in one case; see 1,29 Peverel note.
\par \tab \tab A number of these royal manors are multiple estates, containing both outliers (}{\i\insrsid10361692 berewicae}{\insrsid10361692 ) and jurisdictions (}{\i\insrsid10361692 socae}{\insrsid10361692 
). The main scribe of Great Domesday tended to list the names of the outl
iers in the main manorial entry and presumably included their resources in the manor's statistics. For each jurisdiction, however, he listed the resources (but not the value) separately, preceded by a marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 
. In the Phillimore printed edition, these jurisdictions are allotted separate numbers which are retained here.
\par 1,1\tab 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE. This is one of only five wapentake heads supplied in Derbyshire by the main scribe of Great Domesday in Derbyshire; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab NEWBOLD. }{\insrsid10361692 
This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. The Domesday place is represented by Newbold (SK3672, formerly Nether Newbold) and Over or Upper Newbold (SK3573). Newbold was not as important nor is it as well-represented
 in later documents as its outlier Chesterfield; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. pp. 277-78. Chesterfield subsequently became the name of the manor. It was granted 'with the great wapentake' ['Scarsdale' Wapentake] to William Briwere: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 152.
\par \tab \tab Newbold was }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
perhaps recently settled as the site of the Norman manor house. Chesterfield, the more ancient settlement, is described as a manor in a grant of William Rufus to Lincoln Cathedral in 1093 and had perhaps already reasserted its local pre-e
minence: Bestall, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 History of Chesterfield}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 28-29 (PM).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab A possible contradiction to this is that }{\insrsid10361692 there is a charter dating from the year 942 in which King Edmund gave land in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Newanbolde}{\insrsid10361692  to Wulfsige the black: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p, 92 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 10-12 no. 6)}{\insrsid10361692 . This place has been identified with Newbold in Barton-under-Needwood (STS 1,20). However, in this charter all the other places given were in Derbyshire, and close
 to each other and to Burton-on-Trent. The possibility that this place was the present Newbold cannot currently be ruled out. If this is so, it will presumably have reverted to a king at some stage in its history.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab No 1066 holder is given; in view of the size and importance of the manor, it may have been King Edward.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WITH 6 OUTLIERS. In Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and some other counties in Domesday the outliers are named, but increasingly the main scribe's practice was either to enumerate the outliers
, but not to name them, or to pass them over in silence and engross their details with those of the main manor.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab For 'outliers' the manuscript has }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 BERewitis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 BERewicis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (PM). This is a hypercorrect form. In Medieval Latin the }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 -t-}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  between two letters }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 i }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 often simplifies to }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 -c-}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 peticio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  for 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 petitio }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ('request'). A 'classicizing' scribe attempting to restore the 'proper' spelling would occasionally change a form that is, in fact, correct, as in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 aeccles}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ia for the correct }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ecclesia}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab [OLD] WHITTINGTON. Whittington was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake with its parent manor Newbold in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Seven }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hwituntune}{\insrsid10361692  were granted in 925 by King Athelstan to Eadric his }{\i\insrsid10361692 minister }{\insrsid10361692 ('official', 'servant'): }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 90 no. 80 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 395 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 3-5 no. 2). It is not obvious why this charter was held in the Burton Abbey archives, although it may have been a deed belonging to a member of Wulfric Spot's family.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab BRIMINGTON. This was a chapelry of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield, it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab TAPTON. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield, it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For another portion, held by a king's thane, and no doubt originally part of this manor, see 17,8.
\par \tab CHESTERFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It undoubtedly lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248.
\par \tab \tab Land in Chesterfield was granted in 955 by King Eadred to Uhtred Child, described as his }{\i\insrsid10361692 pedisequus}{\insrsid10361692  ('minister', 'high official', literally 'foot-follower'): }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 106 no. 105 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 569 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 21-22 no. 13)}{
\insrsid10361692 . The grant may have been only for his lifetime as Chesterfield reverted to the Crown.
\par \tab \tab There was a church at Chesterfield not mentioned in Domesday. It was granted, along with the church of Ashbourne (1,14) and the churches of Mansfield and Orston in Nottinghamshire (NTT 1,23;51), by William II in 1093 to the Bishop of Lincoln: }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , viii. p. 1271 (the page number is misprinted as 1237) no. 6; }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 87 no. 337. This grant makes reference to one by William the Conqueror which is lost. Besides the churches themselves, the grant includes 'the chapels in the outliers of these four manors'. None of these chapels is mentioned in Domesday; see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 312.
\par \tab \tab Chesterfield became a free borough by charter in 1204; see Beresford and Finberg, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Medieval Boroughs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 85.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the name }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cestrefeld}{\insrsid10361692  appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cestrcfold}{\insrsid10361692 , possibly because of print-through; see 1,1 carucates note. See also 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par \tab BOYTHORPE. This was a settlement in Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield, it was no doubt in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 234.
\par \tab ECKINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. For a manor here, see 10,1.
\par \tab 6 CARUCATES OF LAND. In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692  is not clear and appears to have }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692 
 interlined above it. This is due to print-through from the verso of this folio because the parchment is very thin here. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692  is in fact the interlined number of carucates above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Opetune}{
\insrsid10361692  (Hopton), an outlier of Wirksworth (1,13) on folio 272c. The Ordnance Survey facsimile, because of its different method of production, does not show print-through and so the }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692  is clear. See also
 1,1 Chesterfield note, 1,13 Callow note, 16,5 parchment note, 17,6 Handley note and 17,8 Tapton note.
\par \tab \tab In the 'Danelaw' counties (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire) the carucate is the equivalent of the hide used in the counties of Wessex and Mercia. Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 carucata}{\insrsid10361692 
 derives from }{\i\insrsid10361692 caruca}{\insrsid10361692  ('plough') and it was theoretically the amount of land needed to occupy a plough for a year, but like the hide was also a measure of tax liability. A carucate was divided into 8 bovates. See \{
Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par \tab 1 BOVATE. The bovate was in origin an area of land sufficient to keep one ox occupied for a year's ploughing. There were normally eight oxen to a plough (1,4 oxen note) and so eight bovates to the carucate. By 1086, howeve
r, the bovate and the carucate were measures of tax liability and had become disconnected from reality on the ground. See \{Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. In common with the other counties in circuit VI, slaves were very rarely, if ever, recorded in D
omesday. There is no mention of them in Domesday Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire and there are only 26 in Nottinghamshire and 20 here in Derbyshire (see also 6,52-54;66. 8,1. 10,1;4). The reason for their omission is unknown. They certainly exist
ed: the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate}{\insrsid10361692 
 records them for four of the five estates that Ely Abbey held in Huntingdonshire, for example (see HUN 4 Ely note). In the present county they are generally listed with the villagers and smallholders, but in 10,1;4 they seem to be linked with the priest.

\par \tab TO THIS MANOR BELONG. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 p'tin'}{\insrsid10361692  abbreviates }{\i\insrsid10361692 pertinent}{\insrsid10361692 
, plural because its subject is '8 acres'. In the Phillimore printed translation it appears as 'belongs', possibly because of the singular 'meadow' following it.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the Phillimore printed edition, this phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692 
 is a noun and }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This is obvious when in 1,13 he recorded }{
\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata}{\insrsid10361692  ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also 1YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 minuta}{\insrsid10361692  are adjectives that describe the }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692 
, literally 'woodland, pasturable and low-growing'. It is also evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis }{\insrsid10361692 ... }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  }{
\i\insrsid10361692 alia silua }{\insrsid10361692 ... ('pasturable woodland ... other woodland ...'): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable.
\par \tab \tab Great Domesday does not make it clear whether the pasture had been created by assarting or whether the woodland was natura
lly open. This phrase is not a reference to the pannage of pigs, but essentially replaces the normal entry for woodland combining it with a mention of pasture (principally for the plough-oxen). In such cases, separate pasture is rarely mentioned, an excep
tion being in 6,32: }{\i\f703\insrsid10361692 iiii ac' pascu\'ea. Silua pastilis dimidiam leugam longa 7 dimidiam lata}{\insrsid10361692 . ('pasture, 4 acres. Pasturable woodland \'bd league long and \'bd
 wide'). In fact throughout Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Yorkshi
re, the woodland normally provided the pasture as well. When this was not the case, the scribe tended to note it, as in 1,28;30. 5,5. NTT 14,8. YKS 5N8. 5W5 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 silua non pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 ) and YKS 23N10 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
silua sine pastura}{\insrsid10361692 ); see 1,28 woodland note. An apparent exception is HUN 1,10: }{\i\f703\insrsid10361692 l acras silu\'ea pastilis. De pastura xx solidi}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('50 acres of pasturable woodland. From pasture 20s.'). There, however, there was pasture that exceeded the requirements of the estate and which was a source of income presumably from another village or other villages that lacked this resource. There }{
\i\insrsid10361692 pastura}{\insrsid10361692  is really 'pasturage' and the grazing could actually have taken place in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 . In LIN 56,16 there is an interesting entry: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Silua pastilis viii quarentinas longa 7 v lata: medietas pascuae alia medietas minutae siluae}{\insrsid10361692  (' Pasturable woodland 8 furlongs long and 5 wide: half [consists] of pasture, the other half of underwood'); here }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{
\insrsid10361692  ('another') seems to be used in place of }{\i\insrsid10361692 altera}{\insrsid10361692  ('the other') as not infrequently. The purpose o
f the final phrase seems to be to give the relative proportions of pasture and underwood. No doubt these resources were intermingled on the ground and this is really }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua minuta 7 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('pasturable underwood'); if the underwood and pasture were in sep
arate blocks, they would have been expressed as such. Woodland and open land are similarly intermixed at YKS 1Y2, though at Tupton and Norton in Derbyshire (1,8) they are separate resources. See 1,12 woodland note.
\par 1,2\tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. This heading governs the entries 1,2-8. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('jurisdiction') is probably singular showing that the meaning is abstract ('This manor has jurisdiction over...') rather than concrete ('these estates are jurisdictions of...'). There being no verb in the phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca huius manerii}{
\insrsid10361692 , it would be possible to argue that the main scribe of Great Domesday was using a neuter plural from the alternative form }{\i\insrsid10361692 socum}{\insrsid10361692 
. There is no clear evidence that this latter form occurs in Domesday, and the matter seems settled by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Haec SOCA pertinet ad Mileburne}{\insrsid10361692  ('This jurisdiction belongs to Melbourne') in 1,19, where }{\i\insrsid10361692 
soca}{\insrsid10361692  is undoubtedly singular. The Alecto edition has 'The SOKELAND of this manor'. Compare 3,1 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab WINGERWORTH. This was a chapelry of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield (1,1), it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 1,3\tab 'GREYHIRST'. This lost place lay in Hasland, which was itself a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. The }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 260, mentions a possible identification with Grassmoor, also in Hasland, but also states that the}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 names themselves 'are in no way connected'.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab "PADINC". The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Gazetteer}{\insrsid10361692  has Padleywood (PM). The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 158, ii. p. 276, gives no support to this identification.

\par 1,4\tab [TEMPLE] NORMANTON. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield (1,1), it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 282. The place was sometimes known as 'North' Normanton to distinguish it from South Normanton (7,4). For an outlier here, see 1,9.
\par \tab 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. Since a plough-team normally consisted of 8 oxen, there was here a quarter of a plough-
team, the others presumably being on an adjacent estate. In the next entry (1,5) 'land for 2 oxen' is used as an assessment (that is, 2 bovates). On there being also a smaller team of 6 oxen, see CON 5,2,19 plough note, but this is unlikely in Derbyshire 
because of the occurrence of '6 oxen in a plough' in 1,31 and 'land for 6 oxen' in 17,18, instead of '1 plough' which there would be if a team consisted of 6 oxen.
\par 1,5\tab UNSTONE. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Honestune}{\insrsid10361692  here, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Onestune}{\insrsid10361692  at 1,9. Forms in initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 H-}{\insrsid10361692  continue to be found until Tudor times; see 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 318-19.
\par \tab Unstone was a township of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Like Dronfield (1,6), it no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For the manor here, see 1,9.
\par \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. In other words land for a quarter of a plough-team, equivalent to 2 bovates; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par 1,6\tab DRONFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par 1,7\tab "RAUENESHOLM"}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . In the manuscript this place-name is written over a very greasy patch of parchment, so that the end of the word is unclear; it is not erased, however (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, the Phillimore printed edition note here). Under ultra-violet light it is clearly visible as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Rauenesholm}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , which is also the reading in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Abbreviatio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (folio 196r) and the Breviate (folio 141r). The last four letters are not clear in either }{\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey or Alecto facsimiles. Farley, however, printed the last letter as }{\i\insrsid10361692 h}{\insrsid10361692 
, though there is no sign of any ascender in the manuscript.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The correct reading of the place-name had already been deduced by PM in a note to the Phillimore printed edition. He added: 'The identification of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, Ramshaw, must therefore be rejected; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 319. The location of 'Ravensholm' is not known'. In }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 329, the translator read RAVENESH ... N and tentatively suggested an identification with Renishaw [in Eckington]. However, although Renishaw is in the right wapentake ('Scarsdale' Wapentake), the early forms of Renishaw, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Reynold schaie}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  1216), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Reynalddeschawe}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (1281), do not support this; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 248.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab 'UPTON'. This place apparently lay in Dronfield Ancient Parish, but is now lost:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 244.
\par 1,8\tab [OLD] TUPTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 8,3 and 17.3.
\par \tab NORTON. This was an Ancient Parish, today represented by Norton and Little Norton. It no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For another part, see 16,6.
\par \tab \tab Part of Norton was incorporated into Sheffield (Yorkshire) in 1901 and in 1934 the rest was divided between Sheffield and Coal Aston Civil Parish (Derbyshire): Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 81.
\par \tab TO THESE JURISDICTION LANDS. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ad has t}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 ras soch'}{\insrsid10361692 . It has been assumed that the abbreviation }{\i\insrsid10361692 
soch}{\insrsid10361692 ' (as in 1,7) should be expanded to }{\i\insrsid10361692 sochemannorum}{\insrsid10361692 
 and that the reference is to the lands of those 4 Freemen at "Rauenesholm" and 'Upton'. The Phillimore printed translation reads 'To these Freemen's lands ...
', while the Alecto translation is: 'To these lands of the sokemen ...'. It is noticeable, however, that this is the concluding sentence of the list of lands that are jurisdictions of Newbold (1,1) and that the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote it on a 
separate line with a large rubricated }{\i\insrsid10361692 A}{\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ad}{\insrsid10361692  (as he did for the attached outliers in 1,12, though there he did not rubricate the }{\i\insrsid10361692 A}{\insrsid10361692 
). Moreover, no woodland has been mentioned on any of them and the extent of this wood (5 leagues by 3 leagues) dwarfs the 1 
carucate that the Freemen hold in 1,7. It thus seems more probable that this sentence is describing the meadow, the pasturable woodland and the open land that belong to all the jurisdictions of Newbold (1,2-8). If that is so, the scribe had either mechani
cally written }{\i\insrsid10361692 soch'}{\insrsid10361692  influenced by its previous use (the normal abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692  ('jurisdiction') is without an }{\i\insrsid10361692 h}{\insrsid10361692 ), or intended }{
\i\insrsid10361692 soch'}{\insrsid10361692  to be expanded to }{\i\insrsid10361692 sochas }{\insrsid10361692 in apposition to }{\i\insrsid10361692 terras}{\insrsid10361692  ('to these lands, jurisdictions, ...'), or, having written }{\i\insrsid10361692 
terras}{\insrsid10361692 , he decided to qualify it but was uncertain how to connect }{\i\insrsid10361692 soc(h)a}{\insrsid10361692  with it and escaped the problem by putting an abbreviation sign.
\par 1,9\tab 2M&B. Unstone was a double manor (held by Leofwin and Edwin }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 ), hence the }{\i\insrsid10361692 .II. M}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ANERIA}{\insrsid10361692 ]. Temple Normanton was its outl
ier (}{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 EREWICA}{\insrsid10361692 ].
\par \tab UNSTONE. This was a township of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Like Dronfield (1,6), it no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For a jurisdiction here, see 1,5.
\par \tab [TEMPLE] NORMANTON. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield (1,1), it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 282. The place was sometimes known as 'North' Normanton to distinguish it from South Normanton (7,4). For a jurisdiction here, see 1,4.
\par \tab LEOFWIN <OF ASTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuuine}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefuuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Leuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liuuin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofwine}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 
 as it was closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.
\par \tab \tab It is likely that this man is the same individual as the 1086 tenants of 17,5-6 and of Roger of Bully at Be
ighton (16,3) and possibly Dore (16,5), where the text is ambiguous. All were close to each other and more than one survivor of the same name in a limited area is improbable. On another possible connection between 1,9 and 17,5, see 17,5 Aston note (JP).

\par \tab EDWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eduuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eduin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Eduuine}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeduuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eaduinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edduinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eduun}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eadwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 238-40. JRM preferred the first element 
Ed- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ead- }{\insrsid10361692 and the second element -win for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 
, as they were closer to the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edwin has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edwin.
\par \tab \tab There is no indication that he was Earl Edwin. Sharing an estate would be unusual for a man of his rank, and it is notable that the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders of many of these royal estates (such as Hundulf in 1,10) are individuals of no known importance; see DBY 1 king note.
\par \tab NOW IN LORDSHIP. In Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday included the Latin }{\i\f710\insrsid10361692 m\'f4}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 modo}{\insrsid10361692 
, 'now') very frequently both, as here, before the lordship ploughs, without or with a specific holder being mentioned, and before the village population and their ploughs. It is possible that in t
he putative circuit volume the number of ploughs in lordship and held by the 'villagers' in 1066 was provided, as well as those 'now'. The questions in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{
\insrsid10361692 which purport to be those asked during the Domesday Survey, mention that all the details of holding, tenant, hidage, lordship and men's ploughs, 'villagers' and resources should be given at three dates (}{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692 , when given by King William and 'now'). Certainly much of this information appears in Little Domesday Book (the circuit volum
e for circuit VII), though not in Exon, (the circuit volume for circuit II). In Leicestershire the 'now in lordship' phrase frequently succeeds details of the number of ploughs that were there (}{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
), on which see LEC 9,1 1066 note. This phrase also occu
rs regularly in Oxfordshire, often in Huntingdonshire, sometimes in Nottinghamshire and occasionally in other counties, including Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in circuit VI. It would seem likely that it was a 'leftover' from the editing of texts in which th
e }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  details were also commonly provided. See also 'now 2 villagers' in 6,57, and compare 17,8 now note. The scribe also of course used 'now' in Derbyshire in phrases such as 'now }{\i\insrsid10361692 X}{
\insrsid10361692  has it/holds it', as well as with the value, in contrast to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  value.
\par \tab A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. It seems that the church was actually at Dronfield: }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cox, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Churches of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 201-202, iii. p. 409, iv. p. 539. In Domesday Derbyshire priests are almost always recorded with a church, whereas in many holdings in ot
her counties priests are often noted, but no churches, and vice versa. The exceptions are in 5,4. 7,13. 10,1 and 17,11. The two priests in 1,20 have a plough, while the priests in Bakewell have under them 2 villagers and 5 smallholders with whom they shar
e 11 ploughs; see also 1,14 and 10,10.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 13s. Until 1971 the English pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence and the}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 abbreviations \'a3.s.d. preserved the Domesday terms }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 librae}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  solidi}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  denarii }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (PM). In Domesday Book sums above a shilling are often expre
ssed in pence (as in 16d in 1,14) and above a pound in shillings (as 40s in 1,11).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 1,10\tab WALTON. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Like Chesterfield, it will no doubt have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab HUNDULF <OF HUCKLOW>. The Domesday form here and in 7,10 (Hucklow), as also in CHS 2,26 (the only other occurrence of the name in Domesday), is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundulf}{\insrsid10361692 . It represents Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundolfr}{
\insrsid10361692  (von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 295), but JRM preferred the second element -ulf for the Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 -ulfr}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 -olfr}{\insrsid10361692 , as there are more instances of the former and in Domesday the forms ending in }{\i\insrsid10361692 -ulf}{\insrsid10361692  predominate. The Alecto edition has Hundolfr.
\par \tab \tab 
Despite the rarity of the name, it is improbable that the Hundulf of Cheshire is the same individual, given the poverty of the holdings and the distance between them. The two Derbyshire holdings may have belonged to one individual. They are about 15 miles
 apart and the association with William Peverel with the royal fief may provide a connection, albeit slight (JP).
\par 1,11\tab HAMSTON WAPENTAKE. This is one of only five wapentake heads found in Domesday Derbyshire; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. Hamston Wapentake was later renamed Wirksworth Wapentake from one of its major manors (1,13).
\par \tab DARLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was later in High Peak Wapentake (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 287; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47), whic
h is presumed to be represented by Blackwell Wapentake in 1086. The presence of Darley here under a Hamston wapentake head might suggest that Hamston Wapentake in 1086 covered the whole area of the later High Peak and Wirksworth Wapentakes, but was only d
ivided later. There are, however, strong arguments for the existence of a separate Blackwell Wapentake in 1086; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. In the case of Darley, together with the other four royal manors in Hamston Wa
pentake, it formed a special group, apparently of Ancient Demesne and with unusual renders of honey and silver (see 1,15 manors note). It was probably placed in Blackwell or High Peak Wapentake when these ties weakened, but for an unknown reason; the earl
y history of many Derbyshire estates is scantily documented. It lies close to the putative boundary of the two wapentakes.
\par \tab \tab The names which follow (Farley, 'Cotes' and Burley) are outliers of Darley, as is indicated by the marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692  with }{\i\insrsid10361692 III }{\insrsid10361692 above it.
\par \tab EDWARD. The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eduuard(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eduardus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eaduuardus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edw}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 
ardus}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Euuard}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eadweard}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ead-}{\insrsid10361692  and the second element -ward for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -weard}{
\insrsid10361692 , as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edward has survived into modern times and the king is known as Edward. The Alecto edition also has Edward.
\par \tab FARLEY. This was a settlement in Darley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 82.
\par \tab 'COTES'. These 'cottages' were in Darley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 82.
\par \tab BURLEY. This was a settlement in Darley Ancient Parish. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Berleie}{\insrsid10361692 , but later forms begin in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bur}{\insrsid10361692 -: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 82. It is represented by Burley Fields Farm at SK276642.
\par \tab AND 2 BOVATES. This was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday in correction.
\par \tab 7 VILLAGERS. The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear
: it could be nominative, as in 1,13, or it could be accusative and the object of 'The King has' like the plough; compare 6,70 and 17,11;18 where it must abbreviate }{\i\insrsid10361692 uillanos}{\insrsid10361692 
. It seems safest, therefore, to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin by putting a s
emi-colon after the plough. This was JRM's policy in other counties. However, both the Phillimore printed translation and the Alecto edition have 'and' after the '1 plough'; see also 1,19 and 17,9. In 2,1;3 and 5,1, however, the Phillimore printed transla
tion has a full-stop in the similar position and that has also now been altered to a semi-colon for the present edition; see 2,1 villagers note.
\par \tab BEFORE 1066 ... 2 SESTERS OF HONEY; NOW \'a34. This render of honey is ancient and found on a number of manors, es
pecially royal ones, and in some boroughs; see, for example, GLS G1. HAM 1,27. HEF 1,1. LEC C1. NTT 1,1. OXF B1. WAR B4-5. Here it contributed }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  to the 6 \'bd
 sesters of honey rendered by the five royal manors in Hamston Wapentake (1,11-15). By 1086 it had been commuted to a money payment.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The sester was a measure, sometimes of liquid, as here, sometimes dry and of uncertain and probably variable size. It originated with the Romans as a sixth of a }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 congius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('bucket') and appears to be about three-quarter
s of a modern gallon. A mid-eleventh century grant to St Albans Abbey reckoned a sester at 32 oz. However, the sums of money into which honey-payments were commuted varied, and it is likely that there was no standard size. At Gloucester (GLS G1) the burge
sses paid 12 sesters of honey }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ad mensuram eiusdem burgi}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('at the measure of that borough'). The payment at Deerhurst (GLS 19,2) was }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ad mensuram regis }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
('at the king's measure') and in Warwickshire (WAR B4-5), the shire together with the borough made a payment of 36 sesters and of a further 24 }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cum maiori mensura}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('with a/the larger measure'); see Zupko, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 155; }{\insrsid10361692 Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 82-83 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 124-25).
\par 1,12\tab MATLOCK [BRIDGE]?. This was a settlement in Matlock Ancient Parish. It lies at the western end of the bridge over the River Derwent. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692 
 of which the first element has not been satisfactorily explained. The relationship with }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692 , identified as Matlock (1,12), an outlier of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692 
, is also unclear unless }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde }{\insrsid10361692 is a misspelt and shortened form of a name such as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslachesforde}{\insrsid10361692 . This is conceivable if the -}{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 
- were a mistaken transcription of an -}{\i\insrsid10361692 l}{\insrsid10361692 - and an abbreviation sign had been omitted from a form such as }{\i\insrsid10361692 mesl'esforde}{\insrsid10361692 
 or part of the word lost. As it stands, however, there is not continuity between }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692  and Matlock which appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Matlac}{\insrsid10361692  in 1196, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Matloc}{
\insrsid10361692  in 1204. In the case of the latter, however, there may have been an Anglo-Norman sound substitute of }{\i\insrsid10361692 -t-}{\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\insrsid10361692 -th-}{\insrsid10361692 , the etymology of }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Matlac}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Matloc}{\insrsid10361692  being Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 maethel }{\insrsid10361692 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac}{\insrsid10361692  ('oak-tree where a moot was held'). If the first element of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692 
 is related in some way to the first element of Matlock, then it is probable that the ford has been replaced by a bridge and that the Domesday estate is now represented by the settlement of Matlock Bridge which is still distinct from Matlock itself. An al
ternative is to accept that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692  are quite different names, but that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692 
 is in fact Matlock and that, as it grew in importance (becoming, like Chesterfield (1,1) the head of an Ancient Parish, though it was at first a dependency), it displaced the name }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692 
, possibly when the bridge replaced the ford. On other grounds, such as the proximity of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692 
 to the identified outliers, and the expectation that such an important place as Matlock would appear in Domesday, the identifications of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692  with Matlock and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mestesforde}{\insrsid10361692 
 with a 'Matlock Ford' (later replaced by a Matlock Bridge) are not easy to rule out; see Bryan, 'Lost Manor of Mestesforde'; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 330 note 3; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 388-89.
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab 1 LEAD MINE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 una plumbaria}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\insrsid10361692 Plumbaria}{\insrsid10361692  is a feminine noun from the adjective }{\i\insrsid10361692 plumbarius}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('pertaining to lead') which itself derives from }{\i\insrsid10361692 plumbum}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('lead'). These nouns derived from adjectives properly have the broad sense of 'a thing related to lead' and do not specifically mean, in this case, anything like a quarry, a mine or a works. Fuller, 'Early Lead Smelting in the Peak District', suggests t
hat }{\i\insrsid10361692 plumbaria}{\insrsid10361692 
 should be rendered as 'smelting works', but, although this may be a correct description of the process, it seems too specific and technical as a translation of the Latin word. It only appears in Domesday Derbyshire (see also 1,27-28. 10,11), t
hough there is a }{\i\insrsid10361692 fabrica plumbi}{\insrsid10361692  in WOR 2,50. According to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Geography of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 324, 'the places with }{\i\insrsid10361692 plumbariae }{\insrsid10361692 
lie on or near the outcrop of Carboniferous Limestone which contains veins of metalliferous ores from which the lead must have been derived'.
\par \tab \tab A final, undated entry in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\insrsid10361692  (p. 191) reads }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Carreta plumbi del pec continet xxiiii fotineles. Quodlibet fotinel de lxx libris et hoc est xiiii cutti. Quilibet cuttus de v libris. Carreta de lund}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 onia}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  est maior il
la de cccc libris et xx libris per minus centum}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('A cartload of lead from the Peak contains 24 'fotmels'. Each 'fotmel' [consists] of 70 pounds and it is 14 'cuts'. Each 'cut' [consists] of 5 pounds. A London cartload is bigger than that [cartload], by 480 (?) pounds'). It is possible that }{
\i\insrsid10361692 fotinel}{\insrsid10361692  is a misreading of the minims of }{\i\insrsid10361692 fotmel}{\insrsid10361692 . The words }{\i\insrsid10361692 del pec}{\insrsid10361692  are probably an error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Le Pec}{
\insrsid10361692  ('from the Peak'). The total weight of a cartload from the Peak is 1680 pounds. The end of the final sentence in Latin
 is obscure, but it possibly amounts to '400 and 20 from 100'. London could be the destination ('bound for London'), the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Lundonia}{\insrsid10361692 
 being used adjectivally (literally, 'a Londonian cartload'), or is could have the same sense as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 del}{\insrsid10361692 , that i
s 'from London'. The reason for this entry's appearing in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\insrsid10361692 
 at all is unclear, but presumably lead was required for the roofing, guttering and piping of the new cathedral of Ely., though it is not clear whether some of that lead came to Ely from London.
\par \tab \tab Part of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  render of King Edward's three manors of Bakewell, Ashford and Hope (1,27-29) was 5 wagon-loads of 50 lead sheets, but no weight is mentioned.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid10361692 
. For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 1,1 woodland note. In the Phillimore printed edition the present phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture in various places' and in the Alecto edition as 'woodland, pasture in places'.
 The addition of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca }{\insrsid10361692 ('throughout the area') is potentially ambiguous. It could be read closely with }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('woodland in places') meaning there is woodland scattered over the estate rather than in a single block, or with }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  ('pasturable in place
s') which does not say whether the wood is in one place or dispersed, but means that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. If the first meaning was intended the scribe could have supported the phrase with a partic
iple: }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis per loca dispersa }{\insrsid10361692 ('pasturable woodland scattered over the area [of the manor]'). For the second meaning ('pasturable in places') the order }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua per loca pastilis}{
\insrsid10361692  would have been clearer, though too much reliance cannot be placed on word order. However, if this is the correct interpretation, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692  is really unnecessary, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 
silua pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  itself implies exactly what }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692  is supposed to mean.
\par \tab \tab In virtually every case it seems that the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is more probably the correct one. Although }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692  may be ambiguous with }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis}{
\insrsid10361692  it was also used of other resources by the scribe. Thus YKS 4N1: }{\i\insrsid10361692 xxvi acrae prati per loca}{\insrsid10361692  ('meadow, 26 acres in [various] places'); YKS 6N2: }{\i\insrsid10361692 sunt prata per aliqua loca}{
\insrsid10361692  ('there are meadows in some places'); YKS C22: }{\i\insrsid10361692 haec non fuit hospitata T.R.E. sed per loca culta a burgensibus}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('this [land] was not inhabited before 1066 but cultivated in places by the burgesses'). An alternative to the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692  would be}{\i\insrsid10361692  in aliquibus locis}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('in some places'); a similar phrase is found in GLS 3,5: }{\i\insrsid10361692 In quibusdam locis pratum 7 silua, sed non multa}{\insrsid10361692  ('meadow and woodland in certain places, but not much'). The phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{
\insrsid10361692  is also used with }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692  but without }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  and with a consequent lack of ambiguity: YKS 1Y15 }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua per loca}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('woodland in [various] places'); YKS 9W48 }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua minuta per loca}{\insrsid10361692  ('underwood in [various] places'). Thus the woodland is scattered over the surface of the manor. Dimensions are often given in acres or in }{
\i\insrsid10361692 x}{\insrsid10361692  furlongs or leagues by }{\i\insrsid10361692 y}{\insrsid10361692 
 furlongs or leagues, as here, but this merely indicates that any single square of pasturable woodland (as well as plain woodland) that Domesday surveys is an agglomeration of several pieces of woodland, oft
en including that of outliers and jurisdictions. This must often have been the case even in the absence of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692 . At LIN 35,14, the scribe used }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 
pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid10361692  in the same entry: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua pastilis i leugam longa 7 x quarentinas lata. Extra hanc adhuc cc acrae siluae pastilis per loca}{
\insrsid10361692  ('Pasturable woodland 1 league long and 10 furlongs wide. Besides this, a further 200 acres of pasturable woodland in [various] places'). The obvious interpretation of this is that there is one large 
block of pasturable woodland (measured in leagues and furlongs) and various scattered pieces lumped together as 200 acres. In the previous entry (LIN 35,13) there is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua vii quarentinas longa 7 v quarentinas et dimidiam lata}{
\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\insrsid10361692  Extra hanc 7 cc 7 quater xx acrae siluae pastilis per loca}{\insrsid10361692  ('woodland 7 furlongs long and 5 \'bd
 furlongs wide. Besides this, pasturable woodland in [various] places, 280 acres'). There, the first wood is not pasturable, but the same overall interpretation will apply.
\par \tab \tab Support for the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is given in the phrasing used in two Lincolnshire entries (LIN 56,11;18) which are duplicated by two entries in 'Roteland' (RUT 2,7;13): the two 'Roteland' entries have }{
\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid10361692 , the Lincolnshire entries simply }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 . The account of these entries probably derives from two separate county inquests (see RUT \{
Introduction: Duplicate Entries\}) and it is possible that those responsible for writing up the results of the 'Roteland' inquest w
ere being more specific than those writing up the results of the Lincolnshire one. Alternatively, in the sources used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for circuit VI (possibly, but not necessarily, a circuit volume) the phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 
silua pastilis per loca}{\insrsid10361692  w
as routinely used for woodland (and perhaps meadow and pasture as well) to indicate that these resources were each dispersed on the ground but that their extents had been added together for the purposes of Domesday valuations. The Domesday scribe, possibl
y unaware of the significance and under pressure to shorten, may have eliminated many (but not all) occurrences of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab \tab A single phrase in Yorkshire (YKS 5W8) may involve the meaning 'pasturable in places'. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua per loca pastilis, per loca inutilis}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('woodland pasturable in places, unusable in places'). Again, too much reliance should not be placed on word order, but what is significant in the YKS example is the repetition of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per loca }{\insrsid10361692 which is not otiose.

\par \tab \tab Compare 1,1 woodland note and 1,28 woodland note.
\par \tab MATLOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 1,11), as it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. On the name (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 Meslach}{\insrsid10361692 ) and the identification, see 1,12 Bridge note.
\par \tab SNITTERTON. This was a joint township (with Wensley) of Darley Ancient Parish. Whereas Darley itself later lay in High Peak Wapentake (the successor to Blackwell Wapentake), this township was in Wirksworth Wapentake, (the successor to
 Hamston Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44; Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 87.
\par \tab WENSLEY. This was a joint township (with Snitterton) of Darley Ancient Parish. Whereas Darley itself later lay in High Peak Wapentake (the successor to Bla
ckwell Wapentake), this township was in Wirksworth Wapentake (the successor to Hamston Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45; Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 87.
\par \tab BONSALL. Scribe B interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bunteshale}{\insrsid10361692 , indicating with an insertion mark af
ter Wensley in the line below its correct position in the list of outliers; Farley did not print this insertion mark, as occasionally elsewhere. It is possible that in the circuit volume the details for each of these outliers were given separately and in 
r
educing these to a single figure for carucates, plough estimate, population and resources, the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted those for Bonsall or included them and then forgot to include its name. This is the first of eighteen contributions by scr
i
be B to Domesday Derbyshire, almost half being in the king's land, a far higher proportion for him than in any other county; see NTT 1,12 bovates note. Several of these contributions are of an interesting and unusual nature. For the others, see 1,19 (two 
interlined carucages of jurisdictions); 1,26 (interlined correction to the number of Freemen); 1,27 (addition in the holding of a man-at-arms); 1,30 (interlined correction to the total dimension); 1,37 (interlined corrections to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 
T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  and 1086 values);
 6,14 (interlined correction to the plough estimate); 6,30;43 (corrections to the tax assessment); 6,59 (correction in a detail on the farm of Rocester); 6,70-71 (interlined additions and corrections to place-names); 6,99 and 12,4 (two marginal memoranda)
; and 10,23 (addition of the 1086 value); B1 (the addition over erasure of the word 'freely').
\par \tab \tab Bonsall was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 1,11) since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab IBLE. This was a township of Wirksworth Ancient Parish. Like Wirksworth (1,13), it probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44.
\par \tab TANSLEY. This
 was a township of Crich Ancient Parish. Crich itself (10,11) was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, but it had some dependencies in Hamston Wapentake, among them another part of Tansley (10,12); see 10,12 tax note. Tansley is later evidenced in Wirkswor
th Wapentake, the successor to Hamston Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab 11 VILLAGERS AND 12 SMALLHOLDERS HAVE 6 PLOUGHS AND MEADOW, 22 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 ) is accusative after '11 villagers ... have ...'. In
 the Phillimore printed translation there is a full-stop after 'ploughs' and a new sentence for the meadow, but not for the woodland (pasturable woodland, underwood) which succeeds it and which is almost always in a new sentence in the Latin. This mistake
 
also occurs in 1,25-26;34. 6,5;7;17-18;21;26;28;42;47;49;52-53;55;58-60;62;65-66;68;82;89. 8,2. 10,8;12; it has been corrected in the present edition. (It should be noted, however, that where the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the woodland or other r
e
source in a separate sentence, this has only been put in a new sentence in this edition in the cases mentioned in this note and in 1,22 meadow note; elsewhere the meaning is clear and the punctuation of the Phillimore printed translation is retained.) The
 Alecto edition puts a comma after the ploughs and a new sentence for the woodland. See also 6,5 meadow note; 6,7 meadow note; 6,18 meadow note. Occasionally the main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have written }{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{
\insrsid10361692  in error for the nominative }{\i\insrsid10361692 acrae}{\insrsid10361692  (as in the next entry: 1,13 meadow note), but the case here is probably correct. Sometimes he may have intended the }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692 
 to abbreviate the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692  in sentences similar to the current one; see 1,22 meadow note. In the entries not mentioned in that note and in the present one the scribe wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi}{
\insrsid10361692  ('there', not translated by JRM when used at the beginning of a sentence) before the meadow when it occurred first in the list of resources, so it would seem that he might have been drawing attention by his use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac
}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ra}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 s}{\insrsid10361692  (and, less obviously, of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692 
) to meadow held by the villagers, smallholders etc. On meadow apparently held by the lord, see 16,8 meadow note. In the other counties in this circuit }{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692  often occurs with the meadow after phrases such as '}{
\i\insrsid10361692 x }{\insrsid10361692 villagers and }{\i\insrsid10361692 y }{\insrsid10361692 smallholders have }{\i\insrsid10361692 z}{\insrsid10361692  ploughs and }{\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\insrsid10361692 
 acres of meadow'; see HUN 1,6 villagers note; NTT 1,2 meadow note; LIN 1,25 meadow note; and YKS 1N38 meadow note.
\par 1,13\tab WIRKSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (head above 1,11) which was later renamed from this manor as Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. For another part, see 10,12.
\par \tab \tab No }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder is given, but it was probably King Edward, in view of these five manors (1,11-15) forming a special and apparently ancient group with a joint render; see 1,15 manors note.
\par \tab \tab Land at Wirksworth was granted in 835 by Abbess Cyneuuara [of Repton] to Prince Humbert [of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tomsaetan}{\insrsid10361692 ] in exchange for an annual rent of lead worth 300 shillings payable to
 the Archbishop of Canterbury:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 102 no. 99 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1624)}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. This important monastery (see 1,20 Repton note) was destroyed by the Danes in 877; presumably the dependent land passed to the kings of Mercia and then to the kings of England. How much of Wirksworth was held by Repton Abbey is uncertain; }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Roffe (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 27) there is no evidence to suggest that the whole estate of Wirksworth had been a dependency of Repton.}{\insrsid10361692 

\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The estate had probably once been larger, being reduced in size by grants of land by kings to others. The church of Wirksworth was probably mother church to those of Bonsall (1,12) and perhaps to Matlock (1,12): Cox, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Churches of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 53, 417, 457; the Lincoln Cathedral}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Registrum Antiquissimum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Foster, i. pp. 29, 92-93).
\par \tab \tab Wirksworth was given to the Earl of Ferrers by King John; }{\insrsid10361692 the gift seems to have included the wapentake of that name: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 152, 288, 992.
\par \tab 3 LEAD MINES. See 1,12 lead note.
\par \tab CROMFORD. This was a township of Wirksworth Ancient Parish. Like Wirksworth itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab MIDDLETON. This was a hamlet of Wirksworth Ancient Parish. Like Wirksworth itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. The index of the Phillimore printed edition has reversed the identifications of the text, mistakenly making this Middleton the Middleton in Youlgrave Ancient Parish (6,77).
\par \tab HOPTON. This was a township of Wirksworth Ancient Parish. Like Wirksworth itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45.
\par \tab "WELLEDENE". No forms that can be connected with this place have been found after 1086, despite the fact that }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 330 note 5, says 'close to Hopton. Now
 depopulated'. It most probably lay in Wirksworth Ancient Parish.
\par \tab CARSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab CALLOW. This was a hamlet of Wirksworth Ancient Parish. Like Wirksworth itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.

\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldelaune}{\insrsid10361692  instead of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldelauue}{\insrsid10361692 
, possibly as a result of print-through; see 1,1 carucates note. See also 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par \tab [KIRK] IRETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab IN THESE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 in his}{\insrsid10361692 , which strictly should mean 'the latter' in such a context and refer to the ploughs. As this is unlikely, it could look back to the carucates and mean 'on them'; more 
probably it refers to the outliers, and distinguishes this population from that on the main manor.
\par \tab MEADOW, 14 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ra}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 s }{\insrsid10361692 in error for the nominative }{\i\insrsid10361692 
ac}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 rae}{\insrsid10361692 ], probably because in the previous entry
 (1,12) he made the acres of meadow the object of '11 villagers and 12 smallholders have...'; see 1,12 meadow note. He made a similar mistake in 4,1. Here the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi }{\insrsid10361692 
('there', not translated in this edition) indicates a new sentence.
\par \tab PASTURABLE UNDERWOOD. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis et minuta}{\insrsid10361692 , the woodland being described as both 'pasturable' and }{\i\insrsid10361692 minuta}{\insrsid10361692 
 (here translated as 'underwood'). This is rendered as 'woodland pasture and underwood' in the Phillimore printed translation and as 'woodland pasture and scru
bland' in the Alecto edition, which might suggest two separate resources. On pasturable woodland, see 1,1 woodland note.
\par \tab A LINE'S SPACE was left by the main scribe of Great Domesday after this entry and also after the multiple estates at 1,14;19 and 3,1. 
This may have been to mark these entries out as different, or it may be because he suspected that a check might reveal further outliers or jurisdictions, as had happened on several occasions in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, the previous cou
n
ties written by him. However, sometimes such a blank line may have been left for a wapentake head; this could certainly be the case at 3,1. Moreover, in Derbyshire he did not routinely leave spaces between entries for multiple estates; for example there i
s none between Darley and Matlock Bridge (1,11-12) or between Bakewell, Ashford, Hope and Longdendale. (1,27-30).
\par 1,14\tab ASHBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. All of the outliers of the 1086 estate seem to have been in the same wapentake, although parts of the Ancient Parish lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake; see 4,2 Kniveton note.
\par \tab \tab No }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder is given, but it was probably King Edward, in view of these five manors (1,11-15) forming a special and apparently ancient group with a joint render; see 1,15 manors note.
\par \tab \tab It is very likely that the estate of Ashbourne had once been larger, but that parts had been successively grante
d out by kings to others. The members of the Ancient Parish of Ashbourne were several, and the interpenetration of Bradbourne and Ashbourne Ancient Parishes suggests that they too were formerly a unit. In addition, the church of Ashbourne, possibly a mins
ter church, was the mother church of Bradley (6,44), Edlaston (6,59) and Kniveton (4,2) which suggests that these places were originally members of the royal estate; see}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Cox, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Churches of Derbyshire}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 363; the Lincoln Cathedral }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Registrum Antiquissimum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Foster, i. pp. 17-18, iii. pp. 41-42); and \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH WITH 1 CARUCATE OF LAND TAXABLE. This was possibly a minster church, associated, as were many, with a royal manor; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}
. The church was given to the Bishop of Lincoln in 1093, together with the church of Chesterfield and three churches in Nottinghamshire; see 1,1 Chesterfield note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear: it could be the nominative }{\i\insrsid10361692 acrae}{\insrsid10361692  (as understood by the Alecto edition) or it could be the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 
acras}{\insrsid10361692  after the implied }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692  before the plough and man, the subject being the priest. Because of this ambiguity it seems safest to change to a semi-colon after the man's payment the full-
stop of the Phillimore printed translation. The pasturable woodland, however, was not his specifically; see 1,12 meadow note and 1,22 meadow note.
\par \tab MAPLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab Mappleton}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is the local spelling; it is Mapleton on the Ordnance Survey maps (PM).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab BROADLOWASH. This was a settlement in Thorpe Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 408. It no
 doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab THORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab [FENNY] BENTLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab OFFCOTE. This was part of the Liberty of Offcote and Underwood within Ashbourne Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 400; Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 82. The grid reference is to Offcote House (SK197480). Offcote Grange is at SK204479.
\par \tab HOGNASTON. This was a chapelry of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Like Ashbourne itself, it will no doubt have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space; see 1,13 space note.
\par 1,15\tab PARWICH. This was a chapelry of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Like Ashbourne itself (1,14), it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab No }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder is given, but it was probably King Edward, in view of these five manors (1,11-15) forming a special group with a joint and apparently ancient render; see 1,15 manors note.
\par \tab \tab Ten }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae }{\insrsid10361692 at Parwich were granted in 966 by a suspect charter of King Edgar to his thane Aelfhelm: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 107 no. 107 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 739 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 33-35 no. 21). Aelfhelm was probably the man of that name who was brother of Wul
fric Spot and the estate will probably have reverted to the Crown in 1006 following Aelfhelm's murder. In Domesday, Parwich with members was assessed at 4 carucates. The relation of carucates to hides (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mansae }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 here) is uncertain, but it is possible that Parwich stood for other adjacent estates at the time of the grant.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab "COLNE" <OF PARWICH>. According to von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 218, this 1086 holder, and also the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders in 6,72 and (as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Coln}{\insrsid10361692 ) in B8, may represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolli }{\insrsid10361692 (on which see }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 307, and 4,2 Kolli note), if the Domesday forms }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Coln}{\insrsid10361692  are errors for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692 . The Domesday form of one of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders of Youlgrave (6,76) and of the 1086 holders in 4,2 and 10,18 is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692  (= Kolli), but as there seems to be no evidence linking them with the people called }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Coln}{\insrsid10361692 , it has been thought better to keep the Domesday forms here. The Alecto edition has Kolli for them all.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This "Colne", a 1086 tenant, is probably distinct from the "Coln", father of Edric (B8) whose son appears to have succeeded him by then and who might be the same as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  holder "Colne" of 6,72.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ALSOP[-EN-LE-DALE]. This was part of the chapelry of Eaton and Alsop within Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Like Ashbourne itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab HANSON [GRANGE]. This was a settlement in Newton Grange which itself was a hamlet in Ashbourne Ancient Parish, later a Civil Parish in its own right: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 399; Youngs, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 81.
\par \tab [COLD] EATON. This was part of the chapelry of Eaton and Alsop within Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Like Ashbourne itself, it will have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, and later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab THESE FIVE MANORS. This sentence emphasises that the manors formed a group with a j
oint render of honey; only the render of Darley (1,11) was specified separately, but probably, nonetheless, is included in the present total. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have initially begun to apportion the joint render and then given up. Elsew
here in the kingdom, royal manors were sometimes grouped together for the payment of a night's farm. It is assumed that King Edward held all five manors, though he is only explicitly said to have held two of them, Darley and Matlock Bridge.
\par \tab \tab The assessment
 is also neat, with Ashbourne and its outliers (17 carucates) plus Parwich and its outliers amounting to 21 carucates, which is the total of Wirksworth and its outliers (1,13). Matlock Bridge and Darley add up to 12 carucates (and an odd 2 bovates) making
 these five manors total a duodecimally-based 54 carucates (and 2 bovates), that is approximately nine six-carucate units; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 331 note 2.
\par \tab \tab The use of the masculine }{\i\insrsid10361692 manerius}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Hi .v. manerii}{\insrsid10361692 ) is unusual in Domesday.
\par \tab PURE SILVER. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 puri argenti}{\insrsid10361692 
 only occurs here in Domesday. It could be the same as 'blanched' silver, that is, tested by fire; see DEV C2 weighed note; DOR 1,1 blanched note. The silver could, however, have been extracted from the lead that was produced on some of th
ese royal manors (Matlock Bridge, Wirksworth, 1,12-13), with little opportunity for anyone to alloy them with baser metals.
\par 1,16\tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary information, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the indiv
idual notes) for the wapentake in which the manors of Walton-on-Trent, Newton Solney, Melbourne and Repton (1,16;18-20) lay after 1086; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab WALTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Walton-upon-Trent. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Land here was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10 no. 6).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ROSLISTON. This was a chapelry of Walton-on-Trent Ancient Parish, and, like it, probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46.
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10361692 \tab EARL ALGAR}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. He was the son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Algar was }{\insrsid10361692 
Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052 in place of Harold during the exile of the Godwine family and from 1053-1057 on Harold's appointment to the Earldom of Wessex in succession to his father. Outlawed in 1055 he formed an alliance with the Welsh King Gruffydd ap
 Llywelyn (of Gwynedd and Powys), routed an English force and pillaged Hereford. Restored, he was Earl of Mercia 1057-1062, but was banished in 1058 and again regained his position with Gruffydd's help.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 He died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, it is Algar rather than he who is often recorded in Domesday as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  holder.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Algar}{\insrsid10361692 (
}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elgar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelgar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alger}{
\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelger}{\insrsid10361692  - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfgar, \'c6thelgar}{\insrsid10361692  or}{\i\insrsid10361692  Ealdgar }{\insrsid10361692 
or even}{\i\insrsid10361692  Old Norse Alfgeirr}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 144-46, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-gar}{\insrsid10361692 
, and also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 . However, he included all the references to the earl under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfgar}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spelling, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl \'c6lfgar.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,12 woodland note.
\par 1,17\tab THIS ENTRY was inserted by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin during one of his campaigns of addition which took place after the county had been rubricated. It was w
ritten in pale ink and a slightly informal style at the same time as eleven or twelve other entries here (6,100-101. ?7,13. 10,4. 16,3-8. 17,22-23) and probably as BDF 24,11. 53,22 and NTH 57,3; all the unrubricated additions in Shropshire (SHR 3c,14. 4,1
,33-34. 4,12,1. 6,28;32. 7,2) may also have been done then, though he wrote more formally there. Other minor corrections in Bedfordshire were done in this campaign. This suggests that he amassed a body of material before adding it to the manuscript.

\par \tab \tab This 
entry was written parallel with the latter half of the entry for Walton-on-Trent (1,16). Ostensibly, therefore, these places are connected with Walton-on-Trent, possibly jurisdictions. The names are joined by 'and' (not translated here) so they seem to fo
r
m a group; the absence of resources and value suggest that they are parts of something else, presumably of Walton-on-Trent. All three are remote from Walton-on-Trent, though this, in itself, does not prove that they were not connected. Weston-on-Trent was
 almost certainly in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 and Smalley and Kidsleypark in 'Morleystone' Wapentake; both these wapentakes were entered later in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 
. This addition was probably the result of a check of the circuit volume or of a territorially-arranged schedule. It was presumably held by Earl Algar like Walton-on-Trent (1,16) and the main manor of Weston-on-Trent. Smalley and Kidsleypark do not recur.

\par \tab \tab Because these three holdings were clearly not manors, no wapentake heading has been inserted above them: the manors (1,16;18-20) are all in "Walecros" Wapentake.
\par \tab WESTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Weston-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Rol
l (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For the manor here, see 1,37.
\par \tab SMALLEY. This was a chapelry of Morley Ancient Parish. As such it will probably have lain in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)
}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 One }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
at Smalley and Kidsleypark was granted by King Ethelred in 1009 to his minister, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) who received land in the will of Wulfric Spot: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 110 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 922 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 60-64 no. 32).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab KIDSLEYPARK. This was a settlement in Smalley which was itself a chapelry of Morley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 505. It will probably h
ave lain in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 42. For the early eleventh-century grant of Smalley and Kidsleypark in 1009, see 1,17 Smalley note. The grid reference (SK4145) is to Kidsleypa
rk Farm, earlier Kidsley Park on the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 71 of 1836, reprinted in 1970 as sheet 35). It is not certain where Kidsley itself was.
\par 1,18\tab NEWTON [SOLNEY]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Five }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Niwantune}{\insrsid10361692  were bequeathed by King Eadwy in 956 to Aethelgeard his }{\i\insrsid10361692 karus}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('dear friend', 'dear companion'): Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 599 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 25-26 no. 16).}{\insrsid10361692 
 These may have been at Newton Solney and be the same as the 'little estate' bequeathed as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Other Niwantune}{\insrsid10361692  by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 
, no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab The estate is assessed at 7 carucates in Domesday, but it is possible that Wulfric Spot had only held part of it. However, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Other}{\insrsid10361692  in the place-name is not, apparently, used like Latin }{
\i\insrsid10361692 alius }{\insrsid10361692 (6,23 another note) to imply that there were two estates at Newton Solney, but distinguishes this Newton from another Newton (near Middlewich in Cheshire) that Wulfric had already mentioned in hi
s will. Burton Abbey seems not to have received or retained the gift.
\par \tab BRETBY. This was a chapelry of Repton Ancient Parish. Like Repton (1,20) and Newton Solney it probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab [* EARL *] ALGAR. See 1,16 Algar note.
\par 1,19\tab MELBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the first }{\i\insrsid10361692 E}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 MILEBVRNE}{\insrsid10361692  resembles a }{\i\insrsid10361692 C}{\insrsid10361692 .}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Derbyshire (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 51), this phenomenon was caused by 'the continuous-tone process of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. In Derbyshire similar mi
s
readings of place-names there could occur in eight other entries; see also 1,28 Bubnell note, 6,30 Sudbury note, 6,54 Cubley note, 6,74 Birchover note, 7,1 Bolsover note, 11,3 Denby note, 17,4 Totley note and 17,6 Handley note. See also 1,27 acres note; 6
,62 \'a34 note; 7,1 ploughs note; 8,3 woodland note; 10,23 value note; B3 Freeman note; B15 Appletree note. In }{\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey facsimile the }{\i\insrsid10361692 E}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 MILEBVRNE }{
\insrsid10361692 is also not very clear, despite the red-lining being applied by hand.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Compare 1,1 carucates note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab 20 VILLAGERS. See 1,11 villagers note.
\par \tab OUTLIERS OF THIS MANOR. It appears that the main scribe of Great Domesday mechanically wrote the heading that he had used on other royal multiple estates (1,13-14), then failed to delete
 it when he realized that the dependencies were in fact not outliers, but jurisdictions; the fact that he wrote it on the last line of folio 272c and the jurisdictions at the top of folio 272d may have been one of the reasons for this.
\par \tab THIS JURISDICTION BELONGS TO MELBOURNE. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692  is singular and is being used in the abstract sense; see 1,2 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab All these estates in the jurisdiction of Melbourne have counterparts in the fief of Henry of Ferrers and are entered there in the same ord
er (6,82-84;88-89;91). Information concerning the king's land and Henry of Ferrers' land had no doubt been together in an earlier document arranged (like the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\insrsid10361692 
) by wapentake and then vill. Although Henry of Ferrers' holdings in these places appear as independent estates and all are manors, it seems that they had probably originated as grants out of the multiple estate of Melbourne by an earlier king or kings.

\par \tab IN 'SCARSDALE' [LITCHURCH] WAPENTAKE. The 'Scarsdale' wapentake
 head is clearly erroneous, as the jurisdictions lay in Litchurch Wapentake. A heading is needed (though rarely supplied in such contexts) to indicate that the jurisdictions lay in a different wapentake, but the reason for this error is not clear. See }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 331 note 7.
\par \tab BARROW[-UPON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish often known ecclesiastically as Barrow-with-Twyford. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab It is quite probable that the 12 \'bd
 bovates here are duplicated at 10,26 where 12 bovates (probably the correct figure; see 1,19 taxable note) are held by Ralph son of Hubert in his fief but said to be a jurisdiction of Melbourne. For a further part, see 6,82.
\par \tab SWARKESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part see 6,83.
\par \tab CHELLASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part, see 6,84.
\par \tab OSMASTON. The main scribe of Great Domesday gave a combined figure for the carucage of this jurisdiction and the next one, Cottons, although in editing the material for the other jurisdictions of Melbour
ne he had given separate figures. Scribe B underlined for deletion this joint carucage of 2 carucates and 6 bovates and interlined 2 carucates and 2 bovates above Osmaston and 4 bovates above Cottons. He made a mistake, however, in writing }{
\i\insrsid10361692 as}{\insrsid10361692  above the }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  of the carucates: }{\i\insrsid10361692 as}{\insrsid10361692  are the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 duas}{\insrsid10361692 
, accusative plural; the nominative plural would have been correct here. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par \tab \tab Osmaston was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Werburgh. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. For further parts, see 6,88-89.
\par \tab 2 CARUCATES AND 2 BOVATES. The fractional assessments at Osmaston (1,19. 6,88-89) totalled 3 carucates. For this interlineation, see 1,19 Osmaston note.
\par \tab COTTONS. This was a settlement in Normanton, which was itself a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 649. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For another part, see 6,89. It has now been incorporated in Normanton, but its centre lay at SK353321 on the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map sheet 71 of 1836 (reprinted as sheet 35 in 1970).
\par \tab 4 BOVATES. For this interlineation by scribe B, see 1,19 Osmaston note.
\par \tab \{\{2 CARUCATES AND 6 BOVATES\}\}. This combined carucage of Osmaston and Cottons was underlined for deletion by scribe B when he interlined their separate assessments; see 1,19 Osmaston note.
\par \tab NORMANTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part, see 6,91.
\par \tab TAXABLE 8 CARUCATES AND 2 BOVATES. The detail amounts to 7 carucates and 6 \'bd bovates. It is possible that '8 carucates and 2 bovates' should have been written '8 carucates minus 2 bovates' (= 7 carucates 6 bovates) and that the 12 \'bd
 bovates of Barrow[-upon-Trent] are an error for 12 bovates, as this is the figure given in 10,26 which is probably a duplicate (1,19 Barrow note). The scribe made numerous mistakes in his totalling of individual assessments.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space; see 1,13 space note.
\par \tab IN THE FOOT MARGIN of folio 272
c there is an erasure of three full lines of text, apparently a late addition because of their position; they extend into the outer margin as well. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote here the details of the holding in S
o
uth Wingfield, but then changed his mind (probably because of the uncertainty as to the tenant-in-chief) and moved them to a blank column later on; see 7,13 entry note. If, as suggested there, there was a link between that addition and Tibshelf (1,36) a b
etter place for it might have been at the foot of folio 273a.\tab 
Alternatively, he might have written here the details of Edensor (1,32 Edensor note), but changed his mind and added them later on folio 276a at the end of Henry of Ferrers' fief (6,101 entry note).
\par 1,20\tab REPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake, named from this manor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab This was an ancient and important settlement. It is the only really old name in Derbyshire, appearing in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 755 as (}{\i\insrsid10361692 on}{\insrsid10361692 ) }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hreopandune}{\insrsid10361692 
, meaning the hill of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrype}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hreope}{\insrsid10361692  tribe, the same people who named Ripon in Yorkshire. Repton was the site of a great monastery founded by th
e kings of Mercia and had no doubt long been a royal manor. Merewald, the brother of King Wulfhere of Mercia, was buried there as were King Cyneheard, King Wiglaf, Wyston his grandson and King Aethelbald of Mercia (in 757 after being slain at Seckington);
 see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 94. In 874-5 a Danish army, having driven out King Burgred from Mercia, overwintered there.
\par \tab \tab Repton Abbey was very ancient as well. It was reputedly founded by St David in 601 but was certainly in existence by 697 when St Guthla
c was tonsured there. It may have been founded as an offshoot of the monastery of Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leicestershire) which was itself a daughter of the abbey of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medeshamstede}{\insrsid10361692 
 (later known as Peterborough), if the 31 }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692  called }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrepingas}{\insrsid10361692  which were g
ranted 675 x 691 by Friduricus to Hedda [abbot of Breedon in Leicestershire], are to be identified with Repton: Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1805 (= }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Eastern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 98 no. 144). These }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692  have more often been identified with
 Rippingale, Lincolnshire, but see Dornier, 'Monastery at Breedon-on-the Hill', p. 158, and Rumble, 'Hrepingas Reconsidered', pp. 169-71. This establishment was apparently for monks and nuns and probably well endowed; a lease survives from 835 by which th
e Abbess Cyneuuara [of Repton] granted land to Prince Humbert [of the Tomsaetan] in Wirksworth (see 1,13 Wirksworth note). The abbey did not survive the Danish attacks. There was thus no continuity with the Priory of Augustine canons founded here }{
\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1153; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 1, 58; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 480.
\par \tab \tab It is not certain that Repton was a royal manor when the above grant was made to the monastery of Breedon-on-the Hill. However, when it became one, Repton no doubt 
administered this part of what became Derbyshire and also a portion of the later Leicestershire; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}
. After Derby became the centre of a shire, Repton became the chief manor of "Walecros" Wapentake. The name "Walecros" was l
ater replaced by Repton, but it is probable that this is a case where the wapentake had two names, one being that of its moot-site, the other of its principal manor; see \{Introduction: Moot-Sites\}.
\par \tab \tab In 1086, Repton had an outlier at Milton (1,20) and a nu
mber of other jurisdictions and outliers (1,21-26). A further dependency was another jurisdiction at Ticknall (14,6). It is likely that the multiple estate of Repton had once been much more extensive but that over the centuries, land had been progressivel
y alienated, or granted from it.
\par \tab MILTON. This outlier was a settlement in Repton Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 653.
\par \tab EARL ALGAR. See 1,16 Algar note.
\par \tab 37 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number from }{\i\insrsid10361692 xxxvi}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 xxxvii}{\insrsid10361692  by adding an extra minim over the original }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus }{
\insrsid10361692 (dot) after }{\i\insrsid10361692 xxxvi}{\insrsid10361692 , adding a new one and interlining }{\i\f710\insrsid10361692 t\'e7}{\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 septem}{\insrsid10361692 
, '7') in clarification. He used a slightly paler ink than he had used for the adjacent text, suggesting that the correction was done during one of his checks.
\par \tab A CHURCH AND 2 PRIESTS. This is probably a sign that there was a minster church here, as might be expected on such an important royal site; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par 1,21\tab JURISDICTION. This word, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in capitals at the end of the first line of this entry, duplicates the }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 
) in the left margin. It is possible that he intended to write }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA huius Manerii}{\insrsid10361692  (as in 1,2) or }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA in Rapendun}{\insrsid10361692 , as in 1,
26. Willesley was probably a jurisdiction of Repton, as Ingleby (1,26) is specifically said to be, but the situation is complicated by the fact that Chilcote (1,25) and possibly Measham (1,24) are said to belong to Clifton Campville; see 1,25 belongs note
. The scribe's use of capital letters and its position, however, indicate that }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692  refers not just to Willesley.
\par \tab WILLESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. For another part, see 6,20.
\par \tab \tab Willesley was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par 1,22\tab MARGINAL S. This probably indicates that Ticknall was a jurisdiction of Repton, though this is not explicitly stated; see 1,21 jurisdiction note and 1,25 belongs note.
\par \tab TICKNALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. For other par
ts, see 3,7 and 14,6. For the pasturable woodland here, see 1,26 and 1,26 woodland note.
\par \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND, 2 BOVATES AND 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. Despite the fractions, the assessment of Ticknall (1,22. 3,7. 14,6) added up to 4 carucates, the 'parts' here being thirds, as they are in the assessment of Ingleby (1,26 bovates note).
\par \tab 2 FREEMEN HAVE 1 PLOUGH; MEADOW, 22 ACRES. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  is not absolutely certain: it generally abbreviates }{\i\insrsid10361692 acrae }{\insrsid10361692 (nominative), but could abbreviate }{
\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692  (accusative) in instances such as this where the meadow acres as well as the plough could be the object of 'have'. Because in a large number of other entries the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 , accusative) for the meadow acres in such cases (see 1,12 meadow no
te), it has been decided in the present edition to preserve this ambiguity by putting a semi-colon after the plough(s), rather than the full-stop of the Phillimore printed translation, and, where this meadow is followed by another resource (pasturable woo
d
land, underwood) which is in a new sentence, this has now been indicated. This ambiguity also occurs in 1,31-32. 5,2-3. 6,4;12;31-33;35;44;50-51;56;64;90. 7,1. 8,4. 10,2;7;20;24;27. B3. See also 1,14 meadow note. The Alecto edition sometimes has a comma a
fter the plough(s), but sometimes also inserts '[there is/are]' before the meadow acres. Attention has not been drawn in the notes to this ambiguity after this first occurrence.
\par 1,23\tab MARGINAL S. This probably indicates that "Trangesbi" was a jurisdiction of Repton, though this is not explicitly stated; see 1,21 jurisdiction note and 1,25 belongs note.
\par \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed translation this entry is misnumbered '22', the same as for the previous entry (Ticknall); there is no entry '23' there.
\par \tab "TRANGESBI". This place has been identified with Thringstone. The identification assumes that the Old English termination \endash }{\i\insrsid10361692 tun}{\insrsid10361692  was substituted for Scandinavian \endash }{\i\insrsid10361692 by}{
\insrsid10361692 , both elements having a similar meaning; see Ekwall, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of English Place Names}{\insrsid10361692 , under Thrings
tone. Ekwall probably drew his information from Wainwright ('Early Scandinavian Settlement in Derbyshire', p. 108) who did not elaborate on the identification. A complication is that \endash }{\i\insrsid10361692 tun}{\insrsid10361692 
 is regarded as an early element in place-names and it would be surprising to see it appear after 1086, unless Thringstone represents the revival of the pre-Danish name. This same place reappears at 14,11 as "Trangesby".
\par \tab \tab Thringstone is close to the other places mentioned there (14,8-10) and if it were part of Derbyshire i
n 1086 it would no doubt have been in "Walecros" Wapentake. It now lies in Leicestershire but there is no record of its ever having been in Derbyshire. Unlike the other places (14,8-10) which were subsequently transferred to that county, it was already in
 Leicestershire by 1334: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 161. Moreover, it was a chapelry of Whitwick Ancient Parish, Leicestershire. It is not well-attested in later records, but it is coupled with Osgathorpe (LEC 14,27) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 238, where
 the Prioress of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gratia Dei}{\insrsid10361692  (the Priory of Grace-Dieu, at Belton in Leicestershire, SK 4318) holds 4 virgates in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Threngeston}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osegothorp}{
\insrsid10361692 ; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 161. As the two places are adjacent, it is possible that Thringstone was an unnamed
 part of Osgodthorpe in 1086. In the absence of clear evidence of its manorial descent it has been left unidentified for the present.
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par 1,24\tab MARGINAL B. This probably indicates that Measham was an outlier of Repton, though this is not explicitly stated; see 1,21 jurisdiction note and 1,25 belongs note.
\par \tab MEASHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 252; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. Measham was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par 1,25\tab MARGINAL B. Ostensibly this indicates Chilcote was an outlier of Repton (1,20), though in fact Chilcote is said to belong to Clifton Campville; see 1,25 belongs note.
\par \tab CHILCOTE. This was a chapelry and township of Burton-on-Trent Ancient Parish. Burton-on-Trent itself lay in Staffordshire in 1086 and later, but Chilcote was in Derbyshire in 1086, being transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{
Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldecote}{\insrsid10361692  for this place-name, but he or someone else erased the left-hand half of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692  to make a rather large }{
\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692 . Farley read }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cildecote}{\insrsid10361692 . In the Ordnance Survey facsimile the name appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldecote}{\insrsid10361692 
, though the erasure is clear in the manuscript and in the Alecto facsimile. There is a place named }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldecotes}{\insrsid10361692  in 8,3, which may have misled the scribe initially.
\par \tab MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par \tab BELONGS TO CLIFTON [CAMPVILLE]. This was a Staffordshire Ancient Parish. Chilcote was united to it after being severed from Burton-on-Trent Ancient Parish. However, Chilcote remained in Derbyshire until transferred to Leicestershire in 1897: Youngs, 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 71.
\par \tab \tab The layout of Domesday here, with its marginal letters }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 , gives the impression that 1,21-26 are outliers or jurisdictions of the manor of Re
pton (1,20) which Ingleby, ending the list at 1,26, is expressly said to be; see 1,21 jurisdiction note. Therefore the information that Chilcote belongs to Clifton Campville is surprising. Clifton Campville itself was a royal manor in Staffordshire (STS 1
,
29), rated at 8 hides, with dependencies. The position of the sentence 'this belongs to Clifton [Campville] in Stafford' could suggest that this is a statement in support of a claim: that Chilcote is not an outlier of Repton (where the king's agents in De
r
byshire have scheduled it) but a dependency of Clifton Campville in Staffordshire. Another claim relating to Clifton Campville (STS 16,1) may illuminate the present entry. It reads 'Nicholas claims this land for the king's revenue in Clifton [Campville]'.
 This interpretation is more likely than that Clifton Campville is a dependency of Repton and Chilcote of Clifton Campville, and therefore of Repton.
\par \tab \tab The Latin of the present sentence is abbreviated (}{\i\insrsid10361692 H' ad Cliftune p}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 tin' in Stadford}{\insrsid10361692 ), so it is impossi
ble to tell whether it is singular or plural. If plural it will probably refer to Measham as well. Both Measham and Chilcote stand out as outliers in a list of jurisdictions, when outliers would normally be included, like Milton (1,20) with the head manor
.
\par \tab \tab }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stadford}{\insrsid10361692  (Stafford) is clearly an error or abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stadfordscire}{\insrsid10361692  (Staffordshire); compare B15 'Appletree' note.
\par 1,26\tab INGLEBY. This was a township of Foremark Ancient Parish and, like Foremark itself, (14,4) will have lain in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab 
3 BOVATES. The individual assessments of Ingleby, though they may appear to be random, effectively added up to two carucates: 3 bovates at 1,26, 1 carucate and one-sixth of a carucate at 10,23, 3 bovates at 14,5 and 2 parts of 1 bovate at 17,23. As with T
icknall (1,22), the 'parts' of Ingleby are thirds.
\par \tab 
A JURISDICTION OF REPTON. That is, of the royal manor of Repton (1,20). The main scribe of Great Domesday had to include this phrase because land in Chilcote (the previous entry, 1,25) is said to belong to Clifton [Campville], not Repton; see 1,21 jurisdi
ction note and 1,25 belongs note. The Latin might appear to use the preposition }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692  ('in') because the phrase is elliptical: '[Its] jurisdiction [lies in] Repton', with }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692 
 having an abstract sense. However, both }{\i\insrsid10361692 berewica }{\insrsid10361692 ('outlier')}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692  ('sokeland' or
 'jurisdiction-land', translated here simply as '(a) jurisdiction') are both used to describe dependencies of a manor. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Berewica}{\insrsid10361692  can only have a concrete sense, yet }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692 
 is used with it in the same way as with }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692 , as in 10,15. Here the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692  is idiomatic and implies some longer phrase with a verb or participle such as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 berewica iacens in hoc manerio}{\insrsid10361692  ('outlier lying in/ belonging to this manor'). }{\i\insrsid10361692 Berewica}{\insrsid10361692  occurs with the verb }{\i\insrsid10361692 esse}{\insrsid10361692  ('to be') in MDX 11,2: }
{\i\insrsid10361692 fuit Berewica in Stanuuelle}{\insrsid10361692  ('it was an outlier in (= of) Stanwell'). There are similar phrases in HRT 15,12. CAM 1,17. 14,48. In the absence of a verb the natural translation is 'an outlier of ...'. The use of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692  in similar contexts seems parallel, and the natural translation is therefore 'a jurisdiction 
of ...'. In terms of writing in Latin, some preposition is needed since the place-name itself cannot be given a genitival case-ending; compare the phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca huius manerii}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('jurisdiction/sokeland of this manor') at 1,2 and elsewhere. An alternative to Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692  ('in') is the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692  ('of') as in NTT 9,81: }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca de Hulmo}{
\insrsid10361692  ('a jurisdiction of Holme [Pierrepont]') which would require }{\i\insrsid10361692 est }{\insrsid10361692 (' it is') to make it into a clause. On these grounds, throughout the present translation 'a jurisdiction of ...' and 'an ou
tlier of ... ' have been used for }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca in}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 ...}{\insrsid10361692  and for }{\i\insrsid10361692 berewica in}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 ...}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab 3 FREEMEN. Scribe B interlined a minim to correct the }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  originally written by the main scribe of Great Domesday to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692 
; he indicated its position in the line below with an insertion m
ark. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile this insertion mark, in the shape of a large comma in the manuscript, appears only as a dot; it is clearly reproduced in the Alecto facsimile. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.

\par \tab MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 .i.}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac' broces}{\insrsid10361692  ('water-meadow, 1 acre') is probably also accusative.
\par \tab WATER-MEADOW.}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Broces}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  here is the genitive singular of the Old English masculine }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 a}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 -stem noun }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broc}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. Normally in Domesday it was Latinized as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broca}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , feminine, first declension, as in GLS 19,2. DOR 31,1. 34,5. LEC 13,18. 44,2. LIN 12,1 and, probably, HEF 24,2. In its other occurrence in Derbyshire (2,1) }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broc'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  could abbreviate either }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 brocae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broces}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  as here. Old English }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broc }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 came to mean 'a brook', but originally the word (like its cognates Middle Dutch and Dutch }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broek}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Low German }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 brok}
{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Old High German }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 bruch}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Modern German}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  bruch}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 meant 'marsh', bog', etc., a sense retained by }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 brook }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
('water-meadow') in Modern English dialects of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and in medieval field names in Cambridgeshire and Essex and in some place-names. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 English Place-Name Elements}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 51-52 under }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 broc}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Water-meadow was mostly described in terms
 of acres, though sometimes two measurements were given, while in 2,1 it was merely 'a small amount of water-meadow'. The water-meadow here must have been on the edge of the River Trent. There is low-lying ground just north of the village in a bend of the
 river.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN TICKNALL. For the meaning of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 1,1 woodland note, and for Ticknall, a jurisdiction of the royal manor of Repton, see 1,22.
\par \tab \tab The layout and punctuation of the Phillimore printed translation
 makes this phrase continuous with the entry for Ingleby. This suggests that Ingleby's woodland actually lies in another jurisdiction of Repton, at Ticknall. However, the main scribe of Great Domesday left three-quarters of a line blank after the acre of 
w
ater-meadow in Ingleby and wrote this sentence on the pasturable woodland in Ticknall on a new line. He may briefly have omitted this detail from the account of Ticknall (1,22), but probably entered it before detailing the next multiple estate. The pen an
d ink used for it are the same as for the preceding and succeeding text, which makes it unlikely that it was a later addition on a blank line (as suggested by Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 29), although he had left a line's space after the royal multiple e
states of Wirksworth, Ashbourne and Repton (1,13-14;19); see 1,13 space note. However, this sentence may have been intended as the sum-total of pasturable woodland in Repton's dependencies (which happened to be in Ticknall) just as the resources listed in
 1,8 appear to be those of all Newbold's jurisdictions; see 1,8 lands note. See 14,6 woodland note.
\par 1,27\tab [* BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE *]. Blackwell Wapentake, attested in the late twelfth century \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}, is n
owhere named in Domesday. It was later known (from the early thirteenth century) as High Peak or Peak Wapentake. This heading is deduced from evidence of where the estates listed in 1,27-34 lay in later times: they were then in High Peak Wapentake, the pr
e
sumed successor of Blackwell Wapentake. It is improbable that they lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, as estates in that wapentake have already been entered (1,11-15). It is true that those manors form a special group distinguished by their 1066 and 1086 r
enders, but estates later in High Peak Wapentake and Wirksworth Wapentake appear in different places in other fiefs (see DBY 6 and DBY 10) and are likely to have been separate wapentakes (Blackwell and Hamston in 1086); see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab \tab The estates in this wapentake fall into three groups: those held by King Edward, which paid a joint render (1,27-29); twelve waste manors 'in Longdendale', which is not itself a manor (1,30); and four manors held in 1066 by 
Godric, Leofnoth and Ketil, Karski and Godgyth respectively (1,31-34).
\par \tab BAKEWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250;
\par }{\i\insrsid10361692 \tab Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab Ashford-in-the-Water and Hope (1,28-29) were given in 926 by King Athelstan to Uhtred, having previously been bought from the heathen [the Danes] by Ealdorman Aethelred of Mercia on the instructions of King Edward the Elder, presumably be
tween 899 and 911; see 1,28 Ashford note. It is likely that Bakewell was included in this grant of 60 }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 which were represented partially by the 51-carucate assessment of the three manors in 1086; see 1,29 manors note and \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. A fortified }{\i\insrsid10361692 burh }{\insrsid10361692 
was established at Bakewell in 920 (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and land was acquired here in 949 by the same Uhtred from King Eadred apparently for the endowment of a monastery (}{\i\insrsid10361692 coenubium}{\insrsid10361692 ): }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 105-106 no. 104 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 549 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 14-15 no. 9). See }
{\insrsid10361692 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 466. The location of this }{\i\insrsid10361692 burh}{\insrsid10361692 , built by King Edward the Elder, has been much discussed; see Hart, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 121.
\par \tab \tab Bakewell itself grew into a borough: there were burgesses there by 1286; see Beresford and Finberg, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Medieval Boroughs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 85.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in N
ottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and a rustic to gather them' in Bakewell; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab 33 VILLAGERS. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 an}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 os}{\insrsid10361692  is accusative; if not a scribal error for the nominative }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill}{
\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 an}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692 
 it would mean that the villagers (and probably the smallholders) were held by the king in lordship, like the 7 ploughs; see also in 14,6. Compare 1,37 lordship note, 3,1 villagers note and 3,7 villagers note.
\par \tab 2 PRIESTS AND A CHURCH. The presence of two priests together with three carucates belonging to the church suggests that this was probably a minster church (perhaps the successor of, or associated with, the monastery established here in the mid-t
enth century) based on a major royal manor and serving some of the area that became High Peak Wapentake. There was another superior church at Hope (1,29) but none is mentioned at Ashford-in-the-Water. However, the arrangement of townships suggests that As
hford-in-the-Water was originally part of Bakewell and perhaps shared its church; see \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 .ii. p}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 res}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 b}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 iter}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{
\insrsid10361692  over an erasure and interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 eccl}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 esi}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692 , possibly at the sam
e time as he added the holding of the man-at-arms in the next line (1,27 acres note). Churches were often omitted in Domesday and on several occasions (especially in Little Domesday Book) they were later inserted.
\par \tab 1 MAN-AT-ARMS HAS 16 ACRES OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi .i. miles h}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 abe}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 t ii. bord}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 arios}{\insrsid10361692 ], but then later corrected it by adding .}{\i\insrsid10361692 xvi. ac}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ra}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 s t}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{
\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\f703\insrsid10361692 \'ea }{\insrsid10361692 at the end of the line after }{\i\insrsid10361692 h}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 abe}{
\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 , but failed to include an }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  after it. Scribe B later added }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692 
 at the beginning of the next line. For the main scribe's correction to the priests and the addition of a church, which may have been done at the same time as this insertion, see 1,27 church note. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12
 Bonsall note.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile only }{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  has been reproduced, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 t're}{\insrsid10361692  appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 tr'c}{\insrsid10361692 
 and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 .xvi.}{\insrsid10361692  is blurred; see 1,19 Melbourne note. This detail is perfectly clear in the manuscript as also in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par \tab 1 LEAD MINE. See 1,12 lead note.
\par \tab HENRY OF FERRERS CLAIMS 1 CARUCATE IN HADDON. He held Youlgrave (6,76) in the vicinity. See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 124 no. 321. On his Christian name, see 1,27 Henry note.
\par \tab \tab The Latin form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Henric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Heinric, Henric}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Henri}{\insrsid10361692 
: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 147; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 289. JRM preferred the common name Henry, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Henry, except for the only }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder (NFK 32,7) where it has Heanric.
\par \tab HADDON ... HADDON. Haddon was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish and contained the townships of Over Haddon (SK2066) and Nether Haddon (SK2366
); the latter is represented by Haddon Hall (SK235663). The two occurrences of the name among the outliers of Bakewell may suggest that the two townships were in existence in 1086, though it is not possible to decide which is which. Nether Haddon is found
 often in later documents and was certainly divided into halves in the thirteenth century: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 60, ii. pp. 287-88. It is possible that both the places called Haddon in Domesday were parts of Nether Haddon, but Over Haddon also occurs l
ater, and it is more probable that the division of Nether Haddon post-dates Domesday. Henry of Ferrers is presumably claiming all or part of one of them. Both Nether Haddon and Upper Haddon share boundaries with Youlgrave; see 1,27 claims note.
\par \tab \tab Both Over Haddon and Nether Haddon, like Bakewell itself, probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab HOLME. This was a settlement in Great Longstone township in Bakewell Ancient Parish. It is now represented by Holme Hall (SK215691), which was transferred to Bakewell parish in 1903: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 33. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and a rustic to gather them' in }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Hulme }{\insrsid10361692 which is presumably to be identified with this estate; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab ROWSLEY. This was a township of Bakewell Ancient Parish, formerly known as Great Rowsley and, like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 163. Little Rowsley was in Darley Ancient Parish and so probably in Hamston Wapentake in 1086. For Darley, see 1,11.
\par \tab 'BURTON'. This was a settlement in Bakewell Ancient Parish. It is represented by Burton Ashes Wood (SK2267, formerly Burton Wood), Burton Clos
es (SK219676), Burton Moor (SK2067) and Burton Manor (SK205672, formerly Burton Moor Farm); the actual site of Burton seems to be lost; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 32.
\par \tab CONKSBURY. This was a settlement in Haddon chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 107. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab ONE ASH. This settlement named from 'one ash-tree' lay in Monyash ('many ash-trees') which was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 148. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086. The grid reference is to One Ash Grange Farm.
\par \tab MONYASH. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish and, like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. The name means 'many ash-trees': }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 148.
\par \tab HADDON. Either Nether Haddon or Over Haddon; see 1,27 Haddon note.
\par 1,28\tab ASHFORD[-IN-THE-WATER]. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish, formerly known simply as Ashford. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in High Peak Wapentake. its successor: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 374; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab Together with Bakewell and Hope (1,27;29) Ashford-in-the-Water was one of a group of manors interconnected ecclesiastically and by their assessment; see 1,27 church not
e and 1,29 manors note. The linkage seems to date from the tenth century for in 926 King Athelstan granted to Uhtred, in return for 30 mancuses of gold, 60 }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 at Hope and Ashford[-in-the Water] which had been bought from 'the heathen' [the Danes] by Ealdorman Aethelred of Mercia on the instructions of King Edward the Elder, presumably between 899 and 911:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Early Charters of Northern England
}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 103-104 no. 101 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 397 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 
pp. 5-7 no. 3). These estates seem to have come into the hands of Aelfhelm, brother of Wulfric Spot, and been acquired by the king after Aelfhelm's murder in 1006. The charters will probably have been lodged at Burton Abbey for safe-keeping. These 60 }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 probably included Bakewell (1,27), and correspond to the 51 carucates at which the whole group (Bakewell, Ashford-in-the-Water and Hope, 1,27-29) were assessed in 1086, plus other estates subsequently granted out; see 1,27 Bakewell note, 1,29 manors no
te and \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 
At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and
 a rustic to gather them' in Ashford-on-the-Water; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.

\par \tab ROWLAND. This was a township of Baslow chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab [GREAT] LONGSTONE. Longstone was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish and comprised the townships of Great Longstone and Little Longstone. Like Bakewell itself, Longstone no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since i
t was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47. In that roll, Great Longstone is marked, like Ashford[-in-the-Water] as Ancient Demesne [of the Crown] suggesting that the present holding was Great Longstone. So Henry of F
errers' holding at 6,72 was probably Little Longstone. These identifications reverse those given tentatively in the Alecto edition.
\par \tab HASSOP. This was a township of Bakewell Ancient Parish. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab CALVER. This was a township of Baslow chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 54.
\par \tab BASLOW. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 261; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab BUBNELL. This was a township of Baslow chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 41-42.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name is clearly visible as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bubenenle}{\insrsid10361692 . In the Alecto facsimile it appears more like }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bubencnlc}{\insrsid10361692 
 (see 1,19 Melbourne note) and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bubencnli}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab BIRCHILLS. This was a settlement in Hassop township in Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 110. It is now represented by Birchills Farm.
\par \tab SHELDON. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 164. It is still a designated member of Ashford-in-the-Water in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60.
\par \tab TADDINGTON. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 169.
\par \tab FLAGG. This was a township of Chelmorton, itself a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 100.
\par \tab PRIESTCLIFFE. This was a settlement in Taddington chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 169. Like Bakewell itself, it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab BLACKWELL. This was a township of Taddington which was itself a chapelry in Bakewell Ancient Parish. The 'dark spring' probably named both the settlement and the wapentake, though the w
apentake could have been named from the settlement. As Blackwell was a part of the royal manor of Bakewell, the king (as often) effectively controlled the meetings of the wapentake; see \{Introduction: Wapentakes: Links to Royal Manors\}.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'Blackwell in the Peak': }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 22 PLOUGHS. During his editing of the entry for Ashford[-in-the-Water] in the circuit volume the main scribe of Great Domesday presumably failed to include the plough estimate in its usual place, before the lordship land.
\par \tab 1 MILL-SITE. Thirteen mill-sites are recorded in Domesday Derbyshire; they 
are also frequently noted in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, a few times in Nottinghamshire and once in Rutland, all in circuit VI. Their only other occurrence in Domesday Book is once each in Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire, both in circuit IV.
\par \tab \tab It is not certain whether these are mills under construction or whether the sites represent mills abandoned or devastated for some reason.
\par \tab WOODLAND, NOT PASTURABLE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua non pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 , with the }{\i\insrsid10361692 non}{\insrsid10361692  interlined. This is a negative version of }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('pasturable woodland'); see 1,1 woodland note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'woodland, unpastured' here and at 1,30 and 'unpastured woodland' at 5,5, but this was not virgin woodland, or woodland that was pasturable but unused, but one in whic
h there was no pasture. The Alecto translation of both entries is 'woodland, not for pasture'. Pasturable woodland (}{\i\insrsid10361692 silua pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 
) is very common in Derbyshire and combines two of a typical village's resources, pasture and woodland.
\par 1,29\tab HOPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47. In 926 land here was granted with Ashford-in-the Water and, probably, Bakewell, and these three manors seem to have formed a group since that time; see 1,28 Ashford note and 1,29 manors note.
\par \tab EDALE. This was a chapelry of Castleton Ancient Parish. Like Castleton (7,7), it probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 87.

\par \tab ASTON. This was a township of Hope Ancient Parish. Like Hope, it probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 29.
\par \tab SHATTON. This was a part of Brough and Shatton township in Hope Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 50. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab HALF OF OFFERTON. This was a hamlet of Hope Ancient Parish. Like Hope itself, it probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 155. The other half of Offerton was held by Ralph son of Hubert (10,17). The use of the term 'half' (interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday) is most unusual, as many vills are divided into halves without Domesday explicitly saying so. Whe
ther the half is exact cannot be known as no dimensions, assessment, resources or value are given for the present outlier or the one at 10,17. See 10,17 half note.
\par \tab TIDESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed b
y Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and a rustic to gather them' in Tideswell; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab STOKE. This was a township of Hope Ancient Parish. Like Hope, it probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 168. In the Phillimore printed edition, the Grid Reference was given as SK2179. That refers to Stoke Ford (SK211794) and gave rise to the idea that Stoke itself was lost. In fact the Domesday settlement is almost certai
nly represented by Stoke Hall at SK240761 in Stoke Civil Parish, the successor to Stoke township.
\par \tab "MUCHEDESWELLE". This place occurs twice in Domesday, once as an outlier of Hope (1,29) and once associated with Wormhill (6,79). No forms later than Domesday have been found and there are no other clues to its location: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 180. A tempting identification would be with King Sterndale and Earl Sterndale (SK0972, SK0967). }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stauredal}{\insrsid10361692  is among the 'two-thirds of the lordship pastures' g
iven by William Peverel before 1108 to Lenton Priory (1,29 Peverel note). King Sterndale would be the portion he held of what was then a former royal manor, while Earl Sterndale would be the part held by Henry of Ferrers, ancestor of the Earls of Derby. T
his suggestion was made by }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 325, but rejected because the change of name would have taken place so soon after Domesday. However, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Muchedeswelle}{\insrsid10361692 
 as used by Domesday is essentially a local name: it probably means 'Muccede's spring' or 'Muccede's stream', the first element being a personal name and the second name being Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 waella}{\insrsid10361692 ; see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 180. On the other hand, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stauredal}{\insrsid10361692 , like Longdendale, is a dale or valley name, and also the name given to pasture-lan
d which was probably on the fells above it. The two names could refer to the same land, but from different points of view, one more exact than the other. Earl Sterndale was a chapelry of Hartington Ancient Parish, King Sterndale a settlement in Buxton Anc
ient Parish. For Hartington, see 6,9; for Buxton itself, see 1,29 Peverel note.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and a rustic to gather them' in }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Wrmevill}{\insrsid10361692 . This is probably to be identified with Wormhill and suggests that the portion of "Muchedeswelle" held by William Peverel for the king also extended into Wormhill, as did the other part (6,79); see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab NOW 30 VILLAGERS ... HAVE 6 PLOUGHS. On the use of 'now' by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 1,9 now note.
\par \tab A CHURCH, TO WHICH BELONGS 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This probably indicates that this was a second minster church in what became High Peak Wapentake; see 1,27 church note and \{Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,12 woodland note.
\par \tab THESE THREE MANORS. That is, Bakewell, Ashford-in-the-Water and Hope (1,27-29). }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 333 note 1, points out that if Ashford-in-the-Water were really assessed at 24 carucates (instead of 23) and Hope at 12 (instead of 10), then these two manors together with Bakewell (18 carucates) would, at 54 carucates, equal the
 total of the five manors in Hamston Wapentake; see 1,15 manors note.
\par \tab \tab Roffe }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ('Origins of Derbyshire', p. 118 note 37) points out that the total of \'a332 composed of the value of the three manors rated together at \'a330 plus the \'a32 from Longdendale (1,30) mak
es four long hundreds of Danish }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 oras}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  if they are counted as each worth 16 pence. He further suggests (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 27; 'Origins of Derbyshire', pp. 120-21 note 74) that the 60 }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  of the grant of Ashford-in-the-Water and Hope (1,28 Ashford 
note) encompassed the estates of Darley, Bakewell, Ashford-in-the-Water, Hope and Longdendale with the dependencies that Domesday gives plus others granted away before 1086. For example, in the case of Bakewell (1,27) he makes up 12 }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  by adding Pils
ley (6,71), Edensor (6,101), Chatsworth (1,32) and Beeley (1,31) to Bakewell's eight outliers and in the case of Hope (1,29) he adds Hathersage (10,17), Bamford (10,17), Hurst (10,17), Stoney Middleton (1,34. 10,16-17) and Eyam (1,33) to Hope's seven outl
iers. However, in neither case (nor in any of the others) does he include the head manor in his total. The number of carucates in these 60 estates which Roffe lists, as given by Domesday, considerably exceeds 60. Even though there is no standard ratio of 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  to carucates, it would be expected that sixty }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  would be a measure of land, divided unevenly among a number of estates, rather than that each }
{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  had a separate name and the same extent as all the others. Whereas estates, whether manors, outliers or jurisdictions, vary in size, the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 seems to be a constant measure and probably equivalent to a hide.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab 5 \'bd SESTERS OF HONEY. This is an ancient render suggesting that these are very old royal estates. For a render of honey from the five royal manors of Hamston Wapentake, see 1,15 manors note.
\par \tab 5 WAGON-LOADS OF 50 LEAD SHEETS. A wagon-load is a variable measure. It is also not clear whether 50 is the total number of sheets (each cart carrying 10) or whether each wagon-load consisted of 50 lead
 sheets. Lead was often produced in the form of ingots (or pigs). Unlike the latter, these sheets would have been ready for use, presumably in construction, especially roofing and the making of conduits. See 1,12 lead note.
\par \tab WILLIAM. The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willelmus }{\insrsid10361692 (often abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Will's}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willihelm}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Willehelm}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willelm}{\insrsid10361692 , Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Guill}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 elm}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.
\par \tab WILLIAM PEVEREL HAS CHARGE}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This was apparently as the king's representative,}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
although these lands belonged to him before 1108 when he granted their tithes to his newly founded priory at Lenton, Nottinghamshire, cited in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 297 (PM).
\par \tab \tab In other instances of this sentence (1,32;35-36), the phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 per regem}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('through the king') is added. There may be a significant difference between this and the possible }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
pro rege}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('for the king', 'on behalf of the king'). The first implies that the king has granted charge of the manors to William Peverel, perhaps as a preliminary to an outright gift; the second suggests that the king has asked William Peverel to look after them f
or him. However, the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 custodit}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('has charge') rather suggests that the king still regarded these manors as royal property. It is quite possible that he was 'farming' these manors on the king's behalf;}
{\insrsid10361692  see Round, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Geoffrey of Mandeville}{\insrsid10361692 , appendix I, pp. 297-98, and in }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 228.
\par \tab \tab Elsewhere in Domesday, }{\i\insrsid10361692 per}{\insrsid10361692  is the Latin preposition used when someone is put in possession of land, for example in BDF 17,1: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
De dimidia hida 7 dimidia virga huius terrae fuit Willelmus spec saisitus per regem 7 eius liberatorem}{\insrsid10361692  ('William Speke was put in possession of \'bd hide and \'bd
 virgate of this land through the king and his deliverer'). There are many cases where land is held 'through' someone else, as in SRY 9,1: 'The Abbot of St Wandrille's holds Wandswo
rth through the monk Ingulf'; see also SRY 1,1f. Sometimes the jurors do not know through whom someone held land, as, for example, in HUN 6,17, or land is claimed through someone's predecessors (as in CAM 28,2), or is given 'through a document placed upon
 the altar' (WOR 26,17). It thus seems that }{\i\insrsid10361692 per}{\insrsid10361692  is used in cases where some sort of title to land is conferred, and its sense is quite different to that of the Latin preposition }{\i\insrsid10361692 pro}{
\insrsid10361692  (which means 'for', 'on behalf of', 'in place of').
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab There are examples in other counties of important officials managing estates and being in charge of them (Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 custodire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
) for the king; for example Baldwin, sheriff of Devon, was in charge of some of the king's manors in Cornwall and Hugh of Port, apparently sheriff of Hampshire, was overseeing some in Northamptonshire, and, a little later, in Rutland; see RUT \{
Introduction: History\}. William Peverel was a prominent figure in both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, but his official role is uncertain; see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab William Peverel's charter to Lenton Priory is quoted in the confirmation by Edward II printed in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II (see p. 111 no. I) and calendared in 
}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282. Of the manors of which he had charge for the king in 1086, William gave what he had in '}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Blacowell}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 [Blackwell] in the Peak' (1,28) and two-thirds of the tithes and 'a rustic to collect them' in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Tideswell}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Tideswell, 1,29), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Badecowell}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Bakewell, 1,27), }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Esseford}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Ashford-in-the-Water, 1,28), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Wrmevill}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (presumably Wormhill; see 1,29 "Muchedeswelle" note). He also granted two-thirds of the demesne pastures in the Peak, among them }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Sachalcros}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Shallcross), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Ferneley}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Fernilee), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Buchestanes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Buxton), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Stafdon}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Staden), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cudal}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Cowdale), }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Crchil}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Crook Hill), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Chaldedlaw}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Callow), }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Chelmardon}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Chelmorton) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Stauredal}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Sterndale, see 1,29 "Muchedeswelle" note) which presumably belonged to the three main manors (1,27-29). See also 7,8 Bradwell note and 7,10 Hucklow note and compare 7,9 Hazelbadge note.
\par \tab \tab William Peverel is said by Domesday to be in charge of these three manors (1,}{\insrsid10361692 27-29) and three others (1,32;35-36). There is no reason to think that he was managing the remaining royal estates in this part of the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 . If he
 were doing so, and if this were really a separate section of the royal fief, one would expect a note to that effect in the text: 'William Peverel is in charge of the following/ above manors through the king'. William was subsequently granted some of thes
e
 manors by Henry I, but this only appears in passing and the manors are not specified, although they appear to be the present three. The reference to them appears in a writ of Henry I ordering that Bishop Robert of Chester be reseised of 'the churches in 
t
he Peak and all things in lands and tithes and customs and meadows and woods [that they had] on the day on which I gave to William Peverel my lordship land in the Peak, because I gave him none of those things of which the aforementioned churches were put 
in possession': }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , viii. p}{\insrsid10361692 . 1272 no. XVI; }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 47-48 no. 723. }{\insrsid10361692 
By 'the Peak' Henry I could well mean Blackwell (subsequently High Peak) Wapentake. The manors were no doubt the trio of Bakewell, Ashford-
in-the-Water and Hope (1,27-29), and to them might theoretically be added the others (1,30-34) that probably lay in that wapentake in 1086. Interpretation crucially depends on the meaning of 'lordship land'. If by this Henry I meant what was known as 'Anc
i
ent Demesne', then probably only the three manors held by King Edward (1,27-29) are meant. Of these Bakewell and Hope (1,27;29) clearly had important churches in 1086, whereas none is mentioned on the remaining estate. Moreover, the only formerly royal la
nd that William Peverel granted to Lenton Priory was from these three manors (1,27-29).
\par \tab \tab How many estates William Peverel was administering has a bearing on the way this chapter is arranged. Roffe (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 5}{
\insrsid10361692 ) has sugg
ested that there is a simple division between land held by the king and land administered for him by William Peverel. However, the present editors see the arrangement of the chapter as essentially by wapentakes. Roffe does not explain in detail which land
s he thinks that William Peverel administered for the king, but they included Darley (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 27) and were clearly more extensive, in his view, than those specifically designated by Domesday. However, it is significant that when William Peve
rel founded Lenton Priory (Nottinghamshire) before 1108, the only lands or tithes with which he endowed it were some of those belonging to his own fief (DBY 7) or to some of the royal lands that Domesday says that he was managing (1,27-29). A later Willia
m
 Peverel forfeited his lands, which escheated to the king. Some were retained by the king, some were granted out, but others remained for some time as a group known as the 'honour of Peverel'. This makes it difficult to trace the history of individual est
a
tes and to separate those that had been held continuously by the kings from those that fell to them through confiscation. However, with one possible exception, no trace of a Peverel interest has been found in any of the royal estates other than those ment
ioned as being in the charge of William Peverel in Domesday. In addition to Bakewell, Ashford-in-the-Water and Hope which have been considered above, there was a later Peverel interest in Tibshelf (1,36) which he had in his charge in 1086: }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 1321.}{\insrsid10361692 
 In that same source most of the other estates listed were part of William Peverel's fief (DBY 7) in 1086: Shirland (7,5), Oxcroft (presumably merged with Bolsover, 7,1), Normanton (7,4), Pinxton (probably part of 7,4), and Glapwell (7,2). South Wingf
ield (7,13) is also listed although it is not certain if it was part of William's fief in 1086; see 7,13 entry note. The estates of Killamarsh (12,5. 17,2) and Totley (17,4) presumably came to the Peverels after 1086, as may }{\i\insrsid10361692 Waltonam}
{\insrsid10361692  if it was Walton-on-Tr
ent (1,10;16). In the case of Longdendale (1,30), it certainly appears that it was not held by William Peverel in 1086 (Domesday does not say that it was), but was retained by the Crown. Glossop and land in Longdendale had been held by Henry II, part bein
g given to Basingwerk Abbey (in Flintshire, a Cistercian dependency of Savigny founded by Ralph II, Earl of Chester): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 288-89. Furthermore, in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 287, the escheated land of William Peverel in High Peak Wape
ntake (the successor to Blackwell Wapentake) consists of Castleton (7,7), Bradwell (7,8), Hope (1,29), Taddington and Priestcliffe (parts of Ashford-in-the-Water, 1,28) and Over Haddon (part of Bakewell, 1,27). The jurors wrongly asserted that King Edward
 had held the 'castle, the honour and the appurtenances'. It is more likely that William Peverel built a compact fief for himself by merging the lands he held in 1086 with those he held for the king.
\par 1,30\tab MARGINAL }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 . Longdendale itself is not a manor, so this letter (which should really be }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692  with }{\i\insrsid10361692 XII}{\insrsid10361692 
 above it) refers to the 12 manors that lay in it.
\par \tab LONGDENDALE}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The name Longdendale is that of the whole valley of the River Etherow. On the 12 manors it contained, taxed at a total of 6 carucates, being formed by three groups amounting to two carucates each, see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 296. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 However, the western bank of the river lay in Cheshire; moreover, these manors do not lie on the River Etherow so much as on two of its tributaries in 
two separate side valleys. For the possibility that Longdendale was actually itself the name of a manor in Domesday Derbyshire, see 1,30 Hayfield? note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Of the estates listed as being part of Longdendale, only Old Glossop has a later importance and major
 documentary history. However, there can be little doubt about the identifications, because they are localized in or near Longdendale and also in Glossop Ancient Parish. They must have lain in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, since they were later in the area
 encompassed by its successor, High Peak Wapentake.
\par \tab \tab These twelve separate manors that constitute the area of Longdendale (not, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 6, one manor with 12 outliers) were presumably brought together in a single entry because they were waste. However, the grouping and the area name Longdendale seem to recall a time (represented in early charters) when whole valleys or many hides of l
and beside a river constituted a single estate, which subsequently fragmented.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692  above the }{\i\insrsid10361692 N}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 LANGENEDELE}{\insrsid10361692  in correction, and inserted }{
\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  after it. The ink is the same glossy black as he used for the adjacent text, so this work was probably done at the time of writing or shortly afterwards; the other interlineations (two }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692  tenants and the word }{\i\insrsid10361692 t're}{\insrsid10361692  twice) were almost certainly done at the same time. He spelt the place-name correctly as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Langedenedele}{\insrsid10361692  later 
in the entry and that may have alerted him to his earlier error. For scribe B's correction on the total measurement of Longdendale, see 1,30 leagues note.
\par \tab THORNSETT. This was a township of Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 153.
\par \tab "LIGULF". Various suggestions were made by von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 319-20) on what names were represented by the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ligulf(us)}{
\insrsid10361692 , and also the forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ligul}{\insrsid10361692 , and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liolf(us)}{\insrsid10361692 . It has been thought best in the present edition to retain the Domesday form. Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 188, is also unsure. The Alecto edition has Ligulf. The same name occurs in 6,9 and, as the name of two individuals, in 6,61; see 6,9 "
Ligulf" note. A "Ligulf" was also a predecessor of Roger of Bully (16,1).
\par \tab 'LUDWORTH'. This was a township (Ludworth and Chisworth) of Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 143. Both Ludworth and Chisworth became separate Civil Paris
hes (in 1896) and were transferred to Cheshire in 1936; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 79. The settlement of 'Ludworth' is lost, but Ludworth Houses appear at SJ972903 on the Ordnance Survey first series one-inch map sheet 81 of 1842 (reprinted as sheet 27 in 1970). Ludworth Moor is at SJ9990 in Mellor (Cheshire).
\par \tab BRUN. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brun}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brun}{\insrsid10361692 , though in some cases it might represent Old Norse }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Brunn}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brun}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 209. JRM may have preferred the modern name Brown (the translation of the Old English word and the form used in the Phillimore printed translation), but the Domesday form corresponds to the Old English name a
nd so it has been altered to that in the present edition. The Alecto edition has Brun. Compare 6,62 "Brune" note.
\par \tab CHARLESWORTH. This was a chapelry of Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 68-69.
\par \tab CHISWORTH. This was a part of the township of Ludworth and Chisworth in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 80. Both Ludworth and Chisworth became separate Civil Parishes (in 1896) and were transferred to Cheshire in 1936; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 71.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday estate is represented by Chisworth (SJ9992) and Higher Chisworth (SJ9991).
\par \tab SWEIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suain}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suen}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suuen}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Suein}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suuain}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suan}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suuan}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suin}{\insrsid10361692 
[}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sveinn}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish/Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sven}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire this name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edi
tion. The Alecto edition also has Swein.
\par \tab CHUNAL. This was a part of Charlesworth chapelry in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 69.
\par \tab AELMER. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ailmar(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ailmer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eilmer(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeilmarus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Aimar}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 184-85. JRM preferred a form closer to the Domesday spellings and chose Aelmer, which is in common use among historians. The Alecto edition has \'c6thelm\'e6r.
\par \tab HADFIELD. This was a part of Charlesworth chapelry in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 103.
\par \tab \tab It is not clear whether Aelmer had held this manor, as well as Chunal, or whether the main scribe of Great Domesday failed to interline the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
holder as he had done for the next two manors; see 1,30 Hayfield? note. No }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holder was provided for Whitfield: 1,30 Whitfield note.
\par \tab PADFIELD. This was a part of Charlesworth chapelry in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 104. It is represented by Padfield and Little Padfield Farm.
\par \tab LEOFING. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuing}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuinc}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Liuing}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Louincus}{\insrsid10361692  etc.}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofing, Lyfing}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 312. The Alecto edition has Lyfing.
\par \tab \tab Roffe ('Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 331, note 1) states that this }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holder and Leofnoth below, both of whose names were interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesda
y, were 'identified postscriptally', but a study of the manuscript does not suggest this: 1,30 Longdendale note. He also says that 'tenurial and ecclesiastical structure suggests that they belonged to the manor of Bakewell or Hope', but it is not clear wh
at this means or signifies. Certainly neither is associated with those manors in Domesday.
\par \tab OF LAND. On this interlined word, see 1,30 Longdendale note.
\par \tab DINTING. This was a part of Charlesworth chapelry in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 103. It is represented by Higher Dinting and Lower Dinting, both at SK0294.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuenot}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuenod}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leueno}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Leofnoth}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth. On his identification, see 1,32 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab \tab Roffe ('Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 331, note 1) states that this }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holder and Leofing above, both of whose names were interlin
ed by the main scribe of Great Domesday, were 'identified postscriptally', but a study of the manuscript does not suggest this: 1,30 Longdendale note.
\par \tab [OLD] GLOSSOP. This was an Ancient Parish, known as Glossop; it no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 its successor,}{\insrsid10361692  High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab LEOFING. On this name, see 1,30 Leofing note.
\par \tab WHITFIELD. This was a part of Charlesworth chapelry in Glossop Ancient Parish; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 104.
\par \tab \tab It is not clear whether Leofing had held this manor as well as the previous manor, [Old] Glossop, or whether the main scribe of Great Domesday failed to interline the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
holder as he had done for Padfield and Dinting. No }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder was provided for Hadfield: 1,30 Hadfield note.
\par \tab HAYFIELD?. This was a chapelry of Glossop Ancient Parish. On the face of it, the Domesday form (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Hedfelt}{\insrsid10361692 ) could be another part of Hadfield (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Hetfelt}{\insrsid10361692 
), 'heathy open land', in this same entry. There would thus have been two manors there. If the Domesday form is the ancestor of Hayfield ('open land where hay is obtained'), it is probably erroneous. The matter is complicated by the fact that there were a
t one time two estates (Great and Little Hayfield) which might suggest that both Domesday forms refer to Hayfield; see}{\i\insrsid10361692  Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 103, 114.
\par \tab \tab Another possibility is that this detail of 4 bovates held by Aelmer in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hedfelt}{\insrsid10361692  is a duplicate of the 4 bovates in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hetfelt}{\insrsid10361692 
, for which the main scribe of Great Domesday did not include a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder, perhaps because he had already included Aelmer as the holder of the previous manor (Chunal); see 1,30 Hadfield note. However, if it is a duplicate, 
the total taxable figure of 6 carucates would be an error (without this detail the total would be 5 \'bd carucates) and, unless the '12 manors' is also an error, Longdendale would have to have been one of the twelve manors.
\par \tab AELMER. On this name, see 1,30 Aelmer note.
\par \tab OF LAND. On this interlined word, see 1,30 Longdendale note.
\par \tab KINDER. This was a settlement in Hayfield which was itself a chapelry of Glossop Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 114. Kinder is a river name and names the non-settlem
ent sites of Kinder Hillside (SK0888), Kinder Reservoir (SK0588), Kinder Road (SK0587) and Kinder Scout (SK0888). It is difficult to pinpoint the centre of the settlement of Kinder, but it may have lain near the reservoir at Kinder Head where Upper House 
(SK0687) and Lower House (SK0588) are found. There is a settlement at Kinder Bank (SK0487).
\par \tab GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goddric}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gadric}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Codricus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.
\par \tab 12 MANORS. There are thirteen place-names in this entry, but Longdendale is excluded as being the name of an area. It was, however, the setting for twelve estates here described as 'manors'. Thus Longden
dale did not consist of a single multiple estate.
\par \tab THE WOODLAND THERE IS NOT PASTURABLE. See 1,28 woodland note.
\par \tab FIT FOR HUNTING. The implication may not be 'only fit for hunting', but 'ideal for the chase'. The Alecto edition limits it to the former by the inclusion of '[but]'.
\par \tab THE WHOLE [IS] 8 LEAGUES LONG AND 4 LEAGUES WIDE. Presumably this is primarily a measure of the woodland, which in this case has overgrown the manors; hence the use of Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 totum}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('the whole'), which assimilates the dimensions to those commonly given for a whole vill in Little Domesday, and occasionally in Great Domesday itself.
\par \tab \tab Scribe B corrected the measurement of length from }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 viii}{\b\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 by overwriting the original }{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692  and then l
engthening it and turning the dot after it into a second }{\i\insrsid10361692 i. }{\insrsid10361692 and then interlining a third }{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692 . For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par 1,31\tab BEELEY. This was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 its successor,}{\insrsid10361692  High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. It may well have originated as a grant of land belonging to Bakewell (1,27). On the possibility that it was related to Edensor, see 6,101 carucates note.

\par \tab GODRIC. See 1,30 Godric note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 6 OXEN. That is, for three-quarters of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab [VALUE ***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not include the value of this manor, as one would expect; it may have been missing in the circuit volume.
\par 1,32\tab 'LANGLEY'. This was a settlement in Chatsworth which itself was an extra-parochial Liberty in the Middle Ages: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 73.
\par \tab CHATSWORTH. This was an extra-parochial Liberty in the Middle Ages.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. It is probable that this man is the same as the Leofnoth who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in six of his estates; see 6,26 Leofnoth note. On the connection with the present entry and Edensor, which was one of Henry's ho
ldings, see 1,32 Edensor note. On this name, see 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab \tab Although Leofnoth was a common name, it was uncommon in the north Midlands. Apart from the brother of Leofric (see 10,1 Leofnoth note), it does not occur at all in Nottinghamshire and o
nly once in Staffordshire and twice in Leicestershire, once there as the predecessor of Henry of Ferrers. With the exception of a Leofnoth on three royal manors (1,30;32. 17,21), all of the Derbyshire Leofnoths were Henry's predecessors (6,26;28;34;53;55;
1
01), and the Leofnoth of 17,21 is adjacent to 6,65 (where Leofnoth is named Leofnoth Star) while 1,32 is linked to 6,101 by his association on both holdings with a Ketil, another name uncommon in this area (see 1,32 Ketil note). Given this pronounced dist
ribution, it likely that all the Derbyshire Leofnoths with the possible exception of 1,30 were the same individual, as was Henry's tenant in Leicestershire, notwithstanding Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note) (JP).
\par \tab KETIL <OF EDENSOR>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ketel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Chetel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kitel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Chitel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Ketellus}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ketill}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ketil}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 304-305. Although Ketel may have been JRM's preferred form, he
 chose Ketil- in compounds, so it has been thought best to use the Old Danish form of the name here. The Alecto edition has Ketil.
\par \tab \tab The name Ketil only occurs in Domesday Derbyshire here and seven times in the fief of Henry of Ferrers (DBY 6). Although it
 was a common name, it is possible that one individual is represented, though see 6,95 Ketil note. On the connection with the present entry and Edensor, which was one of Henry's holdings, see 1,32 Edensor note.
\par \tab \tab The name Ketil was uncommon in the north Mi
dlands, occurring only once more in the three adjacent counties of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire. In addition, a Leofnoth held with Ketil here and in 6,101, also linked through the Edensor connection (see 1,32 Edensor note); 6,75 is on
l
y two miles from 6,76, 6,1 three miles from 6,78, and 6,43 five miles from 6,95. Given the solitary occurrence of a Ketil in adjacent counties, this is a striking pattern which makes it probable that one individual is represented, despite Robin Fleming's 
thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note) (JP).
\par \tab THIS IS AN ADJUNCT OF EDENSOR. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet ad}{\insrsid10361692  which implies an administrative connection, rather than }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet in}{\insrsid10361692 
 which gives a geographical location, though in Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday sometimes appears to have used the latter phrase in place of the former; see 10,12 land note.
\par \tab \tab Since this estate is actually said to be a part of Edensor (and not merely a jurisdiction of it) and there is no indication that it was an illegal alienatio
n, it would be expected that Edensor itself would be entered in the king's lands. In fact, Edensor is a late addition to the lands of Henry of Ferrers (6,101 entry note). Both the present double estate of 'Langley' and Chatsworth and the estate of Edensor
 had the same }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders (Leofnoth and Ketil). It may be that this estate should have been entered with Edensor in the land of Henry of Ferrers. Alternatively, there may have confusion about whether 'Langley' and Chatsworth had been granted at the same 
time as Edensor. Moreover, it is possible that the grant of Edensor by the king was recent and it had appeared in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 
 in the circuit volume but was moved in the process of abbreviation, perhaps on the basis of late information or a marginal not
e in the circuit volume; see 6,101 carucates note. There is an erasure of a later insertion in the Land of the King (1,19 foot note) and it is possible that the scribe added the details of Edensor there, but then changed his mind for some reason and erase
d them and put them at the end of Henry of Ferrers' fief.
\par \tab \tab The marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 , if not an error, may indicate that the separation from Edensor had led to a change in status, despite the present tense of 'this is an adjunct of Edensor'.
\par \tab W[ILLIAM]. As there is no other person called Peverel beginning with a }{\i\insrsid10361692 W }{\insrsid10361692 in Domesday Book, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 W.}{\insrsid10361692 
 must be an abbreviation for William. On this name, see 1,29 William note.
\par \tab W[ILLIAM] PEVEREL HAS CHARGE [OF IT] THROUGH THE KING. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 per regem}{\insrsid10361692  was translated 'for the king' in the Phillimore printed edition (as also in the Alecto edition), as if it were }{\i\insrsid10361692 
pro rege}{\insrsid10361692 . It may be that the main scribe of Great Domesday confused two similar Latin phrases or he misread the abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 pro}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 p}{\insrsid10361692 
 with a line curving backwards from the base of its bowl towards the descender as in the phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 pro manerio}{\insrsid10361692  in 16,7-8) as the abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 per}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 p}{
\insrsid10361692  with a line through the descender, as in }{\i\insrsid10361692 p}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
itself in 1,12), easily done. If this is so, he made a similar error in 1,35-36. However, as it stands, the meaning of }{\i\insrsid10361692 per regem}{\insrsid10361692 
 is that the king has put William Peverel in charge and it counters any suspicion that William Peverel is holding the manor illegally. For further discussion of the meaning and significance of this, see 1,29 Peverel note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 par}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 um}{\insrsid10361692 ] }{\i\insrsid10361692 siluae min}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 utae}{\insrsid10361692 
] and involves the indeclinable }{\i\insrsid10361692 parum}{\insrsid10361692  ('a little', 'very little') with a dependent partitive genitive. It is written out in full at 9,4. It differs in meaning from }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua parua}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('a small wood'
). The Phillimore printed translation 'a little underwood' might imply a single small piece of underwood in one place, whereas the Latin is only referring to the amount of wood not to the fact that the underwood was of small extent and located in one plac
e. The Alecto edition has 'a little scrubland'. It may be of significance that only once (2,2) is this detail in a new sentence, whereas woodland - pasturable and underwood - are regularly put in new sentences; the fact that the only occurrence of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 silua minuta}{\insrsid10361692  not being in a separate sentence (10,27) is where no dimension is given, might suggest that this had something to do with its worth here too.
\par \tab \tab The same phrase is applied to underwood elsewhere in Derbyshire (1,34. 2,2. 6,60;80;94. 9,1;4. 10,18. 17,15-16) and to water-meadow (2,1; see 2,1 small note). Compare NTT 1,3 small note and NTT 1,10 amount note.
\par 1,33\tab EYAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 its successor, }{\insrsid10361692 High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47.
\par \tab KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caschin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caschi}{\insrsid10361692  - represent the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Karski}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 302. The Phillimore printed translation has Kaskin, but the Old Norse form has been chosen for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Karski.

\par \tab \tab This name only occurs in Domesday Derbyshire (the other occurrence is in 6,4) and in NTT 9,35;53 as a predecessor of Roger of Bully and as the father of Alsi in NTT S5.
\par \tab \tab Alsi was also a predecessor of these two tenants-in-chief; see 6,11 Alsi note (JP).
\par 1,34\tab [STONEY] MIDDLETON. This was a chapelry of Hathersage Ancient Parish. Like Hathersage itself (10,17), it probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 its successor, }{\insrsid10361692 
High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. For another manor in Stoney Middleton, see 10,16, while in 10,17 there are 'two parts of St
oney Middleton', an outlier of Hathersage; see 10,17 parts note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. In the succeeding phrase, }{\i\insrsid10361692 par}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 um}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  siluae min}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 utae}{\insrsid10361692 
] ('a small amount of underwood'), }{\i\insrsid10361692 parum }{\insrsid10361692 i
s indeclinable, but the villagers and smallholder probably also had it, as the main scribe of Great Domesday did not put it in a new sentence (see 1,32 small note); see also in 6,42;60.
\par \tab GODGYTH <OF MIDDLETON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godid}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goded}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Godet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godhit}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godgyth}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 264. This was apparently JRM's preferred form, but in the Phillimore printed translations the form Godith was also used. The Alecto edition has Godgyth.
\par \tab \tab Godgyth is an uncommon name, occurring on 18 holdings, probably representing four or five individuals. This tiny Derbyshire property, some 40 miles from its nearest, impoverished neighbour, is likely to have been the one holding of this Godgyt
h (JP).
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note and 1,34 meadow note.
\par 1,35\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the likely location of Mapperley (1,35) in 1086; see 1,35 Mapperley note.
\par \tab MAPPERLEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Kirk Hallam. In the Middle Ages Kirk Hallam itself lay in 'Morleystone' Hundred, Mapperley in 'Appletree' Hundred (the designation 'wapentake' gave way to 'hundred' after 1086): Youngs, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 79. It is recorded in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 58, and it appears in the combined hundreds of 'Appletree' and Wirksworth (successor to Hamston Wapentake) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i.
 p. 293, so was no doubt counted in 'Appletree' Hundred then. It is in the combined hundreds of 'Morleystone' and Litchurch in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 307, which suggests that it was there counted in 'Morleystone' Hundred. However, both of these references are 
late (1428). For the situation in 1086, it seems that geography (Mapperley is in the core of 'Morleystone' Wapentake) and the relationship with Spondon (6,67), which seems to have lain in that wapentake in 1086, suggest that Mapperley itself was probably 
in 'Morleystone' Wapentake.
\par \tab STAPLEWIN <OF MAPPERLEY>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stapleuine}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stapleuuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stapleuin}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent the hypothetical Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stapolwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 372-73. JRM pr
eferred the second element -win for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 , and would have kept to the Domesday form for the first element. In NTT 10,16 Staplewin held land in Stapleford and von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{
\insrsid10361692 ) suggested that the first element of the personal derived from that place-name. The Alecto edition has Stapolwine.
\par \tab \tab As this name only occurs here in an estate administered by William Peverel and twice elsewhere in Domesday (NTT 10,4;16) as a predecessor of William Peverel, it is likely that they represent the same ind
ividual, particularly as the three holdings are within five miles of each other.
\par \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for only one or two letters after }{\i\insrsid10361692 T'ra}{\insrsid10361692  which has no }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{
\insrsid10361692  (dot) after it, presumably intendi
ng the central margin to be used if the missing information were found. He left a similar space in 16,1, but no space in 16,2 (see 16,2 land note). In circuit I he left over 150 spaces for the completion of the plough estimate, ninety or so in Kent alone.
 
Obviously this information was missing in the circuit volume and the scribe thought it important enough to leave a space for it, but he was very inconsistent and the plough estimate is completely missing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday. Som
etimes the information was found to complete the estimate; in Derbyshire this was done once by scribe B (6,14 ploughs note), but see 6,15 plough note.
\par \tab WILLIAM. See 1,29 William note.
\par \tab WILLIAM PEVEREL HAS CHARGE [OF IT] THROUGH THE KING. For the meaning and significance of this, see 1,29 Peverel note.
\par \tab THERE ... HENRY. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after the value of the manor of Mapperley and then began a new line for this sentence, writing a large }{\i\insrsid10361692 I }{\insrsid10361692 and capital }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{
\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\f710\insrsid10361692 IBid\'e7}{\insrsid10361692 , but not rubrica
ting that word. In the Phillimore printed translation this is all part of the main entry for Mapperley, but should perhaps have been given a separate number, despite the lack of rubrication and of a marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 ].
\par \tab HENRY. See 1,27 Henry note.
\par \tab \'bd CARUCATE OF LAND, A JURISDICTION. The Phillimore printed translation has 'of the jurisdiction', and the Alecto edition has 'of [this] soke'. The phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Soca}{\insrsid10361692  means that in Mapperley there is a }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692  (that is, 'sokeland' or 'a jurisdiction') of Spondon. The prepositional phrase is 'defining': 'consisting of jurisdiction (-land)'. Compare 6,48 jurisdiction note and 16,1 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab WHICH BELONGS TO SPONDON, A MANOR OF HENRY ^[OF FERRERS]^. Henry's manor of Spondon is at 6,67. Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, (p. 124 no. 322) includes this entry, but there is nothing unusual (or illegal) about land in one fief being the jurisdiction of a manor in some other fief.
\par \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed translation }{\i\insrsid10361692 p'tin'}{\insrsid10361692  is translated as 'belongs' as if it abbreviated }{\i\insrsid10361692 pertinet}{\insrsid10361692 , the third personal singular of the present tense, with ' \'bd
 carucate' as its subject. However, as there is no punctuation after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692 , the main verb in this sentence is }{\i\insrsid10361692 est}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 p'tin'}{\insrsid10361692 
 must therefore abbreviate the present participle }{\i\insrsid10361692 pertinens}{\insrsid10361692  ('belonging', translated by JRM as 'which belongs'). The Alecto edition has 'belonging'.
\par 1,36\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. The heading is inserted on the basis of later evidence for the location of Tibshelf; see 1,36 Tibshelf note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. This is the only case in this fief where places in the same wapentake appear in separate groups: places in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake have already been entered at 1,1-10. It is possible that William Peverel was respons
ible for the returns of those manors of which he had charge. If so, it would have been relatively easy for the main scribe of Great Domesday or a scribe of one of the predecessor texts to merge the estates in Blackwell Wapentake (1,27-34) from two sources
.
 The estate of Mapperley (1,35) managed by William Peverel is the only royal land in that wapentake ('Morleystone' Wapentake). The Great Domesday scribe may have missed the present estate, and been forced to enter it here out of sequence as the last of th
ose manors over which William Peverel had charge.
\par \tab TIBSHELF. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. For the possibility that this entry is partially duplicated by that for South? Wingfield (7,13), see 7,13 entry note.
\par \tab "LIGULF". On this name, see 1,30 "Ligulf" note.
\par \tab WILLIAM. On this name, see 1,29 William note.
\par \tab WILLIAM PEVEREL HAS CHARGE [OF IT] THROUGH THE KING. As in 1,32;35, the Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 per regem}{\insrsid10361692 , not }{\i\insrsid10361692 pro rege}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,29 Peverel note.
\par \tab ROBERT [* OF HERILS *]. Robert is probably Robert }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Heriz}{\insrsid10361692  whose family held this estate and South Wingfield (7,13) for some generations; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 984, 992, and }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 336 note 5. See 7,1 Robert note and 7,13 Robert note.
\par \tab \tab Robert of H\'e9rils was sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire 1110x1122; see Green, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 67. His place of origin was H\'e9
rils, said to lie in the French commune of Maisons, in the canton of Tr\'e9vi\'e8res, in the d\'e9partement of Calvados; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 376-77. She gives folio references corresponding to 1,36. 7,1 and NTT 10,16.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Robert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rob}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rodbertus}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Rotbert(us)}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rodbert}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Rotbert}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Robert }{\insrsid10361692 etc.: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to modern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert.
\par 1,37\tab THIS ENTRY was not added later by the main scribe of Great Domesday, as suggested by Roffe, }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 5, note 4, though he does not mention it in }{\insrsid10361692 his }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 29. The pen and ink used for it are identical to those of the preceding text.
\par \tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. The insertion of this head depends on the wapentake in which Weston-on-Trent lay later; see 1,37 Weston note and\{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab WESTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Weston-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  For another part, ostensibly a dependency of Walton-on-Trent, see 1,17 entry note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Eight }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
at Weston[-on-Trent] were granted by King Ethelred in 1009 to his minister, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) who received land in the will of Wulfric Spot: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 110 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 922 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 60-64 no. 32). They must have reverted to the Crown before 1066.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab With its outliers (1,17;37-38) Weston-on-Trent evidently passed to Earl Hugh}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 of Chester soon after Domesday. He had granted them to the Abbey of St Werburgh by 1093: }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Chartulary of the Abbey of St Werburgh, Chester}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 17, 30 (PM).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WITH [ITS] OUTLIERS. In the manuscript }{\i\f710\cf1\insrsid10361692 c\'fb Bereuuitis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is clearly visible; Farley misprinted }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c Bereuuitis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 

\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab EARL ALGAR. }{\insrsid10361692 See 1,16 Algar note.
\par \tab 10 CARUCATES AND 2 \'bd BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. It is possible that the 2 \'bd bovates were actually at Aston-on-Trent where there was also an outlier (1,38). This is because in the entr
y for the manor of Aston-on-Trent in 6,93, the scribe wrote 'Uhtbrand had 1 carucate of land taxable and 2 \'bd bovates, jurisdiction', before deleting the '2 \'bd
 bovates, jurisdiction'. Uhtbrand (probably the same man) is credited with holding the outliers of Weston-on-Trent at Aston-on-Trent and Shardlow in 1086, and it is possible that he held the 2 \'bd bovates of Weston-on-Trent under Earl Algar.
\par \tab IN LORDSHIP 3 PLOUGHS; 24 VILLAGERS. When the Latin was }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi ... in dominio ... uillani}{\insrsid10361692 , as here, or }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\insrsid10361692  as in 1,
38 and most other instances, JRM preferred to have a semi-colon after the lordship ploughs unless there was a main verb after the villagers}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
(and any other population), as there was in 1,36 ('9 villagers have 2 ploughs'), because they might have been part o
f the lordship, as apparently in 1,27 and 14,6 (1,27 villagers note; compare 3,7 villagers note). In the Phillimore printed translation there is a full-stop here, in error (as also in 1,38. 3,2-5. 5,4. 6,24;39;43;57;63;86. 10,4-5;7. 11,2), though elsewher
e there is a semi-colon. The Alecto edition also has a semi-colon here. There is no further reference in these Notes to this change in punctuation.
\par \tab 4 TRIBUTARIES WHO PAY 16s.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 censarii}{\insrsid10361692  are men who pay a }{\i\insrsid10361692 census}{\insrsid10361692 
, that is, a 'rent' or 'tribute', in place of labour-service. These rent-payers are rare in Domesday and may here be an alternative for, or a sub-category of, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 liberi homines}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('free men') of whom there are none in Derbyshire, or of the villagers; see}{\i\insrsid10361692  VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 314; Baring, 'Domesday and the Burton Cartulary', and }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Walmsley, 'Censarii of Burton Abbey'}{
\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\insrsid10361692 Censarii}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 censores}{\insrsid10361692  occur also in Dorset, Essex, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. They are mentioned as making payments here and in
 6,38. 9,4;6, but those in 10,5-6;9. 14,3 are only recorded as having or sharing ploughs.
\par \tab \tab The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd'}{\insrsid10361692  has been understood in the present edition as an abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 reddentes}{\insrsid10361692  ('paying'), the present participle, like the }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'ntes}
{\insrsid10361692  (= }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 ) earlier in the sentence. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi}{\insrsid10361692  at the start of the sentence is short for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi sunt}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('There are') and governs the tributaries with their payment, as well as the villagers and smallholders. The Phillimore printed translation has 'pay', taking }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd'}{\insrsid10361692  as an abbreviation for }{\i\insrsid10361692 
reddunt}{\insrsid10361692 , the third person plural of the present tense. The Alecto edition has 'paying'.
\par \tab 2 CHURCHES AND A PRIEST. One of these churches was no doubt at Weston-on-Trent, the other probably in Aston-on-Trent, its outlier (1,38); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 2.
\par \tab A FISHERY. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 piscina}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Phillimore printed translation has 'fishpond' as does the Alecto edition, probably in an attempt to distinguish Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscina
}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The words }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscina}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  appear interchangeable: }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is used two entries on (2,1) and in 4,1 and B9. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscina}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 is Classical, meaning a 'fish-pond', 'fish-tank', 'fishery' or 'swimming-pool'. This last meaning, potentially misleading, may have encouraged the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This, like }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
plumbaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (1,12 lead note), is derived from an adjective }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscarius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  meaning 'relating to fish', and so }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscaria}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 itself means ' thing connected to fish', the exact sense, as with many Latin words, being supplied by the context. This }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 piscina}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  was no doubt on the River Trent.
\par \tab A FERRY. The Medieval Latin word }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 passagium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (derived via Old French from postulated }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 passaticum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , itself from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 passare}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , a hypothetical verb derived from the noun }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 passus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 'a pace') means 'a crossing', 'the right to cross', 'payment for crossing', and does not in itse
lf mean 'a ferry', though here it implies the existence of one.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab PASTURE. The Latin word }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692  is used throughout the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid10361692  for 'pasture' and was normally converted by the main scribe of Great Domesday into }{
\i\insrsid10361692 pastura}{\insrsid10361692 . In these cases, there is no 
difference in meaning; it is simply that from a series of equivalents, different choices have been made for the circuit volume and for Great Domesday. Here the Great Domesday scribe probably failed to convert }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692 
 in the circuit volume to }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastura,}{\insrsid10361692  as also in 6,31-32 and 10,19; these are the only occurrences of pasture (as apposed to 'pasturable woodland') in Domesday Derbyshire. The Phillimore printed edition translated }{
\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692  as 'pasturage', but there is no reason to think that any rights to grazing or dues from grazing are implied.
\par \tab VALUE BEFORE 1066 \'a38; NOW \'a316. Scribe B corrected the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  value by erasing a figure, probably }{\i\insrsid10361692 x}{\insrsid10361692 , before the }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692 
 and adding a minim after it (covering the }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{\insrsid10361692  originally written by the main scribe of Great Domesday) and then interlined another minim. Scribe B also corrected the 1086 value by erasing something (probably }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692 ) after }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692 , though he left the original }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{\insrsid10361692  after it, and interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 x}{\insrsid10361692 
, turning the original }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{\insrsid10361692  bef
ore the figure into an insertion mark. Farley did not print this insertion mark, as occasionally elsewhere. It is very likely that here, as in some other entries, the main scribe had accidentally reversed the figures for the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692  and 1086 values. This would have been easily done if in the circuit volume or other document used by him the 1086 value was given first, as it is in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid10361692 
 (which led to corrections similar to this); compare 1,37 pasture note. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par 1,38\tab THIS ENTRY does not seem to have been a late, unrubricated, addition by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the king's lands, as suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 29). The pen and ink used for it are identical to those of the preceding text and it is likely that the scribe merely failed to rubricate the }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692 
 (the names of outliers were not normally red-lined when separate from the manorial }{\i\insrsid10361692 caput}{\insrsid10361692 ).
\par \tab OUTLIERS OF THIS MANOR. This phrase, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday partly in capitals at the end of the first line of this entry, duplicates the }{\i\insrsid10361692 B }{\insrsid10361692 for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Berewicae}{
\insrsid10361692  in the left margin. It is possible that this is a single outlier (Aston-on-Trent with Shardlow), similar to those single manor
s that consist of two named places, for example, 'Langley' and Chatsworth (1,32); this is the reading in the Phillimore printed translation. However, it is more likely, in view of the reference to }{\i\insrsid10361692 bereuuitis}{\insrsid10361692 
 in 1,37, that both places were separate outliers; the Alecto edition has 'Berewicks of this manor'.
\par \tab ASTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Aston-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another portion, 
see 6,93. There Aston-on-Trent is a manor of 1 carucate held in 1066 by a man called Uhtbrand (probably the same person as the Uhtbrand here: 1,38 Uhtbrand note) and a reference to a jurisdiction of 2 \'bd
 bovates was underlined for deletion. This is perhaps to the present estate at Aston-on-Trent (part of a joint total, with Shardlow, of 6 \'bd bovates) though here Aston-on-Trent is described as an outlier. Alternatively it might refer to the 2 \'bd
 bovates at Weston-on-Trent (1,37); see 1,37 bovates note.
\par \tab SHARDLOW. This was a township of Aston-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. Like Aston-on-Trent itself, it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab LORDSHIP; 4 VILLAGERS. See 1,37 lordship note.
\par \tab UHTBRAND <OF ASTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Uctebrand}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ostebrand}{\insrsid10361692  - represent the hypothetical Anglo-Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid10361692 Uhtbrand}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 398. The Alecto edition has Uhtbrand.
\par \tab \tab There are only five occurrences of this name in Domesday Book: here and in 6,93, in NTT 29,2. LIN 59,1 and CHS 19,3. It is likely that the two people in Derbyshire were the same (although the Uhtbrand in 6,93 held }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692 ) because of the link between this outlier in Aston-on-Trent and the manor there in 6,93; see 1,38 Aston note and 1,37 bovates note.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that the Uhtbrand <of Trowell> in NTT 29,2 is the same man as the Uhtbrand here, as Trowell is only eleven miles from Aston, but there are no tenurial or other links to confirm this (JP).
\par 2\tab LAND OF THE BISHOP OF CHESTER}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 The see of Mercia was fixed at Lichfield in Staffordshire by Ceadda (St Chad), bishop of the Mercians, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lindisfari}{\insrsid10361692 
 (the inhabitants of Lindsey, later in Lincolnshire) and the
 Middle Angles between 664 and 672. The church was built on land that had apparently been given earlier by King Wulfhere of Mercia (657-674) to Bishop Wilfrith of York for the foundation of a monastery. St Chad's original diocesan church was on a site adj
acent to the later cathedral. A new church was constructed by Bishop Headda and consecrated in 700. It was apparently dedicated to St Mary, although Bede (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Ecclesiastical History}{\insrsid10361692 
, iv. 3: Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 344-45) gives St Mary as the dedicatee of the 
original church and St Peter as that of the new one. It was later dedicated to St Chad. In 822 there were 20 canons including a provost, that is, 11 priests and 9 deacons. They were then living in accordance with the rule of Bishop Chrodegang of Metz.

\par \tab \tab Th
e work of the bishops will have been disrupted by the Danish marauding and settlement of the late ninth century, since Lichfield itself would have lain just within the Danish part of Mercia, if the boundary between the kingdoms was Watling Street; see \{
Introduction: History\}.
\par \tab \tab The see was transferred by Bishop Peter to Chester in 1075, then to Coventry in 1102 by his successor Robert of Lim\'e9sy who had been consecrated in 1086.
\par \tab \tab Unless there is other evidence, it is likely that the estates listed in Domesd
ay had been held by the see from much earlier times. The initial endowment of the see, like the gift of Lichfield itself, was probably due to King Wulfhere of Mercia; see \{Introduction; Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab The lands in this fief are entered by wapentake in the following order:
\par \tab \tab 2,1-2 }{\insrsid10361692 'Morleystone' Wapentake
\par \tab \tab 2,3 ['Appletree' Wapentake].
\par 2,1\tab 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE. This is one of only five headings supplied in Derbyshire by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab SAWLEY HUNDRED}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This is the only reference to a hundred in Domesday Derbyshire, but they also occur in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire and are evidenced later in Leicestershire. These 'small hundreds' appear to have been ma
de up of areas of 12 carucates or multiples thereof. This isolated reference to Sawley Hundred in Derbyshire, though not repeated after Domesday, may suggest that the system also}{\cf8\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
existed in parts or all of Derbyshire. See NTT S1 hundreds note; }{\insrsid10361692 Round, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 69-76; Foster and Longley, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. xiv-xv; Stenton, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Danelaw Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. lxiii-lxx; Roffe, 'Lincolnshire Hundred'; and }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{Introduction: Small Hundreds\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Roffe ('Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p
. 7) suggests that the estate of Sawley was named after the hundred. It is more probable that the hundred was named after the estate, as in the cases in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab SAWLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 and is evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 249, 255, 257; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. This important manor was sometimes later considered a Soke or Liberty.
\par \tab DRAYCOTT. This was part of the Liberty of Draycott and Church Wilne in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 74. It no doubt lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, because of its association with Sawley, as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43.
\par \tab HOPWELL. This was a hamlet of Wilne chapelry in Sawley Ancient Parish. Because of its association with Sawley, it no doubt lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. It is represented by Hopwell Hall (SK440362) and Hopwell Hall Farm (SK443363).
\par \tab BISHOP HAS 3 PLOUGHS; 29 VILLAGERS AND 13 SMALLHOLDERS. The case of the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\insrsid10361692 , and also of }{\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692 , is not clear. As they may be accu
sative, and so the object of 'The bishop has', the full-stop that was in the Phillimore printed translation after the ploughs has been altered here to a semi-colon to indicate the ambiguity of the Latin; see 1,11 villagers note. The Alecto edition also ha
s a semi-colon after the ploughs. Compare 1,27 villagers note, 3,1 villagers note and 3,7 villagers note.
\par \tab A PRIEST AND 2 CHURCHES. These two churches were probably at Sawley and at Wilne: Cox, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Churches of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iv. pp. 398-410; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 2.
\par \tab 
A SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER-MEADOW. The translation in the Phillimore printed edition, as also in the Alecto edition, is 'a little water-meadow' which might suggest that there was a single small water-meadow whereas the Latin is only referring to the quan
tity. Compare 1,32 small note. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Broc'}{\insrsid10361692  here may abbreviate }{\i\insrsid10361692 brocae}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 broces}{\insrsid10361692 ;}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
see 1,26 water-meadow note.
\par \tab RALPH SON OF HUBERT. He is a tenant-in-chief in his own right; see DBY 10. There is no sign in the manuscript that this line was added, as suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 29; see also 'Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 320, note 4). The main scribe of Great Domesday normally recorded the 1086 tenant at the end of the entry (see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}) and there
 would be no reason for him to have left a line's space between the account of a manor and its jurisdiction.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radulfus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radulf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radolf}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radulf}{
\insrsid10361692 , from which Norman }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radulf}{\insrsid10361692  and Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Raoul}{\insrsid10361692  were derived: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from }{\i\insrsid10361692 Radulf}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Raoul}{\insrsid10361692  (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 
), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his father's name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hubertus}{\insrsid10361692  (often abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hub't'}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugubert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Hubert}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 156. The Alecto edition has Hubert.
\par \tab [VALUE ***]. The omission of the value statement by the main scribe of Great Domesday was either accidental or it was missing in his source and he failed to check for it later.
\par 2,2\tab MARGINAL S. This indicates that Long Eaton was a }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 ) ('jurisdiction') of Sawley (2,1).
\par \tab [LONG] EATON. This was a township of Sawley Ancient Parish. Like Sawley it undoubtedly lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (13
34)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab Long Eaton amounted to 12 carucates, just as Sawley with its outliers did, and, like Sawley, may well have been a 12-carucate hundred, presumably named 'Eaton'. However, there is no reason to think (}{\i\insrsid10361692 pace}{\insrsid10361692  }
{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 6) that the main scribe of Great Domesday made a separate entry for Long Eaton just because it was in a separate hundred; the fact that it is a jurisdiction of Sawley is reason enough. In fact there are many instances where jurisdiction land is gi
ve a separate entry. It was clearly the scribe's policy to do so, as he emphasized it by the use of a marginal }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 S}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , as for example in 1,2-8;21-23.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab 23 FREEMEN AND 10 SMALLHOLDERS UNDER THEM. It is unusual to find one group of the village population holding from others, though it does occur occasionally in Great Domesday.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note
\par }{\insrsid10361692 2,3\tab [* 'APPLETREE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of Bupton (2,3 Bupton note).
\par \tab BUPTON. This was a settlement in Longford Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 581. It is represented by Bupton Farm at SK223373. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Pari
sh, do so: Alkmonton (6,35), Bentley (6,36), Bupton (2,3. 6,52), Hollington (6,41-42) and Rodsley (3,1. 6,62). Bupton is ill-represented in later records, but its association with Longford (which is evidenced later in 'Appletree' Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45) and considerations of the likely boundaries of the wapentakes suggest that it lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 6,52;60.
\par \tab \tab Bupton had been held by Wulfric Spot but by his will he requested that 'the Bishop [of Lich
field] is to take possession of his estate at Bupton and the monks at Burton are to take what is on the land, both produce and men, and all things; and the land at the mire [is to go] to the Bishop' (translated by }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Whitelock, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 51}{\insrsid10361692 ). Evidently the estate passed, as intended, to the bishop. The see of Lichfield was transferred to Chester in 1075.
\par \tab WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is probable that one was Longford (SK2137), and as in the case of Chesterfield (1,1), which was a dependency of Newbold in 1086, the relative status has been inverted.
\par \tab VILLAGERS. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\insrsid10361692  and of }{\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear; see 2,1 villagers note.
\par \tab NOW \'a34. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the 1086 value from }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692  by adding an extra minim at the end.
\par 3\tab LAND OF THE ABBEY OF BURTON}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . Burton Abbey was founded by Wulfric Spot in 1002 and extensively endowed under}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 his will (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29), al
though many of the lands had been lost before 1066 (PM). For a history of the abbey, see STS 4 Burton note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab In the case of Derbyshire, the following estates, listed in the order of Wulfric Spot's will, appear to have been alienated from the abbey: Newton
 Solney (1,18); Morley (6,70;100); Breadsall (6,69); Morton (8,1); Pilsley ( 8,3); Ogston (8,1. 10,14); Wingfield (8,3 or 7,13); "Esnotrewic" (7,3). Not all the identifications are certain; the detail is given in the relevant notes.
\par \tab \tab Abbreviated details of the abbey's holdings in Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire appear in several Burton documents, among them in the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary, which also contains two extracts; see \{
Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\}; \{Introduction: Other Abbreviations\} and \{Introduction: Two Extracts within the Burton Cartulary\}
. The few discrepancies between these five abbreviations and Domesday are mentioned in the relevant notes to this chapter and to B4.
\par \tab \tab There are two surveys of Burton Abbey lands also in this Burton Cartulary, dating from the first quarter of the twelfth century: see \{Introduction: The Burton Abbey Surveys\}.
\par \tab \tab Early in the next century, there are considerable numbers of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 censarii}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('tributaries') on the Burton
 Abbey estates. These occur elsewhere in Domesday Derbyshire, but not in this chapter; see 1,37 tributaries note. On the possibility that they have been omitted from Domesday or disguised under a more general term, see }{\insrsid10361692 
Baring, 'Domesday and the Burton Cartulary'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ; Walmsley, 'Censarii of Burton Abbey'.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab The abbey's lands appear to be entered by wapentake:
\par \tab \tab 3,1 [Litchurch Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 3,2-7 [}{\insrsid10361692 "Walecros" Wapentake].
\par 3,1\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. The heading is supplied from the later history and location of Mickleover and some of its members: 3,1 Mickleover note
\par \tab MICKLEOVER}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 This was an Ancient Parish which may once have been a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Mary. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab As with the royal manors of Newbold (1,1) and Melbourne (1,19) which were also multiple estates, the main scribe of Great Domesday entered the manor first, then its outliers, then its jurisdictions. The three outliers al
l appear to have been in Litchurch Wapentake while most of the jurisdictions were in 'Appletree' Wapentake.
\par \tab \tab Five }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ufre}{\insrsid10361692  [represented by Mickleover and Littleover] were granted by King Ethelred in 1011 to his thane, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) }{\insrsid10361692 who received bequests from Wulfric Spot.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This estate was held by King Edward in 1066 but was granted to the abbey by William I according to the Burton Annals}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Annales Monastici}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 185; }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 42 }{\insrsid10361692 no. XIII}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). The entry in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Annals of Burton}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 reads: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 1087. Obiit Willelmus rex Bastardus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Hic dedit nobis videlicet monasterio Burtoniensi Ufram majorem et minorem, tempore suo, cum tota terra de ultra Dova et Eccleshall}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('1087. King Wi
lliam the bastard died. In his time, he gave to us, that is to the monastery of Burton, greater and lesser Over [Mickleover and Littleover] with all the land beyond the [River] Dove and Eccleshall'). The 'land beyond the Dove' and Eccleshall lay in Staffo
rdshire; see STS 4 Burton note. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 47 no. XXII) confirms that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Overa cum pertinentiis}{
\insrsid10361692  was given by King William. These appurtenances were }{\i\insrsid10361692 Parva Overa}{\insrsid10361692  [Littleover], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Fynderna}{\insrsid10361692  [Findern], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Henovera}{\insrsid10361692  [
Rough Heanor, SK3235; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 484] and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Potlac}{\insrsid10361692  [Potlocks]. All but Rough Heanor are listed as members of Mickleover in Domesday.}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  A Bull of Lucius III who was pope from 1181-1185 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 42 no. XIII = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Burton Register}{\insrsid10361692 , folio 7a) confirms}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 the lands of Burton Abbey and mentions the gifts of William I among them: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 villam de Offra cum ecclesia et omnibus pertinentiis suis: villam de Parva Offra cum capella, Findernam cum capella, Pothlac cum capella ... terram d
e Henofra}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('the vill of Mickleover with church and all its appurtenances [namely]: the vill of Littleover with chapel, Findern with chapel, Potlock with chapel ... the land of [Rough] Heanor'). In an extent of the early twelfth century the estate was divid
ed as follows: Mickleover 4 carucates, Littleover 3 carucates, Findern 2 carucates, Potlock 1 carucate: the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary',}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 pp.}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  
}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 22-23, 28-29). See also the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, pp. 229-38); 240; and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 1001. William the Conqueror's grant is no longer extant. The place is Mickleover }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cum hamelettis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('with hamlets') in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255.
\par \tab EDWARD. On this name, see 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab LITTLEOVER. This was a chapelry of Mickleover Ancient Parish and, like Mickleover itself, it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman,}{\insrsid10361692  pp. 231-34).
\par \tab \tab The addition of }{\i\insrsid10361692 parua}{\insrsid10361692  ('little') before }{\i\insrsid10361692 VFRE}{\insrsid10361692  by the main scribe of Great Domesday is almost certainly to have been done as he wrote the entry.
\par \tab FINDERN. This was a chapelry of Mickleover Ancient Parish and, like Mickleover itself, it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman,}{\insrsid10361692  pp. 234-36).
\par \tab POTLOCKS. This was a settlement (earlier known as Potlock) in Findern chapelry in Mickleover Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 464. Like Mickleover itself, it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman,}{\insrsid10361692  p. 236). The gri
d reference is to Potlocks House Farm at SK313287. The same place appears as Potlock House on the one-inch seventh series Ordnance Survey map (sheep 120, 1962). On the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 71 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 35 in 1
970) there are two Potlock Farms, one now Potlocks House Farm, the other now under an industrial site at SK305288.
\par \tab ABBOT ... HAS IN LORDSHIP 5 \'bd PLOUGHS; 20 VILLAGERS AND 10 SMALLHOLDERS. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill' }{\insrsid10361692 and of }{\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear, but as it might be accusative (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 uillanos 7 bordarios}{\insrsid10361692 
), making them part of the lordship, JRM thought it was safest to put a semi-colon after the 'ploughs'. The Phillimore printed translation has a full-stop here, in error. The Alecto edition has ' ... 5 \'bd ploughs; and ... '. See al
so in 8,2-3;5. 10,1, where, however, the Phillimore printed translation has 'and' after the lordship plough. Compare 1,27 villagers note and 3,7 villagers note.
\par \tab JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The Latin appears to be singular so the word is being used in its 
abstract sense: 'the jurisdiction of this manor (extends over the following)'; see 1,2 jurisdiction note. While Mickleover itself appears to have been in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, most of its jurisdictions lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake.
\par \tab SNELSTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Norbury and Roston. Norbury and Roston themselves jointly appear as a manor at 6,57 where they seem to be in 'Appletree' Wapentake. Snelston is evidenced in that wapentake later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. There is a further \'bd carucate of land in Snelston, whose jurisdiction is in Mickleover, at 6,53.
\par \tab BEARWARDCOTE. This was a township of Etwall Ancient Parish. Etw
all (6,98. 9,2) itself probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake. Moreover at 6,94, Bearwardcote is associated with Burnaston which itself was probably in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086. Bearwardcote is poorly evidenced later, but it seems likely that it was itsel
f in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086. Bearwardcote is represented by Bearwardcote Farm at SK281334.
\par \tab DALBURY. Dalbury (Lees) was an Ancient Parish. It is evidenced in 'Appletree' Wapentake after 1086 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46) and it is possible that this
 portion of it similarly lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086. However, the main manor here (6,97) appears in a run of places which were almost certainly in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086. Dalbury does, however, lie on the putative border between Litchurch a
nd 'Appletree' Wapentakes and it is possible that it had parts in both in 1086.
\par \tab HOON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself appears to have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake and Hoon is evidenced there later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday name is represented by Hoon Hall (SK223311) and other Hoon names: Hoon Villa Farm (SK230311), Hoon Mount Farm (SK229314), Hoon Drive Farm (SK227320) as well as Hoon Mount (SK230318) and Hoon Ridge (SK232316). For the med
ieval settlement here (at approximately SK224300), see Beresford, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lost Villages}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 346, and Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Deserted Medieval Villages}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 185.
\par \tab 3 BOVATES. In the manuscript and in the Alecto facsimile the number of bovates interlined above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hougen}{\insrsid10361692  is clearly }{\i\insrsid10361692 .iii.}{\insrsid10361692 
, which agrees with the total given at the end of the entry. However, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile the final }{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692  has not been reproduced, which led Round to believe that it had been erased (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 334, note 5).
\par \tab RODSLEY. This
 was a hamlet of Longford Ancient Parish. Longford itself does not appear in Domesday, but its area is represented by other names: see 2,3 Bupton note. Rodsley seems to have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 and is evidenced there later:}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. Twelve bovates in Rodsley are held by Henry of Ferrers (6,62), but claimed by the Abbot [of Burton]; they are probably a duplicate of this jurisdiction.
\par \tab \tab Farley read this place-name as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redesleie}{\insrsid10361692 , but in the manuscript it appears to be }{\i\insrsid10361692 Retlesleie}{\insrsid10361692 : there is a small crossbar on the letter after the first }{
\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692  (as there would be for a }{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 , which was the same height as a }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 
) and this letter does not join the next one, which also does not have the 'tick' at the top of the ascender as do the other straight }{\i\insrsid10361692 d}{\insrsid10361692 
s written by the main scribe of Great Domesday. He may have misread his source or it may not have been clear there, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redesleie}{\insrsid10361692  is the better form, in line with }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redeslei }{\insrsid10361692 
(6,62) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redeslege}{\insrsid10361692  (1244), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redesleye}{\insrsid10361692  (1260) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Redeslye}{\insrsid10361692  (1272); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 598.
\par \tab SUDBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For another part, see 6,30.
\par \tab HILTON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself appears to have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake and Hilton is evidenced there later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab SUTTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For another part, see 6,39.
\par \tab \tab Four }{\i\insrsid10361692 ruris}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 cassatae }{\insrsid10361692 (that is, hides, presumably) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suthtone}{\insrsid10361692 
, possibly Sutton-on-the-Hill, with permission to buy a fifth, were granted in 949 by King Eadred to his thane }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfketel}{\insrsid10361692 : }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 105 no. 103 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 549 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 13-14 no. 8). These four }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  might correspond to the three carucates at which the combined holdings at Sutton-on-the-Hill were assessed in Domesday, but there is no standard ratio of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (or hides) that appear in charters to carucates and there are grounds for preferring an identification with Sutton Maddock, Shropshire; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 14.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 More certain is that Sutton[-on-the-Hill] was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29, see pp. xxx, xxxii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab 
AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly for a wapentake head which is needed above the next entry; compare 6,64 entry note and 7,6 entry note. However, it may also have been to mark the end of an important multi
ple estate; see 1,13 space note.
\par 3,2\tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from evidence for the later location of the estates surveyed in 3,2-7. See \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab APPLEBY [MAGNA]. Appleby was an Ancient Parish, divided between Leicestershire and Derbyshire, }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 containing Appleby Magna and Appleby Parva. The Derbyshire portion was no doubt in }{\insrsid10361692 
"Walecros" Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 On the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map (sheet 63; reprinted 1970 as sheet 43) the boundary between the counties snakes through the settlement of Appleby Magna and there are two detached portions of Derbyshir
e in Appleby Parva. The situation was rationalized in 1889 when two separate Civil Parishes, Appleby Magna North in Derbyshire and Appleby Magna South in Leicestershire were created. At that stage no change to the county boundaries was involved. However, 
the two parishes were reunited and placed in Leicestershire in 1897 in the context of other nearby boundary changes; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This Derbyshire portion of Appleby Magna (5 carucates) belonged to Burton Abbey, having been given to it by Wulfric Spot}{\insrsid10361692  in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England
}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxiii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 
, no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Of these five carucates it was said that Abbot Leofric had leased 1 carucate to Countess Goda, possibly a mistake f
or Countess Godiva; see 3,2 countess note. It is possible that both parts of Appleby Magna (3,2. LEC 11,2) had once belonged to Burton Abbey, but that Countess Godiva or a predecessor had alienated a portion and placed it in Leicestershire; see LEC 11,1 N
o
rton note. In this regard, it may be significant that, although the Leicestershire and Derbyshire carucations are in general very different, the three estates in Appleby add up to 9 carucates, and may have been assessed according to the Derbyshire measure
, rather than the Leicestershire one.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 24, 30); }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, }{\insrsid10361692 pp. 244-46). It is Appleby }{\i\insrsid10361692 cum membris}{\insrsid10361692  ('with members') in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255.
\par \tab 5 CARUCATES OF LAND. This is omitted altogether in the first abbreviation within the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary, while in the abbreviation that is an endorsement on Wulfric Spot's will the }{\i\insrsid10361692 carucate t're}{
\insrsid10361692  is faint and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 v}{\insrsid10361692  before it is illegible. The 5 carucates appear in the three other abbreviations. See }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\} and \{
Introduction: Other Surveys\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LAND FOR 5 PLOUGHS. In the first abbreviation within the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary there is a space left for the number of ploughs, while in the abbreviation that is an endorsement on Wulfric Spot's will the }{\i\insrsid10361692 .v.}{
\insrsid10361692  is very faint, possibly erased. The plough estimate in the other three abbreviations is as in Domesday. See }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\} and \{Introduction: Other Surveys\}.}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ABBOT LEOFRIC LEASED. Leofric was Abbot of Burton ?1051-1066: Knowles, Brooke and London, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Heads of Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 31. On the lease, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 124 no. 323.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuric(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuuric(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefric(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Leofuriz}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefriz}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric.
\par \tab COUNTESS [GODIVA] GODA}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 
Goda was the daughter of King Ethelred II and his second wife Emma (known in England as Aelfgifu, the daughter of Richard I the Fearless, Duke of the Normans). Goda was thus the natural sister of King Edward the
 Confessor. She was wife firstly of Drogo count of Mantes and the Vexin (who died in 1035); secondly of Count Eustace of Boulogne. She died }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1056.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goda}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gode}{\insrsid10361692  - represent the feminine Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gode}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 263. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goda}{\insrsid10361692 
 is a masculine Old English name, but as it is obvious that in Domesday the two names coalesced and as the countess is regularly called 'Goda', it was decided by JRM and accepted by JMcND th
at she should be called Countess Goda. The Alecto edition has Countess Gode, except in Buckinghamshire, where it has Countess Goda, probably in error.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab However, in Leicestershire, another part of Appleby is entered under the holdings of}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Countess Godiva, widow of Earl Leofric of Mercia (LEC 11,2). Goda may, perhaps, be a manuscript error for Godiva (PM). This mistake could easily have arisen if at some stage the holder was represented by the abbreviation }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
comitissa G.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 comitissa God'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab TH
E KING ^[WILLIAM]^ HAS IT NOW. If this 1 carucate is part of the land in Godiva's fief in Leicestershire (LEC 11), it is in the king's hands as an escheat, the countess having died some time before 1086. Her fief had neither been granted out en bloc nor b
roken up.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab IN THE SAME VILLAGE. In the manuscript the }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692  is a capital; Farley misprinted it as }{\i\insrsid10361692 j}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par 3,3\tab 
WINSHILL. This was a township of Burton-on-Trent Ancient Parish. The latter lay in Staffordshire in 1086 and later, whereas Winshill was in Derbyshire and long remained there, becoming a Civil Parish in that county in 1866. It was later partly absorbed by
 the expansion of the borough of Burton-on-Trent (Staffordshire) east of the River Trent, part being transferred there in 1878, the rest joining the Ancient Parish of Newton Solney (in Derbyshire) in 1894; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 88; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ix. pp. 196-97.
\par \tab \tab Winshill probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab This estate was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxx). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 24, 29); }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, }{\insrsid10361692 
pp. 240-43).
\par \tab KING WILLIAM PLACED THERE. See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 124 no. 324.
\par \tab BELONG TO REPTON. That is, to the royal manor (1,20).
\par 3,4\tab COTON[-IN-THE-ELMS]}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 COTVNE}{\insrsid10361692  and then later corrected it by underlining it and interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 
COTES}{\insrsid10361692 . The underlining is faint and has not been reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, though it is just visible in the Alecto facsimile; Farley printed it. The fact that }{\i\insrsid10361692 COTES}{\insrsid10361692 
 is not rubricated does not necessarily mean that the correction was made after the county had been rubricated. As PM says in his note: '}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 There were two forms of this place-name, the nominative }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cotes}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the locative}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cotum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 represented by Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Cotes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cotune}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 :}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 630'.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab This was a township of Lullington Ancient Parish. Lullington itself (17,11) was probably in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086, just as Coton-in-the Elms was in Repton Wapentake (the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake) later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Land here ('the southern half of Coton') was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10 no. 6). It was held in 1066 by Earl Algar, but the the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 
Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary',}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 9) records that it was given to the abbey by Earl Morcar. It came into 
King William's hands after the conquest and was restored by him when he was at Burton, but the writ was made as if it were a gift of King William himself, for the abbey to hold 'as the mother of Earl Morcar [Countess Aelfgifu/Aelfeva] had held it'. It was
 addressed to Henry of Ferrers and Harding the sheriff (presumably of Derbyshire and possibly of Nottinghamshire). William wished that his clerk Ailwin (or Longwin) should hold it from the church; see the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 
Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary',}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  p. 9); }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 194 no. 33 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 60 no. 223);}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. xliii, xlvi; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 298-99. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{
\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 47 no. XXII) erroneously ascribes the gift to William Rufus.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The manor was granted out by Abbot Geoffrey de Mala Terra before 1094, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 absque consensu sui conventus tradidit dictam villam de Cotes cuidam Nicholao Vicecomiti Staffordiae propter quo
d factum dictus Abbas fuit depositus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 : }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Annales Monastici}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i.}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
p. 183 (PM). The translation is: 'without the consent of his community, he handed over the said village of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Cotes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  to a certain Nicholas, sheriff of Stafford[shire], for which deed the said abbot wa
s unseated'. There is a similar passage in the Burton Cartulary (Wrottesley, 'The Burton Chartulary', p. 8). Nicholas of Stafford did not surrender the estate, however. A writ of Henry I (1101 x 1102) addressed to R[ichard] son of G[otse] the sheriff (of 
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire) instructs him to reseise the Abbot of Burton of this estate if Nicholas will not prove his claim: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 24 no. 600. A further writ (1101 x 1106) on the same matter was addressed directly to Nicholas himself: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 56 no. 766.}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 There is no mention of Coton-in-the-Elms as a holding of Burton Abbey in either of the two Burton Abbey Surveys, which date from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 1114 (Survey B) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 1126 (Survey A); see \{Introduction: The Burton Abbey Surveys\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langfenp1033\insrsid10361692 \tab [* EARL *] ALGAR. See 3,4 Coton note and 1,16 Algar note.}{\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab 2 CARUCATES. In the first abbreviation within the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary 3 carucates are recorded for Coton-in-the-Elms. The other four abbreviations have 2 carucates. See }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{
Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\} and \{Introduction: Other Surveys\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab FROM THE KING. The colour of the ink and the pen used for }{\i\insrsid10361692 de rege}{\insrsid10361692  suggest that the main scribe of Great Domesday interlined it immediately.
\par 3,5\tab STAPENHILL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. For another part, see 14,2.
\par \tab \tab Stapenhill was made 
a separate Civil Parish in 1866 and later was partly absorbed by the expansion of the borough of Burton-on-Trent (Staffordshire) east of the River Trent, part being transferred there in 1878, the rest being divided between Bretby Civil Parish (Derbyshire)
 and Drakelow Civil Parish (also Derbyshire) in 1894; see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 85; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ix. p. 207; and \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.

\par \tab \tab Land in Stapenhill (either corresponding to this entry, or to 14,2 or to both) was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1606 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 11-13 no. 7). It is not certain when and
 how Burton Abbey acquired it, although the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 47 no. XXII) ascribes the gift to King Edward}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. The gift is said to have included a church that is not mentioned in Domesday. This estate was assessed
 at 4 carucates and 2 bovates in 1086 and seems to be represented in the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, pp. 238-40) by 2 carucates at Stapenhill, 10 bovates at }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Bersicote}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Brizlincote, SK273220: }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. pp. 623-24) and 1 carucate at Stanton; see the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 23, 29)}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. For another part of Stanton and the charter history of both parts, see 6,21 Stanton note. It is Stapenhill }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cum membris}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('with members') in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 255.

\par 3,6\tab CALDWELL. This was a hamlet of Stapenhill Ancient Parish and, like Stapenhill itself (3,5. 14,2), it probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros": }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Land here was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10 no. 6).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 For the estate in the early twelfth century, see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 24, 29); }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, }{\insrsid10361692 pp. 243-44); Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 117.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alebric, Aeluric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 
)}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alfric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alfriz, Aluuricus, Aelfric}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluriz, Eluric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alberic, Alebrix}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfric.
\par \tab \tab As Burton Abbey did not hold this land }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 , Aelfric presumably held the land in his own right or from King Edward, before it passed to King William.
\par \tab \tab On this Aelfric, see also 6,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab WILLIAM. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willelmus }{\insrsid10361692 (often abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Will's}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willihelm}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Willehelm}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Willelm}{\insrsid10361692 , Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Guill}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 elm}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.
\par \tab KING WILLIAM ... BENEFICE. This sentence may have been a later addition to this entry, done by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the same time as the next entry (see 3,7 entry note). The pen and ink are the same as those used
 by him for the preceding text, but the style of writing is different. It is interesting that in four of the five 'abbreviations' of Burton Abbey's holdings in Derbyshire, this detail is separated from the account of Caldwell by the details of Ticknall (3
,7); see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\} and \{Introduction: Other Surveys\}}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab \tab According to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 47 no. XXII), Coton[-in-the-Elms] and Caldwell were gifts of William 
Rufus, but they both appear as held by Burton Abbey in 1086 and the writer himself says }{\i\insrsid10361692 ut habetur in libro de Domusdaie apud Wintoniam et Westmonasterium}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('as is said in Domesday Book at Winchester and Westminster'). The writer has probably confused the first two Williams.
\par \tab AS THEIR BENEFICE}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The Phillimore printed translation has 'for his well-being' and PM's note says: 'The word }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 is rare in Domesday Book and the meaning here might carry}{
\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the construction 'for their benefice' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 298) as well as 'for his well-being', here preferred'.
\par \tab \tab Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  derives from the adjective }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  which is a compound of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 bene}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (adverb) and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 -ficus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  which itself derives from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 facio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('to do'). Thus }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  means 'doing well', 'doing good
', 'beneficent'. So a }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is essentially 'a good deed', 'an act of kindness' or 'a service'. In Classical Latin the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 suo}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('his', 'her', 'their') would leave no doubt that it referred to the giver (King William), the grammatical subject of the sentence; were the gift for other people, it would be expressed by }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 eorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. However, this strict usage is rarely observed in Medieval Latin. In OXF 28,8 Robert d'Oilly holds 42 inhabited houses in Oxford and it is said that 'he holds them as one manor with the benefice of St Peter's': }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
et pro .i. manerio tenet cum beneficio Sancti Petri}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . There }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  clearly has the concrete sense of a beneficial gift, or of a free grant of land by an overlord; see }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of Medieval Latin}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , under }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , section 4.
 Later in the same fief (28,28) it is said that 'St Peter's Church, Oxford, holds 2 hides in Holywell from Robert' and the entry ends with the statement: 'This land did not pay tax and did not pay any dues'. It seems clear, therefore, that St Peter's hold
ing at Holywell was its }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 beneficium}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, that is, land which it could enjoy entirely free from all obligations, fiscal or other, and from which it drew income entirely for itself. This being so, it is likely that the same meaning applies to the present passage (
the only other occurrence in Domesday) and that King William has given this land as a gift without obligations. If the meaning were that King William has given the land for his own benefit, one might expect the Latin preposition to be }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ad}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 in}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . But as it would be a spiritual gift (William would not give away land from which he could simply derive income), the phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
pro anima sua}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('for his soul') might be expected. The translation 'benefice' here is not ideal in view of its more normal and more recent usage as 'the salary paid to a clergyman'. }{\insrsid10361692 
The Alecto translation reads: ' King William gave this manor to the monks as their benefice'. }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 335, has 'for their own advantage'. See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 124 no. 325. She has: 'King William gave this manor to the monks for his spiritual benefit'.
\par 3,7\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 273b, extending into both the central and outer margins; it was writ
ten before the county was rubricated, but almost certainly after the scribe had entered the succeeding fiefs. For possible reasons for its initial omission, see 3,7 Ticknall note. The last sentence of the previous entry ('King William ... benefice') was p
robably added at the same time; see 3,6 king note.
\par \tab TICKNALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Ticknall was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxx). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab Ticknall was }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 evidently held by Henry of Ferrers before his death in 1088/1089. The Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary',}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  p.}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 32) records the lease of the manor to Robert of Ferrers }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 quam tenuit pater}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 suus pro x s. quoque anno }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ...}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 et debet diligere et manutenere nos et Ecclesiam nostram et per se}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 et per suos sicut amicus et tutor ipsius Ecclesiae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . It is interesting to note that the
 Domesday value was also 10s (PM). The entry in the Burton Cartulary means: ' which his father held for 10 shillings (payable) each year... and he should love and support us and our church both through himself and through his family, as friend and protect
or of this church'; it is actually a grant and was made by Abbot Geoffrey (1085-94). Robert is given as the holder of Ticknall in two surveys of Burton Abbey lands, dating respectively from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 1114 and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 1126: the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, p. 240); see the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 24, 29)}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. The grant may have been made shortly after this added entry (3,7 entry note), in which Henry of Ferrers is not mentioned. The holding may even have been initially omitted because the g
rant was in preparation at the time of the Domesday Survey and it was not clear in whose fief it should appear. A more sinister reason could be that, if it had already been made, the abbey did not want this 'hereditary' grant to be recorded in Great Domes
d
ay, as it was not strictly permissible for churches to grant away their lands in such a manner, though the 'service' of friendship and support to the abbey due from the Ferrers family, as well as their annual payment, may have prevented a true alienation 
of church land.
\par }{\i\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 In the manuscript this place-name is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tichenhalle}{\insrsid10361692 , but the bottom of the second }{\i\insrsid10361692 h}{\insrsid10361692  is almost joined, making it resemble a }{
\i\insrsid10361692 b}{\insrsid10361692 , which is how Farley read it. In the other occurrences (1,22;26. 14,6) it is clearly written as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tichenhalle}{\insrsid10361692  and printed as such by Farley.
\par \tab THE ABBOT OF BURTON HAS. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 h't}{\insrsid10361692  abbreviates the present tense }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692 
; it was mistranslated as 'had' in the Phillimore printed translation, perhaps because other entries in this fief begin 'The Abbot had' (3,2-3;5). In fact no }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder is recorded for Ticknall, presumably because the abbey had held it since its grant by Wulfric Spot in his will (3,7 Ticknall note).
\par \tab HE HAS IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH AND 4 VILLAGERS WITH 1 PLOUGH; MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill}{\insrsid10361692 ' is unclear, but is probably accusative (}{\i\insrsid10361692 uillanos}{\insrsid10361692 
) because the acres of meadow (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ac}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ra}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 s}{\insrsid10361692 ) and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 quinta}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 m}{
\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  parte}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 m}{\insrsid10361692 
] of the pasturable woodland are accusative. However, this would mean that they were all part of the lordship; compare 1,27 villagers note and 1,37 lordship no
te. The Phillimore printed translation puts the meadow in a separate sentence as usual. The Alecto edition has a semi-colon after the lordship plough and a comma after the villagers' plough.
\par \tab 5 BOVATES OF LAND AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Despite the fractions, the assessment of Ticknall (1,22. 3,7. 14,6) adds up to 4 carucates.
\par \tab THE FIFTH PART OF THE PASTURABLE WOODLAND OF THIS MANOR. Pasturable woodland at Ticknall is mentioned at 1,26 and the dimensions given there (1 league by \'bd league) are the same 
as those given in the entry for Ticknall (14,6) where Nigel of Stafford has 'the fourth part of the pasturable woodland of this village, whose length is 1 league and width \'bd
 league'. Presumably the details of the woodland are repeated; see 14,6 whose note.
 Here the Abbot of Burton holds a fifth of the pasturable woodland (3,7) but no dimensions are given. Presumably the remaining eleven-twentieths of the woodland were part of the resources of the royal jurisdiction of Ticknall (1,22;26).
\par \tab \tab 'Of this manor' is replaced by the phrase 'of this village' at 14,6. The latter is likely to be correct, as the woodland is shared between the three estates that form the village and the dimension (1 league by \'bd
 league) is that of the whole wood. 'Manor' is thus more likely to be an error or misunderstanding than a synonym for 'village', as }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 335 note 4, would have it.
\par \tab VALUE 10s. In the second abbreviation within the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary the value is given as 20s; it is 10s in the other four abbreviations. See }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \{Introduction: Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary\} and 
\{Introduction: Other Surveys\}.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }\pard\plain \s2\ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\keepn\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\aspalpha\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10361692 4\tab 
LAND OF EARL HUGH. Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1071-1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{
\insrsid10361692 . 1071; died 1085). Hugh came from Avranches in the French d\'e9partement of Manche. He was son of Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, and a woman who was possibly a half-sister of King William. His lands became the h
onour or barony of Chester. Hugh's only son Richard perished with the White Ship in 1120 and the lands passed to a first cousin, Ranulph I Le Meschin, son of Ranulph the vicomte of Bayeux who was married to Hugh's sister Margaret. See Sanders, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 32-33; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 258.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his Christian name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugo}{\insrsid10361692  (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugonis}{\insrsid10361692 , the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Hugonem}{\insrsid10361692 , the dative }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugoni}{\insrsid10361692  and the ablative }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugone}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugo}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Hugon}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hu\'eb}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hugo}{
\insrsid10361692  (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 ), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-1080\li1080\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1080\tx1440\faauto\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid10361692 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid10361692 \tab 
Both manors in this small fief appear to have been in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086.
\par 4,1\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. The head is supplied from evidence of the later location for the manor of Markeaton (4,1).
\par \tab MARKEATON. This was a township of Mackwor
th Ancient Parish. Mackworth was one of the outliers of Markeaton in 1086 (4,2) and it seems that, as in the case of Chesterfield (1,1) which was an outlier of Newbold, there has been a inversion of status. Markeaton was probably in Litchurch Wapentake in
 1086 as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab EARL SIWARD. }{\insrsid10361692 He was a Dane who was appointed Earl of Northumbria by King Cnut before 1033. Initially he ruled only in the southern part; the northern portion, between the River Tees and the Scottish bo
rder, being then ruled by earls descended from the kings of Bernicia. Following the murder of Earl Eadwulf (the last of these) in 1041 (on the orders of King Harthacnut and perhaps by Siward's own hand) Siward ruled the whole of Northumbria. He seems to h
a
ve extended his earldom to include lands formerly held by the British kings of Strathclyde. He was also Earl of Huntingdonshire and possibly of adjacent counties at some time. He was married to the daughter of Earl Ealdred of Northumbria and was father of
 Earl Waltheof. Earl Siward died in 1055. At the time of his death, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire went to Tosti, brother of Earl (King) Harold}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 The Domesday form of his Christian name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Siuuard(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sigwarth}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 364. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Earl Siward.
\par \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (=}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 ) instead of the nominative }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 acrae}{\insrsid10361692 ): they are not the object of a verb such as 'has'; compare 1,13 meadow note.
\par 4,2\tab MARGINAL B. This indicates that these are outliers, presumably of Markeaton. The first probably lay in Hamston Wapentak
e, the last two in Litchurch Wapentake. It is unlikely that the main scribe of Great Domesday would have included wapentake heads above these dependencies even if he had rubricated the county fully.
\par \tab KNIVETON. This was a chapelry of Ashbourne Ancient Paris
h, then an Ancient Parish in its own right. Ashbourne itself (1,14) was probably in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, though some members of the Ancient Parish, such as Clifton (10,24) and Yeldersley (6,45), were in 'Appletree' Wapentake. However, it is likely t
hat Kniveton was in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, since it was later in Wirksworth Wapentake, Hamston Wapentake's successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that the involvement of Kniveton (and therefore, in view of their proximity, perhaps M
arkeaton, Mackworth and Allestree) with Ashbourne (1,14) indicates that the latter was formerly a royal multiple estate composed of a continuous tract of land and dominating the area north-west of Derby, just as Repton (1,20) had done the south; see \{
Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.
\par \tab MACKWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was close to Markeaton and Allestree but far from Kniveton. It was probably in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab ALLESTREE. This was a chapelry of Mackworth Ancient Parish and, like Mackworth, was remote from Kniveton, but close to Markeaton and probably in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was later;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] EDNASTON, HENRY [* OF FERRERS *]'S MANOR. Ednaston is h}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ere said to be a manor of Henry [of Ferrers], and also in NTT S5, although}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
later entered under the holdings of Geoffrey Alselin 9,3 (PM). }{\insrsid10361692 See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 124 no. 326.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Ednaston 
probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 (9,3 Ednaston note). It occupied a midway position between Ashbourne and Allestree and had perhaps once been part of the manor of Ashbourne (1,14) before being booked out and taking a carucate of Allestree wit
h it.
\par \tab \tab For the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iacet in}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('lies in') for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iacet ad}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('is an adjunct of' or 'belongs to'), see 10,12 land note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab On the name Henry, see}{\insrsid10361692  1,27 Henry note.
\par \tab JOCELYN [* OF TUSCHET *]. Earl Hugh appears to have two separate people called Jocelyn among his tenants in various counties: Jocelyn }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brito}{\insrsid10361692  (the Breton) and Jocelyn }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Tuschet}{
\insrsid10361692 . Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 236, identifies the Jocelyn who holds from Earl Hugh in Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Cheshire and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Roteland}{\insrsid10361692  as Jocelyn de }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Tuschet}{\insrsid10361692 . See RUT 6,16 Ashwell note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gozelin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godzelinus}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Goscelinus}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gautselin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gauzlin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goz(e)lin}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French}{\i\insrsid10361692  Goscelin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Gosselin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Jocelin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Joscelin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Joselin}{\insrsid10361692  etc: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 128-29. Jocelyn, which also derives from these names (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 
), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition has Joscelin here.
\par \tab KOLLI <OF HARTHILL>. The Domesday form - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692  here and 6,76 and 10,18 (the other occurrences of this name in Domesday) - represents Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolli}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 307. The Phillimore printed edition has Colle. The Alecto edition has Kolli. Compare 1,15 "Colne" note.
\par \tab \tab The name Kolli occurs three times in Domesday Book, all three in Derbyshire; they probably belonged to one individual. The tenant here and at Harthill (10,18) were survivors and two such with a rare name is unlikely; Youlgrave (6,76
) is adjacent to Harthill (JP).
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left five blank lines, possibly in case he found more of Earl Hugh's holdings (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), but perhaps just for aesthetic reasons; see \{
Introduction: Layout and Content\}. He left spaces after chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16.
\par 5\tab LAND OF ROGER OF POITOU.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 He was son of Roger of Montgommery and Mabel of Bell\'eame. He had held a large fief in England which included what became the county of Lancashire. In 1086 }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Roger of Poitou no longer held this particular group of lands in Derbyshire. The final words of 5,5 are 'Roger of Poitou had these lands; now they are in the king's hands'. See also 5,1 lord note.
\par \tab \tab PM's note at 5,5 in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'Roger of Poitou had forfeited his lands in 1086; the reasons}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
are obscure. News of the forfeiture reached the commissioners when the original returns were almost completed and the forfeiture is either not reported, as in Nottinghamshire, or occasionally added as a footnote, as here in Derbyshire'.}{\insrsid10361692 

\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This presents the traditional view of the situation. Certainly, in 1086, Roger of Poitou is recorded as no longer holding some of his lands, but as still holding o
thers. Moreover, it could be that part of the difficulty in understanding the situation is that different counties reported at different times and some may have ignored a state of affairs that was considered temporary, as in the case of Bishop Odo of Baye
u
x who was actually in prison in Rouen in 1086 but still holding lands according to some county schedules. However, there is no reason to think that Roger of Poitou was disgraced. He continued to hold extensive, but, in some cases, different lands into the
 reign of William Rufus. It is perhaps more likely that Roger's fief was being restructured; see Lewis, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Lancashire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 36-38.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 Roger was disgraced with the rest of the house of Montgommery in 1102 and retired to Aquitaine where hi
s wife was Countess of La Marche. He was named 'the Poitevin' (often translated as 'of Poitou') from his wife's inheritance. His descendants were heirs of La Marche; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 410.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rogerius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rogerus}{\insrsid10361692 , but frequently}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rog' }{
\insrsid10361692 - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrodger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rodger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rog(g)er}{\insrsid10361692  etc: Forssner, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger.
\par \tab All the lands in this fief appear to have lain in a single wapentake, 'Scarsdale' Wapentake.
\par 5,1\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the geographical situation of the holdings and later evidence that places three of them (5,1-2;4) in this wapentake.
\par \tab SUTTON [SCARSDALE]. This was an Ancient Parish, known as Sutton cum Duckmanton or Sutton-en-le-Dale. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Steinulf}{\insrsid10361692  , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stainulf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stenulf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stemulf}{\insrsid10361692  (in error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Steinulf}{\insrsid10361692 ) - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Steinolfr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Swedish }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Stenulf}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 373-74. JRM preferred the Old Swedish form as it is closer t
o the Domesday forms. In some Phillimore printed translations, however, the forms Steinulf and Steinulfr appear; they have here been standardized as Stenulf. The Alecto edition has Stenulf.
\par \tab \tab It is likely that all Roger's predecessors of this name (5,1;3-5. CHS R1,5;25) were the same person.
\par \tab \tab Despite the comparative rarity of the name, there must be some doubt about the tiny, distant Cheshire holdings. On the other hand it is likely that the remaining two Derbyshire holdings belonged to this man. Roger of 
Bully's holding (16,8) was close to the cluster acquired by Roger of Poitou, as was Calow (17,9), held by Stenulf himself in 1086 (but not in 1066), a common enough pattern elsewhere. Roger of Bully also acquired the holdings of a Stenulf in Nottinghamshi
re (NTT 9,70), no great distance away, probably from the same man (JP).
\par \tab THE LORD HAS. The main scribe of Great Domesday was obliged to use this unusual formula as Roger of Poitou was no longer holding the manor or his Derbyshire fief. Whichever 'lord' was 
managing it, was doing so on the king's behalf, but it had not yet been granted afresh; see 5,5 and DBY 5 Roger note.
\par \tab 6 VILLAGERS. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\insrsid10361692  and of }{\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear; see 2,1 villagers note.
\par 5,2\tab BEIGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For other parts, see 10,3 and 16,3.
\par \tab \tab Beighton was abolished for civil purposes in 1967, parts being taken into the borough of Sheffield, Wales Civil Parish and Aston-cum-Au
ghton Civil Parish (all in Yorkshire) and other parts being absorbed by Eckington Civil Parish and Killamarsh Civil Parish (both in Derbyshire); see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 68.
\par \tab A JURISDICTION. It is presumably a jurisdiction of Sutton Scarsdale (5,1). The }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692  is strictly unnecessary as the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 ) beside this entry.
\par 5,3\tab THE TWO [ESTATES CALLED] 'LOWNE'. The name 'Lowne' was sometimes used as that of the Ancient Parish in place of the more usual name He
ath (SK4567). It is very likely that 'the two (estates called) Lowne' in fact stood for two adjacent settlements which became differentiated as 'Lowne' and Heath, or that an adjacent settlement, Heath, became the important one. The name 'Lowne' or 'Lownds
' was still used in the sixteenth century. In the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Valor Ecclesiasticus}{\insrsid10361692  of 1535, cited in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 261-62 , the place is called '}{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lowne alias Heeth}{\insrsid10361692 '. The name survived as that of fields, one west of Heath, the other to the east, near the site of an old church. See}{\i\insrsid10361692  VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 336 note 1. Both 'Lowne' and Heath probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later.
\par \tab \tab The interlineation }{\i\insrsid10361692 duob}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 
] by the main scribe of Great Domesday may have been done later as its ink is slightly paler than that used for the rest of this entry. Farley printed }{\i\insrsid10361692 Duob;}{\insrsid10361692  but in the manuscript it is }{\i\insrsid10361692 duob }{
\insrsid10361692 with the 3-shaped abbreviation sign after it, which is one of the characteristics of the main scribe of Great Domesday.
\par \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. See 5,1 Stenulf note.
\par 5,4\tab STAINSBY. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 270. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab 'TUNSTALL'. This was apparently in Hardwick in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall. It is omitted from the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , though it is said (according to }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 336 note 2) to appear on the Hardwick estate maps. It might also be represented by field names 'Townend', 'Townwell' and 'Town Feelde': }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. pp. 272-273. See. For another part, see 10,5. Its association here with Stainsby and there with Palterton and Scarcliffe suggests that it was adjacent to them and lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. See 5,1 Stenulf note.
\par 5,5\tab 'BLINGSBY'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 269. It is not well represented in later records (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 269) but geographically and because of its connection with Ault Hucknall it probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. The settlement itself is lost but it is represented by Blingsby Gate, one of the gates of Hardwick Park.

\par \tab HARDSTOFT. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 269. Like 'Blingsby' it is not well evidenced in later records, but 
probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake for the same reasons.
\par \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. See 5,1 Stenulf note.
\par \tab WOODLAND, NOT PASTURABLE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua non pastilis}{\insrsid10361692  The Phillimore printed translation has 'unpastured woodland' and the Alecto edition 'woodland
, not for pasture'; see 1,28 woodland note. 'Blingsby' and Hardstoft appear to have no pasture.
\par \tab ROGER OF POITOU HAD THESE LANDS. See DBY 5 Roger note.
\par \tab \tab There is no indication in the manuscript that this sentence was an addition to this entry, as stated by Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 30. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote it on a separate line with the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Has t'ras}{\insrsid10361692 
 larger than normal because the sentence refers to the whole fief, not just 5,5. Moreover, the pen and ink used are identical to those of the preceding text. It is not a 'footnote', either (}{\i\insrsid10361692 pace}{\insrsid10361692 
 PM; see DBY 5 Roger note).
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the remaining seven lines of this column blank and all of the next column (folio 273d). There are two possible reaso
ns for this: he thought that he might find further holdings of Roger of Poitou (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), or he wanted to begin the large fief of Henry of Ferrers on a new folio. He is unlikely to have left 
such a large space for aesthetic reasons, though in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in the same circuit it is not unusual to find such spaces (\{Introduction: Layout and Content\}
), and he left smaller spaces here after chapters 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. Later, after the county had been rubricated, he added details of a holding in }{\i\insrsid10361692 WINEFELD}{\insrsid10361692  at the top of folio 273d; see 7,13 entry note.

\par 6\tab LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 He came from Ferri\'e8res-Saint-Hilaire, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, ca
nton Broglie. In Normandy he was lord of Longueville. His father, Walkelin de Ferri\'e8
res, died before 1040. In England Henry held a large fief in more than a dozen counties. His principal English manor was at Tutbury (in Staffordshire) where, with his wife, he founded a priory dependent on Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy. He died }{
\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1101. His third son Robert inherited and became first Earl of Derby in 1138. His descendants held the honour of Tutbury and were Earls of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. After
 Robert II of Ferrers lost the barony in 1266, it passed to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster , then to Thomas, likewise earl. Following his execution in 1322 the castle of Tutbury and the honour were granted to John, Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King Edward 
II. See }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 292; }{\insrsid10361692 Loyd, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 247.
\par \tab \tab This is the largest fief in Derbyshire, stretching to 101 entries. It is not divided, as are some fiefs in other counties, between land h
eld in lordship, entered first, and land that is subinfeudated. Instead the arrangement is by wapentakes. The main scribe of Great Domesday only supplied wapentake heads at 6,1 (Hamston Wapentake) and 6,14 ("Walecros" Wapentake) but a collation of each es
t
ate with information contained in later records concerning the wapentake in which it then lay suggests that there is a clear sequence of wapentakal blocks, with each wapentake only occurring once in the body of the chapter. However, entries 6,100-101 are 
l
ater additions by the main scribe and introduce a repeat of two wapentake names. Four estates (6,2;12-13;97) that lay adjacent to wapentake boundaries appear to have been assessed in a different wapentake in 1086 and in the case of one other (6,51), the a
p
parent sequence of wapentakes has led to a new identification. What the sequence clearly shows is the existence of groups of estates corresponding to the wapentakes of Litchurch and Blackwell, although those wapentakes are not named in Domesday. These blo
c
ks are not adjacent in the text to estates lying in the wapentakes of 'Morleystone' and Hamston, even though some commentators have assigned Domesday estates in Blackwell Wapentake to Hamston Wapentake which also contained estates that were later in Wirks
worth Wapentake. Similary Domesday estates that were probably in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 are sometimes assigned to 'Morleystone' Wapentake. In fact it is likely that the wapentakes Blackwell and Litchurch existed in 1086; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}. The sequence of wapentakes appears to be:
\par \tab \tab 6,1-13 Hamston Wapentake
\par \tab \tab 6,14-23 "Walecros" Wapentake
\par \tab \tab 6,24-64 ['Appletree' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 6,65-70 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 6,71-79 [Blackwell Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 6,80-99 [Litchurch Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab _________________________________
\par \tab \tab 6,100 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 6,101 [Blackwell Wapentake].
\par \tab Roffe ('Origins of Derbyshire', p. 104) states that the chapter falls into two halves 'related to estate management' but does not elaborate.
 This assertion is made in support of his view that Hamston and Blackwell Wapentakes were a unit in 1086. Since the estates that were later in the successors of these two wapentakes (Wirksworth Wapentake and High Peak Wapentake) appear in this chapter in 
separate groups, Roffe is seeking some other way of explaining why two parts of what in his view are the same wapentake (Hamston Wapentake) are separated in the text; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par 6,1\tab HAMSTON WAPENTAKE. This is one of only five wapentake headings in Derbyshire. Hamston Wapentake was later renamed Wirksworth Wapentake after the royal manor (1,13).
\par \tab IVONBROOK [GRANGE]. In the manuscript this place-name is clearly }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 WINBROC}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , but this would seem to be an error}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 IVONBROC}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  (PM): }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 336 note 6. This is}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  a commonly made mistake when transcribing, especially if at some stage the name was written in lower-case letters, and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iv }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 was written }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iii}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  with the division between the minims unclear so they could have been wrongly joined to form }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 w}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .

\par \tab \tab Ivonbrook [Grange]}{\insrsid10361692  was a hamlet of Wirksworth Ancient Parish which, in 1866 became a separate Civil Parish. Ivonbrook is not well-attested as a name in later documents (see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 133-34), 
but geographically and because of its association with Wirksworth (1,13) it was no doubt in Hamston Wapentake in 1086. There is a further Ivonbrook in Wensley and Snitterton, which was also in Wirksworth (= Hamston) Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 412.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab KETIL <OF EDENSOR>. Although Ketil was a common name, it is possible that all the people with that name in }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire represent the same person, though see 6,95 Ketil note. A
ll but two were predecessors of Henry of Ferrers (6,1;43;75-76;78;101) and one was a subtenant (6,95) and it is probable that Ketil, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 in 1,32, was the same as one of the holders of Edensor (6,101) in view of the attachment of the estate in 1,32 to Edensor. On the name Ketil, see 1,32 Ketil note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,2\tab WINSTER. This was a chapelry of Youlgrave Ancient Parish. Winster was in High Peak Wapentake (the successor to Blackwell Wapentake) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47, but the sequence in Domesda
y suggests that it was in Hamston Wapentake in 1086. Youlgrave itself (6,76) was probably in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086. Winster is close to the putative boundary between Blackwell and Hamston Wapentakes. Elton (6,4), adjacent to Winster on its western s
i
de, seems to have been in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 and later in Wirksworth Wapentake, its successor; likewise it was a chapelry of Youlgrave Ancient Parish (6,4 Elton note). To the east, 'Cowley' (6,3) and Wensley (1,12) were also probably in Hamston Wap
entake; see 6,3 'Cowley' note and 1,12 Wensley note. Darley (1,11) was similarly in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, but later in High Peak Wapentake, the successor to Blackwell. It seems that some adjustments were made to the boundaries here after 1086; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab \tab Henry I gave instructions (in 1109 or 1122) that the tithes and customs of Winster should be given to 'the king's church of Darley': }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 179 no. 1361. This is 
presumably the church recorded among the resources of the royal manor of Darley (1,11).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFING. It is possible that the Leofing who was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in 6,94 is the same as this individual. On his name, see 1,30 Leofing note.
\par \tab RAVEN <OF WINSTER>. The Domesday forms of this name- }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauen}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauene}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauan}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Rauuen}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauaius}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrafn}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rawn}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 292-93, though Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 210-12, gives the Old Danish form as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rafn}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM preferred Raven as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Rawn. It is possible that the Raven who was one of Henry of Ferrers'
 predecessors in 6,73 is the same as this individual.
\par \tab \tab Both holdings were within two or three miles of each other. It is also possible that the waste holding at 17,7 had belonged to the same man. Raven is an uncommon name, particularly in the north Midlan
ds, the only other occurrences being over 50 miles away. Those holdings (LEC 42,8 and NTT 30,16), both tiny, are likely to have belonged to different individuals (JP).
\par \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1\'bd plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab COLA <OF WINSTER>. The Domesday forms of this name -}{\i\insrsid10361692  Colo}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cola}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cole}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - probably represent a byname from Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 col}{\insrsid10361692  ('coal'), meaning 'the coal-black, swarthy one' etc., rather than representing Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Koli}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names 
of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 217-18; he suggests other possible alternatives. The Alecto edition has Cola.
\par \tab \tab There are three occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire, all in Henry of Ferrers' fief. The Cola who held from Henry in 6,45 is probably the same 
as 'Cola, Henry's man' here, but the other Cola (6,10) was Henry's predecessor, though as no subtenant was given for that estate he might have continued holding it; if so he would be the same as Henry's subtenants of that name.
\par \tab HENRY. On this name, see 1,27 Henry note.
\par 6,3\tab 'COWLEY' . This was a settlement in the township of Wensley and Snitterton in Darley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 411. Although Darley itself (1,11) was later in High Peak Wapentake, the successor to Blackwell Wapent
ake, it is clearly placed by Domesday in Hamston Wapentake. 'Cowley' is poorly evidenced in later records, but Wensley and Snitterton (1,12) were later in Wirksworth Wapentake, the successor to Hamston Wapentake.
\par \tab \tab The grid reference (SK2662) is to Cowley 
Hall which is no longer on modern maps, being lost under an industrial site. It appears at SK260624 on the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 81 of 1842, reprinted in 1970 as sheet 27). Cowley Knowl is at SK257619.
\par \tab SWEIN. See 1,30 Swein note.
\par \tab UHTRED 2 [BOVATES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 Vctred .ii.}{\insrsid10361692  above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suain .ii.}{\insrsid10361692 . The lack of }{\i\insrsid10361692 bou' }{\insrsid10361692 
('bovates') after the interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  and their position directly above Swein's }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  might suggest that the scribe was correcting the }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692 
 to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692 , the exact holding of each man unknown, but it is more likely that he meant that each }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder had 2 bovates, as there are many instances in Great Domesday of the initial omission of a second }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder with his holding. For a similar correction 
of an omission, see NTT 20,7, though there the scribe wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 or}{\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 quattuor}{\insrsid10361692 , '4') above the interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692 
, so he obviously meant the joint holding to be 4 bovates. The Alecto edition has 'had 2 bovates [each]' for the present entry. For the probable reason for the addition of some }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders, see 6,77 Ylving note.

\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of Uhtred's name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vctred}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Uthret}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Huthradus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vstredus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Uthredus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Uhtraed}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 398. JRM preferred the second element -ed for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -aed}{\insrsid10361692 , as it reflected the Domesday spellings.}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
The Alecto edition has Uhtraed.
\par \tab \tab Uhtred here may be the same person as Henry's predecessor in the next entry (6,4).
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, land for \'bd plough; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab SWEIN HOLDS IT. Presumably he is the same man who held 'Cowley' }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 . If so, this would be one of only two cases in the fief of Henry of Ferrers (the other is 6,33) where his predecessor continued to hol
d the land from him in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 300. (Unless Cola continued to hold 6,10 and the scribe omitted this: 6,2 Cola note.) On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note.
\par 6,4\tab ELTON. This was a chapelry of Youlgrave Ancient Parish. In the Middle Ages, Elton was counted a member of Wirksworth Wapentake, while Youlgrave itself was in High Peak Wapentake: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 74. Elton is included in Wirksworth Wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44, and is therefore likely to have been in its predecessor, Hamston Wapentake, in 1086.
\par \tab KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. See 1,33 Karski note.
\par \tab UHTRED. See 6,3 Uhtred note.
\par 6,5\tab BRASSINGTON. This was a chapelry of Bradbourne Ancient Parish. Both Bradbourne (6,6) and Brassington were later evidenced in Wirksworth Wapentake (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 44-45) and were therefore probably in Hamston Wapentake, its predecessor, in 1086.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithe of Brassington to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. The Siward who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor on several of his estates (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 6,5;14;17;54;57;66;69-70;79;100) }{\insrsid10361692 
is probably to be identified with the Siward Barn of NTT S5. Siward Barn, named as such, was Henry of Ferrers' pred
ecessor in some of his Warwickshire estates (WAR 19,1-3), as also in GLS 59,1. LIN 21,1 and probably also in BRK 21,11;18 and NTT 24,1-2. He is the man who joined Hereward the Wake in 1071 in rebellion on the Isle of Ely, and not the same as Siward, Earl 
of Northumbria (}{\i\insrsid10361692 pace}{\insrsid10361692  the Phillimore printed edition 4,1 Earl Siward note); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 300-301; von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 361, note 7; Hart, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Danelaw}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 642-47.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Siuuard}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Seuuard}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Seuuar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Seiard}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Seiar }{\insrsid10361692 - probably represent Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sigwarth}{\insrsid10361692  rather than Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Sigeweard}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 361-63. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. T
he Alecto edition also has Siward. His byname is Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Barn}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 192.
\par \tab \tab Among the estates held by Siward in 1066 were a number that had been granted to Wulfsige the black (Croxall and Catton, 6,14;17) and to Burton Abbey (Breadsall and Morley, 6,69;100) by Wulfric Spot in his will.
\par \tab MEADOW, 30 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the underwood apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 minuta}{\insrsid10361692 
 is nominative and begins a new sentence; see also in 6,7;17; and, for pasturable woodland forming a new sentence, see 6,18 meadow note. The reason for this might be that the woodland, whether described as underwood or pasturable, was 
generally a resource used by the whole estate. For the only exceptions to the use of a new sentence, see 1,32 small note. It would seem from the phrasing in 16,8 that the lord had the meadow, though this is very rarely recorded in Domesday (see 16,8 meado
w
 note), presumably because it was only of value to himself. In the Phillimore printed translation the punctuation before the woodland is always a semi-colon when there are other resources, irrespective of the case of the acres of meadow; this has been cor
rected to a full-stop in the present edition when the accusative }{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692  was used.
\par 6,6\tab BRADBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 59; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. It had probably originated as a member of the royal manor of Ashbourne before being granted out: 1,14 Ashbourne note.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. Although Aelfric was a very common name, it is possible that this ma
n is the same as the Aelfric who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in eleven estates (6,6;13;16;18;20;22-23;44;53;94;98); there is only one other occurrence of it in Domesday Derbyshire (3,6). An Aelfric was also Henry's predecessor in two estates in Lei
cestershire (LEC 14,28;30); see 6,16 Aelfric note. On his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab \tab The holding at 3,6 may have belonged to the same Aelfric since it is within a few miles of his other holdings and may only have escaped Henry because the king granted it
 to Burton Abbey. The Leicestershire holdings are bracketed by two of the Derbyshire properties (6,16;20); another (6,53) is shared with a Leofnoth, as was one of the Leicestershire holdings (LEC 14,28); and apart from Aelfric the priest (LEC 8,5), no oth
er Aelfrics held land in Leicestershire (JP).
\par 6,7\tab TISSINGTON. This was a chapelry of Bradbourne Ancient Parish. Like Bradbourne itself (6,6), it probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithe of Tissington to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II);}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchil}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchetel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchet}{\insrsid10361692 
(}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulketel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlketel}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 l}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Ulfchetel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfketel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Olketel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ofchetel}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfkell}{\insrsid10361692 
, Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfkil}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 399-400. The Alecto edition has Ulfkil
. As the Phillimore printed translations include Ulfkell, Ulfketel, Wulfketel (in 6,45) and Ulfketill, it has been decided for the present edition to use the Old Danish form for them all, although the presence of }{\i\insrsid10361692 -chetel}{
\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 -ketel}{\insrsid10361692  in a number of Domesday forms may suggest that the name Ulfketil or Ulfketel was also current then. However, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchel}{\insrsid10361692 
 of 6,37 was probably the same person as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchetel}{\insrsid10361692  of 6,38, as, together with an Aefic, they both held adjacent land that passed to Henry of Ferrers. In fact 
all of Henry's predecessors called Ulfkil may be the same person (6,7;36-38;45;52;56;60;90). Yeldersley is at 6,45.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers succeeded to every Ulfkil in the county except the holding of Foremark and its dependency (14,4-5), and even that was les
s than five miles from an Ulfkil holding at Sinfin. Henry did not succeed to an Ulfkil in any other county. The Derbyshire holdings also have a marked distribution, running in a diagonal line from Tissington to Sinfin, then on to Foremark, with rarely a g
ap of more than five miles between them though they are spread across three wapentakes. Despite Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note), it is therefore likely that the Derbyshire Ulfkils were a single individual (JP).
\par \tab EDRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aedricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edericus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Eadricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Headricus}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eadric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book
}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Ed- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ead-}{\insrsid10361692 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms have }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ed-}{
\insrsid10361692 . In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Eadric, except for SFK 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error).
\par \tab \tab Although this is a very common name, it is possible that all of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors here with that name represented the same individual (6,7;34;39;49;98). In Etwall (6,98), as here in Tissington, three of Henry's predecessors 
were Edric, Gamal and Wulfgeat.
\par \tab \tab The remaining holdings, though lying in two wapentakes, clustered near Etwall. Henry had no predecessors named Edric outside Derbyshire; and the only other Edric in the county was some 50 miles away, at Killamarsh, and unl
ikely to be related. In these circumstances, Robin Fleming's thesis that Henry was granted the whole of 'Appletree', Blackwell and 'Morleystone' Wapentakes not allocated to designated predecessors does not seriously weaken the case for an identification h
ere: Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kings and Lords}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 151-52; 163-65 (JP).
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gamel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Game}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gamall}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Gamal}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 257-58. In some of th
e Phillimore printed translations this name appeared as Gamel, and in others as Gamall; these have now been standardized as the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Gamal here.
\par \tab \tab It is probable that all the occurrences of Gamal as the predecessor of Hen
ry of Ferrers here represent the same individual (6,7;12;83;91;94-96;98): there are no other occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire and in 6,98 he is linked with Edric and Wulfgeat, in 6,83 with Wulfgeat again, and in 6,91 with Leofric, who were 
all Henry's predecessors here in Tissington. A Gamal was Henry's predecessor in Newbold in Leicestershire (LEC 14,33), but that place is on the other side of that county from the Derbyshire-Leicestershire border. Gamal's holding in Shottle is at 6,12.

\par \tab \tab Des
pite the distance, however, this might be the same man. Outside Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, only six other tenants-in-chief had a predecessor of this name so having two is against the odds; and the holdings of the Staffordshire Gamals were closer to their
 Leicestershire namesake than to any others (JP).
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vluiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vluuiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ouiet}{\insrsid10361692 
, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wluiet(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wluiat}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vluied}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vuiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Oluiet}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfgeat}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 419-20, though he suggested that derivation from the feminine Old English }
{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfgyth}{\insrsid10361692  was formally possible for those people not identified as masculine. The Alecto edition has Wulfgeat.
\par \tab \tab The only occurrences of this name in Domesda
y Derbyshire are as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers, so it is possible that they represent the same individual (6,7;35-36;43;83;98). Certainly in 6,36 he is linked with Ulfkil, in 6,83 with Gamal and with both Gamal and Edric, as he is here. Alkmonton w
as one of his holdings (6,35).
\par \tab \tab Henry did not succeed to a Wulfgeat in any other county. 6,35 and 6,36 were adjacent and only five miles from 6,43. Despite Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note), this pattern points to a single individual (JP).
\par \tab WIHTRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wihtric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wictric}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wicstricus}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wistricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wistrinc}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Witric}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wihtric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 414. In the Phillimore prin
ted translation for BRK 31,6, as in this entry, the form Wictric was used; it has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Wihtric. He does not appear again in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. Although Leofric was a very
 common name, it is possible that all the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers with that name were the same person (6,7;19;86;91): in 6,91, as here, he is linked with Gamal, and his lands at Twyford and Stenson (6,86) and at Normanton (6,91) are adjacent to o
n
e another. One of Henry's predecessors in Leicestershire was a Leofric (14,23) who had held land in Swepstone (probably at 'Seal': LEC 14,23 carucates note), which is close to the land of Leofric here in 6,19. Compare 7,1 Leofric note and 10,8 Leofric not
e.
\par \tab \tab On the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goduuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goduin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goduine}{\insrsid10361692 , 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 God}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 d}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 euuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gotwinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Couinus}{\insrsid10361692 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 , as the vast majority of Domesday forms lack the final }{\i\insrsid10361692 -e}{\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition has Godwine.
\par \tab \tab The only occurrences of plain Godwin in Domesd
ay Derbyshire are as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers, so it is possible that they represent the same individual (6,7;9;45;47;80;82;87;92). Certainly in 6,45 he is linked with Ulfkil, as he is here, and with a Wulfsi in 6,47;80.
\par \tab \tab 6,80 is adjacent to 6,82. Despite Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note), it is still probable that all these holdings devolved upon Henry from a single individual (JP).
\par \tab MEADOW, 30 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692  ('who have'); see 
1,12 meadow note. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 molin' }{\insrsid10361692 ('mill'), the preceding resource, is also likely to be accusative, but the underwood was not apparently held by the villagers and smallholders, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{
\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence. See also in 6,47;55 and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par 6,8\tab NEWTON [GRANGE]. Newton, now known as Newton Grange, was a hamlet of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. It was a separate Civil Parish from 1866. Like Ashbourne itself (1,14), it probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, as it was later in 
its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake.
\par \tab OSMER <OF NEWTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osmer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osmar}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 340. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 
 as it reflected the ending found in Domesday. See B11 Osmer note.
\par \tab \tab Osmer was an uncommon name, the only other occurrence within 50 miles of Newton being an impoverished holding at Peatling (LEC 44,5) which is unlikely to be connected with this one (JP).
\par 6,9\tab HARTINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab "LIGULF". It is possible that one of the two people called "Ligulf" who had held Yeaveley before Henry of Ferrers (6,61) was the same as his predecessor here. On this name, see 1,30 "Ligulf" note.
\par 6,10\tab 'SOHAM'.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  This is a lost place-name between Glutton and Fernydale: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 366 (PM). It lay in the township of Hartington Middle Quarter in Hartington Ancient Parish and was no doubt in the same wapentake (Hamston Wapentake) as Hartington itself (6,9).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab COLA <OF WINSTER>. See 6,2 Cola note.
\par 6,11\tab PILSBURY. This was a settlement in the township of Hartington Town Quarter in Hartington Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 370. Like Hartington itself (6,9), it will no doubt have be
en in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 and is attested in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake, in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 59.
\par \tab LUDWELL. This was a settlement in the township of Hartington Town Quarter in Hartington Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 370, and }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
was no doubt in the same wapentake (Hamston Wapentake) as Hartington itself (6,9).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ALSI [* SON OF KARSKI *]. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alsi - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alsi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alsius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elsi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelsi}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alsicus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alsidus}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfsige}{\insrsid10361692 , Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelsige}{
\insrsid10361692  or perhaps Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealdsige}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealhsige}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 151-52, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-sige}{\insrsid10361692 , see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 -sige}{\insrsid10361692 , as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alsige here. However, in some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alfsi and Alfsige appear for people
 who in the present edition are now rendered Alsi because the forms of their names lack an }{\i\insrsid10361692 -f-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -v- }{\insrsid10361692 
which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 180, under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfsige}{
\insrsid10361692 , and on pp. 187-88, under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelsige}{\insrsid10361692 ). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfsige}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab 
Although the name Alsi is a common one, it is uncommon in the north Midlands where it occurs 15 times. The distribution is skewed, the name occurring once in Leicestershire (LEC 17,14), once in Staffordshire (STS 11,39), and twice in Derbyshire, both time
s
 on the fief of Henry of Ferrers (DBY 6,11;61). Henry also acquired the Derbyshire holdings of a Karski, who had a son Alsi (NTT S6) who is probably this man. Since this Alsi and the Staffordshire Alsi both held land in 1086 they are probably the same ind
ividual since two such survivors with an uncommon name within six miles of each other is unlikely (JP).
\par \tab \tab Like Henry of Ferrers, Roger of Bully inherited the holdings of Karski in Nottinghamshire and the bulk of those held by an Alsi. This Alsi is identifie
d as Alsi son of Karski (NTT S6), Roger's predecessor at Worksop (NTT 9,43), some seven miles from the Karski holding at Torworth (NTT 9,53). Since the remainder of Roger's acquisitions from Alsi lay outside those wapentakes conferred on him in bulk accor
ding to Robin Fleming's thesis, they were probably held by the same Alsi: see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kings and Lords}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 151-52; 162-64. As it is unlikely that Ferrers and Bully would both have had two predecessors with the same rare and uncommon names, these Alsis were the same individual (JP).
\par \tab \tab Of the remaining holdings, those acquired by Ralph of Lim\'e9sy did lay in one of Roger of Bully's wapentakes and should therefore have been acquired by him unless previously granted by antecessorial inheritance (Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Kings and Lords}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 151). This Alsi, therefore, was a different individual, possibly the Alsi Illing named in the county customs who is otherwise unaccounted for as a landowner (NTT 14,4-5). He had no hall at Epperstone so perhaps he was also the Alsi of the one r
emaining holding, Kneeton, a few miles away, acquired by Count Alan (NTT 2,7) (JP).
\par 6,12\tab SHOTTLE. This was part of the township of Shottle and Postern in Duffield Ancient Parish. The township became a separate Civil Parish in 1866. Duffield itself (6,66) p
robably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 and it might be assumed that Shottle was also in that wapentake. This would, however, interrupt the order of Domesday, for 'Appletree' Wapentake estates are otherwise entered as a single block (6,24-64). Its Do
m
esday outlier, Wallstone, was probably in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (6,12 Wallstone note), and Shottle was probably in that same wapentake, being drawn into 'Appletree' Wapentake later. If the tie of Shottle to Duffield was ancient, it is probable that, a
s with other large estates, the wapentake boundaries, drawn later, separated members from their }{\i\insrsid10361692 caput}{\insrsid10361692  and that after 1086 the link reasserted itself.
\par \tab WALLSTONE. This was a settlement in the township of Idridgehay and Alton in Wirksworth Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 578. The link with Wirksworth suggests that it was in Hamston Wapentake in 1086. The grid reference is to Wallstone Farm (SK290491).
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab GODRIC HOLDS IT. There is no sign in the manuscript of the addition of this sentence, as suggested by Roffe ((}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 30; see also 'Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 320, note 4). The main scribe of Great Domesday normally recorded the 1086 tenant at the end of the entry; see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}. The hole (now patched)}{
\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 in the parchment towards the end of the last two lines of this entry might have misled Roffe, as the scribe wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 ual' lx}{\insrsid10361692  of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 value round it. On the name Godric, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par 6,13\tab ATLOW. This was a chapelry of Bradbourne Ancient Parish. Bradbourne itself (6,6) was probably in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 and this link, together with the sequence of Domesday, suggests that Atlow was also in that wapentake in 1086, though it i
s later evidenced in 'Appletree' Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 259;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. It lies close to the putative boundary of the two wapentakes.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note, and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par 6,14\tab IN "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE. This is one of the rare wapentake headings in Domesday Derbyshire; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. "Walecros" Wapentake was later renamed Repton Wapentake from its principal manor (1,20).
\par \tab CROXALL. This was an Ancient Parish, a part of which lay in Staffordshire. The whole parish was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895. Croxall was in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 and is later evidenced in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. See \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Land here was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1606 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 11-13 no. 7).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space after writing }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ter}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692 
 for the later insertion of the rest of the plough estimate; see 1,35 land note.}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Scribe B later filled this in, but had to interline it, turning the dot after the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ter}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692  into an insertion mark. See 6,15 plough note. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. Unless more than one Roger held from}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 Henry of Ferrers, this tenant was probably Roger of Livet, identifiable from his Leicestershire benefactions to Tutbury Priory. He came from Livet-en-Ouche in the French }{\insrsid10361692 d\'e9
partement of Eure (arrondissement Bernay, canton Beaumesnil, commune Landep\'e9reuse); see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 392 no. II); }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Leicestershire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 292; }{\insrsid10361692 Loyd, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 53; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 404. This last gives folio references corresponding to LEC 14,13;15;25;28;31-32 and DBY 6,14;16;29;55 (but not DBY 6,96, possibly an omission).
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rogerius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rogerus}{\insrsid10361692 , but frequently}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rog'}{
\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrodger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rodger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotger}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rog(g)er}{\insrsid10361692  etc: Forssner, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger.
\par 6,15\tab EDINGALE. This was a chapelry of Alrewas Ancient Parish which was otherwise in Staffordshire. Edingale itself was transferred to Staffordshire in 18
99. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Repton Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. For another part, see 17,12. See also \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Although Domesday does not expressly say so, Edingale, which is given no value and no 1066 holder, was probably a jurisdiction of Croxall, the marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 
] being omitted.
\par \tab 1 CARUCATE. Edingale (6,15. 17,12) totalled 3 carucates, a figure which appears to be one of the basic building blocks of carucation; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par \tab LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially omitted all reference to the plough estimate, unlike in the previous entry where he had written }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ter}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{
\i\insrsid10361692 a }{\insrsid10361692 (6,14 ploughs note). Using a paler ink to the one used in the text here he squeezed in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ter}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{
\insrsid10361692  and then interlined the rest; he also lengthened the }{\i\insrsid10361692 I }{\insrsid10361692 of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ibi}{\insrsid10361692 , the next word, to act as an insertion mark. The interlineation in 6,22 was done at the same ti
me (6,22 waste note).
\par \tab UNDERWOOD. In the manuscript there is a diphthong squiggle on the }{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692 
; though it is in paler ink, it is visible in both the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles. Farley, however, printed }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\insrsid10361692 Siluae}{\insrsid10361692 
 is either nominative plural or genitive singular. Either the main scribe of Great Domesday understood there to be more than one piece of underwood, or he made a mistake, as the genitive cannot be used when there are two measurements unless 'in length' an
d 'in width' is written instead of 'long' and 'wide', that is, }{\i\f703\insrsid10361692 Silu\'ea minut\'ea iii quarentin\'ea in longitudine et i quarentina in latitudine}{\insrsid10361692  ('3 furlongs of underwood in length and 1 furlong in width').

\par 6,16\tab STRETTON[-EN-LE-FIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. Another portion lay in Leicestershire (LEC 14,28), also held by a Roger under Henry of Ferrers; see 6,16 Aelfric note. The Derbyshire part was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. He may be the same man as the Aelfric who held some part of Stretton-en-le-Field, Dinisthorpe and Coleorton at LEC 14,28, possibly the
 other part of Stretton-en-le-Field itself. See also 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 6,14 Roger note.
\par 6,17\tab CATTON. This was a township of that part of Croxall Ancient Parish that lay in Derbyshire. Like Croxall itself (6,14) it probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. Also, like Croxall itself, it was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895. The name is represented by Catton Hall (SK206153).
\par \tab \tab Land in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Canton}{\insrsid10361692 , referring to this place, was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1606 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 11-13 no. 7). }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Canton }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 is }{\insrsid10361692 perhaps a scribal error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Catiton}{\insrsid10361692  (easily done as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 t }{\insrsid10361692 was a short letter and could have been misread as a minim, like the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692  after it, and these were then misjoined to form an }{\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the underwood apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see also 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab NIGEL [* OF AUBIGNY *].}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  The identification of this Nigel is found in a charter of Robert Ferrers, second Earl of Derby, confirming the gifts}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
of his father and grandfather to Tutbury Priory 1150 x 1159; see }{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 pp. 64-66 no. 52) (PM).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 He was a Norman from Saint-Martin-d'Aubigny, in the French d\'e9partement of Manche (arrondissement Coutances, canton P\'e9
riers) where he was lord. His brother was Richard, Abbot of St Albans (1097-1119), and his wife was Amice of Ferri\'e8res, daughter of Henry of Ferri\'e8
res (Ferrers). His son Henry succeeded him. He was ancestor of the De Albini family of Cainhoe, in Bedfordshire. See Loyd, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 7; Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 26; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 301.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Nigell}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), is a Latinization (by an incorrect association with }{\i\insrsid10361692 niger}{\insrsid10361692 , 'black') of the Old Irish }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Niall}{\insrsid10361692 , which was 'carried to Iceland by the Scandinavians as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Njall}{\insrsid10361692 , taken to Norway, then to France and brought to England by the Normans. I
t was also introduced direct into north-west England and Yorkshire by Norwegians from Ireland' (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 , under Neal). The Alecto edition has Nigel.
\par 6,18\tab "BOLUN".}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  This holding is unidentified. This place may be compared with Bole and Bolham in Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
and Bolam in Northumberland and Durham; see the discussion of the place-name form in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Nottinghamshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 26 (PM).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 18 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the pasturable woodland apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692 
 is nominative and in a new sentence; see also in 6,28;52-53;55;58-59;62;66;68. 16,2, and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par 6,19\tab LINTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Church Gresley. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 261; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. The Ancient Parish was divided between Derbyshire and Leicestershire: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 76. Another part of Linton was in Leicestershire in
 1086 (LEC 14,34), held from Henry of Ferrers by Nigel [of Stafford], but was placed in Derbyshire at an unknown date. Donisthorpe and Oakthorpe (14,9-10; see LEC 14,28 Donisthorpe note), likewise partly in this Ancient Parish, were also divided between t
he two counties in 1086; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Land here was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10 no. 6).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. See 6,7 Leofric note and, on the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. In other words, for 1 \'bd plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note
\par 6,20\tab WILLESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. For another part belonging to the royal manor of Repton, see 1,21. Willesley was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab 5 OXEN PLOUGHING. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 v boues arantes}{\insrsid10361692 . The Phillimore printed translation is '5 ploughing oxen' but it is otiose to indicate that oxen are for ploughing, and the Latin for that would most probably be }
{\i\insrsid10361692 v boues ad arandum}{\insrsid10361692 . The phrase is parallel to }{\i\insrsid10361692 villani habent v boues in caruca}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('the villagers have 5 oxen in a plough') and draws attention to the fact that this manor only has part of a plough-team, or five-eighths of a plough: 1,4 oxen note).
\par 6,21\tab STANTON. This was part of the township of Stanton and Newhall in Stapenhill Ancient Parish. Stapenhill itself (3,5. 14,2) was probably in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 and Stanton probab
ly lay in the same wapentake then since it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Two }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stantune}{\insrsid10361692  were given by Aethelflaed [Lady of the Mercians] to her faithful friend Alchelm in 914 in exchange for 60 pigs and 300 shillings: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 102 no. 100 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 224 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 1-2 no. 1).}{\insrsid10361692  One }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansa}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stantun}{\insrsid10361692 , perhaps representing a duplicate of half of the previously-granted estate wa
s given by King Edgar in 968 to Bishop Wulfric (of Dorchester-on-Thames): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 108 no. 108 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 768 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 37-39 no. 23). Hart in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692  
tentatively identifies these estates as Stanton-in-Peak (6,73). Sawyer identifies Aethelflaed's gift of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stantune}{\insrsid10361692 
 as Stanton-by-Newhall (the present estate) and points out that Burton Abbey held land here in the early twelfth century as part of Stapenhill (3,5), which was acquired before the Conquest; see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 p. 240). It seems probable that an original estate of two }{\i\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\insrsid10361692  had been divided by 1086, the other part being silently included in the 4 carucates and 2 bovates allo
tted to Stapenhill; see 3,5 Stapenhill note.
\par \tab ALWIN <OF STANTON>. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwin - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluuine}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeluuin}{
\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aeluin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{
\i\insrsid10361692 , Eluuine, Eluuin(us), Eluinus}{\insrsid10361692  - could represent Old English \'c6}{\i\insrsid10361692 lfwine, }{\insrsid10361692 Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelwine}{\insrsid10361692 , Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Ealdwine}{\insrsid10361692  or even Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealhwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 158-60, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-wine}{
\insrsid10361692 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 
, as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-wine}{\insrsid10361692 . Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfwine}{\insrsid10361692  in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 181, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius}{\insrsid10361692 
) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -f- }{\insrsid10361692 or}{\i\insrsid10361692  \endash v-}{\insrsid10361692  that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. Some also appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelwine}{
\insrsid10361692  in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Aluinus}{\insrsid10361692 ) do not contain the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -d-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -g-}{\insrsid10361692  whi
ch JRM thought was the requisite for inclusion under that name. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alwine and A(i)lwin appear, but these have now been standardized as Alwin.
\par \tab \tab This Alwin may be the same person as one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Etwall (6,98).
\par \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par 6,22\tab HARTSHORNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 261; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab One carucate called 'Lees' and lying at this Hartshorne or the one in 6,23 was part of the twelfth century endowment of Croxden Abbey in Staffordshire; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Staffordshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 226 and STS \{
Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization\}.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab WASTE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f710\insrsid10361692 Wasta \'e7}{\insrsid10361692 , using a slightly paler 
ink to that used for the adjacent text and extending into the outer margin. At the same time he completed the plough estimate in 6,15: 6,15 plough note.
\par \tab ARABLE LAND AS MUCH. That is, \'bd league long and \'bd wide. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 terra arabilis}{\insrsid10361692 ; an apparent alternative, }{\i\insrsid10361692 aratura}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('arable') is found in ESS 1,3. Arable land is rarely named as such in Domesday and in Derbyshire, as elsewhere, it is included in the number of carucates or represented by the 'land for }{\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\insrsid10361692 
 ploughs' formula. This is presumably new land, possibly assarted or converted from another use (as in DOR 34,8; see also NFK 1,70), that could be brought under the plough, or that is ploughed but not assessed for tax. In LIN 14,54 there are }{
\i\insrsid10361692 vii. carucatae terrae ad geldum 7 v. bouatae et v. pars bouatae ad geldum. Terra arabilis duplex}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('7 carucates of land, taxable, and the fifth part of a bovate taxable. Twice as much arable land'.); see also LIN 14,57;60;92. Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 arabilis}{\insrsid10361692 
 means 'ploughable', rather than actually 'cultivated' or 'under the plough'. In hidated counties, this land might have been expressed in terms of non-taxpaying carucates.
\par 6,23\tab IN ANOTHER HARTSHORNE. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{\insrsid10361692  ('another') tends to be used as a scribal device in lists where it draws attention to a second estate of the same name. It d
oes not, in itself, suggest the existence of two separate vills, or settlements or villages. It simply means that there were two separate estates at Hartshorne in 1086. Although they had both been held }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E}{\insrsid10361692 
. by an Aelfric, most likely the same man, they p
robably mark a stage in the dissolution of a single estate called Hartshorne. There were never separate 'villages' at Hartshorne, though there were no doubt contiguous estates, one perhaps centred on the Old Hall (SK320215), the other on the manor house (
SK328210); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. pp. 637-38. On this meaning of }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{\insrsid10361692 , see also 10,8 another note and Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab ARABLE LAND AS MUCH. See 6,22 arable note.
\par 6,24\tab [* 'APPLETREE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the evidence for the wapentake in which the following estates lay.
\par \tab MARSTON[-ON-DOVE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab BRUN. See 1,30 Brun note.
\par \tab ALRIC. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alric - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Elric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{
\i\insrsid10361692 , Aelric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alrich, Alrist}{\insrsid10361692  (a scribal error) - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelric}{\insrsid10361692 
 or Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 150-51, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-ric}{\insrsid10361692 
, and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition. However, occasionally some of the people here rendered Alric app
ear in certain Phillimore printed translations as Aelfric or Aethelric, but their name-forms do not include the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -u-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -f-}{\insrsid10361692  required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 -d-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -g-}{\insrsid10361692  required by him for inclusion under Aethelric.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that the Alric who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in 6,24;33;43;46;94, and perhaps also in OXF 24,2 and BRK 21,9, represent the same individual. See also 6,33 holds note
\par \tab \tab However, Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note) makes this less likely given that the holdings lay in the wapentake which may have been granted to Henry }{\i\insrsid10361692 en bloc }{\insrsid10361692 (JP).
\par \tab MONKS HOLD IT.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  The two manors [of Marston[-on-Dove] and Doveridge: 6,24-25] form the original endowment of Tutbury Priory, founded by
 Henry of Ferrers and colonized from Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy (PM). Henry himself gave Marston-on-Dove (except for 9 bovates and a quarter of the meadow) and his wife Bertha gave Doveridge; they both gave West Broughton (SK1432) near Doveridge. 
H
enry's foundation charter established a church in honour of St Mary in his castle at Tutbury (Staffordshire) for the soul of King William and Queen Matilda. The note in the Phillimore printed edition, quoted above, identified the monks as those of Saint-P
i
erre-sur-Dives (though the index there has 'of Tutbury') and gave 1080 as the foundation date for the priory. Neither is certain. The foundation charter itself dates from after the Conqueror's death: it was made in the presence of William II at Marlboroug
h and is assigned the dates 1087 x 1100 in }{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman,}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  p. 63). Even so, some sort of monastic establishment may have been in existence there for a few years previously. See }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 391 }{\insrsid10361692 no. I}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 302-303; the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman,}{\i\insrsid10361692  
}{\insrsid10361692 pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52); }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 57, 78; and STS 10,1 Tutbury note.}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
These Domesday entries are possible evidence for the existence of the priory in 1086. However, it is not
 certain whether there were yet monks at Tutbury in 1086 or whether the monks of the abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives were merely enjoying the profits of the estate from a distance and only came to Tutbury a few years later. Thus the monks mentioned by Dom
esday might be 'of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives' or 'of Tutbury'; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 331.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,25\tab DOVERIDGE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab EARL EDWIN. He was the son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric. He succeeded his father as Earl of Mercia on his death at some date between 1062 and 1066}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. He rebelled and made peace with King William at least twice and was finally killed by his own followers }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 1071}{\insrsid10361692 .
 Although he inherited his father's estates and title, it is Algar who is often said to be the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder. On his name, see 1,9 Edwin note.
\par \tab MONKS HOLD IT. Doveridge was the gift of Henry of Ferrers' wife Bertha to their foundation of Tutbury Priory; they both gave '}{\i\insrsid10361692 Parva Brocton'}{\insrsid10361692 
 near Doveridge', that is, West Broughton (SK1432), presumably part of Doveridge itself or of Sudbury (6,30); see 6,24 monks note.
\par 6,26\tab FOSTON. The Domesday name-form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Faruluestun}{\insrsid10361692  and the place was known as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Farleston}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  until 133
1. Foston has a different origin and was probably a neighbouring settlement}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 which eventually became the more important: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 560 (PM).}
{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab Foston was a township of Scropton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. It is probable that, although Leofnoth was a very common name, all the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers with this name represent the same individual (6,26;28;34;53;55;101); th
e Leofnoth who had held a royal manor attached to one of Henry's manors was almost certainly the same man; see 1,32 Leofnoth note. The Leofnoth Star who was Henry's predecessor in Breaston (6,65) might also be the same individual. On this name, see 1,30 L
eofnoth note.
\par \tab WULFMER <OF FOSTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlmar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlmer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Wlmer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Wlmar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlmaer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulmarus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfmer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlmaer}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 421-22. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 
, as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday names. The Alecto edition has Wulfm\'e6r.
\par \tab \tab He may be the same person as one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Shirley (6,43): no other people with this name are recorded in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab BALDRIC <OF FOSTON>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Baldric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Baldric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 191. The Alecto edition also has Baldric.
\par \tab \tab 
The only other occurrence of this name in Derbyshire is in 6,49, as another predecessor of Henry of Ferrers; as that holding and the current one are only about 2 miles apart it is possible that they refer to the same individual. Baldric is a common name f
or 1086 holders, but the only other reference to a Baldric holding }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
is in NTT 16,9. That holding is far distant from either of the Derbyshire ones, though that does not necessarily rule out his being the same as the Derbyshire Baldric(s).
\par \tab AND WULFRIC <OF SUDBURY>. The main scribe of Great Domesday added this, mostly in the central margin. For the probable reason for the addition of some }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders, see 6,77 Ylving note.
\par \tab \tab Apart from in 7,10, the only occurrences of the name Wulfric in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Der
byshire are as predecessors of Henry of Ferrers (6,26;30;46;50); this may suggest that these referred to the same individual, though it is a common name. Sudbury was an estate that he shared with two others (6,30). Henry also had a predecessor called Wulf
ric in STS 10,4, who might also be the same person, though there were several people with this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
\par \tab \tab These holdings lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake which Robin Fleming has argued was largely granted to Henry as a block (see 6,7 Edri
c note); but since the properties are fairly close to each other and there is only one other in the county, the force of this thesis is negligible in this case (JP).
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vluric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfric}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Wluric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlfricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlfuricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfriz}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric.}{\i\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab LAND FOR 20 OXEN. That is, for 2 \'bd plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par 6,27\tab SCROPTON. This was an Ancient Parish, which contained Foston (6,26). It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab Henry o
f Ferrers gave the tithes of his lordship in Scropton (apart from one-third belonging to the church) together with one villager to the priory of Tutbury, which was founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; 
see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. The Domesday forms of Toki - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tochi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toka}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toche}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toke}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Tocha}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tochil}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thoka}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toca}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toco}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Tocho}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tohe}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toc}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toki}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 385-86; see note 5 on the Toki here and elsewhere in DBY and also in NTH, LEC, NTT, YKS and LIN being the son of Auti. On this important }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 landholder, see Foster and Longley, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lincolnshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. xxx; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 305. The Domesday form of Toki's father's name is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Outi}
{\insrsid10361692  (LIN C4. T5). The other Domesday forms of Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Auti}{\insrsid10361692  are }{\i\insrsid10361692 Auti}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alti}{\insrsid10361692 
(}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ): von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 169; see Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 43-44. There is a }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tochi f}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ilius}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  Otta}{\insrsid10361692 
 in YKS C36, who had virtually identical rights in York as Toki son of Auti did in Lincoln. However, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Otta}{\insrsid10361692  represents Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Otti}{\insrsid10361692  according to von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 342; but see Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 208. Neither she nor von Feilitzen, n
or Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 193, made the link between }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tochi filius Outi}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tochi filius Otta}{\insrsid10361692  and it is possible that as both 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Auti}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Otti}{\insrsid10361692  were Old Danish names there were two people with sons called Toki, but it is also possible, in view of the position of both men in Lincoln and York, that }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Otta}{\insrsid10361692  (interlined in YKS C36) is a scribal error at some stage in the Domesday process for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Outi}{\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition has Toki and Auti and Toki son of Auti for YKS C36.
\par \tab \tab On Toki being one of Geoffrey Alselin's chief predecessors, see 9,1 Toki note.
\par \tab \tab See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 347-48 (JP).
\par \tab THE SITE OF ANOTHER MILL. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 alterius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (genitive)}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
strictly means 'of the other', 'of the second' (of two), but is probably used here for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 alius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('of another', 'of a second'), as occasionally elsewhere in Domesday Book (as here in 6,34. B1).}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab NOW IN LORDSHIP 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday obviously briefly omitted this detail as he normally wrote it after the plough estimate and before the population and resources, rather than after them.
\par \tab THE MARGINAL K }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 kalumnia/kalumpnia }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 klamor }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
('claim') and refers to Geoffrey Alselin's claim to this land (6,27 claims note).}{\insrsid10361692  There is another marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 K}{\insrsid10361692  next to a claim in 16,2 (16,2 scribe note) and
 also next to a claim in 17,9 (17,9 claims note). }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 On these and other marginal letters indicating disputes, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 124 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 188-90).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab G[EOFFREY] ALSELIN. As there is only one person in Domesday with the byname Alselin (on which see DBY 9 Geoffrey note) the }{\i\insrsid10361692 G.}{\insrsid10361692  here almost certainly abbreviates }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goisfridus
}{\insrsid10361692 . The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goisfridus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gosfridus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaufridus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaufridus}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaosfridus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually Latinized in early documents as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Galfridus}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaufridus}{
\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goisfridus}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gosfridus}{\insrsid10361692 ' (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 , under Jeffray etc.). }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Goisfridus}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gosfridus}{\insrsid10361692  represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gosfrid}{\insrsid10361692 , Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Josfrid}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 125-26. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaufridus}{\insrsid10361692  apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaufrid}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Gautfred,}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 Waldfrid}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Walfrid}{\insrsid10361692 : }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 , pp, 101-102. Forssner commented on the co
nfusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 God}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 frid}{\insrsid10361692  (on whom, see }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from Middle English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Geffrey}{\insrsid10361692 , from Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Geuffroi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Jeufroi}{\insrsid10361692  or Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Jefroi}{\insrsid10361692  (Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 ). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid10361692 Index of Persons}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. ix.
\par \tab G[EOFFREY] ALSELIN CLAIMS IT. Geoffrey Alselin was a tenant-in-chief in Derbyshire (DBY 9). The basis of the claim is presumably that Toki (identified as Toki son of Auti by von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 : 6,27 Toki note) who held Scropton was Geoffrey's predecessor in four of his manors (9,1;3;4;6) and his only or chief predecessor elsewhere: 9,1 Toki note.
 Henry of Ferrers holds no other lands that were formerly held by a Toki. See also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 125 no. 327. According to her, the 'marginal crosses' next to Henry's land Sudbury and Hatton (6,27;48) were 'probably to relate them }{\f706\insrsid10361692 to Geoffrey's claim'. However, these three 'crosses', which resemble the Greek letter psi (
\'f8), written upside-down with a cross through its upright and a dot in its 'cup', are in fact the transposition signs which the main scribe of Great Domesday used to }{\insrsid10361692 
link the main entry for Scropton with jurisdictions and thaneland in Sudbury and Hatton; see 6,27 margin note.
\par \tab \tab Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30, states that this sentence was added, but there is no indication of this in the manuscript.
\par \tab IN THE OUTER MAR
GIN level with the end of this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a transposition sign (see 6,27 claims note) which corresponds with two other identical ones in the outer margin next to a jurisdiction in Sudbury and in the central margin next t
o
 a jurisdiction and thaneland in Hatton, all of which belonged to Scropton. These three transposition signs were rubricated and were done when the scribe came to Sudbury (6,30) and found land there that was a jurisdiction of Scropton and wrote it after th
e main entry for Sudbury, and likewise when he found the land in Hatton. These signs are not related to Geoffrey Alselin's claim: 6,27 claims note. On the use of transposition signs, see T}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
horn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 119-20 and Fig. 6 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 182-84, and Fig. 15.6).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab In the note to 6,28 in the Phillimore printed translation PM states that 'the }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 transposition mark is clearly within the same ruling as Aston on the manuscript', which disagrees with the (correct) remark in }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 338 note 8. Moreover, in the translation after 6,28 there is a note wrongly stating that that entry 'continued after 6,30 and in 6,48', and the jurisdiction in Sudbury, next to the second transposition sign, is wron
gly numbered '28', though it should probably have been given a number as the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 I}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\f710\cf1\insrsid10361692 Ibid\'e7}{\f706\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 is rubricated. In the manuscript the transposition sign is next to the present entry, but the 'cup' of the upside-down \'f8 extends down towards the next entry, which may }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
have been why Farley printed it next to the first line of 6,28, instead of the last line of 6,27. This probably misled PM. Unfortunately in the first version of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Domesday Explorer}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  these errors of the }{
\insrsid10361692 Phillimore printed edition were perpetuated with the details of the jurisdiction in Sudbury appearing as part of the entry for Aston (6,28); when a new version is produced they will be corrected. Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30, also noticed the error in the Phillimore printed edition.
\par 6,28\tab ASTON. This was a settlement in Sudbury Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 610. Sudbury itself (3,1. 6,30) probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as Aston probably did then and later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253.
\par \tab \tab On a possible subtenancy here, see 6,63 John note.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. See 6,26 Leofnoth note, and, on his name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the pasturable woodland apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.

\par \tab ALCHERE <OF ASTON>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alcher(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealhhere}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal N
ames of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 242. JRM preferred Alchere as it reflected the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ealhhere.
\par \tab \tab A man called Alchere was Henry's subtenant in 6,28;30;32;50, as also in STS 10,8: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 134, though s
he has two references to folio 275a when there is only one (6,50) on it (on her system of referencing, see 10,4 Robert note). She also includes a reference to ESS 27,11 (folio ii. 053b) where the tenant-in-chief is Hugh of Montfort, not Henry of Ferrers, 
as she states.
\par \tab \tab The name Alchere occurs 15 times in Domesday Book, probably representing four individuals. The five holdings held by Alchere from Henry of Ferrers form a tight group on either side of the county boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire
 and almost certainly belonged to the same individual (JP).
\par \tab THERE ALSO. The main scribe of Great Domesday no doubt found this jurisdiction of Scropton when he was working on the main manor of Sudbury, so he wrote it after the entry for that manor, but lin
ked it to Scropton with transposition signs; see 6,27 claims note and 6,27 margin note. On its being wrongly numbered 6,28 in the Phillimore printed translation, see 6,27 margin note.
\par \tab A JURISDICTION OF SCROPTON. That is, of Henry of Ferrers disputed manor (6,27). On this phrase, see 1,26 jurisdiction note.
\par 6,29\tab SAPPERTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Church Broughton: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 541. Like Church Broughton itself (6,31), it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1
086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. The grid reference is to Sapperton Manor (SK186345). The deserted medieval village of Sapperton is at SK187343.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithes of his lordship in Sapperton to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab 
GODRIC. A Godric was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor also in 6,30;34;55;73;97, possibly the same individual, though it was a very common name and there were obviously two men called Godric in 6,34, while in Berkshire the lands of both Godric the sheriff (of
 Berkshire; see Green, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 26) and Godric a free man, and possibly a third Godric, passed to Henry. On his name, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par \tab YOUNG LEOFWIN. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuuin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  cilt}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cilt}{\insrsid10361692 
 means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'c
hild' in the Phillimore printed edition. He is possibly the same as Young Leofwin of 16,1 and again as the Young Leofwin who held Kensworth and possibly Caddington in Hertfordshire (HRT 13,1-2) and also several places in Bedfordshire, Essex, Shropshire an
d Suffolk. According to Round in }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Hertfordshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 281, he might be the same as the Leofwin the thane who held in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 322. A plain Leofwin was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in thre
e other estates (6,39;44;63), but with such a common name it is impossible to be certain whether these were Young Leofwin. See also 16,1 Leofwin note. On the name Leofwin, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 6,14 Roger note.
\par 6,30\tab SUDBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. For another part, a jurisdiction of Mickleover, see 3,1.
\par \tab \tab On a possible subtenancy here, see 6,63 John note.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the place-name appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 SVDBERAE}{\insrsid10361692  instead of }{\i\insrsid10361692 SVDBERIE}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note. It appears correctly in}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab GODRIC. See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WULFRIC }{\insrsid10361692 <OF SUDBURY>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . See 6,26 Wulfric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ALMER. T}{\insrsid10361692 he Domesday forms of the name-form Almer - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Almar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Almer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elmer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elmar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelmar}{
\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aelmer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Aelmaer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Almaer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Elmaer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
- could represent either Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692  or Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 147-48, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 
. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -m\'e6r\-}{\insrsid10361692  as more of the Domesday forms had }{\i\insrsid10361692 -mer}{\insrsid10361692  than }{
\i\insrsid10361692 -maer}{\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition has Almaer for those listed in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 147-48, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-m\'e6r}{
\insrsid10361692 . However, a number of names rendered in the present edition as Almer (generally because under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692  in von Feilitzen) app
ear in the Phillimore printed translations as Aelmer, whereas JRM apparently intended to reserve that name for those Domesday forms beginning }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeil-}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ail-}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Eil-}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ai-}{\insrsid10361692 , which represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 . Some also appear under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelm\'e6r}{
\insrsid10361692  in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 184-85, but their forms lack the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -d-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -g}{\insrsid10361692 
- that JRM regarded as a prerequisite for inclusion under Aethelmer.
\par \tab 2 CARUCATES LESS \'bd BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 .ii. car}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ucatas}{\insrsid10361692 
] and then (at the beginning of the next line) probably either a fraction or a reference to bovates. Scribe B erased what was after the }{\i\insrsid10361692 .ii. car}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ucatas}{\insrsid10361692 
], but decided to insert the }{\i\insrsid10361692 dim}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 idia}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  bou}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ata}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  minus}{\insrsid10361692 
 immediately after the carucates, 
extending into the central margin; he may not have wanted to wait until the surface of the parchment had been re-prepared for writing or perhaps he preferred not to write over erasures. He used the same pen as he used for the correction to the tax assessm
ent in 6,43 in the opposite column. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par \tab ALCHERE <OF ASTON>. See 6,28 Alchere note.
\par 6,31\tab [CHURCH] BROUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab WULFRIC. See 6,26 Wulfric note.
\par \tab 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected this from }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  by adding a third minim.
\par \tab PASTURE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,37 pasture note.
\par 6,32\tab SOMERSAL. Somersal Herbert was an Ancient Parish. Potter Somersal was a settlement in Sudbury Ancient Parish and was also known as 'Nether Somersal' or 'Somersal Inferior', in contrast to 'Over Somersal' or 'Somersal Superior' or 'Somersal }{
\i\insrsid10361692 super montem}{\insrsid10361692 ' which is now Hill Somersal, likewise a settlement in Sudbury Ancient Parish. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
 (iii. pp. 604, 610) identifies the first of the Domesday Somersals (6,32) as Somersal Herbert and the second (}{\i\insrsid10361692 alia Summersale}{\insrsid10361692 , 6,33) as Potter Somersal, leaving Hill Somersal without a Domesday forebear. }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Summersale}{\insrsid10361692 
 (6,32) was a double manor (and twice the size of the 'Somersal' of 6,33) and it is possible that it is represented by Hill Somersal and Potter Somersal, with the second Domesday entry (6,33) being Somersal Herbert. 
A man called Alchere holds both Sudbury and the Somersal of 6,32; the parochial connection of Potter Somersal with Sudbury reinforces the suggestion that the Somersal of 6,32 is or contains Potter Somersal; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 339 note 4. Otherwise, it is best to regard the two Domesday entries as representing between them the three Somersals but without linking a particular entry to an individual place. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Somersale Herbert}{
\insrsid10361692  appears in 'Appletree' Wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45; no doubt the other 'Somersals' which are adjacent were in the same wapentake. In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 253, 258, only plain Somersal is mentioned. The Alecto edition has [?Potter] Somersall for 6,32 and Somersal [?Herbert] for 6,33
\par \tab ORDMER <OF SOMERSAL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ormar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ordmaer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Ormer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ordmer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ordmar }{\insrsid10361692 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ordm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 336. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692  as it reflected most of the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ordm\'e6
r. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab ERNGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Erniet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernet }{\insrsid10361692 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earngeat}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 243. JRM preferred the first element Ern- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earn-}{\insrsid10361692 
 as it reflected the majority of Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Earngeat. Von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 ) suggested that the Derbyshire form, as also those in SHR 4,14,19-21 and 6,25 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Erniet}
{\insrsid10361692 ), might derive from the feminine hypothetical Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earngyth}{\insrsid10361692  as their gender is unknown. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab PASTURE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,37 pasture note
\par \tab ALCHERE <OF ASTON>. See 6,28 Alchere note.
\par 6,33\tab IN ANOTHER [ESTATE CALLED] SOMERSAL. For the possible identification, see 6,32 Somersal note. For the use of Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('another') as a scribal device to highlight two estates of the same name in a list, see 6,23 another note and 10,8 another note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'the other', which implies there were only two estates called Somersal.
\par \tab ALRIC. See 6,33 holds note and, on his name, see 6,24 Alric note.
\par \tab NOW 1 SILVER MARK. That is, 13s 4d.
\par \tab ALRIC HOLDS IT. In the Phillimore printed translation the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alric}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is given as Aelfric, though it lacks the medial 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 -f-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -v-}{\insrsid10361692  that is required for it to represent Old English Aelfric; see 3,6 Aelfric note and 6,24 Alric note. Although the main s
cribe of Great Domesday appears to treat the 1066 Alric and the 1086 Alric as different people, they may well be the same, like Swein in 6,3 who is treated in the same way. As with other Englishmen he would have been deprived of most of his lands, but all
owed to keep some, or given a small amount of land in compensation.
\par 6,34\tab BARTON [BLOUNT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. There is now no place called Barton [Blou
nt]. The deserted medieval village is at SK209348, Barton Hall at SK208346, Barton Park at SK208343 and two separate places called Bartonfields at SK217349 and SK217356.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithes of his lordship in Barton Blount to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab GODRIC. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ANOTHER GODRIC. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 alter }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 strictly meaning 'the other' the second' (of two), but is probably used here for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 alius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('another', 'a second'), as occasionally elsewhere in Domesday Book (as here in 6,27. B1).See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab EDRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Edric note.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. See 6,26 Leofnoth note, and, on his name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab ALFHEAH <OF BARTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfag}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelfech}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelfag}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfah}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Alfeg}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfahc(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfeg}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Alfac}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfag}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Alfa}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelfec}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelfeth}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfeih}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfec}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Alfega}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfac }{\insrsid10361692 - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfheah}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 174. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lf-}{\insrsid10361692  as it reflected more closely the spellings in Domesday. The Alecto edition has \'c6lfheah here.
\par \tab \tab The Alfheah who was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Hollington (6,42) may be the same as this one; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire. Barton [Blount] and Hollington are within 3 miles of each other.

\par \tab \tab Both holdings lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake which Robin Fleming has
 argued was largely granted to Henry as a block (see 6,7 Edric note); but since the name occurs only once more in the county, and in only five other instances in the Midlands, the thesis has little force in this case (JP).
\par \tab LEODMER <OF BARTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ledmar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ledmer}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Lemar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leimar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leodmaer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ledmaer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Leimer}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lemer}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leodm\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 310. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -m\'e6r}{\insrsid10361692 , as it reflected more closely the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Leodm\'e6r.
\par \tab \tab This Leodmer may be the same as the Leodmer who was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Burnaston and Bearwardcote (6,94); these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire. Barton [Blount] is about 4 \'bd
 miles from Burnaston and Bearwardcote.
\par \tab \tab The closest Leodmer outside the county was some 80 miles away, and his holdings were even more modest than these. Robin Fleming's thesis on block grants (see 6,7 Edric note) is therefore probably not relevant (JP).
\par \tab DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunning}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunninc}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Donning}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunniht}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Donninc}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunning}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 228. T
he Alecto edition has Dunning.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers had two other predecessors called Dunning (6,71;77) who might be the same as this man.
\par \tab \tab However, see 6,7 Edric note (JP).
\par \tab EDWARD. See 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab RALPH [* OF BAGPUIZE *] HOLDS IT. A Ralph was Henry
 of Ferrers' subtenant in five manors in Derbyshire (see also 6,35-36;53-54), but there is no evidence that they were the same person and Ralph was a very common name (on which, see 2,1 Ralph note). Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 329, makes the Ralph of 6,34-36 Ralph of Bagpuize: a man of that name was Henry's subtenant in BRK 21,14 and, apparently, in BRK 21,3. She cites }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{
\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , which is the 'foundation charter' of Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' monastery; see }{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). There }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Radulphus de Bakepuz}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  gives two-thirds of his lordship tithes of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Esseden'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Urlestona}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  to the priory. }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Esseden'}
{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is 'Ashden' in Berkshire (BRK 21,3), but }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Urlestona}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  has not been identified. It seems unlikely howe
ver, to be the predecessor of any of the names of estates held by Henry of Ferrers in Domesday Derbyshire, unless the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 r}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is a scribal error for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 s}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 in which case it might be Osleston (6,63), though held by a John from Henry. Since there are eleven occurrences
 of the common name Ralph as a subtenant of Henry of Ferrers in Domesday, it would be rash to identify the present holder as Ralph of Bagpuize in the absence of clinching evidence. That Ralph came from Bacquepuis in the French d\'e9
partement of Eure, in the arrondissement of Evreux and now in the canton of Evreux-Nord; see Loyd, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10. For another Ralph, see 6,53 Ralph note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,35\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN of folio 274c, level with the first line of this entry, a cross is written. There is
 a similar cross level with the first line of the next entry, for Bentley. Neither cross was reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but are visible in the Alecto facsimile. Such marginal crosses seem to have several functions in Domesday Book, thoug
h
 it is not possible to tell by whom they were written or when. Sometimes they were used as transposition signs, but that is unlikely to be their purpose here. They were also often written next to alienated church lands or, less frequently, beside land hel
d
 by a church from a lay person or where there is only a tenuous link with a church. Further research might reveal that at some stage, either before or after Domesday, Alkmonton and Bentley had ecclesiastical connections. However, crosses were also used fo
r checking purposes, as Domesday Book continued to be consulted for several centuries; see Hallam, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book Through Nine Centuries}{\insrsid10361692 
. This might be the reason for these crosses here, though there is nothing obviously similar in them: a person called Ralp
h was the subtenant, but a Ralph was also Henry's subtenant in the previous entry (6,34) and in 6,53-54 and there are no crosses beside those entries (on these Ralphs, see 6,34 Ralph note). Likewise, though Wulfgeat had held both Alkmonton and Bentley }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
, he had also held four other Derbyshire estates that passed to Henry of Ferrers (6,7;43;83;98), albeit Tissington (6,7) had also been held by Ulfkil like Bentley, but none of these entries or those where Ulfkil was also Henry's predecessor have crosses 
beside them. For further discussion of these crosses, see T}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 horn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 131-32 and Fig. 17 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 197-98, and Fig. 15.17).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ALKMONTON. This was a chapelry and township of Longford A
ncient Parish. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; see 2,3 Bupton note. Like the others, Alkmonton probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. See 6,7 Wulfgeat note.
\par \tab RALPH [* OF BAGPUIZE *] HOLDS IT. See 6,34 Ralph note and, on the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note.
\par 6,36\tab IN THE OUTER MARGIN of folio 274c, level with the first line of this entry, a cross is written; see 6,35 margin note.
\par \tab BENTLEY. This was a Liberty in Longford Ancient Parish, formerly known as Hungry Bentley. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; se
e 2,3 Bupton note. Bentley probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab The deserted medieval village of Hungry Bentley lay at SK179386. Bentley Hall (SK 177380), Bentley Fields Farm (SK181387) and Bentley Cottage Farm (SK182390) represent the name.
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. See 6,7 Wulfgeat note.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab RALPH [* OF BAGPUIZE *] HOLDS IT. See 6,34 Ralph note and, on the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note.
\par 6,37\tab ASHE. Ashe 
(or Ash) was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-on-the-Hill. It is represented by Ashe Hall (SK2632); Ashe Farm and Ashe Cottages are at SK2533. Like Sutton-on-the-Hill (3,1. 6,39), it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:
 }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab 12 }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aesce}{\insrsid10361692  were granted in 987 by King Ethelred to his thane Aethelsige: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 108 no. 109 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 863 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 41-42 no. 25). This was identified with the present estate by Hart in }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , but the great discrepancy in the sizes of the estates (12 }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692 
 and 2 carucates), makes the identification improbable, even though there is no simple numerical relation between }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  (hides) and carucates.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. He is probably the same as the Ulfkil who had held Trusley? (6,38), because Aefic (6,37 Aefic note) had also held it and the estates are adjacent. See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab AEFIC <OF ASHE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Auic}{\insrsid10361692  and, once, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Auitius}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aefic}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 172. The Alecto edition has Aefic. It is possible that Aefic here is the same man as t
he one in the next entry (6,38) and as the thane called Aefic in 6,42. Apart from an Aefic in HUN 29,3 who is probably the same as the one in HUN 1912 (both holding in Catworth), there is only one other person recorded in Domesday Book with this name: one
 of the king's sergeants in WIL 68,32. However, the distance between his holding there and those of the people called Aefic in DBY and in HUN probably preclude their all being the same person.
\par \tab \tab The name Aefic occurs six times in Domesday Book, distributed between three counties. The distance between the counties, the modest size of all six holdings (none worth more than \'a3
3), and their acquisition by different Norman tenants-in-chief, makes it probable that the Aefics of the three counties were unrelated. In
 Derbyshire the three holdings were in neighbouring vills in the Hundred of `Appletree', and so probably the possessions of a single individual (JP).
\par \tab HAKON <OF ASHE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hacon}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hacun}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Acum}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Acun}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse /Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hakun}{\insrsid10361692 /}{\i\insrsid10361692 Hakon}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 283. The Alecto edition has Hakon.
\par \tab \tab Hakon is an uncommon name in the north
 Midlands, occurring only four times, all of them in Derbyshire The other three occurrences (12,1-2. 17,9), all close to each other, probably belonged to the same individual; but is it unlikely that Ashe did so too, as it is some 40 miles away and without
 tenurial or other associations (JP).
\par \tab ROBERT [* SON OF SARLE *]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Robert son of Sarle gave two-thirds of his lordship in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Esse}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  to Tutbury Priory: }{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). }{\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 386, calls him Robert son of Serlo, but according to von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 357-58, the form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sarle}{\insrsid10361692 
 does not represent Serlo, but the Anglo-Scandinavian and Norman }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sarle}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sarli}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Only Robert son of Sarle (6,37), Robert of Saint-Quentin (6,64) and Robert of Dun (6,97) can be positively identified among the Roberts who were tenants of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire (6,37;46;64;69;97).}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,38\tab TRUSLEY?. Trusley was an Ancient Parish lying in 'Appletree' Wapentake. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 613, considers that the form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toxenai}{\insrsid10361692 
 might be an early form of Trusley, not otherwise found in Domesday Derbyshire. Trusley is the tentative identification of }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 340 note 1. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Trusseleg' cum pertinenciis}{
\insrsid10361692  ('Trusley with appurtenances') is a Ferrers fee in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 994, but the nearest estates to Trusley (Sutton-on-the-Hill, Dalbury, Radbourne: 6,39;97;99) are all held by Henry of Ferrers and Trusley could have been carved out of one of these after 1086. The earliest forms cited for Trusley are }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Trusselai}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tresseleye}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Truslegh(e)}{\insrsid10361692  and it is difficult to see how these can be connected with }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toxenai}{
\insrsid10361692 . The Phillimore printed translation proposed 'Oxhay' but it is not indexed there; Trusley appears there instead. The initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 T}{\insrsid10361692  might have been attached to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Oxenai}{
\insrsid10361692  by misdivision of the phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 aet Oxenai}{\insrsid10361692  ('at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Oxenai}{\insrsid10361692 
') but no convincing identification has been made with a place in 'Appletree' Wapentake. However, if Hugh is correctly identified (6,38 Hugh note), then he held Trusley. It is possible therefore either that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toxenai}{\insrsid10361692 
 is a badly mangled form of Trusley or that Trusley is an alternative name for it, perhaps that of an adjacent settlement that replaced }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toxenai}{\insrsid10361692  in importance.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ULFKIL }{\insrsid10361692 <OF YELDERSLEY>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  AND AEFIC }{\insrsid10361692 <OF ASHE>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
 These men are probably the same as the Ulfkil and Aefic who had held the adjacent estate of Ashe (6,37). On the name Ulfkil, see 6,7 Ulfkil note. On the name Aefic, see 6,37 Aefic note.
\par \tab 5 TRIBUTARIES. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab HUGH [* THE BOWMAN *] HOLDS IT. This man, the only tenant of Henry of Ferrers with the name Hugh in Derbyshire, may be Hugo }{\i\insrsid10361692 le Arbalester}{\insrsid10361692  (that is, }{\i\insrsid10361692 arbalistarius}{\insrsid10361692 
, 'crossbowman') who gave two-thirds of his lordship tithe in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Trusselai}{\insrsid10361692  [Trusley] and 2 bovates to Tutbury Priory: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). A Hugh the bowman in Sussex (SUS 9,14) is a tenant of the Count of Eu, but there is no reason to connect the two}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par 6,39\tab SUTTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For another part, a jurisdiction of Mickleover, see 3,1.
\par \tab \tab Four }{\i\insrsid10361692 ruris cassatae}{\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suthtone}{\insrsid10361692 , possibly Sutton-on-the-Hill, with permission to buy a fifth, were granted in 949 by King Eadred to his thane }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Ulfketel}{\insrsid10361692 : }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 105 no. 103 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 549 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 13-14 no. 8). These four }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  mig
ht correspond to the three carucates at which the combined holdings at Sutton-on-the-Hill were assessed in Domesday, but there is no standard ratio of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (that is, presumably, hides) in charters to carucates and there are grounds for preferring an identification with Sutton Maddock, Shropshire; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 14.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THORI <OF SUTTON>.}{\insrsid10361692  The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tori}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thori}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turi}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thuri}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thure}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thorir}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 393. JRM preferred Thori as the Domesday forms lack a final }{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 . However, in the Phillimore printed translations for YKS and LIN the form T
horir appears and for SFK the form Thuri: these have now been standardized as Thori. The Alecto edition has Thorir. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab Since the nearest other occurrence was some 40 miles away, this was probably this Thori's only holding (JP).
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ALWOLD. }{\insrsid10361692 The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwold - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluuold}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Alwaldus}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Aeluuold}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluuol}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Alnold }{\insrsid10361692 (a scribal error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluold}{\insrsid10361692 
), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aluoldus}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluolt}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluol}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Aluort}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eluuold}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Eluolt}{\insrsid10361692  - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfweald }{\insrsid10361692 or Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelweald}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 154-55, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-weald}{\insrsid10361692 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 
. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -weald}{\insrsid10361692 
 as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwold in the present edition appear under Alfwold in the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Alweald.
\par \tab \tab An Alwold was Henry's predecessor in LEC 14,31-32, but there is no evidence that they were the same person as this Alwold.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab UNBAN <OF SUTTON>.}{\insrsid10361692  This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday. It represents the hypothetical Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ubeinn}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 397. JRM preferred to keep the name as it appears in Domesday; the same form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Unban}{\insrsid10361692 , is found in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{
\insrsid10361692  for a Freeman in Brettenham (NFK 24,4): Hamilton, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 140. The Alecto edition has Ubeinn.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab LEOFWIN. See 6,29 Leofwin note and, on this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab EDRIC }{\insrsid10361692 <OF TISSINGTON>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 See 6,7 Edric note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The interlineation }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  above the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 xx}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  may have been done by the}{\insrsid10361692 
 main scribe of Great Domesday at the time of writing or shortly after, as the pen and ink used look identical to those of the adjacent text; see also 6,39 now note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab AND NOW. The}{\insrsid10361692  main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this, but perhaps at the time of wr
iting or shortly after, as the pen and ink look identical to those of the adjacent text; see also 6,39 acres note. The interlineation of }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 modo}{\insrsid10361692  in the value sentence occurs frequently in Great Domesday.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WAZELIN <OF SUTTON> HOLDS IT. A person named Wazelin
 is also a tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Leicestershire (LEC 14,14) and Warwickshire (WAR 19,3;5). As this name only occurs in eight entries in Domesday Book, it is unlikely that there were two different tenants of Henry bearing it. }{\insrsid10361692 
Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 445 (under Walchelin, though that is a different name to Wazelin: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 239), identifies him with the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vasolinus }{\insrsid10361692 who was a benefactor of Tutbury Priory (the Tutbury Cartulary: Saltman,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 p. 65) 
and as a possible relative of Henry of Ferrers and ancestor of the (de) Boscherville family.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wazelin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Waselinus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wazelin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Wascelin}{\insrsid10361692  etc., Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gacelin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaselin}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 249. The Alecto edition has Wazelin, except for NFK 8,44, where it has Waselinus, the same as the Domesday form. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire.
\par 6,40\tab BRAILSFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab EARL WALTHEOF. He was the son of Earl Siward. His father was Earl of Northumbria and Earl of the Middle Angles, and so of Huntingdonshire and of some neighbouring countie
s, probably including Northamptonshire. On Siward's death in 1055, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire went to his Tosti brother of Earl (later King) Harold. The northern revolt against Tosti's harsh rule in 1065 l
ed to Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire being given to Waltheof, while Northumbria went to Morcar, }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the son of Earl Algar }{\insrsid10361692 
and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and brother of Earl Edwin}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692  Waltheof married Countess Judith, William the Conqueror's niece. In 1075 he plotted with Earl Ralph (of Ga\'eb
l, also known as Earl Ralph Wader) of Norfolk and Suffolk, who was married to the daughter of Earl William (son of Osbern), and with Roger of Breteuil, Earl of Hereford (the son of 
Earl William). After the capture of Earl Roger by King William, Earl Waltheof went abroad and admitted his treason, returning to England when King William seemed to regard it lightly. However he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (on May 31st 1075).
 He was buried at Crowland Abbey.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wallef}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Waltef}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Walteif}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Walteu}{\insrsid10361692 
 etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Valthiofr}{\insrsid10361692 , Anglo-Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid10361692 Waeltheof}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 403. The earl, however, is commonly known as Waltheof and JRM kept to this. The Alecto edition also has Waltheof. According to von Feilitzen (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, note 1) all the instances of this name in Domesday refer to the earl; however, see 6,58 Waltheof note. He was Henry's predecessor in LEC 14,16.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \'bd CHURCH. With the other half at Ednaston (9,3) this is probably the church at}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Brailsford which stands midway between the two villages (PM).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab "ELFIN" [* OF BRAILSFORD *] HOLDS IT. This individual appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfinus}{\insrsid10361692  of Brailsford in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ) where he is recorded as giving Osmaston (6,58) to Tutbury Priory with the consent of his son, Nicholas, and of Robert (I) of Ferrers. In the same cartulary an }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Elfinus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, probably the same man, gave two-thirds of the tithes in Thurvaston (6,60) and in Osmaston (6,58) and 4 bovates in Hollington (6,41-42). No subtenant is mentioned for either estate at Hollington, though the first (6,41) is a juris
diction of Brailsford (6,40) which he does hold. An "Elfin" is also recorded by Domesday as a 1086 holder of Thurvaston (6,60) and Osmaston (6,58). In Domesday it seems likely that this rare name refers to the same individual in 6,40;52;58;60, the only oc
currences of this name. Henry of Brailsford, son of Nicholas, occurs in the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, i. p. 338). See }{\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 187.
\par \tab \tab The name }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfin}{\insrsid10361692  does not appear in Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , 
and these are the only occurrences of the name in Domesday Book. The Alecto edition has Elfin. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfain}{\insrsid10361692  who appears as a king's thane in LIN 68,35-36 might represent the same name as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Elfin }{\insrsid10361692 in Derbyshire; the Alecto edition has Elfin there too.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 A possibly related form of the name, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Elfain}{\insrsid10361692 
, occurs on two holdings in Lincolnshire; but these modest holdings, almost 100 miles away, have no discernible links with Derbyshire (JP).
\par 6,41\tab MARGINAL S. This indicates that Hollington and Shirley were jurisdictions, probably of Brailsford (6,40).
\par \tab HOLLINGTON. This was a township of Longford Ancient Parish. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; see 2,3 Bupton note. Hollington probab
ly lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. On Longford, see 6,35 Alkmonton note. For the manor in Hollington, see 6,42.
\par \tab \tab According to the Tutbury Cartulary an }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elfinus}{\insrsid10361692  (presumably "Elfin" of Brailsford; see 6,40 "Elfin" note) gave 4 bovates of land in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Holinton'}{\insrsid10361692 
 to Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' foundation: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52 = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 392 no. II). These 4 bovates exceed the three allotted by Domesday to both Hollington and Shirley. If the respective figures are accurate, it seems probable that part of the manor of Hollington (6,42) was involved in the gift as well, and that "
Elfin" may have been a subtenant there, unmentioned in Domesday, or enfeoffed later.
\par \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. In other words for 1\'bd plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab SHIRLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. For the manor here, see 6,43.
\par 6,42\tab HOLLINGTON. This was a township of Longford Ancient Parish. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; 
see 2,3 Bupton note. Hollington probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. On Longford, see 6,35 Alkmonton note. For a jurisdiction of Brailsford lying in Hollington, see 6,41. For a jurisdiction of Hollington, see 9,3.
\par \tab \tab No 1086 subtenant is mentioned. It has been suggested in 6,41 Hollington note that part may have been held by "Elfin" of Brailsford. Some may have been held by Ralph }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Instanval}{\insrsid10361692  who gave \'bd carucate in 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Holinton'}{\insrsid10361692  to Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' foundation: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52 = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 no. II).
\par \tab LEOFSI <OF HOLLINGTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lepsi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefsi}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofsi}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefsinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lefsiuus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leofsige}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 315. JRM preferred the second element -si for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -sige}{\insrsid10361692 
 as it reflected more closely the forms found in Domesday. However, in the Phillimore printed translations of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire the name Leofsige was used; this has now been standardized as Leofsi. The Alecto edition has Leofsige.
\par \tab \tab It is likely that Leofsi here and in the adjacent manor of Shirley (6,43) were the same person.
\par \tab \tab The nearest other Leofsi was some 40 miles away and unlikely to be related (JP).
\par \tab ALFHEAH <OF BARTON>. See 6,34 Alfheah note.
\par \tab AEFIC <OF ASHE>. See 6,37 Aefic note.
\par \tab CARUCATES OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 t're }{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 terre}{\insrsid10361692 ) so that the abbreviation }{\i\insrsid10361692 car'}{\insrsid10361692 
 should not be mistaken as being for }{\i\insrsid10361692 caruca}{\insrsid10361692  ('plough'); he was normally careful to include this word.
\par \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders probably also had the small amount of underwood; see 1,34 underwood note.
\par 6,43\tab SHIRLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. For a jurisdiction of Brailsford lying in Shirley, see 6,41.
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692  AND WULFMER <OF FOSTON>. There are five manors here and seven }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders, two pairs of names, Ketil and Wulfmer, Wulfgeat and Leofsi being connected by }{\i\insrsid10361692 et}{\insrsid10361692  ('and'). By this means, the main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have intended to show how the five mano
rs were divided among the seven holders; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 311.
\par \tab \tab For Ketil, see 6,1 Ketil note and, on his name, 1,32 Ketil note. For Wulfmer, see 6,26 Wulfmer note.
\par \tab THORGISL. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turgis}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turgisus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turgisle}{\insrsid10361692  - rep
resent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thorgils}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thorgisl}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 393. Thorgils appears in the Phillimore printed translations, but JRM regularly preferred the Old Danish name-forms to the Old Norse ones, and as the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turgisle}{\insrsid10361692 
 occurs several times, including here in 17,2, it has been decided for the present edition to change to Thorgisl. The Alecto edition has Thorgisl.
\par \tab ALRIC. See 6,24 Alric note.
\par \tab ALGAR. The Domesday forms of the name-form Algar - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Algar(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elgar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aelgar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alger(us)}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Aelger}{\insrsid10361692  - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfgar, \'c6thelgar }{\insrsid10361692 or}{\i\insrsid10361692  Ealdgar }{\insrsid10361692 or even}{\i\insrsid10361692  Old Norse Alfgeirr}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 144-46, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-gar}{\insrsid10361692 , and also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 
. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form. The Alecto edition has Algar here.
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. See 6,7 Wulfgeat note.
\par \tab LEOFSI. See 6,42 Leofsi note.
\par \tab 2 CARUCATES OF LAND LESS \'bd BOVATE. Scribe B interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 dimid}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ia}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692  bou}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 ata}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{
\i\insrsid10361692  minus.}{\insrsid10361692 , putting an insertion mark in the line below after }{\i\insrsid10361692 ter}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 
. He used the same pen as he used for the correction to the tax assessment in 6,30 in the opposite column. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par 6,44\tab BRADLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 BRNDELEI}{\insrsid10361692  and then corrected it to }{\i\insrsid10361692 BRAIDELEI}{\insrsid10361692 
; the result is unclear in both the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab LEOFWIN. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Leofwin note and, on this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,45\tab YELDERSLEY. This was a township of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Ashbourne itself (1,14) and most of its members probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086, but Yeldersley probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. The grid reference is toYeldersley Hall (SK209440). Yeldersley Hall Farm is at SK206443, Old Hall Farm at SK219449 and Yeldersley Hollies at SK228439.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  The }{\insrsid10361692 Phillimore printed translation has Wulfketel for the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlchetel}{\insrsid10361692 ; on the name Ulfkil, see 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab COLA <OF WINSTER> HOLDS IT. See 6,2 Cola note.
\par 6,46\tab HILTON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself (6,24) probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake as did Hilton, since it is evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For another part, a jurisdiction of Mickleover, see 3,1.
\par \tab WULFRIC <OF SUDBURY>. See 6,26 Wulfric note.
\par \tab ULF. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Olf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlf}{
\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulf}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 400-401. Ulfr appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but has been standardized now as Ulf. The Alecto edition has Ulf.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that the Ulf who was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Swarkeston (6,83) was the same as his predecessor here, although it was a very common name; these manors are 13 kilometres apart.
\par \tab \tab See also 6,7 Edric note (JP).
\par \tab UBBI. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ube}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ubbi}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 397. The Alecto edition has Ubbi. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Book.
\par \tab ALRIC. See 6,24 Alric note.
\par \tab ROBERT HOLDS IT. It is not possible to give a positive identification to this Robert; see 6,37 Robert note and, on this name, 1,36 Robert note.
\par 6,47\tab HOON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself appears to have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake and Hoon is evidenced there later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab Domesday }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hoge}{\insrsid10361692  was identified with Houghpark in the index to the Phillimore printed edition and as Hough in the translation. They
 amount to the same identification with hesitation as to whether to include 'Park'. Houghpark was a settlement in Hulland township, Ashbourne Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 574, and like some parts of Ashbourne (for example Yeldersley, 6,45) it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 253, 258, 263. Both Hoon, another portion of which is a jurisdiction of Mickleover (3,1), and Houghpark were in the same wapentake. The identifications of Houghpark and Hoon made by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692  appear to be based on the assumption that the name-form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hoge}{\insrsid10361692  gives Hough while }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hougen}{\insrsid10361692  (3,1) gives Hoon; it is the presence or absence of the final }{
\i\insrsid10361692 -n}{\insrsid10361692  that is deemed significant. However, }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 340 note 4, suggests that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hoge}{\insrsid10361692 
 was another part of Hoon (3,1), with the final }{\i\insrsid10361692 -n}{\insrsid10361692  lost. This would easily occur if the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -n}{\insrsid10361692  were represented by a nunnation mark. The identification of }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Hoge }{\insrsid10361692 with Hoon is very likely as in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 no. II), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sewal}{\insrsid10361692 
 (presumably Saswalo) gave two parts of his lordship tithe of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hoga }{\insrsid10361692 (also lacking a final -}{\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 and 4 acres 'touching the village of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Merstone}{\insrsid10361692 '. This is repeated in the confirmation of Pope Alexander III of the possessions of Tutbury Priory (the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 23 no. 1)): }{\i\insrsid10361692 duas partes decime dominii de Hoga}{
\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  quattuor acras terrae contiguas Merstone}{\insrsid10361692 . It is Hoon, not Houghpark, that
 is adjacent to Marston-on-Dove. However, it might be objected that Saswalo also held Hatton (6,49) adjacent to Marston-on-Dove, and that it is possible that the four acres lay there. But, a further entry in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 104 no. 113)
, a twelfth-century grant, suggests that the four acres were indeed part of Hoon. In it }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sewal}{\insrsid10361692 
 of Shirley gave the priory a grant in alms of a piece of land in Hoon called 'Polforeland' on the Marston side of the vill: }{\i\insrsid10361692 unam culturam de dominio meo de Hoga ..
. illam scilicet culturam que vocatur Polforland propinquiorem Merstone quam una semita dividit ab alia cultura que similiter Polforlone appellatur quam ego retineo in manu propinquiorem Tuttesbir'}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('one ploughland of my lordship of Hoon ... that is to say
 the ploughland which is called 'Polforeland', closer to Marston[on-Dove] which a track divides from another ploughland which is likewise named 'Polforeland' which I am keeping in my hands, nearer to Tutbury.'). On the name 'Polforeland', see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 587. Tutbury (in Staffordshire) is at SK 2028; Marston-on-Dove at SK 2329.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday name is represented by Hoon Hall (SK2231). For the medieval settlement here (at approximately SK224300), see Beresford, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lost Villages}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 346, and Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Deserted Medieval Villages}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 185.
\par \tab WULFSI. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlsi}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Wlsi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlsinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlsius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Vlsy}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfsige}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 424-25. JRM preferre
d the second element -si for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 -sige}{\insrsid10361692 
, as it reflected more closely the forms found in Domesday. Wulfsige, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Wulfsi. The Alecto edition has Wulfsige.
\par \tab \tab A person called Wulfsi was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in 6,80;84;99, and in 6,80 he is coupled with a Godwin. However, the fact that Hoon here was held in 1066 by two people called Wulfsi make it impossible to tell whether any of 
these other predecessors were the same person as either of those called Wulfsi here.
\par \tab \tab See also 6,7 Edric note (JP).
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab ^[ANOTHER]^ WULFSI. There were two }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders of Hoon called Wulfsi; see 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab 
2 CARUCATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. There is an erasure at the beginning of the second line of this entry, perhaps of a fraction. The main scribe of Great Domesday sometimes drew in a link-line after an erasure to indicate that he did not intend anythin
g to be added in the space, but he did not do this here. Farley did not print a space.
\par \tab MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 molin' }{\insrsid10361692 ('mill'), the preceding resource, is also likely to be accusative; see 6,7 meadow note. The gap between }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 p'ti}{\insrsid10361692 , visible in the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles, is due to a hole in the parchment, now repaired. Farley's policy of indicating such imperfections varied: he did not leave a s
pace here, but see NTT 9,20 for an example of where he did.
\par \tab SASWALO <OF HOON> HOLDS IT. The name Saswalo was a fairly uncommon name, so this individual is probably the same as two other subtenants of Henry of Ferrers (6,49;98). A man of the same name was 
also Henry's subtenant in NTH 25,2, WAR 19,4 and LIN 21,1; in the last he is described as Henry of Ferrers' man. He appears to be the same man as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sewal}{\insrsid10361692 
 in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52), as the giver of two-thirds of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hoga}{\insrsid10361692  and of 4 acres near }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merstone}{\insrsid10361692  (Marston-on-Dove); see 6}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
,47 Hoon note. According to }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Warwickshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 281-82, he was ancestor of the Shirley family; }{\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 417, adds that he was an ancestor of the Ireton family, though there is no mention of a Saswalo in 1,13 (Kirk Ireton) or 6,92 (Ireton).
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sasuualo}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sasuualus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Saxwalo}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 223. JRM preferred Saswalo as this reflected the form in all bu
t one of the Domesday entries; however, in the Phillimore printed translation of Suffolk the form Saxwalo appears, but this has now been changed to Saswalo. The Alecto edition also has Saswalo.
\par 6,48\tab 
IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN level with this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a transposition sign which was identical to the ones beside the main manor of Scropton (6,27) and to another jurisdiction of Scropton which lay in Sudbury; see 6,27 claims
 
note and 6,27 margin note. There is no sign that this entry was a later addition by the main scribe: the pen and ink are the same as those used for the preceding text and it was written on the last ruled line of the column (folio 274d). The two run-overs 
a
re messy, however, and might suggest that when he came to the entry for Hatton in his source, he picked out of it this detail which fitted the space better than those of the main holding there (which occupies the first three lines of folio 275a) and brief
ly missed the link with Scropton. There are also two corrections in the assessment of the jurisdiction, but these also seem to have been done at the time of writing because of the pen and the colour of the ink.
\par \tab HATTON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself (6,24) probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake as did Hatton, as it is evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For the manor in Hatton, see 6,49.
\par \tab 6 \'bd BOVATES OF LAND, A JURISDICTION. The Phillimore printed translation has 'of the Jurisdiction'. The phrase means that in Hatton there is a }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692 
 (that is, 'sokeland' or 'a Jurisdiction') of Scropton. The prepositional phrase is 'defining': 'consisting of jurisdiction(-land)'. Compare 1,35 jurisdiction note and 16,1 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab The correction from }{\i\insrsid10361692 v}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi}{\insrsid10361692  bovates and the interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 t're}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('of land') were almost certainly done by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the time of writing: 6,48 margin note.
\par \tab 1 \'bd BOVATES OF THANELAND. Thaneland was land held by a thane, often on lease for a number of lives. In return for holding it, the thane owed service to his lord, often the king. See Round, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal England}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 35-40.
\par \tab IT BELONGS TO SCROPTON. That is, to Henry's manor there (6,27).
\par 6,49\tab HATTON. This was a township of Marston-on-Dove Ancient Parish. Marston-on-Dove itself (6,24) probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake as did Hilton, since it is evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For a jurisdiction here, see 6,48.
\par \tab EDRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Edric note.
\par \tab KOLLUNG <OF HATTON>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Collinc}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kollungr}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 307. JRM preferred not to include the final -r in such Old Norse name-forms as i
t does not appear in the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed translations the form Colling appears, but as other Old Norse names beginning }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kol-}{\insrsid10361692  were kept as such (e.g. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolsveinn}{
\insrsid10361692 
), it has been decided to standardize in the present edition. The Alecto edition has Kollungr. There are only two references in Domesday to this name - the other one is in SHR 4,7,5 - but there is no evidence that they refer to the same individual.
\par \tab \tab Since the two holdings are of modest size, some 50 miles apart, and without tenurial associations, they are likely to have belonged to different individuals (JP).
\par \tab BALDRIC <OF FOSTON>. See 6,26 Baldric note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par \tab SASWALO <OF HOON> HOLDS IT. See 6,47 Saswalo note.
\par 6,50\tab EATON [DOVEDALE]. This was a settlement in Doveridge Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 550. Doveridge itself probably lay in 'Appletre
e' Wapentake in 1086, as did Eaton Dovedale which is certainly evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab There is a scatter of Eaton names in the vicinity: Eaton Hall Farm at SK106362, Upper Eaton Farm at SK112362 and Eaton Barn at SK116376.
\par \tab SEDSALL. This was also a settlement in Doveridge Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 551. Like Doveridge, it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab WULFRIC <OF SUDBURY>. See 6,26 Wulfric note.
\par \tab ALCHERE <OF ASTON> HOLDS IT. See 6,28 Alchere note.
\par 6,51\tab MARSTON [MONTGOMERY]?. The Domesday name-form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merchetune}{\insrsid10361692 . It has previously been identified as another part of Markeaton (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchetone}{\insrsid10361692 ), w
hich appears as a manor of Earl Hugh at 4,1. It appears from NTT S5 that Markeaton was an undivided village. It was a township of Mackworth Ancient Parish and both Markeaton and Mackworth (4,2) appear to have been in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as they we
re later The present entry falls in the middle of a large group of places (6,24-64) that were probably in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as they were later, and it would be expected that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merchetune}{\insrsid10361692 
 lay there. Markeaton is not even close to the shared boundary of Litchurch and 'Appletree' Wapentakes and there is no evidenced connection between Markeaton and 'Appletree' Wapentake. This casts doubt on the identification.
\par \tab \tab A possible identification is with Mercaston (Domesday }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merchenestune }{\insrsid10361692 of which}{\i\insrsid10361692  Merchetune }{\insrsid10361692 co
uld be an abbreviation) which lay on the border between 'Appletree' and Litchurch Wapentakes, but which is counted in the latter wapentake at 6,96.
\par \tab \tab However, in 'Appletree' Wapentake lay the manor of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 253, 258, 263, 265) which appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchington'}{
\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. It is identified as Marston Montgomery. The identification does not seem to be in doubt, as it would be expected that Marston Montgomery, an important estate, would appear in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692  and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll}{\insrsid10361692 . However, other early forms of Marston Montgomery are reported as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merston}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merstone}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 585) which are similar to the early forms of Marston-on-Dove (6,24). In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 993, William of Montgomery holds }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merston'}{
\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cubbel'}{\insrsid10361692  (Cubley, 6,54) from the Earl of Ferrers. In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton }{\insrsid10361692 
appears in a list of manors held by Walter of Montgomery. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merston'}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton}{\insrsid10361692  never appear together. The overlord is not stated, but all the place
s were held by Henry of Ferrers in 1086: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton}{\insrsid10361692 
, Cubley (6,54), Sudbury (6,30), Aston (6,28), Snelston (6,53), Eaton Dovedale (6,50), Sedsall (6,50), Osleston (6,63) and Somersal (6,32 or 6,33). It seems incontrovertible that Henry of Ferrers held a place later called }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton}{
\insrsid10361692  in 'Appletree' Wapentake and probable that, despite the difficulty with the name-forms, the estate concerned is Marston Montgomery. If the Domesday form were a contraction for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merchentune }{\insrsid10361692 (as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Faitune}{\insrsid10361692 , 6,56, appears to be for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Faintune}{\insrsid10361692 ) , it would be easier to connect it with }{\i\insrsid10361692 Marchynton}{\insrsid10361692 
, but it would be necessary to assume that Marston Montgomery had parallel early forms (or a series of scribal confusions), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merstone}{\insrsid10361692  being a simplification of an original }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merchentune}{
\insrsid10361692  or similar, probably due to assimilation to Marston-on-Dove.
\par \tab \tab Marston Montgomery was an Ancient Parish.
\par \tab ALDGYTH <OF MARSTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alded}{\insrsid10361692  here, elsewhere }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeldiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeldit}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeldid}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eldit}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eldid}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldgid}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldid(a)}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldeda}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldi}{\insrsid10361692  - represent the feminine Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealdgyth}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 240-41. JRM preferred the first element Ald- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eald-}{\insrsid10361692 , as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday forms. However, the name-form 
Aldith appears in several Phillimore printed translations, as also do Alded and Aldgeat; these have all now been standardized as Aldgyth. The Alecto edition has Ealdgyth. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab No 1086 holder is 
given for this estate. In view of the descent to the Montgomerys, it is possible that a subtenant (possibly Ralph) has been omitted, or that he became tenant of this estate under Henry of Ferrers after 1086; see 6,53 Ralph note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The name Aldgyth occurs 1
8 times in Domesday Book, probably representing a dozen individuals. The nearest pre-Conquest holdings to this moderate property were those of the wife of Gruffydd and Aldgyth of Welshampton, both some 50 miles distant. A connection with either is possibl
e but unprovable (JP).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,52\tab BUPTON. This was a settlement in Longford Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 581. It is represented by Bupton Farm at SK223373. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshire but a number of settlements, t
hat lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; see 2,3 Bupton note. Bupton is ill-represented in later records, but its association with Longford (which is evidenced later in 'Appletree' Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45) and considerations of the likely boundaries of the wapentakes suggest that it lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts see 2,3. 6,60.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. See 1,1 slave note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland (or underwood), as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.

\par \tab UNDERWOOD AS MUCH. That is, as the pasturable woodland: \'bd league long and \'bd league wide.
\par \tab "ELFIN" [* OF BRAILSFORD *] HOLDS IT. See 6,40 "Elfin" note.
\par 6,53\tab IN THE MANUSCRIPT part of this entry and most of the next one (6,54) are rather rubbed, but the words and figures are clear, as they are in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. They are not as clear, however, in the Alecto facsimile.
\par \tab SNELSTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Norbury and Roston. Norbury and Roston themselves form a joint manor at 6,57 where they appear to be in 'Appletree' Wapentake. Snelston is evidenced in that wapentake later; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. For another part of Snelston, a jurisdiction of Mickleover, see 3,1.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. See 6,26 Leofnoth note, and, on his name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab SAEWULF <OF SNELSTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Saulf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Saul}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Seulf}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Saolf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Saolt}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Saewulf}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 355. The Alecto edition also has Saewulf. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab Since the nearest other holding was over 60 miles away, of modest value, and without tenurial associations, this was probably the only property of Saewulf <of Snelston> (JP).
\par \tab A JURISDICTION OF MICKLEOVER. That is, of Burton Abbey's manor there (3,1). On such links, which in this case may suggest that this part of Snelston had formerly been a part of Mickleover, to which another part still belonged in 1086, see \{
Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. On the phrase, see 1,26 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab A JURISDICTION OF ROCESTER. That is, of the royal manor of Rocester just over the border in Staffordshire (STS 1,17). In the pre
sent entry 5 carucates and 2 parts of 2 bovates in Snelston belong to Norbury. In 6,57 Norbury forms a single manor with Roston and one carucate of Roston belonged to Rocester. Apart from 1 bovate the villages of Wyaston and Edlaston (6,59) were in the re
venue of Rocester. On such links, which may point to the break-up of a multiple estate, see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.
\par \tab WHICH BELONG TO NORBURY. That is, to Henry of Ferrers' manor there (6,57).
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. See 1,1 slave note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 50 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab RALPH [* OF MONTGOMERY *] HOLDS IT. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 334-35, identifies this Ralph as Ralph of Montgomery. In the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 993, William of Montgomery holds }{\i\insrsid10361692 Merston'}{\insrsid10361692  (Marston Montgomery, 6,51) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cubbel'}{\insrsid10361692  (Cubley, 6,54) from the Earl of Ferrers. In a list of places in }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258, whose overlord is not stated, although all the estates were held by Henry of Ferrers in 1086, Walter of Montgomery holds Marston Montgomery (6,51), Cubley (6,54), Sudbury (6,30), Aston (6,28), 
Snelston (6,53), Eaton Dovedale (6,50), Sedsall (6,50), Osleston (6,63) and Somersal (6,32 or 6,33); on the identity of Marston Montgomery, see 6,51 Marston note. Of these, Cubley and Snelston were held by a Ralph in 1086. However, Keats-Rohan gives four 
r
eferences to folio 275a when there are only two people called Ralph on it (on her system of referencing, see 10,4 Robert note); she also identifies Henry of Ferrers' subtenant in NTH 25,3 as Ralph of Montgomery. See 6,34 Ralph note and, on the name Ralph,
 see 2,1 Ralph note. If correctly identified, this Ralph came from Saint-Germain de Montgommery or Saint-Foy-de-Montgommery, both in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot; see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Loyd, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 68). Ho
wever, there is no evidence that the Domesday Ralph was a Montgomery, and it appears that the later Montgomery family derived its holdings from more than one Domesday subtenant (Ralph, Alchere, Alric, John). So in the present state of knowledge, it would 
be unwise to identify the Domesday subtenant Ralph, or any of these others as a Montgomery.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,54\tab THE PARCHMENT is rubbed for most of this entry, but the reading is clear in the manuscript; see 6,53 manuscript note.
\par \tab CUBLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday estate is represented by Great Cubley (SK1638) and by Little Cubley (SK1637).
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 COBBLEI}{\insrsid10361692  instead of }{\i\insrsid10361692 COBELEI}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note. It is not very clear in}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The reading is clear in the manuscript, though the surface of the parchment is rubbed at this point.
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. See 1,1 slave note.
\par \tab RALPH [* OF MONTGOMERY *] HOLDS IT. See 6,53 Ralph note and, on the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note.
\par 6,55\tab BOYLESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab GODRIC . }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. See 6,26 Leofnoth note, and, on his name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 molin' }{\insrsid10361692 ('mill'), the preceding resource, is also likely to be accusative, but the pasturable woodland was not apparently held by the villagers and smallholders, as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,7 meadow note and compare 6,18 meadow note.
\par \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *] HOLDS IT. See 6,14 Roger note.
\par 6,56\tab '}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 FENTON'. It is now represented by Painter's Lane in Yeldersley: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 621 (PM). The lane runs fr
om SK207440 to SK 210438. What is now Yeldersley Home Farm appears as Painter's Lane Farm on the Ordnance Survey six-inch sheet 43NE of 1884. Yeldersley itself was a township of Ashbourne Ancient Parish and probably lay in }{\insrsid10361692 
'Appletree' Wapentake }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 in 1086; see 6,45 Yeldersley note. The Domesday name-form (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Faitune}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ) appears to be a contraction for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Faintune}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. On this loss of -}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 -, compare 6,51 Marston note. The suggested identification with 'Kniveton' in the Alecto edition is the result of a misunderstanding by one of the present editors (FT).}{\insrsid10361692 

\par \tab STURSTON. This was a township of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. It is poorly represented in later records, but was probably one of the parts of that Parish that were in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086; see 6,45 Yeldersley note. The 
Domesday estate is represented by Sturston Hall (SK2046) and Nether Sturston (SK1946).
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ULFKIL }{\insrsid10361692 <OF YELDERSLEY>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab WUDIA <OF STANSHOPE>. The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wodi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wodie}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wudia}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 417. In the Phillimore printed translations the name appears as Wodi. The Alecto edition has Wudia. This name only appears here and in STS 1,52 (Stanshope), so it is possible that the same person had held both: the estates are j
ust over six miles apart.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab LAND FOR 6 OXEN. That is, for three-quarters of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,57\tab NORBURY. This was an Ancient Parish, known for civil purposes as the Ancient Parish of Norbury and Roston. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.

\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithes of Norbury together with whatever belonged to the church and one man to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early
 in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ROSTON. This was a part of Norbury Ancient Parish, also known, for civil purposes, as the Ancient Parish of Norbury and Roston. It probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab HENRY [* OF FYFIELD *] HOLDS IT. At first sight this man is not likely to be Henry of Ferrer
s, the fief-holder, since Domesday Derbyshire normally includes at this point in an entry the name of the 1086 subtenant (though see 8,1 Walter note and 12,1 Hascoit note): \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
. He could therefore be the only known subtenant o
f Henry of Ferrers, that is, Henry of Fyfield, also known as Henry the steward; see 6,94 Henry note. He may be the same as the Henry who holds from Henry of Ferrers in 6,66 although that man may be Henry of Ferrers himself. For other cases of where it is 
unclear whether a man with the same first name as the tenant-in-chief is that fief-holder or his subtenant, see 9,6 Geoffrey note, 10,10 Ralph note, 11,2 Ralph note and 12,3 Hascoit note).
\par \tab \tab Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 248, under Henry de Fifidre, incl
udes three references to folio 275a, but there is only one Henry (other than the fief-holder) on that folio (6,57); on her system of referencing, see 10,4 Robert note.
\par \tab BELONGS TO ROCESTER. That is, it belongs to the royal manor of Rocester, just across th
e border in Staffordshire (STS 1,17). For other links to Rocester, see 6,53;59 and for the significance of such links which may point to a decaying multiple estate, see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}.
\par \tab NOW 2 VILLAGERS. On the use of 'now' by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 1,9 now note. An identical phrase occurs in NTT 16,3.
\par 6,58\tab OSMASTON. This was a chapelry of Brailsford Ancient Parish. Brailsford itself (6,40) was probably in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as was Osmaston, then and later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab WALTHEOF. It does not seem likely that Waltheof here was the earl of that name, as he was holding 2 carucates jointly with Aelgeat and Osmaston was not an important place; see 6,40 Waltheof note.
\par \tab \tab However, other indications
 point to this Waltheof being the earl, whose two Derbyshire holdings lay within three miles of Osmaston. All three holdings, moreover, devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief and were subinfeudated to the same tenant, a strong indication of a single prede
cessor. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 221-24 (JP).
\par \tab AELGEAT <OF OSMASTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ailiet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ailet }{\insrsid10361692 - represent the hypothetical Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aethelgeat}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 183. As the forms do not include }{\i\insrsid10361692 -d-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -g-}{\insrsid10361692 
 JRM did not think that they warranted inclusion under Aethelgeat. However, in the Phillimore printed translation for this entry the name Alfgeat appears and in that for NTH 2,12 (the only other occurrence of this name) A
elid occurs; they have been standardized here under JRM's rules for Domesday forms beginning }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aeil-}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ail-}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Eil-}{\insrsid10361692 
 etc. (see Aelred, Aeleva, Aelmer etc.). The Alecto edition has \'c6thelgeat. No evidence has been found linking these two holders.
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the pasturable woodland apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab "ELFIN" [* OF BRAILSFORD *] HOLDS IT. He gave two-thirds of the tithes of Osmaston to Tutbury Priory; see 6,40 "Elfin" note.
\par 6,59\tab WYASTON. This was a member of Edlaston Ancient Parish also known as the Ancient Parish of Edlaston and Wyaston. Both Wyaston and Edlaston, here coupled together, probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab EDLASTON. This was an Ancient Parish, also known as the Ancient Parish of Edlaston and Wyaston; see 6,59 Wyaston note. The Domesday name-form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Duluestune}{\insrsid10361692  has lost its initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 E-}{
\insrsid10361692 , possibly swallowed by the preceding }{\i\insrsid10361692 et}{\insrsid10361692  ('and'); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 557. The same form (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Dulueston'}{
\insrsid10361692 ), also preceded by }{\i\insrsid10361692 et}{\insrsid10361692 , appears in a charter of 942 containing lands granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1606 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 11-13 no. 7). They include Croxall (6,14), Catton (6,17), Walton-on-Trent (1,16), Drakelowe (14,1), Stapenhill (14,2) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Dulueston'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The last is read as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Sulueston'}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  by Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 , and tentatively identified with Silverstone (Northamptonshire) by him in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 11-12. It is similarly read as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Sulueston'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 by }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Hart in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102, but assumed to be an error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rulueston}{\insrsid10361692 , that is, Rosliston (1,16). }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Compare 13,1 Ilkeston note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab EARL EDWIN. See 6,25 Edwin note, and on his name, see 1,9 Edwin note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders did not have the pasturable woodland apparently, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab ORM <OF WYASTON> HOLDS IT. A man called Orm was also Henry's subtenant in 6,92, apparently the same as the subtenant here, and an ancestor of the Okeover family, according to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 314, who calls him Orm de Acoura and provides two references to folio 275b (possibly because there are two places mentioned in this entry: 10,4 Robert note). He also gave part of his tithes at Ireton to Tutbury Priory; see 6,92 Orm note.
\par \tab \tab These were the only holdings of an Orm in Derbyshire, the nearest other one being over 50 miles away, in Cheshire (CHS 9,17) (JP).
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Orm}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Orme}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ormr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Orm}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 337. The form Ormr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Orm. The Alecto edition has Orm, except for this DBY e
ntry, where it has Ormr, possibly in error as it has Orm for 6,92.
\par \tab THESE 2 VILLAGES. This sentence is continuous with the entry
 for Wyaston and Edlaston, and presumably refers to them, rather than to Osmaston (6,58) and Wyaston-Edlaston, the latter being regarded as a joint vill. The arrangement of the Phillimore printed translation (where this sentence is separated from the entr
y by a blank line) might erroneously suggest the latter interpretation. In the Alecto edition it is all part of the entry.
\par \tab THE KING'S REVENUE OF ROCESTER. Rocester was a royal manor just across the border in Staffordshire (STS 1,17). Earl Algar, father of Earl Edwin, had held it }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 For other links with Rocester, see 6,53;57. For their possible significance in indicating the extent of a former multiple estate, see \{Introduction: Manorial Organization\}. Also see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 125 no. 328.
\par \tab \tab The Latin reads }{\i\f703\insrsid10361692 He .ii. uill\'ea sunt de firma R. in Rouecestre}{\insrsid10361692 ; the }{\i\insrsid10361692 R.}{\insrsid10361692 
 was written over the erasure of a longer word (or words) by scribe B. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note. The Phillimore printed translation reads: 'These two villages are of Richard's revenue', wrongly expanding the 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 R.}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 R}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 icardi}{\insrsid10361692 ] rather than to }{\i\insrsid10361692 R}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 egis}{\insrsid10361692 
]. There is no mention of a Richard in Domesday Derbyshire, nor anywhere else in connection with Rocester, while the king held it.
\par \tab \tab Rocester itself was a manor and Wyaston and Edlaston, though contributing to its revenue, are also described as such. In effect they seem to have broken away from their parent manor and become manors themselves.
\par \tab WHICH LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] OSMASTON. That is, it belongs to Osmaston (6,58). For this use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet in}{\insrsid10361692  ('lies in') for }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet ad}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('is an adjunct of', 'belongs to'), see 10,12 land note.
\par 6,60\tab THURVASTON. This was a part of the township of Osleston and Thurvaston in the Ancient Parish of Sutton-on-the-Hill: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 593. Both Sutton-on-the-Hill (3,1. 6,39) and Osleston (6,63) seem to have lain in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086, and it is probable that Thurvaston was there also in 1086 as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 45. For another part, also held by Henry of Ferrers, see 6,64.
\par \tab BUPTON. This was a settlement in Longford Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 581. It is represented by Bupton Farm at SK223373. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday Derbyshir
e but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; see 2,3 Bupton note. Bupton is ill-represented in later records, but its association with Longford (which is evidenced later in 'Appletree' Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45) and considerations of the likely boundaries of the wapentakes suggest that it lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 2,3. 6,52.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders probably also had the small amount of underwood; see 1,34 underwood note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  On this phrase, see 1,32 small note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab "ELFIN" [* OF BRAILSFORD *] HOLDS IT. He gave two-thirds of the tithes of Thurvaston to Tutbury Priory; see 6,40 "Elfin" note.
\par 6,61\tab YEAVELEY. This was a township of Shirley Ancient Parish. Shirley itself (6,41;43) probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as did Yeaveley then and later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab 2 "LIGULF"S. That is, two men called "Ligulf". The same meaning would be supplied by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ligulf et alius Ligulf}{\insrsid10361692  (' "Ligulf" and another "Ligulf" '). The Phillimore printed translation and the
 Alecto edition have 'the two/2 Ligulfs' but there is no justification for the limiting 'the'. See 6,9 "Ligulf" note and, on this name, see 1,30 "Ligulf" note.
\par \tab ALSI [* SON OF KARSKI *]. See 6,11 Alsi note.
\par 6,62\tab RODSLEY. This was a hamlet of Longford Ancie
nt Parish. Longford does not itself appear in Domesday but a number of settlements, that lay in the Ancient Parish, do so; see 2,3 Bupton note. Like the others, Rodsley probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab "BRUNE". It has been decided to keep to the Domesday form for this name, as von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 209, suggested that it (and the form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bruno}{
\insrsid10361692 ) might represent either Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bruni}{\insrsid10361692  or Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bruna}{\insrsid10361692 
. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the form Brown appears for people with the Domesday name-forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brune}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bruno}{\insrsid10361692  (as well as for those representing Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Brun}{\insrsid10361692 : 1,30 Brun note), and in YKS 1N76. 1E4. CW8 the form Brunn occurs for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brune}{\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition has Brune for both the Domesday forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brune}{
\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bruno}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab JOHN <OF WOODCOTE>. A man of this name also holds the next entry (6,63) and one from Henry of Ferrers in Leicestershire (Woodcote: LEC 14,26); see}{\insrsid10361692  Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{
\insrsid10361692 , p.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  284. For his grant to Tutbury Priory, see 6,63 John note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Iohannes/Johannes}{\insrsid10361692  (often abbreviated as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Joh's}{\insrsid10361692 ) is the usual Latinization of the Hebrew }{\i\insrsid10361692 Johanan}{\insrsid10361692 : Reaney, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 , under John etc. John is the English form of the name. The Alecto edition has John.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \'a34. This is perfectly clear in the manuscript, as it is in }{\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 .iiii. bb'}{\insrsid10361692 
. There are other more minor distortions in the latter facsimile in this entry and in the next one (6,63).
\par \tab THE ABBOT ^[OF BURTON]^ CLAIMS. Attached to his manor of Mickleover (3,1) is a jurisdiction consisting of 12 bovates in Rodsley. The present entry is probably a duplicate. On this, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 125 no. 329.
\par \tab \tab Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30), has suggested that this sentence was added, but there is no indication of this in the manuscript.
\par 6,63\tab OSLESTON. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 OSWARDESTVNE}{\insrsid10361692  and then, after he had rubricated it (and probably the rest of the county), he interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 LAVES}{
\insrsid10361692  above }{\i\insrsid10361692 WARD}{\insrsid10361692 . He failed to underline }{\i\insrsid10361692 WARDES}{\insrsid10361692  for deletion, assuming that the correct name-form was }{\i\insrsid10361692 OSLAVESTVNE}{\insrsid10361692 
, rather than }{\i\insrsid10361692 OSLAVESESTVNE}{\insrsid10361692 . The scribes of both the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Abbreviatio}{\insrsid10361692  (folio 198r) and the Breviate (folio 141v) have }{\i\insrsid10361692 OSLAVESTVNE}{\insrsid10361692 
. Later forms confirm this reading, the etymology being 'the }{\i\insrsid10361692 tun}{\insrsid10361692  of Oslaf': }{\i\insrsid10361692 Places-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 593.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 Osleston was a part of the township of Osleston and Thurvaston in the Ancient Parish of Sutton-on-the-Hill: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 593. Like Sutton-on-the-Hill (3,1. 6,39) and Thurvaston (6,60;64), it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 258; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab ERNWY. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernui}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Arnui}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Erneuui}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Arnuinus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernu}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernuit}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earnwig}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 243-44. JRM preferred Ern- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earn-}{\insrsid10361692 
, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. Von Feilitzen pointed out the frequent confusion between the elements }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wig}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692  (in this case }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Earnwig }{\insrsid10361692 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earnwine}{\insrsid10361692 ), making it impossible to classify the Domesday forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernui}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernuin}{\insrsid10361692  co
rrectly: }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692  and \'a7148. The Alecto edition has Earnwig.
\par \tab LEOFWIN. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Leofwin note and, on this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab JOHN <OF WOODCOTE>. He is probably the same as Henry of Ferrers' subtenant in Woodcote in Leicestershire (LEC 14,26). He gave two-thirds of the tithes of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suberia}{\insrsid10361692  (possibly Sudbury, 6,30), }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Eston'}{\insrsid10361692  (possibly Aston, 6,28) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Oslaweston' }{\insrsid10361692 (Osleston) to Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' foundation: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52 = }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 no. II). However, an Alchere, not a John, is recorded as a subtenant of Sudbury and of Aston in Domesday. See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 284. On the name John, see 6,62 John note.
\par 6,64\tab THIS ENTRY may have been a late addition b
y the main scribe of Great Domesday: it is not rubricated and it more properly belongs earlier in the column, after the entry for Thurvaston and Bupton (6,60). This suggests that it may have been added in a space deliberately left for more holdings in 'Ap
p
letree' Wapentake before the scribe began those in 'Morleystone' Wapentake. However, the pen and ink used for this entry are very similar to those of the surrounding text (though it is impossible to be certain as the parchment under this entry is smoother
 
than under the preceding entry) and so it may have been written during the initial campaign and the scribe merely failed to rubricate it, as occasionally elsewhere (compare 1,38 entry note). On the line's space left between it and the next entry, possibly
 for a wapentake head, see 6,65 'Morleystone' note.
\par \tab THURVASTON. This was a part of the township of Osleston and Thurvaston in the Ancient Parish of Sutton-on-the-Hill: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 593. Both Sutton-on-the-Hill (3,1. 6,39) and Osleston
 (6,63) seem to have lain in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086, and it is probable that Thurvaston was there also in 1086 as it was later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 45. For another part, also held by Henry of Ferrers, see 6,60.
\par \tab EDWULF <OF THURVASTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eddulf}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Iadulfus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edulf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Edeulf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hedul}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eadwulf}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 240. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ead-}{\insrsid10361692  as it reflected more clos
ely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadwulf. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab An Edwulf who held as a tenant of Burton Abbey some 10 miles away might be the same man; otherwise, the nearest holding was 60 miles away and without tenurial associations (JP).
\par \tab ROBERT [* OF SAINT-QUENTIN *] HOLDS IT}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . Robert }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 de Sancto Quintino}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  granted two-thirds of his lordship tithes in Thurvaston to Tutbury Priory: }{\insrsid10361692 
the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
). See 6,37 Robert note. He probably came from Saint-Quentin-des-Isles, in the French d\'e9partement of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie:}{\insrsid10361692  Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 379.
\par 6,65\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this heading is supplied from examining the wapentake in which the places in 6,65-70 lay after 1086; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. The line's space before this entry may have been left so that the main
 scribe of Great Domesday could insert the wapentake name if necessary. Although he left no other spaces between entries in chapter 6 that in the present edition have supplied wapentake heads (see DBY 6 Henry note), that may be because in those cases he t
h
ought he could use the space at the end of the last line of the preceding entry (a common position for hundred and wapentake heads in other counties), but 6,64 is written right up to the outer marginal rulings, leaving no such space. Compare 7,6 entry not
e. For a possible reason for other spaces left by him, see 1,13 space note.
\par \tab BREASTON. This was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish. Sawley itself (2,1) was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later. Breaston was in that wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For other parts, see 9,5. 13,1. 16,1.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH STAR HAD. It is possible that he is the same as the unidentified people called Leofnoth who were Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in six of his estates; see 6,26 Leofnoth note. The Domesday }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sterre}{\insrsid10361692 
 represents Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 steorra}{\insrsid10361692 , Middle English }{\i\insrsid10361692 sterre}{\insrsid10361692  ('star'): Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 381. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth Sterre. This is the only occurrence of this byname in Domesday.}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 On his Christian name, see 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b'r'}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 habuerunt}{\insrsid10361692 ), plural, but then he or someone else erased the }{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692 
 to make the singular }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b'}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit}{\insrsid10361692 ); there are signs that he had begun an }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  before the interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sterre}{
\insrsid10361692 , so he probably initially thought there were two }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuenot}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sterre}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab 3 BOVATES. The total assessment of Breaston is 6 carucates (3 bovates at 6,65, 1 bovate at 9,5, 2 carucates at 13,1 and 3 \'bd carucates at 16,1).
\par \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  of the measurement was corrected from }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 es}{\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 
tres}{\insrsid10361692 , '3') were interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday, perhaps at an early stage, though see 6,82 Colegrim note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab HERBERT <OF BURROUGH> HOLDS IT.}{\insrsid10361692  Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 250, without giving reasons, identifies this Herbert as 'probably' }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
the king's servant who holds in Leicestershire (LEC 42,1-4; his holding in 42,1 is Burrough-on
-the-Hill). That Herbert was the ancestor of the Fitz Herberts of Twycross in Leicestershire and of Norbury in Derbyshire, both held by Henry of Ferrers in 1086 and with Nigel [of Stafford; see LEC 14,10 Nigel note] and Henry [of Fyfield; see 6,57 Henry n
o
te] respectively as his subtenants. Certainly in the case of Twycross (LEC 14,10) the descent was to the de Gresley family, as Keats-Rohan accepts on p. 302. It appears therefore that both those estates were acquired by the Fitz Herberts long after 1086. 
There seems to be no other reason to connect the present Herbert with the Leicestershire Herbert.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Keats-Rohan's identification may have been based upon the argument from probability. The name Herbert occurs as a tenant once each in Derbyshire and Leiceste
rshire. The Leicestershire Herbert has been identified as Herbert son of Aubrey (Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 250). In the same county the tenant-in-chief Herbert <of Burrough> held land in Burrough-on-the-Hill, as did Henry of Ferrers, the tenant-in-c
hief from whom the Derbyshire Herbert held his property. The Ferrers association makes the identification of this Herbert as Herbert <of Burrough> plausible (JP).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herbertus}{\insrsid10361692  (often abbreviated to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herb't'}{\insrsid10361692  ) represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Her}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{
\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 bert }{\insrsid10361692 etc.,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herbert}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 148-49. The Alecto edition also has Herbert. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire.
\par 6,66\tab DUFFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.

\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithes of his lordship in Duffield (apart from the part belonging to the church) together with one villa
ger to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab A Norman castle was built here at an unknown date, but presumably after 1086. It was held against King Henry II by William of Ferrers, but captured in 1173; see King, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Castellarium Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 109.

\par \tab \tab Either Henry of Ferrers or a successor established a chase attached to the manor, known as Duffield Frith; see Cox, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Royal Forests of England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 181-85.
\par \tab \tab 'Bradley', Holbrook, Milford, Makeney and "Herdebi" are coupled with Duffield, but their exact status is unclear. It may be that they are equal parts of the mano
r (as perhaps Wyaston and Edlaston are in 6,59), or they might be outliers or jurisdictions or a mixture of these.
\par \tab 'BRADLEY'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This was possibly an earlier name of the settlement, replaced by Belper: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 iii. p. 526 (PM). Belper}{
\insrsid10361692  was a chapelry of Duffield Ancient Parish. As a member of Duffield manor, 'Bradley' no doubt lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab HOLBROOK. This was a chapelry of Duffield Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab MILFORD. This lay in Duffield Ancient Parish and will therefore, no doubt, have been in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086. The only old form attested for the place comes from Domesday itself. It was probably absorbed by Duffi
eld or replaced in importance by Makeney (6,66) though it became the name of a Civil Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 589.
\par \tab MAKENEY. This is a settlement in Milford Civil Parish. Milford itself and Makeney were formerly part of Duffield Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 589. As a member of Duffield, it no doubt lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab "HERDEBI". The place-name has not been found after 1086 and the site of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herdebi}{\insrsid10361692  is unknown. It is suggested by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 570, that Coxbench (in Holbrook chapelry, Duffield Ancient Parish) may be its location, but only on the basis of 'the geographical distribution of Domesday names'; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 342 note 7. In the Phillimore p
rinted edition the name appears as 'Herdby', suggesting that the place has been identified, but that the site has been deserted. This is misleading, as the only name-form for this place is supplied by Domesday. In the Phillimore index there is a cross-ref
erence under 'Herdby' to Coxbench. For another part of "Herdebi", see 11,5.
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab THE SIXTH PART OF A PLOUGH. Here, as often, the plough is simply being used as a measure of the land's potential, which, in this case, is e
xactly equivalent to its tax liability. For it to be worked by a plough-team of eight, it would be grouped with other neighbouring estates, although a plough-team of six might be implied; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab 10 SLAVES. See 1,1 slave note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.

\par \tab IN "HERDEBI". The significance of this final sentence is unclear. The sixth part of one carucate could be additional to the seven and one-sixth carucates that are the total for all the places mentioned, or, more probably, the sta
tement concerns the location of the odd one-sixth carucate: the sixth part of the one carucate, that Henry has, is in "Herdebi". This complements the 5 parts of 1 carucate of the other holding in "Herdebi" (11,5). The whole vill of Duffield might thus hav
e been of 8 carucates.
\par \tab \tab Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 30, states that this sentence was added, but there is no obvious indication of this in the manuscript: the pen and ink are the same as the surrounding text. However, when he came to rubricate this coun
ty the main scribe of Great Domesday may have thought this was a separate holding as he applied vermilion to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692  and to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 H}{\insrsid10361692 
 of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herdebi}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab HENRY. This man is probably not the fief-holder, Henry of Ferrers, but may be the man who held Burnaston and Bearwardcote (6,94) from Henry; see 6,57 Henry note and 6,94 Henry note.
\par 6,67\tab SPONDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. There was \'bd carucate in Mapperley (1,35) that was a jurisdiction of Spondon.
\par \tab STORI <OF BOLINGBROKE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stori}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Storius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Estori }{\insrsid10361692 - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stori}
{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 376. The Alecto
 edition has Stori, except for SFK 54,1 and YKS 19W3 (Store). The Phillimore printed translation for YKS 19W3 has Thorir (YKS 19W1;3 Thorir note).
\par \tab \tab The only other reference to a Stori in Domesday Derbyshire is in B16 as a predecessor of Walter of Aincourt
 (DBY 8), although he is not mentioned in that fief (see B16 Stori note); in Nottinghamshire a Stori was the Count of Mortain's predecessor in almost all his estates (NTT 4,1-3;5;7). No documentary evidence has so far been found to connect these men. The 
name occurs elsewhere in Domesday Book.
\par \tab \tab The name Stori occurs on 47 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing no more than four, possibly only two or three individuals. The bulk of the Lincolnshire holdings devolved the same tenant-in-chief, Ivo Ta
llboys, tightly-clustered around the two valuable manors of Bolingbroke and Belchford; and Stori's holding in the city of Lincoln connects Tallboys with Countess Judith, the successor to the only other Lincolnshire holding of a Stori, evidently the same m
a
n. Countess Judith's holding is almost exactly midway between the remaining Lincolnshire holdings and the two clusters of moderately substantial properties held by a Stori in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The Stori's of both Lincolnshire and Derbyshire 
h
ad urban interests and full jurisdictional rights; they are therefore likely to have been lords of other men though such information is not, of course, recorded for the counties of circuit VI. What makes a linkage between the holdings in these three count
i
es a little more probable is the modest holdings of the Stori of Bedfordshire, where he is described as a man of Earl Tosti and was himself a lord of men. Yet his Bedfordshire holdings were extremely modest for such status. Earl Waltheof and his wife Coun
tess Judith succeeded Earl Tosti on many holdings, and perhaps in his earldom; they also succeeded Stori of Bolingbroke on two of his Lincolnshire holdings. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 343-44, who assigns only the Lincolnshire holdings to this Stori (JP).
\par 6,68\tab MARGINAL S. This indicates that Chaddesden was a jurisdiction, presumably of Spondon (6.67).
\par \tab CHADDESDEN. This was a chapelry of Spondon Ancient Parish, and, like Spondon (6,67), it probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab LAND FOR AS MANY PLOUGHS. That is, for five ploughs and one-sixth of a plough. In this and many other cases in Derbyshire the plough is used as a means of assessment of arable capacity (in this case the same as liabil
ity for tax), without regard to the number of ploughs in use.
\par \tab MEADOW, 28 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab UNDERWOOD, AS MUCH. That is, as the pasturable woodland: \'bd league long and 5 furlongs wide. See 6,68 value note.
\par \tab VALUE ... \'a33. Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30, states that this sentence was added. It was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday below the last ruled line, as was the }{\i\insrsid10361692 minuta t}{
\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 nt}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 un}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 d}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 em}{\insrsid10361692 
] of the underwood, both overruns being connected to the entry by separate gallows signs. However, the pen and ink of
 both are the same as for those of the surrounding text, so it is more likely that the scribe wanted to begin the entry for the manor of Breadsall (6,69) over the page in a new column, rather than write one line of this sokeland of Spondon there: this is 
normal scribal practice. Compare 6,95 Ketil note.
\par 6,69\tab BREADSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42.
\par \tab \tab Breadsall was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 48-53 no. 28). However, it either did not reach its destination or was subsequently alienated.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab ROBERT. It is not possible to give a positive identification to this Robert; see 6,37 Robert note, and on this name, see 1,36 Robert note.
\par 6,70\tab THERE ALSO. IN MORLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 IBIDE}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 ], referring to the previous entry, for Breadsall (6,69). Scribe B later interlined }{
\i\insrsid10361692 IN MORLEIA}{\insrsid10361692  above it and extending into the outer margin, but did not delete the }{\i\insrsid10361692 IBIDE}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 
]. This may not have been a mistake, however, as it is quite possible that Morley was a part of Breadsall, the two places being sufficiently close for the area described by their names to overlap. Thus the second estate at Breadsall (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
ibidem}{\insrsid10361692  6,70) was actua
lly at Morley. Morley and Breadsall had both been given to Burton Abbey by Wulfric Spot in his will; see 6,69 Breadsall note and 6,100 Morley note. There is a similar instance in NTT 10,48 where scribe B interlined a place-name above the main scribe's }{
\i\insrsid10361692 IBIDE}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 
], but did not delete the latter (see NTT 10,48 Awsworth note); however, in LIN 12,57 his interlineation is definitely of a replacement place-name (see LIN 12,57 Horbling note). The scribes of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Abbreviatio}{\insrsid10361692 
 (folio 198r) and the Breviate (folio 142r) read the }{\i\insrsid10361692 IN MORLEIA}{\insrsid10361692  as a replacement for }{\i\insrsid10361692 IBIDE}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 
], as they did in the similar NTT 10,48 and also in LIN 12,57. The situation here is complicated, however, by there being another, abbreviated, entry for Morley at 6,100. During one of the checks of Domesday D
erbyshire, the main scribe found an entry for the third part of 2 carucates in Morley which Siward had held before Henry; he added it after rubrication at the end of Henry of Ferrers' fief (6,100 entry note). If, as seems likely, this refers to the same t
hird part of 2 carucates held by Siward before Henry as in the present entry, then he did not realize it, perhaps because scribe B's addition of }{\i\insrsid10361692 IN MORLEIA}{\insrsid10361692 
 had not been written when he made that check or he failed to see it. It is possible, in fact, that sc
ribe B wrote it after his own check of the text suggested that the added entry for Morley (6,100) was probably a duplicate of the present entry. He may have intended to check this before deleting the }{\i\insrsid10361692 IBIDE}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 ] and/or the added entry.
\par \tab \tab Farley printed }{\i\insrsid10361692 IN MORLEIA}{\insrsid10361692 
 in the same size capitals that he used for wapentake and hundred heads, so he may have thought that this was meant as a heading for 'Morleystone' Wapentake (though the form for this is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Morelestan}{\insrsid10361692 
 in its single occurrence, above 2,1). }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i
. p. 343, note 2, states that this interlineation was 'in large letters', presumably meaning capitals, rather than large capitals. They were in fact written by scribe B in progressively smaller capitals to fit the space between the lines (the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 IN}{\insrsid10361692  is in the outer margin).
\par \tab \tab On Henry's estate at Morley, see 6,100 Morley note.}{\striked1\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab HENRY. Because of the position of this personal name in the entry, this Henry is probably Henry of Ferrers, the fief-holder: subtenants are normally entered at the end of an entry in Domesday Derbyshire (\{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
). The duplicate of this entry in 6,100 reinforces this view ('Siward had it; now Henry has it'). Compare 6,57 Henry note.
\par 6,71\tab [* BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE *]. This wape
ntake heading is supplied by using later evidence of where the places, listed in 6,71-79, lay. Because Blackwell is not a wapentake named in Domesday, there must be doubt as to whether it existed in 1086. On the other hand, in this chapter, as elsewhere, 
p
laces that lay in its successor, High Peak Wapentake are entered in a separate group (6,71-79) to those that lay in Hamston (later Wirksworth) Wapentake (6,1-13). If all the places here assigned to Blackwell Wapentake actually lay in Hamston Wapentake in 
1
086, it would be expected that the places that were later in Wirksworth and High Peak Wapentakes would be intermingled. However, this is not so. Moreover, the lands in the putative Blackwell Wapentake are not found mixed with the lands of any other wapent
ake; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab PILSLEY. This was a township of Edensor Ancient Parish. Edensor itself almost certainly lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, as it was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47. For the addition of Edensor after rubrication, see 6,101 entry note. Pilsley must have been in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 on geographical grounds and because of its connection with Edensor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 161-62. Pilsley is represented by Upper Pilsley and Nether Pilsley (both SK4262).
\par \tab \tab There is another place called Pilsley which was in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake (8,3). The main scribe of Great Domesday may have confused the two places called Pilsley and written }{\i\insrsid10361692 PINESELAIE}{\insrsid10361692  or }{
\i\insrsid10361692 PINNELAIE}{\insrsid10361692  here, which is closer to the spelling of that Pilsley (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Pinneslai}{\insrsid10361692  in 8,3 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pinnesleig}{\insrsid10361692 
 in NTT S5). Scribe B later (after the place-name had been rubricated) erased about three letters after }{\i\insrsid10361692 PI}{\insrsid10361692  (they are not visible) and inserted an }{\i\insrsid10361692 R}{\insrsid10361692  
with a long tail to fill the space, making the spelling }{\i\insrsid10361692 PIRELAIE}{\insrsid10361692 . For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par \tab DUNNING. See 6,34 Dunning note.
\par 6,72\tab [LITTLE?] LONGSTONE. Longstone was a chapelry of Bakewell Ancient Parish; Great Longstone was a township of the same parish. Both probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as they certainly did later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47. Another part of Longstone was among the 12 outliers of Ashford-in-the-Water (1,28) assessed overall at 22 carucates. Since that appears to have been Great Longstone (1,28 Longstone note), it is assumed that the present independent estate o
f 3 carucates was what became Little Longstone. These identifications reverse those given tentatively in the Alecto edition.
\par \tab "COLNE" [* FATHER OF EDRIC *]. According to von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 218, this }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder and the 1086 one in 1,15, and (as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Coln}{\insrsid10361692 ) the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder in B8, may represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolli }{\insrsid10361692 (on which see }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 307, and 4,2 Kolli note), if the Domesday forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Coln}{\insrsid10361692  are errors for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692 . The Domesday form of one of the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders of Youlgrave (6,76) and of the 1086 holders in 4,2 and 10,18 is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692  (= Kolli), but as there seems to be no evidence linking them with the people called }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Coln}{\insrsid10361692 , it has been thought better to keep the Domesday forms here. The Alecto edition has Kolli for them all.
\par \tab \tab This }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder might be the same man as the "Coln" who had held a church in Derby (B8) that his son Edric held in 1086. He is probably distinct from the king's subtenant "Colne" in Parwich (1,15). See 1,15 "Coln" note and B8 Edric note.
\par 6,73\tab STANTON[-IN-PEAK]. This was a township of Youlgrave Ancient Parish. Youlgrave itself (6,76) probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake; it is likely that Stanton-in-Peak was in the same 
wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 165-66.
\par \tab \tab Grants by charter of a place called }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stantune}{\insrsid10361692  may refer to Stanton-in-Peak, but have been assigned to another Stanton; see 6,21 Stanton note. For the identification of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stantune}{
\insrsid10361692  in the present entry with Stanton-in-Peak, see Hart, }{\i\insrsid10361692 North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 93.
\par \tab GODRIC. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab RAVEN. See 6,2 Raven note.
\par 6,74\tab OUTLIER. This heading, in capitals on the last line of the entry for Stanton-in-Peak (6,73), refers to Birchover (6,74) which is marked with a marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 erewica}{\insrsid10361692 
); this was a common space-saving practice of the main scribe of Great Domesday. Headings for the outliers of some royal manors are in a similar position (see 1,13-14), but in those cases there are no marginal abbreviations }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{
\insrsid10361692 . The Phillimore printed translation places the word 'outlier' at the end of 6,73.
\par \tab BIRCHOVER. This was a chapelry of Youlgrave Ancient Parish. Youlgrave itself (6,76) probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake. It is likely that Birchover was in the same wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 74.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the top of the second }{\i\insrsid10361692 r }{\insrsid10361692 of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Barcouere }{\insrsid10361692 has not been reproduced, so that it could be misread as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Barcoueie}{
\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note. This }{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692  is also not fully reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par \tab THE THIRD PART PASTURABLE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 tercia pars past'}{\insrsid10361692 . The Phillimore printed edition has 'the third part of the pasture', assuming an extension of }{\i\insrsid10361692 past}{\insrsid10361692 ' to }{
\i\insrsid10361692 pasturae}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 which is possible. However, no pasture h
as so far been mentioned in this entry; this is the only entry for Birchover in Domesday Derbyshire and, in fact, there are very few mentions of 'pasture' (as }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692 , not }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastura}{
\insrsid10361692 ) in the whole county; see 1,37 pasture note. It seems more probable that in the present context }{\i\insrsid10361692 past}{\insrsid10361692 ' should be read as }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('pasturable') and that this assessment lies on a continuum between pasturable woodland (or underwood) and unpasturable woodland; see 1,1 woodland note and 1,28 woodland note. The Alecto translation has '
the third part for pasture', thus silently extending }{\i\insrsid10361692 past' }{\insrsid10361692 to }{\i\insrsid10361692 pastilis}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par 6,75\tab HARTHILL. This was a township of Bakewell Ancient Parish. Bakewell itself (1,27) was probably in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake where Harthill is also evidenced: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. For another part of Harthill, see 10,18.
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 6,1 Ketil note and, on his name, 1,32 Ketil note.
\par 6,76\tab YOULGRAVE}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This was an Ancient Parish, usually known as Youlgreave. }{\insrsid10361692 It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab PM's note in the 1978 Phillimore printed edition read: 'Youlgrave is the local spelling; it appears as Youlgreave on the Ordnance Survey Maps'. Since then, the Ordnance Survey has adopted the local spelling.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab KOLLI <OF HARTHILL>. On this name, see 4,2 Kolli note.
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 6,1 Ketil note and, on his name, 1,32 Ketil note.
\par 6,77\tab MIDDLETON. This was part of the chapelry of Middleton and Smerrill in Youlgrave Ancient Parish. Youlgrave itself (6,76) probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor, as was this Middleton:}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. The index of the Phillimore printed edition has reversed the identifications of the text, mistakenly making this Middleton the Middleton in Wirksworth Ancient Parish (1,13).
\par \tab DUNNING. See 6,34 Dunning note.
\par \tab YLVING <OF MIDDLETON>. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 Eluuinc}{\insrsid10361692  above the existing }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder, but failed to add an }{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{
\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b'}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit}{\insrsid10361692 , singular) to make it plural (}{\i\insrsid10361692 habuerunt}{\insrsid10361692 
). There are many instances of one or more 1066 holders being later added, four others in this fief alone (6,3;26;80;82). In the circuit volume the lands of each of these holders may have been given separately, as is the case occasionally in the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid10361692 , and in combining them for Great Domesday it would have been easy to omit the name of one person or, as happened sometimes, his holding as well, as in 6,80;82 and compare 6,3 Uhtred note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eluuinc}{\insrsid10361692  here, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Eluing}{\insrsid10361692  in STS 1,42, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Iluingus}{\insrsid10361692 
 for the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ylfingr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ylving}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 429. The Phillimore printed translation for NFK 9,152 has Ylfing, but Ilving for the DBY and STS occurrences; these have now standardized as Ylving. The Alecto edition has Ylving for the DBY and STS examples, but 
Ylfing for the NFK one.
\par \tab \tab It is unlikely that Ylving is the same individual as the king's predecessor in STS 1,42 or as the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 (the fief of Roger Bigot).
\par \tab \tab The name occurs three times in Domesday Book, each time on a modest holding, as here, or on a tiny one (STS1,42. NFK 9,152). There are no tenurial associations and it is probable that each holding belonged to a different individual (JP).
\par 6,78\tab GRATTON. This was a hamlet of Youlgrave Ancient Parish. Youlgrave itself (6,76) probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake. It is probable that Gratton was in the same wapentake; see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 105. Gratton is represented by Gratton Moor Farm (SK198602) and Gratton G
range Farm (SK208618). Gratton Dale runs from SK2059 to SK2161. There is an unnamed deserted medieval village at SK204618.
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 6,1 Ketil note and, on his name, 1,32 Ketil note.
\par 6,79\tab WORMHILL. This was a chapelry of Tideswell Ancient Parish. Tideswell (an outlier of Hope, 1,29) was probably in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake, as was Wormhill: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab AND "MUCHEDESWELLE". The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this place-name above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wruenele}{\insrsid10361692 , writing it in two halves (}{\i\insrsid10361692 7 Muchedes}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 uuelle}{
\insrsid10361692 ) to accommodate the ascenders of }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b'}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit}{\insrsid10361692 ) in the line below. Unusually for the name of a manor }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wruenele}{\insrsid10361692 
 is not in capitals and was probably for that reason not rubricated at the same time as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692  preceding it. As expected "Muchedeswelle" is not rubricated (compare }{
\i\insrsid10361692 NORTBERIE 7 Roschintone}{\insrsid10361692  in 6,57, for example). The second of two manorial names, or the name of a member, was quite often initially omitted by the scribe, as here also in 9,1 and 10,25. The single marginal }{
\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 , the addition of the name and the use of 'and' all suggest that this manor extended into both the named places (Wormhill and "Muchedeswelle"); of these two "Muchedeswelle" perhaps consisted of an outlier.
\par \tab \tab "Muchedeswelle" occurs twice in D
omesday, once as an outlier of Hope together with Tideswell (1,29) and once here associated with Wormhill which was a chapelry of Tideswell. No forms later than Domesday have been found and there are no other clues to its location; see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 344 note 1; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 180. For a possible identification, see 1,29 "Muchedeswelle" note.
\par \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par 6,80\tab [* IN LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. The heading is supplied from the wapentake in which the following entries (6,80-99) occur after 1086, in the absence of evidence of their 1086 location.
\par \tab \tab Because Litchurch, like Blackwell, is not a wapentake named in Domesday, there must be doubt as to whether it existed in 1086, or whether it was part of another wapent
ake, in this case of 'Morleystone' Wapentake. On the other hand, in this chapter, as elsewhere, places that lay in Litchurch Wapentake later are entered in a separate group (6,80-99) to those that lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake (6,65-70). If all the place
s here assigned to Litchurch Wapentake actually lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, it would be expected that the places that were later in Litchurch and 'Morleystone' Wapentakes would be intermingled. However, this is not so. See \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab KEDLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. Kedleston is at SK3041; Kedleston Hall and Kedleston Church are at SK312403.
\par \tab WULFSI. See 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 Goduin'}{\insrsid10361692  above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlsi}{\insrsid10361692 . At the same time he erased the original figure before }{\i\insrsid10361692 car'
}{\insrsid10361692  and then put }{\i\insrsid10361692 .ii.}{\insrsid10361692  in its place. For the probable reason for the addition of some }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
holders and their holdings, see 6,77 Ylving note. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.
\par \tab WULFBERT <OF KEDLESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlbert}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gulbertus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlb}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfbert}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 418; Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 259. The Alecto edition has Wulfbert for }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692  holders, Gulbert for 1086 ones. The only other occurrence of this name 
in Domesday Derbyshire is in 11,1 (Weston Underwood) as a subtenant of Ralph of Buron, but no evidence has been found to link these two men, except that their two holdings are adjacent to each other.
\par \tab \tab Wulfbert is an uncommon name, the nearest other rural holding being 50 miles away, so these two occurrences may refer to the same individual, Wulfbert surviving but on different holding, as often appears to have happened (JP).
\par 6,81\tab THULSTON. This was a settlement in Elvaston Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 462. Elvaston itself (9,1) was probably in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, since it is evidenced there later, as is Thulston: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab This estate is not designated as either a manor or outlier or jurisdiction but the form of the initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692 - of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692 
 suggests that it was not a manor as the main scribe of Great Domesday tended to write an }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692 
- with a curved 'tail' for members of a manor, as earlier in this column for Birchover (6,74). The fact that Geoffrey Alselin held it fro
m Henry of Ferrers might suggest that it had become detached from Geoffrey's manor of Elvaston (9,1) and it could even be a duplicate of the land at Thulston mentioned there.
\par \tab GEOFFREY ALSELIN. He was also a tenant-in-chief in Derbyshire (DBY 9). On his first name, see 6,27 G[eoffrey] note.
\par 6,82\tab BARROW[-UPON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish often known ecclesiastically as Barrow-with-Twyford. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For other parts, s
ee 1,19 and 10,26. Of these, the royal land (1,19) was a jurisdiction of Melbourne. Henry of Ferrers shared with the king several such jurisdictions, his portions (6,82-84;88-89;91) being entered in the same order as the king's; see 1,19 jurisdiction note
.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab KOLGRIM <OF ARLESTON>. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\f710\insrsid10361692 7 Colgr\'ee}{\insrsid10361692  above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Goduin'}{\insrsid10361692  and at the same time increased the tax assessment from }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  bovates, interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 es}{\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 tres}{\insrsid10361692 
, '3') in clarification. For the probable reason for the addition of some }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders and their holdings, see 6,77 Ylving note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colegrim}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colgrim}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colgrin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Golegrim - }{\insrsid10361692 
represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolgrimr}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 306-307. JRM preferred to omit the final r in Old Norse names such as this as it does not appear in any of the Domesday forms. The form Kolgrimr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for York
shire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Kolgrim. The Alecto edition has Kolgrimr.
\par \tab \tab This Kolgrim may be the same as the Kolgrim who was one of Henry of Ferrers' predecessors in Arleston (6,85): these are the only occurrences of this name in
 Domesday Derbyshire and the two holdings (Barrow-upon-Trent and Arleston) are next to each other.
\par \tab \tab If the Lincolnshire tenant-in-chief is excluded, Kolgrim is an uncommon name, occurring only a dozen times, the two nearest being some 40 and 60 miles away respectively, and without tenurial associations (JP).
\par \tab MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('has'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par 6,83\tab SWARKESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For another part, a jurisdiction of Melbourne, see 1,19 and 1,19 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab WULFSTAN <OF SWARKESTONE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlstan}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlestan}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Vltan}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfstan}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wlstan}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Vltainus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vstanus}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfstan}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 425. The Alecto edition also has Wulfstan.
\par \tab \tab This Wulfstan may be the same as the predecessor of Henry of Fe
rrers in 6,87 (Twyford and Stenson): these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire. Swarkestone is within three miles of Twyford and Stenson but separated from them by Barrow-upon-Trent.
\par \tab \tab Although Wulfstan is a common name, it is unco
mmon in the north Midlands, occurring on only seven holdings. The nearest other occurrences to the Derbyshire Wulfstans are over 40 and 50 miles away respectively, in different directions and without tenurial associations. In these circumstances, Robin Fl
eming's thesis on the block grant of some wapentakes to Henry of Ferrers may not be significant; see 6,7 Edric note (JP).
\par \tab ULF. See 6,46 Ulf note.
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. See 6,7 Wulfgeat note.
\par 6,84\tab CHELLASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For another part, a jurisdiction of Melbourne, see 1,19 and 1,19 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab WULFSI. See 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab AMALRIC [* OF DREUX *]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 This is the identification of Keats-Rohan, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 150. She states that he is a tenant of Miles Crispin (folio 159c: OXF 35,22) and of Henry of Ferrers (two references for folio 275d, corresponding to 6,84;91) and also occur
s as the king's man. In Wiltshire, Amalric of Dreux is named in full as a servant of the king (WIL 66,2) and also as a man who has taken away land that should be in the fief of Alfred of Marlborough (WIL 26,19) and in that of Miles Crispin (WIL 28,10). Th
e
re is also good evidence for Amalric's holding after 1086 from the honour of Wallingford (Miles Crispin's honour). There is, however, no evidence that Amalric, the tenant of Henry of Ferrers, was Amalric of Dreux, and the identification may rest solely on
 the rarity of the name (these are the only occurrences of it in Domesday).
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab If this man is Almaric of Dreux, then he came from Dreux in the French d\'e9partement of Eure-et -Loir. After 1086, his holding was expanded by acquisition of the lands of William so
n of Turold or of Suleham, perhaps by marriage. After his death }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1130, his lands were divided between his sons Ralph and Robert; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 150.

\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Amalricus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Amelric}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] - represent Old German }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Amalric}{\insrsid10361692 , (which yields French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aumary}{\insrsid10361692 ): Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 25-26. The Alecto edition has Amalric.
\par \tab \tab The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire is in 6,91, almost certainly the same individual.
\par 6,85\tab ARLESTON. This was part of the Liberty of Sinfin and Arleston in Barrow-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. As a part of Barrow-upon-Trent (6,82) it no doubt lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 503. For Sinfin, see 6,90. The name is represented by Arleston Farm (SK3429) and Arleston House Farm (SK3329).
\par \tab KOLGRIM <OF ARLESTON>. See 6,82 Kolgrim note.
\par \tab RAVENKEL <OF ARLESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauenchil}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauenchel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauechil}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ramechil}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ranchil}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauechetel}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauechet}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauecate}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rauechel}{
\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hrafnkell}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ramkel}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 293. JRM preferred Raven- for the first element as it reflected most of the Domesday forms, and -k- for }{\i\insrsid10361692 -ch-}{\insrsid10361692 . The form Rafnketill, how
ever, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Yorkshire, following the form given in Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 212-13; it has now been standardized as Ravenkel. The Alecto edition has Ramkel. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The closest other holdings are more than 40 and 60 miles distant, small properties with no tenurial associations with this Ravenkel (JP).
\par 6,86\tab TWYFORD. This was part of the chapelry of Twyfo
rd and Stenson in Barrow-upon-Trent Ancient Parish; the latter was often known ecclesiastically as Barrow with Twyford. Like Barrow-upon-Trent (6,82) it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab STENSON. This was part of the chapelry of Twyford and Stenson in Barrow-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. Like Barrow-upon-Trent (6,82), it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab No subtenant is given in Domesday, but it appears that an }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulsius}{\insrsid10361692 
 (Wulfsi?) held the estate under Henry of Ferrers, for he granted two-thirds of his lordship tithes in both Twyford and Stenson to Tutbury Priory: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. See 6,7 Leofric note and, on the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab 4 CARUCATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected an original }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692  and interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 or}{\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 quattuor}{\insrsid10361692 , '4') in clarification. As the plough estimate is }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692 , he may have miscopied that figure.
\par 6,87\tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Twyford and Stenson (6,86).
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab WULFSTAN <OF SWARKESTONE>. See 6,83 Wulfstan note.
\par 6,88\tab OSMASTON. This was a chapelry in the Ancient Parish of Derby St Werburgh. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. However, it was clearly intimately connected with the borough of Derby itself; see 6,88 pence note. For an outlier at Osmaston, see 6,89, and for a jurisdiction of Melbourne here, see 1,19 and 1,19 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab \tab The place-name means 'Osmund's farm', and is probably named after the 1066 holder; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 489.
\par \tab OSMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osmund}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hosmund}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Hosmunt}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osmund}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 340, though he mentioned that a possible base is also Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Asmundr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Asmund}{\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition also has Osmund.
\par \tab \tab The Osmund who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in Cottons (6,89) may be the same as this }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder. The two holdings are adjacent.
\par \tab 3 BOVATES. The fractional assessments at Osmaston (1,19. 6,88-89) totalled 3 carucates.
\par \tab 1 VILLAGER PAYS. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd'}{\insrsid10361692  has been translated here as if it abbreviated the third person singular of the present tense (}{\i\insrsid10361692 reddit}{\insrsid10361692 
), but it could abbreviate the present participle }{\i\insrsid10361692 reddens}{\insrsid10361692 , which is how it is translated in the Alecto editi
on. The latter is less likely as it would imply the villager was part of the lordship. See also in 6,91. Compare 9,4 pay note.
\par \tab TWO PARTS OF THESE PENCE. This indicates that the king has the first and second pennies, the earl has the third. This is typical
 of the division of a borough's revenue (see B1 and B15, and B1 parts note) and suggests that Osmaston was regarded as part of the revenue of Derby itself. Henry of Ferrers was not Earl of Derby in 1086, but was the principal man in the shire.
\par 6,89\tab COTTONS. This was a settlement in Normanton, which was itself a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 649. It is not well evidenced in later documents. Another part of Cottons was a jurisdiction of Melbourne (1,19; s
ee 1,19 jurisdiction note). Melbourne itself was probably in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086, since it was in its successor, Repton Wapentake, but all its jurisdictions, including Cottons, appear to have been in Litchurch Wapentake.
\par \tab OSMUND. See 6,88 Osmund note.
\par \tab OSMASTON. This was a chapelry in the Ancient Parish of Derby St Werburgh. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. For the manor at Osmaston, see 6,88.

\par \tab 3 BOVATES. The fractional assessments at Osmaston (1,19. 6,88-89) totalled 3 carucates.
\par \tab MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par 6,90\tab SINFIN. Sinfin and Arleston was a medieval Liberty in Barrow-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. As a part of Barrow-upon-Trent (6,82) it no doubt lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 503. For Arleston, see 6,85.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF YELDERSLEY>. See 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab WILLIAM [* OF ROLLESTON *]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 William }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 de Rolueston'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  granted two-thirds of his lordship tithe in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Swinefen}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  [Sinfin] to Tutbury Priory: 
}{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). He was presumably named from Rolles
ton in Nottinghamshire (NTT 5,6. 7,5. 11,18), though he did not hold it in 1086.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab On the name William, see 1,29 William note.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 6,91\tab NORMANTON. This was a chapelry in the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. Another part of Normanton was a jurisdiction of Melbourne (1,19; see 1,19 Jurisdiction note), though unlike Melbourne itself, it will have probably been in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. See 6,7 Leofric note and, on the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab THEODRIC <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Teodric}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tedric}{\insrsid10361692  etc. - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Theodric}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 383-84. The form Theodoric appears in some of the Phillimore printed translations; it has now been standardized as Theodric. The Alecto edition has Theodric here. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The closest other holding is over 70 miles away, of modest size, and without tenurial associations (JP).
\par \tab 1 VILLAGER PAYS. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd' }{\insrsid10361692 has been translated here as if it abbreviated the third person singular of the present tense (}{\i\insrsid10361692 reddit}{\insrsid10361692 ), but it 
could abbreviate the present participle }{\i\insrsid10361692 reddens}{\insrsid10361692 
, which is how it is translated in the Alecto edition. The latter is less likely as it would imply the villager was part of the lordship. See also in 6,88. Compare 9,4 pay note.
\par \tab AMALRIC [* OF DREUX *]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,84 Amalric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab BELONG TO TWYFORD. That is, to Henry of Ferrers' manor (6,86-87).
\par 6,92\tab IRETON. This was sometimes known as 'Little Ireton' but is now represented by Ireton Farm. The affix 'Little' appears to have arisen to distinguish this Ireton (1 caru
cate) from Kirk Ireton (1,13: 4 carucates). This Ireton lay in Weston Underwood which was a township of Mugginton Ancient Parish. Weston Underwood was in Litchurch Wapentake, while the rest of Mugginton Ancient Parish was in 'Appletree' Wapentake: Youngs,
 }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 87. For Mugginton itself, see 6,95 and for Weston Underwood, see 11,1. Ireton is evidenced in Litchurch Wapentake after 1086: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Godwin note.
\par \tab ORM <OF WYASTON>. See 6,59 Orm note. As plain }{\i\insrsid10361692 Orm }{\insrsid10361692 he granted two parts of his tithe of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Yrton'}{\insrsid10361692  [Ireton] to Tutbury Priory: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }
{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,93\tab ASTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Aston-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part, see 1,38.

\par \tab UHTBRAND <OF ASTON>. On this name, see 1,38 Uhtbrand note.
\par \tab \{\{AND 2 \'bd BOVATES, JURISDICTION\}\}. This phrase was underlined for deletion probably by the main scribe of Great Domesday when a check revealed that this information had already been included. In 1,38 Uhtbrand (probably the same man as the}{
\i\insrsid10361692  T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder here) holds 6 \'bd bovates in Aston-
on-Trent and Shardlow, though they are there called outliers, not jurisdictions. They are outliers of Weston-on-Trent (1,37) where it is said that Earl Algar had 10 carucates and 2 \'bd bovates of taxable land. It is possible that those odd 2 \'bd
 bovates are those that were entered and then deleted in the present entry; see 1,38 Aston note and 1,37 bovates note.
\par 6,94\tab BURNASTON. This was a township of Etwall Ancient Parish. Etwall itself (6,98. 9,2) probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as did Burnaston since it certainly did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.

\par \tab BEARWARDCOTE. This was a township of Etwall Ancient Parish. Like Etwall (6,98) it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, though much later it is included in 'Appletree' Wapentake; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 525; Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 67. It is close to the putative boundary of the two wapentakes, but another part was a jurisdiction of Mickleover (3,1) in 1086, and also probably in Litchurch Wapentake then. Bearwardcote is represented by Bearwardcote Farm at SK281334.
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>HAD 10 BOVATES. It is unusual for the individual sizes of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders' land to be given. Contrast Etwall (6,98) where the total only is given for the five holders.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab ALRIC. See 6,24 Alric note.
\par \tab LEODMER <OF BARTON>. See 6,34 Leodmer note.
\par \tab LEOFING. It is possible that the Leofing who was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in 6,2 is the same as this individual. On his name, see 1,30 Leofing note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.
\par \tab HENRY [* OF FYFIELD *]. He was named from Fyfield 
in Berkshire where he is described as 'the other Henry' holding from Henry of Ferrers (BRK 21,15), as also in BRK 21,17;19. He appears too as Henry the steward (BRK 21,18) and Henry, the Earl of Ferrers' steward, in ESS 29,5. He gave two-thirds of the tit
hes of Burnaston to Tutbury Priory, Henry of Ferrers' foundation: the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 64-65 no. 52 = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 392 no. II). In the same cartulary his brother Richard is said to have given two-thirds of the tithes in Bear
wardcote. He is not mentioned here, but is presumably holding from his brother Henry. This is a layer of subtenancy that is rarely mentioned in Domesday.
\par \tab \tab Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 248, under Henry de Fifidre, does not include a reference to folio 275d (where this entry is), but see 6,57 Henry note.
\par 6,95\tab MUGGINTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers gave the tithes of his lordship in Mugginton to the priory of Tutbury founded by him towards the end of the Conqueror's reign or early in that of William Rufus; see the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); and 6,24 monks note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab PASTURE 1 \'bd LEAGUES LONG. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 dim'}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692  HOLDS IT. There is no sign in the manuscript that this sentence was added, as stated by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30; see als
o 'Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 320, note 4). In Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday normally recorded the 1086 subtenant at the end of the entry; see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
). He merely wrote this detail below the entry, connected to it with a gallows sign, because he did not want to have such a small detail on the new folio, but to begin a new entry there (6,96 on folio 276a). Compare 6,68 value note.
\par \tab \tab A person called Ketil was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in six estates (6,1 Ketil note) and he had held a seventh that was connected with one of Henry's holdings (1,32 Edensor note). As some }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders retained a portion of their lands (compare 6,3 Swein note and 6,33 holds note), it is possible that this Ketil was the same as these predecessors, although Ketil was a common name. On this name, see 1,32 Ketil note.
\par 6,96\tab MERCASTON. This was a township of Mugginton Ancient Parish. Like Mugginton (6,95) it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 253, 259; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH. There is a brown stain in the manuscript here and elsewhere at the top of folio 276ab, of a similar colour to that produced by
 gall when it oxidizes; it is possible that some was spilt and not completely wiped off. The reading is clearly }{\i\insrsid10361692 in dn'io .i. car'}{\insrsid10361692 , but is not perfectly reproduced in either the Ordnance Survey or Alecto facsimiles.

\par \tab \tab Oak gall is a colourless liquid which w
hen applied to a manuscript enhances the reading of faint patches of writing; it was not initially realized that over the years it darkened due to oxidization, often obscuring completely the text beneath it. See Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 135 (
= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 202); Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', p. 149 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 223).
\par \tab ROBERT. It is not possible to give a positive identification to this Robert; see 6,37 Robert note, and on this name, see 1,36 Robert note.
\par \tab ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. See 6,14 Roger note.
\par 6,97\tab DALBURY. Dalbury (Lees) was an Ancient Parish. Another part of Dalbury was a jurisdiction of Mickleover (3,1) and may have lain in Litchurch Wa
pentake or in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086; see 3,1 Dalbury note. The sequence at this point in chapter 6 suggests that this part of Dalbury also lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 though it was later in 'Appletree' Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. Its western boundary is that of the presumed division between the two wapentakes in 1086.
\par \tab GODRIC. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 See 6,29 Godric note, and, on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab ROBERT [* OF DUN *].}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Robert }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 de Dun}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  granted two-thirds of his lordship tithe in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Daleberye}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  [Dalbury] to Tutbury Priory: }{
\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ); see 6,37 Robert note. }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Dun}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  is probably Le Bourg-Dun in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime (arrondissement Dieppe, canton Offranville): Loyd, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 38; }{\insrsid10361692 
Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 376.
\par 6,98\tab ETWALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 247, 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. For another part, see 9,2.
\par \tab GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. See 6,7 Gamal note.
\par \tab EDRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. See 6,7 Edric note.
\par \tab WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. See 6,7 Wulfgeat note.
\par \tab AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. See 6,6 Aelfric note and, on his name, see 3,6 Aelfric note.
\par \tab ALWIN. This Alwin may be the same person as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in Stanton (6,21). On his name, see 6,21 Alwin note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 30 ACRES}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . In the manuscript the middle }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 x}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 xxx ac}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 rae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
] is rubbed, though not erased. It is visible in }{\insrsid10361692 the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but is not so clear in the Alecto facsimile. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Farley obviously thought it had been erased and printed }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 xx ac'}
{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab SASWALO <OF HOON>. See 6,47 Saswalo note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 6,99\tab RADBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab WULFSI. See 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab RALPH ...HIM. It has been suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30; see also in 'Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 326 note 3, and in 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 4) that this sentence was added. Apart from the fact that from }{\i\insrsid10361692 hub'ti}{\insrsid10361692  onwards the writing is slightly smaller, there is little sign of this in 
the manuscript, the pen and colour of ink being the same as for the preceding text; see 13,2 sworn note.
\par \tab RALPH SON OF HUBERT CLAIMS. Ralph son of Hubert is a tenant-in-chief (DBY 10). The basis of the claim is unclear, but he held Kirk Langley (10,21) adj
acent. It is possible that he is claiming that 'the third part of Radbourne', that is, 1 carucate, is really a jurisdiction of Kirk Langley.
\par \tab \tab On the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note, and, on the name Hubert, see 2,1 Hubert note.
\par \tab THE WAPENTAKE TESTIFIES FOR HIM. Presumably this testimony was given at the shire-court when the information to be contained in Domesday was sworn to. See Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 125 no. 330. David Roffe, (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 4) asserts that this d
ispute had been resolved by the time that Domesday had been written up and claims that the information comes not from the shire-court that heard the detail of Domesday but that 'such matters were deferred to a later session at which the vill was not repre
s
ented'. However, Domesday does not say that the dispute has been resolved; it merely records the testimony of the men of the wapentake. Moreover, throughout Domesday it is the representatives of the wapentake (or in areas beyond the Danelaw, the hundred) 
t
hat give testimony, and not those of the village. There appear to be no examples in Domesday of the men of the village testifying to anything; in BDF 24,12 it is the men of the hundred who testify that 'the men who hold the village' had been deprived of 2
5 acres. In NTT 30,22 'the men of the locality' (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 homines patriae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
) give testimony, but it is not clear who these are. The central problem with Roffe's argument is that because no testimony by any villagers is reported at all in Domesday, the absence of testi
mony by the villagers here does not show that this dispute was aired at a session later than the one where the information that was ultimately condensed into Domesday was sworn to.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab EDENSOR. Scribe B wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 hennesoure}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('Edensor') at the end of the last line
 of this entry, partly in the central margin, probably when either a check of Henry of Ferrers' fief revealed a holding for Edensor that had not been entered in }{\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Derbyshire, or a check of the king's fief where the holdings in 'Langley' and Chatswor
th (1,32) mentioned that they were an adjunct of Edensor; a check of a document arranged by wapentake and then estate cannot be ruled out, however. The main scribe of Great Domesday responded to this memorandum by adding, after the county had been rubrica
ted, the details for Edensor (6,101) after he had entered some for Morley; see 6,100 entry note and 6,101 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\insrsid10361692 6,100\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in
 a large space left by him at the end of Henry of Ferrers' fief. It was written in pale ink and in a slightly informal style during one of his later campaigns of addition after the rubrication of the county had taken place; for the other entries in Derbys
h
ire and other counties entered during this campaign, see 1,17 entry note. It appears to be an abbreviated duplicate of an entry included in the fief at 6,70, ostensibly a part of Breadsall (6,69) but more correctly identified by scribe B as 'In Morley'; s
e
e 6,70 there note. Places in 'Morleystone' Wapentake had already been entered at 6,65-70. The present detail was probably found by the main scribe during one of his checks, but he did not realize that he had already entered it, perhaps because scribe B's 
identification of the holding had not been added by then or he failed to see it.
\par \tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. The heading is supplied from the fact that the 'Morleystone' that named the wapentake presumably lay in Morley (see \{Introduction: Wapentakes: Moot-sites\}
) and from later evidence of the wapentake in which Morley lay; see 6,100 Morley note.
\par \tab MORLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It almost certainly lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 One }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 a
t Morley was granted by King Ethelred in 1009 to his minister, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) who received other land in the will of Wulfric Spot: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}
{\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 110 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 922 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 60-64 no. 32). However, Wulfric had already given Morley to Burton Abbey, }{\insrsid10361692 his foundation, in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp
. 48-53 no. 28). The gift to Morcar may have alienated it permanently from the church.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab SIWARD [* BARN *]. See 6,5 Siward note.
\par \tab NOW HENRY HAS IT. Despite the position of this sentence at the end of the entry (where subtenants were normally recorded: \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
), the presence of 'now' and the relation of this entry to the duplicate entry for Morley (6,70) suggest that this Henry is in fact the fief-holder, Henry of Ferrers.
\par 6,101\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesd
ay in a large space left by him at the end of Henry of Ferrers' fief and after the previous added entry (6,100). It was written in pale ink and in a slightly informal style during one of his later campaigns of addition after the rubrication of the county 
had taken place; for the other entries in Derbyshire and other counties entered during this campaign, see 1,17 entry note. Edensor had been mentioned in 1,32 where the royal holding in 'Langley' and Chatsworth, which had the same }{\i\insrsid10361692 
T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  tenants as this entr
y, was said to be an adjunct of Edensor, but the scribe had then failed to record any details of Edensor itself. As Edensor was in Blackwell Wapentake it should have been entered with others in that wapentake (6,71-79). For a similar rectification of an o
mission, see NTT 10,66 Bulwell note. On the present occasion, however, the scribe was probably alerted to the omission by a marginal memorandum written by scribe B six lines above; see 6,99 Edensor note.
\par \tab [* BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is provided from evidence of the wapentake in which Edensor lay; see 6,101 Edensor note.
\par \tab EDENSOR. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. For 
another reference which may suggest that the grant to Henry of Ferrers was quite recent (and was perhaps the reason for the late entry), see 1,32 Edensor note.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. See 6,26 Leofnoth note, and, on his name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab KETIL }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF EDENSOR>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 6,1 Ketil note and, on his name, 1,32 Ketil note.
\par \tab AS 2 MANORS. This phrase stands in for the more usual marginal indication }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692  with }{\i\insrsid10361692 II }{\insrsid10361692 written above it, as in 6,85;87 etc.
\par \tab HENRY NOW [HAS] 4 CARUCATES TAXABLE. Unless the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted }{\i\insrsid10361692 quisque}{\insrsid10361692  ('each') after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuenot 7 Chetel}{\insrsid10361692 , indicating that the size of each }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 manor was 2 carucates, this holding in Edensor had doubled since 1066. His use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 nunc}{\insrsid10361692  ('now') is unlikely to be significant, however, as in this county he used it and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 modo}{\insrsid10361692 
 (also meaning 'now') regularly in the lordship statement and with the tenant's name (as in 17,15;19-20) or the subtenant's name (as in 6,28); see 1,9 now note. The scribe was probably merely stating that Leofnoth and Ketil had Edensor as two 
manors, now Henry has it (as one manor).
\par \tab \tab However, if there were only 2 carucates in Edensor in 1066, but 4 carucates in 1086, the reason for this apparent increase might be that part of Edensor was moved at a late stage from the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 
 to the fief of Henry of Ferrers. In fact, Edensor could formerly have consisted of 4 carucates if they included the 10 bovates at the manor of 'Langley' and Chatsworth in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis }{\insrsid10361692 (1,32) which had the same }
{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders as 6,101 and is said to 'be an adjunct of
 Edensor'. and the 6 bovates in Beeley (1,31) which are adjacent on the ground. These 16 bovates (= 2 carucates), plus the 2 carucates at Edensor itself would make up the 4 carucates. If this is so, then either Beeley, 'Langley' and Chatsworth should also
 have been moved to Henry of Ferrers' fief, or, more probably, the 4 carucates which the scribe here allots to Edensor do not represent the size of the estate which Henry has there, which would actually have been 2 carucates.
\par \tab AS MANY CARUCATES FOR PLOUGHING. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 car}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ucatas}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ] seems more likely in the context than }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 car}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ucas}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ]; 'carucates' rather}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 than 'ploughs' (PM). This is despite the omission of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 t}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 er}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 rae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  which the main scribe of Great Domesday almost invariably included to indicate that }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 car'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  abbreviated }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 carucata}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  rather than }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 caruca}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . (He did not need to include it after the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 car}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ucatas}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ] earlier in this sentence because of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ad g}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 e}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ld}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 um}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ].) A similar phrase, though with the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 t}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 er}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 re}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 interlined, occurs in the entry for the borough of Nottingham (NTT B5). The Alecto edition, however, has 'as many ploughs for ploughing' here, though it has 'arable land' for NTT B5.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The Latin phrase }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ad arandum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is clumsy; it strictly means 'to plough' or 'for ploughing' rather than the 'to be ploughed' required here. It has prob
ably been transferred from some other phrase such as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 boues}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 /}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 animalia ad arandum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('oxen/ cattle for ploughing'). The Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 arabiles}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  (as in 6,23) would have served better or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 terra totidem carucarum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 'land for as many ploughs' (as, for example in 7,9) or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 terra totidem boum}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 'land for as many oxen' (as in 10,3). On the 'fiscal carucates' and the 'field carucates', see Round, 'Domesday Measures of Land', pp. 199-203; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 318.
\par \tab THE REMAINING HALF of this column is blank in the manuscript. The mai
n scribe of Great Domesday may have left this deliberately as he suspected he would need to add more holdings of Henry of Ferrers (which turned out to be correct; see 6,100 entry note and 6,101 entry note and as happened also at the end of chapter 16) or 
he may have left it for aesthetic purposes. He left spaces after chapters 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16.
\par 7\tab LAND OF WILLIAM PEVEREL. William came to England early, possibly with the Conqueror in 1066, and was given charge of the castle that William erected i
n Nottingham in 1068 on his way to suppress the first northern revolt. William held land in Normandy, possibly near Barfleur in the French d\'e9
partement of Manche. The similarity of their names suggests that he may have been related to Ranulf Peverel, the Do
mesday holder. William Peverel had a castle at Castleton in the Peak District which became the centre of the barony or honour of the Peak. He founded the Priory of St James in Northampton and Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire as a cell of the Abbey of Clun
y
. He had a daughter Adeliza who married Richard de Redvers. On William's death in 1114 his son, William II, succeeded him, but his lands were seized 1153-1154 by Henry of Anjou (King Henry II). William was accused of poisoning and he retired to a monaster
y
. Some of his lands were given to Robert of Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who was married to Margaret the daughter of William II of Peverel, but other lands, still forming the honour of Peverel, were retained by the Crown. Richard I granted the castle and honou
r of the Peak to his brother John.
\par \tab \tab Peverel is from Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 peurel}{\insrsid10361692 , Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 piperellus}{\insrsid10361692 , diminutive of }{\i\insrsid10361692 piper}{\insrsid10361692  ('pepper'). The diminutive suffix -}{
\i\insrsid10361692 ellus}{\insrsid10361692  could mean 'small' or be affectionate 'sweet little'. If peppercorn is meant, the reference could be to William's rotundity or his dark hair or features; see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 326. Reaney, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of British Surnames}{\insrsid10361692 , under Peverall, suggests that the reference might also be to a character trait: 'a small man with a fiery, peppery temper'. See also }{
\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p 228; Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 136; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 494.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab William's principal Derbyshire estate was at Castleton (7,7) where he constructed what is still known as 'Peveril Castle' and which became the 
centre of the barony of the Peak. The castle would have been well placed to watch over the wild country of the High Peak and the uplands where Yorkshire and Derbyshire meet, but there is no reason (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\insrsid10361692 Hart, }{\i\insrsid10361692 North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey}{\insrsid10361692  p. 148) 
to think that in 1086 William Peverel had a castlery comparable to Count Alan's honour of Richmond in Yorkshire. The latter had much greater strategic importance as it was on the northern limit of England. Moreover, William Peverel did not hold the whole 
of Blackwell (later High Peak) Wapentake and was therefore not able to consolidate a castlery for himself.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 William was also 'in charge of' some of the royal manors; see 1,29 Peverel note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab This fief, like others in Derbyshire, is arranged strictly by wapentakes, with the exception of one added entry:
\par \tab \tab 7,1-5 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 7,6 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 7,7-12 [Blackwell Wapentake]
\par \tab ___________________________________
\par \tab \tab 7,13 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake] (an entry added after 5,5 at the top of folio 273d which had previously been blank; its link with William's fief is not certain: 7,13 entry note)
\par 7,1\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the later location of the estates in this wapentake as indicated in individual notes; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BOLSOVER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 256; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab There was a castle here (at SK471707) which was possibly constructed in the eleventh century. However, the date appears to be traditional and may rest on the assumption that William Peverel founded it. It is first attested in 1173 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pipe Roll 19 Henry II}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 174-75); see Hart, }{\i\insrsid10361692 North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 139; King, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Castellarium Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 108.

\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the top of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 V}{\insrsid10361692  in }{\i\insrsid10361692 BELSOVRE}{\insrsid10361692  appears to be joined so that this place-name could be misread as }{\i\insrsid10361692 BELESOORE}{
\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note. It is perfectly clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF BOLSOVER>. Although Leofric was a very common name, it is possible that all three predecessors of William Peverel in DBY 7 called Leofric were
 the same person (7,1-2;5). A Leofric son of Osmund, one of King Edward's thanes, was his predecessor in BDF 22,1, but no evidence has been found that he was the same as the people called plain Leofric here. Compare 6,7 Leofric note and 10,8 Leofric note.
 On this name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab 2 PLOUGHS. In the manuscript the number of ploughs is clearly }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii}{\insrsid10361692 , as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692 
 with a mark after it. See 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par \tab ROBERT [* OF HERILS *] HOLDS IT. William Peverel has tenants named Robert in his fief in BUK 16,2. DBY 7,1;13. NTH 35,20-22. NTT 10,2;16. At least two different individuals are involved. The present holder, as also of 7,13, appears to be Robert }{
\i\insrsid10361692 de Heriz}{\insrsid10361692 . He gave }{\i\insrsid10361692 Heseburna}{\insrsid10361692  (unidentified) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ossecropht}{\insrsid10361692  (Oxcroft in Bolsover, SK4873) to his priory at Lenton; see }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{
\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I. On this man and the name Robert, see 1,36 Robert note.
\par 7,2\tab GLAPWELL. This was a hamlet of Bolsover Ancient Parish. Like Bolsover itself (7,1), it probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF BOLSOVER>. See 7,1 Leofric note and, on his name, 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab SERLO [* BLUND *] HOLDS IT. This man is possibly the Serlo }{\i\insrsid10361692 Blund}{\insrsid10361692  who occurs in the foundation charter of Lenton Priory as the giver of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tortp }{\insrsid10361692 (unidentified): }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , v. pp. 111-12 no. Ia; Farrer, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Honors and Knights Fees}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. pp. 173-74; }{\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 419. This is the only land he holds from William Peverel. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire is in 10
,9, as a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert, but no evidence has been found linking the two, though one of Ralph's predecessors had the same name, Leofric, as William's predecessor here.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Serlo}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sarilo}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Serila}{\insrsid10361692 , Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Serlo}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 357-58. The Alecto edition has Serlo.
\par 7,3\tab "ESNOTREWIC". This is the same place as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Snodeswic }{\insrsid10361692 granted to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in the will of Wulfric Spot (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxiii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 
, no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab The initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 E}{\insrsid10361692 - of the Domesday form is the prosthetic }{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 , prefixed to a difficult group of consonants to aid pronunciation, as sometimes with }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Estoca}{\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Stoca }{\insrsid10361692 (Stoke). In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 275, iii. p. vii, it is located in Morton (Ancient Parish) and listed under the extrapolated form of 'Snodeswick'. That form was adopted by the Phillimore printed edition and it was rendered as 'Snodswick' in the Alecto e
dition. However, no forms of the name have been found after 1086. The tentative location in Morton is derived from the phrase in the will which reads as 'and Morton (8,1) and all the jurisdiction (}{\i\insrsid10361692 socna}{\insrsid10361692 
) that belongs to it and all the land included in it at Pilsley (6,71), Ogston (8,1) and Wingfield (8,3) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Snodeswic}{\insrsid10361692  with Morton'; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p}{
\insrsid10361692 . xix. The suggestion in }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 346 note 2, that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Esnotrewic}{\insrsid10361692  is represented by Pinxton is based only on the fact that 'Pinxton was l
ong considered as part of the neighbouring manor of South Normanton.' South Normanton is the next entry (7,4) and contained Pinxton according to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 248, but for that reason it may have been silently included in South Normanton by Domesday.
\par \tab HEALFDENE <OF CROMWELL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Halden}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldene}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alden}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Haldein}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aldanus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Halfdan}{\insrsid10361692 
, Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hal}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 f}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 dan}{\insrsid10361692 , Anglo-Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid10361692 Healfdene}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 283-84. JRM did not pronounce on this name-form and the names Haldane and Halfdan appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Healfdene. The Alecto edition has Healfdene, except for the 1086 holder in Norfolk (G
odwine Halfdan). In NTT 10,25;40 William Peverel's predecessor was Healfdene, probably the same man as the Healfdene here. The only other occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Derbyshire is in 17,19, a king's thane, but no evidence has been found linking the two; see 17,19 Healfdene note.
\par \tab DROGO <OF STOKE> HOLDS IT. A man called Drogo was also the subtenant of William Peverel in Northamptonshire (NTH 35,17-19), in Buckinghamshire (BUK 16,10: Stoke Goldington) and in Essex (ESS 48,1). His successor was Helgot, 
sheriff of Nottingham 1100x1108 (Green, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Sheriffs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 67), but there is no known family connection between Drogo and Helgot; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 181, though she does not include the reference to Essex. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Drogo}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Drogo}{\insrsid10361692 , Norman French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dru}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Driu}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dreu}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 60-61. The Alecto edition has Drogo.
\par 7,4\tab [SOUTH] NORMANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48.
\par \tab ALFHEAH <OF NORMANTON>. On this name, see 6,34 Alfheah note. An Alfheah was William Peverel's predecessor in NTT 10,34, possibly the same person, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them.
\par \tab WOODLAND PASTURE 1 LEAGUE AND 4 FURLONGS LONG AND 2 FURLONGS WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 lg'}{\insrsid10361692  after the league, but probably in 
error as '4 furlongs and 2 furlongs wide' is very unlikely to have been correct. The Alecto edition keeps to the word order of the text, but puts [}{\i\insrsid10361692 sic}{\insrsid10361692 ] after it.
\par \tab EDWIN HOLDS IT. On this name, see 1,9 Edwin note.
\par 7,5\tab SHIRLAND. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab UFTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of South Wingfield: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i
i. p. 335. It is represented by Ufton Fields Farm (SK395563) which is the identification in the Phillimore printed translation (Uftonfields in the index) as also in the Alecto edition. For another part, also apparently in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake, see 10,15.

\par \tab LEOFRIC <OF BOLSOVER>. See 7,1 Leofric note and, on his name, 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab WARNER <OF SHIRLAND> HOLDS IT. He is also William Peverel's subtenant in 7,6 and in Nottinghamshire where he is described as 'William [Peverel]'s man' (NTT 10,25;35). See Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 461, though she has six references to folio 276b when there are only two references to Warner there; see 10,4 Robert note.
\par \tab \tab A Robert son of Warner, probably his son, gave }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thonethona}{\insrsid10361692  [Toton, NTT 10,25] to Lenton Priory; see NTT 10,25 Warner note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Warneri}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Warnerus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Garner}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 
us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Warnari}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Warinhari}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Warinher}{\insrsid10361692 
 etc., Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Garnier}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 247-48. The Alecto edition also has Warner.
\par \tab \tab As the Warner at Cotgrave (15,10) is the only other Warner in Nottinghamshire, and indeed in the Midlands, and the holding is a little over 10 miles away, it is possible that he is the same man, though there are no tenurial associat
ions to support this (JP).
\par 7,6\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. The heading is supplied from evidence of where Codnor and Heanor (7,6) lay in later times; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab CODNOR. This was part of the hamlet of Codnor and Loscoe in Heanor Ancient Parish. Like Heanor itself, it probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 249; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab HEANOR. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab LANGLEY. This was a settlement in Heanor Ancient Parish, and so no doubt in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 469.
\par \tab 'SMITHYCOTE'. This was a se
ttlement in the hamlet of Codnor and Loscoe in Heanor Ancient Parish, and like Heanor was no doubt in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, as later. The name appears as 'Smithycote' in 1836 and in 1853 is applied to fields ('Bottom Smithy Coats' and 'Top Smit
hy Coats') around the Bell Inn: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 434.
\par \tab 8 THANES. Between them they held four manors, which might suggest that the eight included four pairs each of which held jointly, or some other combination.
\par \tab WARNER <OF SHIRLAND> HOLDS IT. See 7,5 Warner note.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left two lines blank. The reason for this is not clear. He left a line's space after some of the multiple estates in Derbyshire (1,13;14;19. 3,1), but not after all, and Codnor is 
not a multiple estate. The next entry (7,7) begins a group of places in another wapentake, Blackwell, but apart possibly from on folio 275b, after Thurvaston (6,64 entry note), he left no other spaces between wapentakal groups, though, like in that case, 
there was no space at the end of this entry for the later insertion of the wapentake name (whereas there had been after 7,5). However, a gap of two lines would have been excessive for either of these two possibilities. He wrote the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T}
{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra}{\insrsid10361692 , the first wor
d of 7,7 larger than usual, which might be significant: Castleton was the chief manor in his fief. Apart from that, the only difference between entries 7,1-6 and 7,7-12 is that the first ones were subinfeudated and the second group was apparently held by 
William himself. The separation of holdings between lord and subtenant was a feature of the layout of entries in circuit IV (see LEC \{Introduction: Layout and Content\}), but in circuit VI, including Derbyshire, the arrangement was by wapentake.
\par 7,7\tab [* BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the later known wapentake in which the places 7,7-12 lay; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. On the two-line space left before this entry, see 7,6 entry note.
\par \tab CASTLETON. In the manuscript the reading of the interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday is clearly }{\i\insrsid10361692 In Pechesers}{\insrsid10361692 : there is no sign of a cross-bar on the tall }{\i\insrsid10361692 s}{\insrsid10361692 
 and space between it and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 . Farley misprinted }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pechefers}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Pechesers}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is also the reading of the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Abbreviatio}{\insrsid10361692  (folio 199r) and the Breviate (folio 142v).
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Peak Cavern, also known traditionally as 'Peak's Arse' or 'Devil's Arse', lies at SK148825 just below the remains of 'Peveril Castle', that is, of William Peverel's castle from which the village was
 subsequently named. The cavern is justly named, appearing as a gigantic vent to the great moorland above. The name Castleton had displaced 'Peak's Arse' as the name of the holding by 1275; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 55, and }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 303. Castleton was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab Castleton was the chief manor of William Peverel's fief in Derbyshire (and the scribe indicated this by writing a large }{\i\insrsid10361692 T}{\insrsid10361692  for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra}{\insrsid10361692 
, the first word, and possibly by leaving two lines blank before it: 7,6 entry note. Peak Forest was appurtenant to it (see Cox, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Royal Forests of England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 150-55;}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 159)}{\insrsid10361692 , and it is possible that William or a successor was given Blackwell Wapentake which he attached (as High Peak Wapentake) to Castleton; see \{
Introduction: Relation to later Wapentakes\}. From 1173 onwards the castle was known in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pipe Rolls}{\insrsid10361692  as }{\i\insrsid10361692 castellum de Pech}{\insrsid10361692  ('the castle of the Peak') or the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 castellum de Alto Pech }{\insrsid10361692 ('the castle of the High Peak'); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 388.
\par \tab \tab Castleton itself appears as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 villata de Pecco }{\insrsid10361692 ('the village of the Peak') in 1210 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Pipe Roll}{\insrsid10361692  cited in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 55}{\insrsid10361692 ). It also became a borough and in 1196 four marks were paid }{\i\insrsid10361692 de cremento burgi de Alto Pech'}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('from the income of the borough of High Peak'); see Beresford and Finberg, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Medieval Boroughs}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 273. On the castle, see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 379-80, and King, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Castellarium Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 110.
\par \tab ARNBIORN <OF CASTLETON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Erneber}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gerneber}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gernebern}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Erneberne}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Erneb}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 nus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Arnbiorn}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 162. The Phillimore printed translation has Arnbern here and for LEC 8,4, but Arnbjorn for YKS and LIN; all have now been standardized as Arnbiorn. The Alecto edition has Arnbiorn here. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.

\par \tab \tab Apart from Arnbiorn the priest (LEC 8,4), the name occurs only in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, none of which are close enough, or have tenurial associations, to make it likely that they belonged to this man JP).
\par \tab HUNDING <OF CASTLETON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundinc}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hunding}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundic}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hundingr}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 295. JRM preferred to omit the final r in Old Norse names such as this as it does not appear in 
any of the Domesday forms. The form Hundingr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire; it has now been standardized as Hunding. The Alecto edition has Hundingr. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab No others are close enough, or have tenurial associations, to make it likely that they belonged to this man (JP).
\par \tab THE LAND OF WILLIAM PEVEREL'S CASTLE. That is, the land on which William Peverel's castle was built after 1066 and which in 1086 pertained to it.
\par 7,8\tab BRADWELL. This was a township of Hope Ancient Parish, and, like Hope itself (1,29), probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in 
Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were 'two-thirds of the lordship tithes and a rustic to gather them' in Bradwell; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.
\par \tab LEOFING. On this name, see 1,30 Leofing note.
\par \tab "SPROT" <OF BRADWELL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sprot}{\insrsid10361692 , and (once) }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sport}{\insrsid10361692  - are probably nicknames, perhaps from Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 sprot}{
\insrsid10361692  ('sprout', 'shoot', 'twig') or Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 sprott}{\insrsid10361692  ('sprat'), though their distribution in Domesday suggests a Scandinavian origin (}{\i\insrsid10361692 sprot}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 ), 'small pole', 'angling-rod',}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 occurs in Norwegian dialect): von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 370-71. Fellows Jensen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 261, provides a hypothetical form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sprottr}{\insrsid10361692 
, though gives no more information than von Feilitzen. The form Sprottr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Yorkshire. Because of the lack of certainty, 
it has been thought safest to keep to the Domesday form, and the YKS examples have been standardized as "Sprot". The Alecto edition has Sprot. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab He is unlikely to be related to other Sprots, in Yorkshire, East Anglia and Essex, with which there are no tenurial associations (JP).
\par \tab "OWINE" <OF BRADWELL>. It is not certain what name is represented by the Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ouuin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ouuine}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ouuin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] - so it has been thought safest to keep to the Dome
sday form in each case. In the Phillimore printed translation for DBY and ESS the name Owin appears, while Owen occurs in CHS. The Alecto edition has Owine. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Derbyshire and it only appears three other times in Domesday.
\par \tab \tab It is unlikely to be related to the very modest holdings of namesakes in Herefordshire, Cheshire and Essex with which it has no tenurial associations (JP).
\par 7,9\tab HAZELBADGE. This was a lordship of Hope Ancient Parish and, like Hope itself (1,29), no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47. The grid reference is to Hazelbadge Hall (SK171800).
\par \tab \tab In a confirmation of King Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, v. p. 111 no. I; see 1,29 Peverel note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Norman }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Montfaltrel}{\insrsid10361692  gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Asebech}{
\insrsid10361692  (presumably this estate) as well as in two other places, one in Nottinghamshire and one in Northamptonshire. No Domesday subtenant is named, but this Norman may have been on the estate, or he may have acquired it after 1086.
\par \tab LITTON. This was a township of Tideswell Ancient Parish. Tideswell (1,29) was probably in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, as was Litton then and certainly later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab LEOFWIN. The Leofwin who was William Peverel's predecessor in "Watrefeld" (7,12) and in NTT 10,2 might be the same as this man, but Leofwin was a very common name. On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par 7,10\tab HUCKLOW. Great Hucklow (SK1777) and Little Hucklow (SK1678) were both hamlets of Hope Ancient Parish and no doubt lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086, as Hope (1,29) did; see}{\i\insrsid10361692  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 60.

\par \tab \tab At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts confirmed by Henry I were 'two-thirds of the lordsh
ip tithes and a rustic to gather them' in Hucklow; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , v. p. 111 no. I; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 97, 100.

\par \tab ERNWY. On this name, see 6,63 Ernwy note.
\par \tab HUNDULF <OF HUCKLOW>. On this name, see 1,10 Hundulf note.
\par \tab WULFRIC. On this name, see 6,26 Wulfric note.
\par 7,11\tab ABNEY. This was a hamlet of Hope Ancient Parish and, like Hope itself (1,29), probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab SWEIN. See 1,30 Swein note.
\par 7,12\tab "WATREFELD". Nether Water Farm (SK171789) and Quarters Farm (SK173793), both of which might represent Domesday }{\i\insrsid10361692 Watrefeld}{\insrsid10361692 , lay in Hazelbadge lordship in Hope Ancient Parish:}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 118. }{\i\insrsid10361692 Watrefield}{\insrsid10361692 , Water and Quarters share the same element (Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 waeter}{\insrsid10361692 
) and are certainly in the right wapentake (Blackwell Wapentake) and in the same ancient parish as Bradlow, Hazelbadge, Hu
cklow and Abney (7,8-11), but a tenurial connection is so far lacking. The Phillimore printed edition has Waterfield which appears to be an updating of the Domesday form; in the index to that edition is appears as 'Waterfield'. The Alecto edition has [?] 
Nether Water.
\par \tab LEOFWIN. See 7,9 Leofwin note and, on this name, 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 7,13\tab THIS ENTRY was inserted by the }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated and at the top of a column that he had left blank for some reason. It wa
s written in pale ink, though not quite as pale as that used for a large campaign of addition after rubrication in Derbyshire and other counties; see 1,17 entry note. No doubt he intended later to rubricate all the unrubricated material that he had added,
 
and he might then have added a chapter heading above this entry, which begins level with the first line of chapter 4 in the opposite column (folio 273c) above which the 'Land of Earl Hugh' was written in vermilion. This is the only entry in this column, c
h
apter 5 having ended three-quarters of the way down the previous column. In the Phillimore printed edition it is numbered 7,13 and this has not been changed for the present edition, although its relationship with William Peverel's fief (which begins on fo
l
io 274a) is far from clear. If the scribe had wanted to include it with other of William's holdings he would surely have added it at the end of his fief on folio 276a with 6,100-101, which were also unrubricated additions though these were probably not do
n
e at the same time as this entry. The likelihood is that he was unsure in which fief it belonged (probably the reason for its initial omission, as on other occasions) and so wrote it quite separately from any other holdings. Compare his two unrubricated a
d
ditions for Sibford Gower and Drayton on folio 250b (STS 12,30-31), which seem to be two single-entry fiefs despite their being numbered in the Phillimore printed edition as part of the fief of William son of Ansculf, and were similarly added separately f
rom the preceding and succeeding text.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab There are four difficulties with this entry: the identity of the tenant-in-chief, the role of William Peverel, the identity of the subtenant Robert and where the holding in }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Winefeld}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  actually lay. The last two of these are considered in 7,13 Robert note and 7,13 Wingfield note respectively.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This entry states that Robert holds 'from Count Alan under William Peverel'. It is unusual, but not unparalleled, to have four layers of tenancy mentioned (Robert under Count Alan
 under William Peverel under the king), so the number of subtenants is not in itself a reason for regarding one of them as erroneous. However, the prepositions }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 de}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('from') and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 sub}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('under'), rather than being an elegant variation, could mean different thin
gs: Robert was holding from Count Alan under William Peverel, in other words William was administering the holding for Count Alan, perhaps in the same way as he was administering some of the king's holdings (1,29 Peverel note). If so, the scribe would hav
e inserted 'Land of Count Alan' above this entry when he rubricated it and other late additions, and might also have adjusted the Landholders' List on folio 272a. The scribes of the}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Abbreviatio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (folio 197r) and the Breviate (folio 141Ar) certainly believed this to be a one-entry fief of Count Alan for they omitted the phrase 'under William Peverel' and added the rubrication }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Terra Alani Comitis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. The bulk of Count Alan's lands were in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, also in circuit VI, and in Suffolk and Norfolk (
circuit VII), though he had smaller fiefs in several other counties, including Nottinghamshire. It is possible that in the putative circuit volume his single holding in Derbyshire was listed at the end of his lands in another county and a Derbyshire headi
ng was omitted (compare WIL 23,10 Gussage note). It could then have been discovered during a check of that source.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Among the royal manors being looked after by William Peverel was Tibshelf (1,36) and the subtenant there was a Robert. Both Tibshelf and South Wingfield were later held by Robert of H\'e9
rils (1,36 Robert note and 7,13 Robert note). It is possible, therefore, that the land in Wingfield represented by this entry was part of Tibshelf, possibly a duplicated part of its 3 carucates. If this is so, the entry belongs in the }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (DBY 1). In fact, the scribe may have written it there on folio 272c and then changed his mind, as there is a three-line erasure of material apparently added because it is exdented and in the foot margin; see 1,19 foot no
te. However, Count Alan's connection with royal land amounts to his holding part of one royal manor in Essex (ESS 1,13) and parts of others in Norfolk (NFK 1,11;57;215), to his having held 5 carucates in Lincolnshire (LIN 1,33) and to his claim of some la
nd in Suffolk (SFK 1,122f). It is hard to understand his connection with the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 in Derbyshire, unless the land was actually in the process of being transferred to Count Alan with William Peverel as agent.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Apart from the reference to William Peverel (albeit with }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 sub}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , not }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 de}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
) and the possibility that the Robert who was William's subtenant in 7,1 was Robert of H\'e9rils (7,1 Robert note), there is no reason to believe that this entry was a very misplaced addition to that fief. The numbering in the }{\insrsid10361692 Phill
imore printed translation should therefore be regarded as an error, like its numbering of the two entries added on folio 250b (STS 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note).
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab See }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 324-25, and on the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 sub}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692 , see Maitland, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Book and Beyond}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 154.
\par \tab [* ' SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is inserted because of the location of [South?] Wingfield; see 7,13 Wingfield note.
\par \tab [SOUTH?] WINGFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. Because of uncertainty about the 1086 tenant-in-chief and the lack of a full manorial descent, the identification is not firmly established. In the}{\i\insrsid10361692  Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 984, 992, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wyn
nefeld'}{\insrsid10361692  is associated with }{\i\insrsid10361692 Widmerpol }{\insrsid10361692 (Widmerpool: NTT 13,14. 30,47-48), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gunolviston'}{\insrsid10361692 
 (Gonalston: NTT 10,3, held by William Peverel, and NTT 14,6. 30,49) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tybchelf' }{\insrsid10361692 (Tibshelf, DBY 1,36, of which William Peverel had charge through the king); see also }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 529, 531, 1321. It is}{\i\insrsid10361692  Suthwynnefelde}{\insrsid10361692 , held with Tibshelf (1,36), in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 247, 259, 290, but no overlord is given. The other mention of Wingfield in Derbyshire (8,3) is of 2 bovates attached to Pilsley, Owlcotes? and Williamthorpe which appear to lie in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Winnefelt}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{
\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
although the Latin is unclear; see 8,3 Wingfield note. Nonetheless, that 'Wingfield' is probably North Wingfield since Pilsley, [Old] Tupton (another attachment) and Williamthorpe lay in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield.
 Although North and South Wingfield share the same name and may even have been parts of the same 'Wingfield', their quite separate post-1086 histories suggest that they were distinct and it seems probable that the present entry refers to South Wingfield.

\par \tab \tab For a grant of land in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wynnefeld}{\insrsid10361692  to Burton Abbey, see 8,3 Wingfield note.
\par \tab ALNOTH. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alnoth - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alnod}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elnod}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ),}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Aelnod}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alnot}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alnoth}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 , Alnoht, Elnoc}{\insrsid10361692  (an error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elnot}{\insrsid10361692 ) etc. - could represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfnoth, }{\insrsid10361692 Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 
\'c6thelnoth}{\insrsid10361692 , or the hypothetical Old English}{\i\insrsid10361692  Ealdnoth}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 149-50, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Al-noth}{\insrsid10361692 , and see also p. 142, under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Al-}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, Alnoth
, but some of the people he called Alnoth, followed in the present edition, appear in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 175, 185-86, 241, under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6
lfnoth, }{\insrsid10361692 Old English}{\i\insrsid10361692  \'c6thelnoth}{\insrsid10361692  and Old English}{\i\insrsid10361692  Ealdnoth}{\insrsid10361692 , but their Domesday forms do not include the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -f-}{\insrsid10361692 
 that JRM required for a person to be called Alfnoth (his version of Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6lfnoth}{\insrsid10361692 ), the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -d-}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 -g- }{\insrsid10361692 
that warranted its inclusion under Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 \'c6thelnoth}{\insrsid10361692 , or the }{\i\insrsid10361692 -t-}{\insrsid10361692  necessary for its rendering as Aldnoth (his version of Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ealdnoth}{
\insrsid10361692 ; but see NFK 1,109 Alnoth note). JMcND accepted this. The Alecto edition follows von Feilitzen.
\par \tab \tab The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire is in 14,11, as a predecessor of Nigel of Stafford, but no evidence has been found to link the two men.
\par \tab ROBERT [* OF HERILS *]. William Peverel had several subtenants called plain Robert, representing at least two individuals. Count Alan, however, had even more, though Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 377, identi
fies all those in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire with Robert of Moutiers (who is actually named as one of the count's subtenants and his man in NTT 2,9). Regardless of whether Count Alan held this present land, the Robert here is probably to 
be identified as Robert }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Heriz}{\insrsid10361692  ('of }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 H\'e9rils')}{\insrsid10361692  in whose family this estate remained for some generations; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 984, 992, and }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 336 note 5. The family also held Tibshelf (1,36); see 1,36 Robert note and 7,1 Robert note.
\par \tab \tab Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 378, however, identifies this Robert ('tenant of William Peverel', with no mention of Count Alan) as Robert of Pavilly, but (}{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 376-77) the Robert of 1,36 as Robert of H\'e9rils. However, the Roberts of 1,36 and 7,13 appear to be the same.
\par 8\tab LAND OF WALTER OF AINCOURT. He probably came from Ancourt, in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Offranville (Loyd, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Some Anglo-Norman Families}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 2), rather than from Aincourt, formerly in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-et-Oise (arrondissement Mantes, canton Magny), now in that of Val-d'Oise, arrondissement Pontoise, canton Magny-en-Vexin (see Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 66). He was ancestor of the family of Deyncourt. His successor was his son Ralph who founded Thurgarton Priory in Nottinghamshire. See Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 15; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 448.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Walterius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Walterus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Galter}{\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Walter}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gaultier}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter.
\par \tab All the estates in this fief appear to have lain in a single wapentake, 'Scarsdale' Wapentake.
\par 8,1\tab [IN 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the later history of the estates (8,1-6); see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab MORTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Three }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mortune}{\insrsid10361692 , possibly to be identified with this place, were granted in 956 by King Eadwy to his m an Maeglsothen: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 106 no. 105 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 628). If the
 identification is correct, they were subsequently bequeathed to Burton Abbey by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxii). The grant was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28).}{
\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 There is a noticeable discrepancy, however, between the 3 }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  of the grant by King Eadwy and the 11 \'bd
 bovates and 8 acres that are the combined total of Morton, Ogston and Wessington in Domesday; see 8,1 bovates note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab The passage in Wulfric Spot's will that grants Morton reads 'and Morton and all the jurisdiction (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 socna}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
) that belongs to it, and the land included in it at Pilsley and Ogston and Wingfield and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Snodeswic}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  along with Morton': Whitelock, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 49. Ogston remained connected with Morton in 1086, but Pilsley (8,3) was
 a manor with 2 bovates of land attached which either lay in or whose jurisdiction was in [North?] Wingfield (8,3 Wingfield note); it also lay in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Snodeswic}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (7,3, Domesday }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Esnotrewic}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ) was a manor. It is possible that t
he other Wingfield (South? Wingfield, 7,13) was not a part of the grant. There is no trace of a Burton Abbey interest in any of them either in 1066 or in 1086.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 \tab OGSTON. This was a settlement in Brackenfield township in Morton Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 217. As a member of Morton Ancient Parish, it probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For another part, a jurisdiction of Crich, see 10,14.
\par \tab \tab Ogston was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxiii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28). See 8,1 Morton note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab WESSINGTON. This was a township of Crich Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. Another portion (10,13) is a jurisdiction of Crich, like Ogston.
\par \tab YOUNG SWEIN. He was also Walter of Aincourt's predecessor in Nottinghamshire (NTT 11,10); see NTT 11,4 Swein note. On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note. On the term 'Young', see 6,29 Leofwin note.
\par \tab 11 \'bd BOVATES OF LAND AND 8 ACRES. In view of the number of ploughs (7 \'bd ) and the value (\'a34) as well as the possible charter evidence (8,1 Morton note), it is possible that the actual size of the estat
e was larger and that its taxation was beneficial. However, the plough estimate is only for 3 ploughs; this might be a mistake, or one of the figures for the ploughs belonging to the lord or to the villagers might be an error.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from }{\i\insrsid10361692 vii}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 viii}{\insrsid10361692  by adding a third minim after it and interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 to}{
\insrsid10361692  (the last two letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 octo}{\insrsid10361692 , '8') in clarification.
\par \tab 4 SLAVES. See 1,1 slave note.
\par \tab A MILL-KEEPER. This is the only occurrence of a mill-keeper (}{\i\insrsid10361692 custos molini}{\insrsid10361692 ) in Domesday Book, though he is probably no different from the millers (}{\i\insrsid10361692 molinarii}{\insrsid10361692 
) who are recorded in CHS 2,5. HEF 1,40. SHR 7,5. SUS 10,95 and WOR 19,1. 20,1.
\par \tab WALTER OF AINCOURT HOLDS IT. The main scribe of Great Domesday normally recorded the 1086 subtenant at this point in an entry; see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
. Here, as in 12,1 (and possibly in 12,3-4: 12,3 Hascoit note), he wrote the name of the tenant-in-chief. This might have been inadvertently included from the putative circuit
 volume, and would have been useful in the first entry in a fief if the chapter heading were missing.
\par 8,2\tab [OLD] BRAMPTON. Brampton was an Ancient Parish, usually known ecclesiastically as Old Brampton which is the current name of the principal settlement. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Place-Names of Derbyshire}
{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 220. It is again associated with Wadshelf at 12,3-4.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday name-form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brandvne}{\insrsid10361692  is evidently an error for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brantvne}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab WADSHELF.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  It was named after the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  tenant, Wada (PM); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 222. It was a settlement in Brampton Ancient Parish, and associated with Old Brampton in 12,3-4 as here.
\par \tab WADA <OF BRAMPTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wada}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wade}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wada}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 407, who included also the form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wado}{\insrsid10361692 
 which occurs in SOM and DEV. However, the forms in the corresponding entries in Exon for these suggest otherwise; see DEV 15,49 Wado note. The Alecto edition fol
lows von Feilitzen and has Wada for all these forms. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The name is so rare that this Wada could be the same individual as he of Harworth (NTT 9,5(-56) or Ollerton (NTT 17,3), though there are no tenurial or other links to support this (JP).
\par \tab WALTER HAS IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH; 1 VILLAGER AND 3 SMALLHOLDERS. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill' }{\insrsid10361692 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692 
 could be either nominative, or accusative and the object of 'Walter has'. Because of this ambiguity JRM thought it 
safest to put a semi-colon; the Phillimore printed translation has 'and'. The Alecto edition has '... 1 plough; and 1 villager ...'. See also 8,3;5. 10,1 and 3,1; in the last, however, the Phillimore printed translation has a full-stop after the lordship 
ploughs (3,1 villagers note).
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES AND 1 PERCH. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 ) and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 pertica}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 m}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{
\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 are accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habentes}{\insrsid10361692  ('who have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}
{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab \tab The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 \'bd feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of English Weights and Measures
}{\insrsid10361692 , under perch; see also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 120). Perches also appear in DBY 12,5 and 17,2, but there they are part of the two measurements given for the pasturable woodland. In DEV 24,9 the meadow is given as 1 acre and 1 perch.
\par \tab WALTER CITES THE KING. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 De ista terra aduocat Walterius regem ad protectorem 7 Henricus de Ferrariis ad liberatorem}{\insrsid10361692 
. The Phillimore printed translation reads 'Walter cites the king as protector of this land, Henry of Ferrers cites its deliverer'. The Alecto translation reads: 'Of this land Walter
 vouches the king as warrantor and Henry de Ferrers as livery officer'. Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 125 no. 331, has 'Walter vouches the king to warranty and Henry de Ferrers as having given him livery'. None of these is entirely satisfactory, a
nd the last two are using a technical notion 'vouching to warranty' which was probably not yet an established procedure, though the present instance would be a precursor of it. The opening prepositional phrase, }{\i\insrsid10361692 De ista terra}{
\insrsid10361692 , should undoubtedly head the translation as 'On the subject of this land...' or 'Concerning this land...' The king is not protector of the land but of Walter of Aincourt. The verb }{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat}{\insrsid10361692 
 means 'to call', 'call on', 'summon', and with the preposition }{\i\insrsid10361692 ad}{\insrsid10361692 , the notion of calling someone to
 something or to do something is almost irresistible. As in many similar sentences in Latin that contain parallel phrases, the verb is needed twice }{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat ad protectorem}{\insrsid10361692  and [}{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat}{
\insrsid10361692 ] }{\i\insrsid10361692 ad liberatorem}{\insrsid10361692 . Even with these two clarifications, the sentence is not quite pellucid. The problem is the preposition }{\i\insrsid10361692 ad}{\insrsid10361692 
. It is possible to call on someone to protect you and deliver you land, but the Latin, if it did not use a clause, would properly use abstract not agent nouns: }{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat ad protectionem }{\insrsid10361692 ...}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 aduocat ad liberationem}{\insrsid10361692 
. (literally: 'call to(wards) protecting', 'call to(wards) delivering'). If this is what the main scribe of Great Domesday meant, which is quite possible, then Walter is asking for protection and Henry is asking to receive the land (which has presuma
bly been promised to him). If, however, as seems more likely, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 ad}{\insrsid10361692  is a clumsy attempt to do an apposition (normally done by a plain noun or by }{\i\insrsid10361692 sicut}{\insrsid10361692  or }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ut}{\insrsid10361692 , as in }{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat regem protectorem}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 aduocat regem}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 sic}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 ut protectorem}{
\insrsid10361692 
), the meaning is that Walter cites the king as his protector and Henry cites the king as the deliverer of the land, that is, Henry has received the land, though Walter now holds it. With these possible alternative translations, it is unclear whether this
 is an administrative muddle or a case of illegal tenure. See }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 304.
\par \tab \tab Henry of Ferrers has no predecessor called Wada, and as a predecessor of Walter of Aincourt, Wada only appears here, so the issue cannot be decided from the occurrence elsewhere in either fief of Wada as }{\i\insrsid10361692 antecessor}{
\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab HENRY. On the name, see 1,27 Henry note.
\par 8,3\tab PILSLEY. This was a hamlet in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 256.
\par \tab \tab Pilsley was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxv). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 48-53 no. 28). See 8,1 Morton note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab OWLCOTES?. This was a settlement in Heath Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. If the Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Caldecotes}{\insrsid10361692  really refers to this place, it is erroneous, since later forms are }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Hulecotes}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 H}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 oulecotes }{\insrsid10361692 etc: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 262. The suggestion by Lysons (reported in }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 347 note 3) that this is Oldcotes 'on the borders of North Wingfield parish' is not endorsed by the }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire }{\insrsid10361692 nor is an Oldcotes or similar name listed there in the vicinity.
\par \tab WILLIAMTHORPE. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 333. Like North? Wingfield (8,3) and South? Wingfield (7,13) Williamthorpe no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab YOUNG SWEIN. See 8,1 Swein note. On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note. On the term 'Young', see 6,29 Leofwin note.
\par \tab WALTER HAS IN LORDSHIP 2 PLOUGHS; 12 VILLAGERS AND 3 SMALLHOLDERS. See 8,2 villager note.
\par \tab 2 BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE - A JURISDICTION - IN [NORTH?] WINGFIELD. The Phillimore printed translation h
as: '2 bovates of land taxable; jurisdiction in (North) Wingfield', the 2 bovates themselves being unnamed. The Alecto edition has 'The soke [belongs] to [?North] Wingfield'. This is the normal rendering of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca in }{\insrsid10361692 
X, that is, the 2 bovates are a Jurisdiction of (North?) Wingfield; see 1,26 jurisdiction note. Moreover, the Latin punctuation, with a full stop preceding }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692 
 supports this interpretation. However, there are two difficulties with this. Firstly, it would be expected that the place [North?] Wingf
ield, of which these 2 bovates are a Jurisdiction, would recur as a manor in the Domesday text. This does not seem to be the case, as the only other occurrence of a Wingfield in Derbyshire (7,13) appears to be a different one, South Wingfield. However, th
ere are other cases where there is no record of a manor but only of its sokeland; here in Derbyshire Edensor was initially omitted and then inserted at 6,101. Secondly, the location of the 2 bovates is not mentioned, merely that, like the 1\u8531\'3f
 bovates in [Old] Tupton, they were an attachment. However, there is an apparent parallel for such an omission: in 9,3 2 \'bd
 bovates, unnamed, are attached to the manor of Ednaston and Hulland, but are a Jurisdiction of Hollington. Even so, the fact that the Latin there is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca est}{\insrsid10361692  may make a difference.
\par \tab \tab To avoid these difficulties, it is necessary to assume that [North?] Wingfield is the location of the 2 bovates and that they are a Jurisdiction of Pilsley etc. If this is so, it would mean that the main scribe of Great Do
mesday either omitted a }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{\insrsid10361692  after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692  or the word was misplaced (it would fit better either immediately before or after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Huic M' adiacent}{
\insrsid10361692  or at the end of one of the lines, as in 1,2. 9,5. 13,1). }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692  would thus refer to the 1\u8531\'3f bovates in [Old] Tupton as well as the 2 bovates here, and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 in Winnefelt}{
\insrsid10361692  would be the location of these 2 bovates in the same way as }{\i\insrsid10361692 in Topetune}{\insrsid10361692  is the location of the 1\u8531\'3f bovates. The use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca}{\insrsid10361692 
 in apposition, giving the status of land, occurs elsewhere in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire (1,35. 6,48. 16,1). The meaning would thus be '2 bovates of land taxable, a Jurisdiction [of Pilsley], lying in [North?] Wingfield'.

\par \tab \tab If, however, these 2 bovates are a Jurisdiction of 'Wingfield', another line of approach would be to consider whether th
e Wingfield concerned was in fact South Wingfield. Although North and South Wingfield are six miles apart, they may have originally been part of the same large land-unit according to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 333. It would certainly eliminate the present difficulty, if in 1086 there were a single (though scattered) estate called 'Wingfield' in which the manorial part (7,13) had the jurisdiction of these two bovates. That other mention of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Winefeld}{\insrsid10361692  (7,13) is an added entry. If in checking his work, th
e scribe noticed the present sokeland and realized that there was no mention of a manor on which it depended, he might have checked his source material and found and entered the manor of Wingfield on folio 273d. However, that the 'Wingfield' intended here
 
is North Wingfield is suggested by the fact that Pilsley, Williamthorpe and [Old] Tupton lay in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield and are much closer to it. It seems probable that the two Wingfields, if not originally named from different stretches of
 open land (Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 feld}{\insrsid10361692 ; the first element is uncertain:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. pp. 333, 335), were distinct by 1086, and tenurially dissociated, and furthermore that North Wingfield is not the place where the jurisdiction is exercised, but the location of the 2 bovates.
\par \tab \tab }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wynnefeld}{\insrsid10361692  was given to Burton Abbey, his foundation, by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxiii). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 40 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 906 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 48-53 no. 28). The will connects this 'Wingfield' with 
Morton (8,1), Pilsley (8,3), Ogston (8,1) and "Esnotrewic" (7,3); see 8,1 Morton note. Of these places, Pilsley was in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. There is no later trace here of any Burton Abbey interest.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab [OLD] TUPTON. This was a township in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield and, like North Wingfield itself (8,3), probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts of Old Tupton, see 1,8. 17,3.
\par \tab 1 FREEMAN ... PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great
 Domesday wrote the detail of the Freeman, villagers and smallholder with their ploughs as part of the account of [Old] Tupton, in the same way as he had the Freemen, priest and church as part of [North?] Wingfield. In the Phillimore printed translation t
he Freeman, 8 villagers, smallholder and 3 \'bd
 ploughs are put on a separate line, indented, suggesting that they belonged either to both the attachments or to the main manor. The meadow and pasturable woodland, however, which are in separate sentences, were 
probably part of the main manor. The Alecto edition preserves the layout and punctuation of the Latin.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the manuscript the words }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua past'}{\insrsid10361692  are faint, but visible, as they are to a lesser extent in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, they appear more like }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Una vasc'}{\insrsid10361692 . See 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par 8,4\tab HOLMESFIELD. This was a chapelry of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Dronfield itself probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as did Holmesfield, then and later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab [* YOUNG *] SWEIN. It is very likely that the main scribe of Great Domesday merely forgot to interline }{\i\insrsid10361692 cilt}{\insrsid10361692  above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Suain}{\insrsid10361692 
 in this entry, as he had interlined it in 8,1;3;5-6; see 8,1 Swein note. On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note. On the term 'Young', see 6,29 Leofwin note.
\par 8,5\tab ELMTON. This was an Ancient Parish, also known as the Ancient Parish of Elmton with Cresswell. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab YOUNG SWEIN. See 8,1 Swein note. On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note. On the term 'Young', see 6,29 Leofwin note.
\par \tab WALTER HAS IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH; 36 VILLAGERS AND 2 SMALLHOLDERS. See 8,2 villager note.
\par \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. The church here was granted by Ralph of Aincourt to Thurgarton Priory; see NTT 11,12 Thurgarton note.
\par 8,6\tab [STONY] HOUGHTON. This was a settlement in Pleasley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 292. Pleasley itself is not me
ntioned in Domesday, but may have replaced Stony Houghton in importance; it is evidenced in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in later times: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab No church is mentioned in this entry, but one was in existence by the middle of the twelfth century when it was granted by Ralph of Aincourt to Thurgarton Priory; see NTT 11,12 Thurgarton note.
\par \tab YOUNG SWEIN. See 8,1 Swein note. On the name Swein, see 1,30 Swein note. On the term 'Young', see 6,29 Leofwin note.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of
 Great Domesday left the remaining eight lines of the column blank, perhaps in case more lands of Walter's should be discovered (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), or perhaps for aesthetic reasons. He left spaces aft
er chapters 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16.
\par 9\tab LAND OF GEOFFREY ALSELIN. His principal estate was at Laxton (NTT 12,1). By the thirteenth century his lands formed the 
barony of Shelford (named from the Domesday estate, NTT 12,19) divided between the families of Everingham and Bardolf; the portion of the barony held by the Everingham family was sometimes known as the barony of Everingham. This division appears to date f
rom the reign of King Henry I when the lands were split between Ralph }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hanselin}{\insrsid10361692 , presumably his son, and Robert }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Caux }{\insrsid10361692 (or}{\i\insrsid10361692  Calz}{\insrsid10361692 
) (probably from La Chaux in the French d\'e9partement of Orne, arrondissement Alen\'e7on, canton Carrouges); see Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 76. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 224, Ralph }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Caux }{\insrsid10361692 was the son of Geoffrey's brother. Some of Geoffrey's successors, who took the surname }{\i\insrsid10361692 Halselin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 ) or }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hanselin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) occasionally appear in documents as }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Halselin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Hanselin}{\insrsid10361692 
, but this is presumably because the name looks like that of a place; it seems that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alselin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alselinus}{\insrsid10361692  is not a toponym, but a patronymic: Old German and Old French }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Alselin}{\insrsid10361692  (Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 213). See }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 231.
\par \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed edition Geoffrey is called Geoffrey of Alselin in the chapter heading, though there is no }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692  before }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alselin}{\insrsid10361692 
; he is Geoffrey Alselin elsewhere there; in the Phillimore printed translation for Leicestershire he is called Geoffrey of Alselin in 28,1 only (again there is no }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692 
), elsewhere Geoffrey Alselin. On his Christian name, see 6,27 G[eoffrey] note.
\par \tab The lands in this fief are arranged in the following order of wapentakes:
\par \tab \tab 9,1-2 [Litchurch Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 9,3-4 ['Appletree' Wapentake] (but see 9,4 Egginton note)
\par \tab \tab 9,5-6 ['Morleystone' Wapentake].
\par 9,1\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the individual notes) of the wapentake in which the places in 9,1-2 lay after 1086; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab ALVASTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Michael. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxv).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab AMBASTON. This was a settlement in Elvaston Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 462. Like Elvaston itself (9,1) it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 252; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab Farley printed }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  ('and') after this place-name, but there is not one in the manuscript.
\par \tab THULSTON. This was a settlement in Elvaston Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 462. Like Elvaston itself (9,1) it probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. For another part, possibly a duplicate, see 6,81.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this place-name; see 6,79 "Muchedeswelle" note.
\par \tab ELVASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. Toki was }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Geoffrey Alselin's only predecessor in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and his chief predecessor in Derbyshire
, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. On the identification of these men and others with the same name with Toki son of Auti, and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This man had had a church in Derby (B5) and 2 \'bd churches as well as 30 messuages and a hall in Lincoln (LIN C4); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 305.
\par \tab A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. This was possibly St Michael's in the borough of Derby which was appurtenant to Alvaston and in whose parish Alvaston lay. Toki, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder of Alvaston, also held a church in the borough then; see 9,1 Toki note and B5 Geoffrey note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.
\par 9,2\tab ETWALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 247, 253; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.

\par \tab DUNSTAN <OF ETWALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunstan}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunestan}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dunstan}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 228-29. The Alecto edi
tion has Dunstan. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire is as a predecessor of Ralph of Buron in Hallam (11,4), but no evidence has been found to link these two men.
\par \tab \tab Although there are no tenurial or other links between these hold
ings, the name is so uncommon that they may have belonged to the same individual, as may the holding at Gedling (NTT 9,72). Hallam is roughly equidistant from Etwall and Gedling, with about 15 miles between them; these three are the only Dunstans between 
Somerset and Yorkshire (JP).
\par \tab 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. In other words a quarter of a plough-team, the others presumably being on an adjacent estate; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab ASCELIN [* OF EGGINTON *]. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Azelin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) and (once) }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aselinus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Azelin}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ascelin}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 38-39. The Old French form seems more likely, despite the predominance of -z- in the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed translations both
 Ascelin and Azelin occur, but here they have been standardized as Ascelin. The Alecto edition has Azelin. This subtenant of Geoffrey Alselin only occurs here and in 9,4; on his identification, see 9,4 Ascelin note.
\par 9,3\tab [* 'APPLETREE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is provided from evidence for the location of Ednaston after 1086, there being no indication in Domesday; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab EDNASTON. This was a settlement in Brailsford Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 537. Like Brailsford itself (6,40) it probably lay in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 45.
\par \tab HULLAND. This was a township of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Ashbourne itself (1,14-15) probably lay in 
Hamston Wapentake in 1086, but a number of the members of the Ancient Parish lay to the south in 'Appletree' Wapentake, for example, Yeldersley (6,45) and Clifton (10,24). Hulland was later regarded as lying in Wirksworth Wapentake (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44), the successor to Hamston Wapentake, but it could have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086, just south of the putative border of the wapentakes. Hulland is represented by Hulland Hall and Hulland village (both at SK2466) and Hulland Ward and Hu
lland Grange (both at SK2647).
\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. On his identification with Toki son of Auti and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note. See also 9,1 Toki note.
\par \tab LORDSHIP ... VILLAGERS ... CHURCH ... MEADOW. Th
e layout and punctuation of the Latin text here suggest that the villagers, smallholders, half a church and meadow were all part of the lordship, whereas the pasturable and other woodland are in a separate sentence. Although not too much stress must be la
id on the punctuation, it has been thought safest here to preserve its ambiguity, as the Alecto edition does. See 10,9 lordship note.
\par \tab \'bd CHURCH. The other half appears to be at Brailsford (6,40); see 6,40 church note.
\par \tab OTHER WOODLAND. That is, other than the woodland that was pasturable. The Phillimore printed translation has 'another woodland', which is the usual translation of }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{\insrsid10361692 
, but 'other' fits the context better here and is so translated in the Alecto edition.
\par \tab \tab The interlineation of }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692  by the main scribe of Great Domesday was almost certainly done at the time of writing this entry.
\par \tab ITS JURISDICTION IS IN HOLLINGTON. Hollington was a manor of Henry of Ferrers (6,42). It appears to have been in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086; see 6,42 Hollington note.
\par \tab \tab The presence of the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 est}{\insrsid10361692  ('is') means that }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692 
 here has its abstract sense; see 1,26 jurisdiction note and compare 10,26 jurisdiction note. If the Latin simply was }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA in Holintune}{\insrsid10361692  the meaning would be '[It is] a Jurisdiction of Hollington'. Th
e Phillimore printed translation omits the verb 'is'.
\par \tab LAND FOR 2 \'bd OXEN. That is, for five-sixteenths of a plough-team, at 8 oxen to a team; see 1,4 oxen note. Such assessments do not consider how the land will actually be worked but seem to be linked directly to the 2 \'bd bovate assessment
\par 9,4\tab EGGINTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Litchurch Wapentake after 1086: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 247, 252,258-59; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 43. However, it lay at the junction of 'Appletree' Wapentake, Litchurch 
Wapentake and "Walecros" Wapentake. Places in Litchurch Wapentake have already been entered at 9,1-2, and there is no sign that this was a late entry. However, it is possible there was confusion at an earlier stage in the process of compiling Domesday Boo
k and that a Litchurch Wapentake should be inserted here, though it is more probable that it was in 'Appletree' Wapentake in 1086 and moved to Litchurch Wapentake later.
\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. On his identification with Toki son of Auti and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note. See also 9,1 Toki note.
\par \tab 6 TRIBUTARIES. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab WHO PAY. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd' }{\insrsid10361692 has been translated here as if it abbreviated the present participle }{\i\insrsid10361692 reddens}{\insrsid10361692 , but it could abbrevia
te the third person singular of the present tense (}{\i\insrsid10361692 reddit}{\insrsid10361692 ), which is how it is translated in the Alecto edition. See also in 9,6. Compare 6,88 pays note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF WOODLAND. See 1,32 small note. The interlineation of }{\i\insrsid10361692 parum}{\insrsid10361692  was almost certainly done by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the time of writing the entry.
\par \tab ASCELIN [* OF EGGINTON *]}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . This man appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Ascelin de Heginton'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  who gave \'bd carucate in Egginton to Tutbury Priory with the permission of Geoffrey Alselin (}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 concessu Gaufridi Anselmi}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ): }{\insrsid10361692 the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 65 no. 52 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 392 }{\insrsid10361692 no. II}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ). On the name Ascelin, see 9,2 Ascelin note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 The name Ascelin occurs thirteen times in the Midlands and probably represents four individuals there, of whom the 
tenant of Geoffrey of Alselin was one. Ascelin was the only man of this name in Derbyshire and his two manors lay within 3 or 4 miles of each other. See also Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 159 (JP).
\par 9,5\tab JURISDICTION. The natural assumption is that Breast
on is a jurisdiction of Egginton (9,4). The two identifications seem secure. However, Breaston is far from Egginton and in another wapentake. This need not be fatal to a link between the two, but casts doubt on it. The mention of Gilbert of Ghent having 2
 carucates of land cross-refers to the two-carucate jurisdiction of Ilkeston (13,1). It is possible that this one waste bovate, though presumably held by Geoffrey Alselin, was also a jurisdiction of Ilkeston; see 9,5 Gilbert note.
\par \tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the wapentake in which Breaston and Ockbrook (9,5-6) lay later. See \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. Strictly speaking, the main scribe of Great Domesday might have ignored the jurisdiction (9,5) and placed the heading above 9,6, since his practice in most counties was to apply hundredal or wapentakal rubrication only to manors.
\par \tab BREASTON. This was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish. Sawley itself (2,1) was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later. Breaston was in that wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For other parts, see 6,65. 13,1. 16,1.
\par \tab 1 BOVATE. The total assessment of Breaston is 6 carucates: 3 bovates at 6,65, 1 bovate at 9,5, 2 carucates at 13,1 and 3 \'bd carucates at 16,1.
\par \tab IT PAYS 2 SPURS. This is the only occurrence of this render in Domesday. Payments in horseshoes occur at GLS 78,14.
\par \tab GILBERT OF GHENT HAS 2 CARUCATES. Gilbert of Ghent was a major landholder in Derbyshire 
(DBY 13). This information seems to contradict that already given ('1 bovate of land. Land for 1 ox'). In fact it refers to the entry at 13,1 and appears to have been derived from it. It seems likely that in one of the documents that preceded Great Domesd
ay, all the information concerning Breaston was together, because that document was arranged 'territorially', like, for example, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\insrsid10361692 
. When Breaston was divided between landholders in 'feudal' chapters, it appeared at 6,65. 9,5, 13,1 and 16,1, but in the present instance a stray sentence has been included in the wrong entry; see 9,5 league note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of Gilbert, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gislebertus }{\insrsid10361692 (often abbreviated as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gisleb't'}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gisilbert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Gislebert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gillebert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gilbert}{\insrsid10361692 , Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gislebert}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gil(l)ebert}{
\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition has Gilbert.
\par \tab 1 LEAGUE LONG AND 3 FURLONGS WIDE. Whatever the exact size of a league, this information can scarcely ref
er to the 2 carucates, and it would be unnecessary. It seems, like the previous piece of information (Gilbert of Ghent has 2 carucates), to have become part of this entry by mistake. It is probably significant that this measurement is that of the woodland
 
pasture in Ilkeston with which Breaston's details are combined in 13,1. See 9,5 Gilbert note. Measurements, apparently of the extent of a holding, or of a whole vill as in Little Domesday, are sometimes given in Great Domesday at the end of an entry (see 
10,16 league note), but this is unlikely to be the case here.
\par 9,6\tab OCKBROOK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.

\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. On his identification with Toki son of Auti and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note. See also 9,1 Toki note.
\par \tab 4 TRIBUTARIES. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab WHO PAY. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 redd' }{\insrsid10361692 has been translated here as if it abbreviated the present participle }{\i\insrsid10361692 reddens}{\insrsid10361692 
 , but it could abbreviate the third person singular of the present tense (}{\i\insrsid10361692 reddit}{\insrsid10361692 ), which is how it is translated in the Alecto edition. Compare 6,88 pays note.
\par \tab GEOFFFREY HOLDS IT. At this point in the entries in Domesday Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday usually recorded the 1086 subtenant, not the tenant-in-chief (though see 8,1 Walter note and 12,1 Hascoit note); see \{
Introduction: Layout of Entries\}. This would, however, be the only occurrence of a subtenan
t Geoffrey in Geoffrey Alselin's fief in the whole of Domesday Book; compare 10,10 Ralph note and 11,2 Ralph note. On this question, see also 6,57 Henry note and 12,3 Hascoit note. On the name Geoffrey, see 6,27 G[eoffrey] note.
\par \tab 
AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the remaining ten lines of the column blank, perhaps in case more lands of Geoffrey's should be discovered (as happened with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), or perhaps for aesthe
tic reasons. He left spaces after chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 16.
\par 10\tab LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT. He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Dapif
er. The four had saved the life of Duke William in 1047 and were rewarded when William acquired the throne of England. Ralph was lord of Crich (10,11) which became a barony under his successors, the first being his son Odo. Ralph was also probably the fat
her of Matilda who was the second wife of Edward of Salisbury. The barony was divided }{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 . 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Eyton, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Studies: Staffordshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 54; }{\insrsid10361692 Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 37; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 340.
\par \tab \tab His predecessors here and in Nottinghamshire (NTT 13) were Leofnoth and Leofric (see 10,1 Leofnoth note), with the addition of Wulfric and Fran in the latter county. Ralph also held in chief in Lincolnshire (in the same circuit, VI, as Derbys
hire and Nottinghamshire), where his predecessors were Godwin and Wulfwin, and in Leicestershire and Staffordshire in circuit IV (in the latter his predecessor was Leofric). On the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note, and, on the name Hubert, see 2,1 Hubert no
te.
\par \tab This fief, like others in Derbyshire, is entered by wapentake as follows:
\par \tab \tab 10,1-10 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab [10,11-15 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]. The manor of Crich in that wapentake with}{\insrsid8993062  }{\insrsid10361692 dependencies 10,13-14 in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake. 10,15 is a dependency, also in}{\insrsid8993062  }{\insrsid10361692 
'Scarsdale' Wapentake of the manor of Pentrich (10,25). An added entry (10,12)}{\insrsid8993062  }{\insrsid10361692 for a dependency of Crich in Hamston Wapentake further complicates the}{\insrsid8993062  }{\insrsid10361692 sequence.]
\par \tab \tab 10,16-18 [Blackwell Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 10,19-21 [Litchurch Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 10,22 [Hamston Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 10,23 ["Walecros" Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 10,24 ['Appletree' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 10,25 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab ______________________________
\par \tab \tab 10,26 [Litchurch Wapentake] (a jurisdiction of Melbourne, 1,19)
\par \tab \tab 10,27 Unidentified place, wapentake unknown.
\par \tab 
The order is complicated in three ways; firstly by the fact that the manor of Crich (in 'Morleystone' Wapentake) is placed at 10,11, but is then linked to an entry, added later in the margin, for its three dependencies of Wirksworth, Lea and Tansley (10,
12) which paid tax in Hamston Wapentake, and is then followed by two estates whose jurisdiction lay in Crich (Wessington and Ogston, 10,13-14) which were probably in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake. These are followed by Ufton (10,15), which was an outlier of Pentr
i
ch (10,25), and was probably in the same wapentake, that is, 'Scarsdale' Wapentake. It seems very probable that the main scribe of Great Domesday, after finishing 10,10, was still working on material in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake (which became 10,13-15). When 
he found that two of these (10,13-14) were dependencies of Crich (itself in 'Morleystone' Wapentake), he decided to enter that manor before them at 10,11 (although entries in that wapentake tend to come later in the sequence after 'Appletree' Wapentake: 
\{Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes\}
). The entry for the dependency of Pentrich (10,15), also in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake, would naturally follow, although in this case he did not enter the head manor at this point, although it, like Crich, was in 'Morle
ystone' Wapentake; this may have been because Pentrich was a double manor with Ripley. It was probably when he checked the account of Hamston Wapentake that he found another dependency of Crich (numbered by Phillimore as 10,12), which he had not included 
w
ith the only other holding in that wapentake (10,22), possibly because it paid tax in a different wapentake to where it lay, and decided to enter it in the foot margin of folio 277ab, linking it with transposition signs to Crich even though it did not lie
 in the same wapentake as Crich. Thus Crich was entered out of order to be with two of its dependencies (10,13-14) and in turn attracted a further dependency (10,12).
\par \tab \tab Secondly, but related to the first difficulty, places in 'Morleystone' Wapentake occur t
wice, once at 10,11, then at 10,25. There is no reason to think that this latter estate is a later entry. It seems likely that the main scribe of Great Domesday always intended to enter places in 'Morleystone' Wapentake at 10,25, and that the entry for Cr
ich (10,11), also in that wapentake, was promoted for the reasons suggested above. Thus his work on 'Scarsdale' Wapentake really ceased at 10,15, and the main entry for 'Morleystone' Wapentake (by now a single estate) took place later.
\par \tab \tab The third complicat
ion concerns the last two entries. The entry for a Jurisdiction in Barrow-upon-Trent (10,26) was inscribed without its parent manor and appears to be out of sequence, or an addition (see 10,26 Barrow note), while 10,27 may well have been a similarly late 
entry, but to the circuit volume. Neither was an added entry in Great Domesday.
\par 10,1\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the individual notes) of the wapentake in which the places in 10,1-10 lay after 1086; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab ECKINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 4
8. For another portion (an outlier of the royal manor of Newbold in the same wapentake) see 1,1.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvi).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab Two }{\i\insrsid10361692 mansae}{\insrsid10361692  here were also granted in 1012 by a suspicious charter of King Ethelred to Morcar, his thane: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 1
10 no. 113 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 928 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 71-72 no. 37). Since this Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) had already received this land from the will of Wulfric Spot, it is possible that, lacking a charter for it, he had one forged.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. It is probable that all Ralph's predecessors with this name (10,1;4-7;9-11;16-19;21-22;24-25;27, and in NTT 13,6;9;11-12) were the same individual, although it was a very common name;
 compare 6,26 Leofnoth note. On this name, see 1,30 Leofnoth note. On his probably being the brother of Leofric, see 10,16 brother note.
\par \tab \tab Since there are no other examples in Domesday Book of joint ownership by a Leofnoth and a Leofric, these cases indica
te that the brothers were Ralph's designated predecessors and increase the probability that the other Leofrics and Leofnoths who preceded Ralph were the same two individuals. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 321-22 (JP).
\par \tab HAS IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH; 14 VILLAGERS. See 8,2 villager note.
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. See 1,1 slave note.
\par 10,2\tab JURISDICTION. That is, of the manor of Eckington (10,1).
\par \tab MOSBOROUGH. This was a part of Eckington Ancient Parish, and, like it, was probably in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvi).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Mosborough was in that part of Eckington Ancient Parish that was taken into the borough of Sheffield (Yorkshire) in 1967.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 10,3\tab JURISDICTION. That is, of the manor of Eckington (10,1).
\par \tab BEIGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For other parts, see 5,2. 16,3.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvii).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab Beighton was abolished for civil purposes in 1967, parts being taken into the borough of Sheffield, Wales Civil Parish and Aston-cum
-Aughton Civil Parish (all in Yorkshire) and other parts being absorbed by Eckington Civil Parish and Killamarsh Civil Parish (both in Derbyshire); see Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 68.
\par \tab LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is, for four oxen, or half a plough; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par 10,4\tab BARLBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 247, 256;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given (with Whitwell and Clowne) by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvi).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab WHITWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. Its association with Barlborough suggests that it was probably in the same wapentake ('Scarsdale' Wapentake).
\par \tab \tab Land here was given (with Barlborough and Clowne) by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvi).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. }{\insrsid10361692 See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab 1 SLAVE. See 1,1 slave note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ROBERT <OF BARLBOROUGH>. By the early thirteenth century, the fees of this Robert (10,4;7-8) were held by the Hathersage family under the Stutevilles of their barony of Crich (10,11): }{\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 395. She has six references to folio 277a, but there are only three instances of 'Robert' on it and no other Robert holds in this fief. It is possible that, despite her assertion on p. 121 ('Several ref
erences to the same folio may be given, but each will relate to a separate occurrence of the subject in the Domesday text'), the six references are to the six place-names in 10,4;7-8, as seems also to be the case with Henry of Ferrers' subtenant Orm (6,59
 Orm note) and with William Peverel's subtenant Warner (7,5 Warner note); however, see 6,28 Alchere note, 6,53 Ralph note, 6,57 Henry note and 13,1 Mauger note.
\par \tab CLOWNE. This 'entry' was squeezed by the main scribe of Great Domesday into a space at the end 
of the entry for Barlborough. It was written in pale ink and in a slightly informal style during one of his later campaigns of addition after the rubrication of the county had taken place; for the other entries in Derbyshire and other counties entered dur
ing this campaign, see 1,17 entry note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 Clowne was an Ancient Parish. The bulk of it was, in 1086, a manor held by Ernwy (17,10). It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Land in Clowne was given (with Barlborough and Whitwell) by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 
no. 29, see p. xxvi). The grant was presumably of this estate (it follows Whitwell in the will), rather than of the estate surveyed in 17,10.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab THEY BELONG TO THIS MANOR. That is, to the manor of Barlborough (10,4).
\par 10,5\tab PALTERTON. This was a settlement in Scarcliffe Ancient Parish (see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 295) and, like it, was probably in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab \tab Land here was given to his kinsman (brother) by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{
\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxv).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab SCARCLIFFE. This was an Ancient Parish. Although it was an outlier of Palterton in 1086, it later became the dominant settlement. It no doubt lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 247;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab 'TUNSTALL'. This was apparently in Hardwick in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall; see 5,4 'Tunstall' note.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab 1 TRIBUTARY}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab RAYNOUARD. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Raynouuard}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Raginward}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Reginward}{
\insrsid10361692 , Romance }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rainouard}{\insrsid10361692  etc: Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 211. The form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Raynouard}{\insrsid10361692 
 is given in Dauzat, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\insrsid10361692 , under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Renouard}{\insrsid10361692 
. In the Phillimore printed translation the form Rainward appears for DBY 10,5. The Alecto edition has Reynard. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par 10,6\tab DUCKMANTON. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Duckmanton, also known as Sutton-en-le Dale. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249;}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. Duckmanton is represented by Duckmanton (SK4472) and Long Duckmanton (SK4471).
\par \tab \tab Land here was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002x1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxvi).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab 18 TRIBUTARIES. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab GEOFFREY [* RIDEL *]. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 230-31, the Geoffrey in the present entry was Geoffrey Ridel. Although she calls him a subtenant of Hubert fitzRalph, the identification is likely. 
Duckmanton appears to have passed to Richard Basset by marriage to Geoffrey Ridel's daughter Matilda; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thurgarton Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. clxxxii-clxxxiv. A Geoffrey was also a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert in NTT 13,8, but there is no documentary evidence that he was the same person, as Geoffrey was a very common name, on which see 6,27 G[eoffrey] note.
\par 10,7\tab STRETTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)
}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Land at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Straettune}{\insrsid10361692  was given to the daughter of Morcar }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) and his wife Ealdgyth}{\insrsid10361692 
 by Wulfric Spot in his will (1002 x 1004): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 109 no. 39 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1536 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 53-56 no. 29, see p. xxxiv).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Stretton is held from the manor of Barlborough (10,4) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247.
\par \tab EGSTOW. This appears to have lain in Tupton township, in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. It was later a separate Civil Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 255. For North Wingfield, which probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, see 8,3. The grid reference (SK3964) is to Egstow Hall (SK391649).
\par \tab HANDLEY. This was a settlement in Stretton township in the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 308.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab ROBERT }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF BARLBOROUGH>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,4 Robert note, and, on this name, 1,36 Robert note.
\par 10,8\tab IN ANOTHER STRETTON. Stretton was a township of the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 alia}{\insrsid10361692  ('another') tends to be used a
s a scribal device in lists, where it draws attention to a second estate of the same name. It does not, in itself, suggest the existence of two separate vills, or settlements or villages. It simply means that there were two separate estates in the vill of
 Stretton in 1086, both with the same name. They are distinguished as they had separate }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E}{\insrsid10361692 
. holders, Leofnoth and Leofric respectively, and they probably represent a further stage in the dissolution of a single estate called Stretton. Previously it had p
robably been a double manor like Ashover (10,9) and Crich (10,11) held jointly by Leofric and Leofnoth. The main scribe of Great Domesday would have meant the same if he had simply put }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692  ('there also') or }{
\i\insrsid10361692 in eadem villa}{\insrsid10361692  ('in the same village'). It is 
therefore unnecessary for the purposes of translation to distinguish one estate as Stretton and the other as Stretton Hall (as in the index, but not in the translation, Phillimore printed edition, followed by the Alecto edition), since the exact identity 
of the estates is not known and it is uncertain which is which. See 6,23 another note, and Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
\par \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. Although Leofric was a very common name, it is probable that all the predecessors of Ralph son of Huber
t in Derbyshire who were called Leofric represent the same individual (10,8-11;17;20;22;24. B6), as also those in Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire. On his probably being the brother of Leofnoth, see 10,16 brother note. For other people called Leofric in 
Derbyshire, see 6,7 Leofric note and 7,1 Leofric note. On the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab \tab He and his brother Leofnoth were clearly Ralph's designated predecessors. He was probably also the predecessor of Nigel of Stafford in Kingsley (STS 16,2), s
ince Leofric's brother held from Ralph in the same vill and the three Staffordshire holdings [STS 15,1-2. 16,2] are the only ones held by a Leofric in the county; see 10,1 Leofnoth note; Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 321-2 (JP).
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab ROBERT }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 <OF BARLBOROUGH>}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,4 Robert note, and, on this name, 1,36 Robert note.
\par 10,9\tab ASHOVER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 248, 252;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.

\par \tab LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab 3 TRIBUTARIES. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH; A PRIEST AND A CHURCH; 1 MILL, 16d.
 Unless the main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted the lordship plough (he normally gave such a detail after the plough estimate), it would seem that the priest, church and mill were on the lord's land. This is unusual, but not unique: in B1 a chur
c
h in Derby was in the king's lordship, and in 9,3 half a church and the meadow might be part of the lordship; see also NTT B4. Mills in lordship are recorded in BUK 14,46, DEV 23,22, STS 1,31, NFK 20,22, and compare CAM 14,67. The scribe wrote the pastura
b
le woodland detail in a new sentence, and in view of the ambiguity of the extent of the lordship details, the semi-colon after the 16d in the Phillimore printed translation has here been altered to a full stop. The Alecto edition inserts '[There is]' befo
re the pasturable woodland.
\par \tab SERLO [* BLUND *] HOLDS IT. On the name Serlo, see 7,2 Serlo note, though there is no evidence that he was the same individual.
\par 10,10\tab NEWTON. This was a settlement in Blackwell Ancient Parish in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake. This Blackwell does not appear in Domesday, but it does (rather than Newton) in later documents: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247;}
{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 212.
\par \tab LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  is unclear, but might be accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habens}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,22 meadow note. Apparently, the priest did not have the pasturable woodla
nd, however, as it is in a separate sentence.
\par \tab RALPH HOLDS IT. At this point in the entries in Domesday Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday usually recorded the 1086 subtenant, not the tenant-in-chief (though see 8,1 Walter note and 12,1 Hascoit note); see \{
Introduction: Layout of Entries\}. The only subtenants of Ralph son of Hubert in Domesday Book with the name Ralph appear here and in 10,11; compare 9,6 Geoffrey note and 11,2 Ralph note. On this question, see also 6,57 Henry note and 12,3 Hascoit note.

\par 10,11\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. For the insertion of this wapentake head, see DBY 10 Ralph note. It is there suggested that the main scribe of Great Domesday was working on material relating to 'Scarsdale' Wapen
take and came across two dependencies of Crich (which he subsequently entered as 10,13-14). He therefore decided to enter Crich itself before them even though it was itself in another wapentake ('Morleystone' Wapentake). He dealt with Ralph's other holdin
g in that wapentake at 10,25.
\par \tab CRICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 257;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. Crich with Shuckstonefield formed a northerly projection of 'Morleystone' Wapentake with Hamston Wapentake on their western side and 'Scarsdale' Wapentake on their eastern.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 One }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 at Crich was granted by King Ethelred in 1009 to his minister, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, mur
dered in 1015) who received land in the will of Wulfric Spot: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 110 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 922 = }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 60-64 no. 32).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Crich became the centre of a barony held by the Fitz Huberts. The barony was divided for an unknown reason }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. 1187 between Hubert Fitz Ralph and Henry de Stuteville; see Sanders, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 37-38.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab SHUCKSTONE. This was a settlement in Crich Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 437. It is sometimes known as Shuckstonefield. The Domesday form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Scochetorp}{\insrsid10361692 
, with its termination in }{\i\insrsid10361692 \endash torp}{\insrsid10361692  is presumably an error for -}{\i\insrsid10361692 thorn}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 ) as in the representative later form }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Shu}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 c}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 kthorn}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 e}{\insrsid10361692 ). If not, the identification is incorrect. The later addition of -fi
eld represents a further change to the name, but does not in itself necessitate reconsideration of its identity. The name is represented by Shuckstone Fields Farm (SK345570) and by Shuckstone Lane leading south-east of there towards Plaistow.
\par \tab LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab RALPH HOLDS IT. See 10,10 Ralph note.
\par 10,12\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in one and three-quarters lines in the foot margin below both columns of folio 277ab; a pair of transposition signs links it with the entry for Crich on folio 277b (10,11). Both the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692  and the transposition sign next to the entry were rubricated. The interlineation }{\i\insrsid10361692 In Crice}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('In Crich') in the account of one of the jurisdictions of Crich (10,14) was probably added at the same time as this entry.
\par \tab \tab This entry may have been initially omit
ted because, though it is stated that it 'lies in' (that is, it belongs to) Crich, which was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake, it paid tax in Hamston Wapentake. In the circuit volume this holding may have been entered with the other estate of Ralph son of Huber
t in Hamston Wapentake (10,22), and the scribe only found it when he checked the account of that wapentake and, seeing that it was a dependency of Crich, decided to add it as near as possible to where he had entered Crich.
\par \tab ^[HAMSTON WAPENTAKE]^. This headi
ng is supplied for convenience, the justification being given in 10,12 Wirksworth note and DBY 10 Ralph note. It is not certain that the main scribe of Great Domesday himself would have inserted a heading above what is a dependency rather than a manor.

\par \tab WIRKSWORTH.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
Wirksworth was an Ancient Parish. It clearly did not lie in 'Morleystone' Wapentake with Crich itself (10,12 tax note) but no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake, named not so much from th
is land, but from the major royal estate there (1,13); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab LEA. This was part of the township of Dethick and Lea in Wirksworth Wapentake. The township belonged to Ashover Ancient Parish which was itself in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 73. Lea no doubt lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab TANSLEY. This was a township of Crich Ancient Parish. It undoubtedly lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, Wirksworth Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab MEADOW, 2 \'bd ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note. The villagers and smallholders apparently did not have the pasturable woodland, as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Silua}{\insrsid10361692  is nominative and in a new sentence; see 6,18 meadow note and compare 6,5 meadow note.
\par \tab THIS LAND LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] CRICH. The estates are not adjacent to Crich, so the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet in}{\insrsid10361692  ('lies in') appears to stand for the similar }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet ad}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('is an adjunct of', 'belongs to'). The main scribe of Great Domesday was normally careful to distinguish the two.
\par \tab \tab The exact relationship of these estates to Crich is unclear: there is no marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 anerium}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 erewica}
{\insrsid10361692 ) or }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 ), though they were probably outliers.
\par \tab BUT IT PAYS TAX IN HAMSTON WAPENTAKE. These estates were geographically associated with the royal estate of Wirksworth (1,13) in Hamston Wapentake, but were members of 
Crich manor in 'Morleystone' Wapentake and presumably matters of justice were heard there. It is possible that Crich itself had once been part of Wirksworth before being granted out, and that the establishment of wapentake boundaries (in the latter half o
f the tenth century) had severed Crich from its parent, or that it had subsequently been drawn out of Hamston Wapentake and put in 'Morleystone' Wapentake.
\par 10,13\tab THIS ENTRY naturally follows 10,11, if, as suggested in DBY 10 Ralph note, the main scribe of G
reat Domesday was working on places that lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake and, on discovering dependencies of Crich that lay there, decided to enter the main manor above them, even though it was in a different wapentake. The insertion of Wirksworth, Lea and T
ansley (numbered 10,12 in the Phillimore printed translation) interrupts this sequence, but they too were members of Crich manor.
\par \tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. The reason for entering this heading is given in 10,13 entry note and DBY 10 Ralph note. It is st
rictly unnecessary as the main scribe of Great Domesday was essentially still, at this point, entering places that were in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake which he had begun at 10,1.
\par \tab WESSINGTON. This was a township of Crich Ancient Parish. Although Crich itself probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, Wessington probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake then as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 247;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. Another part is associated with Ogston in the manor of Morton (8,1).
\par \tab A JURISDICTION OF CRICH. That is, of the manor of Crich (10,11). For the use of 'of' as a translation of Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692 , see 1,26 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab LEOFING HOLDS IT. See 1,30 Leofing note.
\par 10,14\tab OGSTON. This was a settlement in Brackenfield township in Morton Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 217. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as Morton itself did. Ogston and Wessington (10,13) were both parts of the manor of Morton at 8,1; see 8,1 Morton note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab A JURISDICTION OF CRICH. That is, of the manor of Crich (10,11). For the use of 'of' as a translation of Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692 , see 1,26 jurisdiction note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 
in Crice}{\insrsid10361692  at the same time as he added the 
entry at the foot of this page (10,12); it was written with a different pen and ink to the text beneath. He had included this information in 10,13, though it was not strictly necessary as entries with }{\i\insrsid10361692 S}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 oca}{\insrsid10361692 ] beside them would normally be jurisdictions of the preceding manor, but see 9,5 jurisdiction note and 10,26 Barrow note and compare 1,25 belongs note.
\par 10,15\tab UFTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of South Wingfield: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 335. It is represented by Ufton Fields Far
m which is the identification in the Phillimore printed translation (one word in the index) as also in the Alecto edition. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as did South Wingfield itself (7,13). For another part, see 7,5.
\par \tab 
AN OUTLIER OF PENTRICH. Pentrich itself was part of the double manor of Ripley and Pentrich (10,25) which lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake. It is suggested in DBY 10 Ralph note that the main scribe of Great Domesday entered Ufton here because he had been ab
stracting material from a schedule of estates in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake. However, he did not promote Pentrich itself, as he had Crich (10,11 'Morleystone' note), possibly because it was a joint manor with Ripley.
\par \tab \tab In the Phillimore printed translation }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ber' in pentric}{\insrsid10361692  is mistranslated as 'outlier in Pentrich', whereas Ufton was the outlier of the manor of Pentrich, as indicated by the marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 B}
{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 erewica}{\insrsid10361692 ] beside Ufton. On the scribe's use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692  in this phrase, see 1,26 jurisdiction note. The Alecto edition has
 '[It is] a berewick [belonging] to Pentrich'.
\par \tab LAND FOR \'bd PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote .}{\i\insrsid10361692 i. car'}{\insrsid10361692 , but then changed the }{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{\insrsid10361692  into a tall }{\i\insrsid10361692 d}{\insrsid10361692 
 and interlined the }{\i\insrsid10361692 imid'}{\insrsid10361692  to make }{\i\insrsid10361692 dimid'}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab NIGEL HOLDS IT. On this name, see 6,17 Nigel note.
\par 10,16\tab 
[* IN BLACKWELL WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the individual notes) of the wapentake in which the places in 10,16-18 lay after 1086. Despite the absence of the name from Domesday
, groups of lands that were later in High Peak Wapentake, the successor to Blackwell Wapentake, are found in the text of Derbyshire and are separate from lands that were in Hamston (later Wirksworth) Wapentake which some think comprehended also the lands 
of High Peak Wapentake in 1086. In this fief, for example, land assumed to lie in Hamston Wapentake appears at 10,22, after of group of estates in Litchurch Wapentake (10,19-21); see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab [STONEY] MIDDLETON. This was a chapelry of Hathersage Ancient Parish: Hathersage is the next entry (10,17). It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 253;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab 
LEOFNOTH AND HIS BROTHER [* LEOFRIC *]. In all other cases in this fief where joint holders are recorded they are Leofnoth and Leofric (10,9-11;17;22;24). It is very likely, therefore, that the brother of Leofnoth referred to here is Leofric. On Leofnoth,
 see 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab HAS [IS] 1 LEAGUE LONG AND 4 FURLONGS WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday began by writing }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692  ('has') and would naturally have continued '1 league in length' (}{\i\insrsid10361692 in longitudine}{
\insrsid10361692 ) and '4 furlongs in width' (}{\i\insrsid10361692 in latitudine}{\insrsid10361692 ). However, as he wrote, he slipped into the common '1 league long' (}{\i\insrsid10361692 longum}{\insrsid10361692 ) and '4 furlongs wide' (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 latum}{\insrsid10361692 ), but failed to alter the }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 est }{\insrsid10361692 
('is)'. These measurements are rare in Great Domesday but common in Little Domesday . In the latter it appears that behind its feudal format lies a schedule arranged territorially by hundred, vill and estate and that at the end of the survey of each vill 
i
ts dimensions were given. These have become, in Little Domesday, confusingly attached to individual estates in the process of converting the material to feudal form. If the same applies here, then the dimensions given apply to the whole of Stoney Middleto
n, that is, to the manors in 1,34 and 10,16 and to the outlier in 10,17. See 10,17 parts note.
\par 10,17\tab HATHERSAGE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in High Peak Wapentake, its successor: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 250;}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab BAMFORD. This was a hamlet of Hathersage Ancient Parish.
\par \tab HURST. The Domesday place is represented by Nether Hurst (SK2182) and Upper Hurst (SK2283) in Outseats hamlet in Hathersage Ancient Parish.
\par \tab HALF OF OFFERTON. Offerton was a hamlet of Hope Ancient Parish which probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in
 1086. The other 'half of Offerton' appears as an outlier of the manor of Hope at 1,29; see 1,29 half note. In neither case can the size of the halves be determined.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 dimidia}{\insrsid10361692  above this place-name, probably at the same as he interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 due partes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('two parts') above the next one; his interlineation two lines below may have been done then too. (It is perhaps interesting that Offerton in 1,29 also has }{\i\insrsid10361692 dimidia}{\insrsid10361692  interlined above it .)
\par \tab TWO PARTS OF [STONEY] MIDDLETON. The Latin word }{\i\insrsid10361692 pars}{\insrsid10361692  is no more precise than the English word 'part', so in theory }{\i\insrsid10361692 due partes}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('two parts') could be two-fifths, two-sevenths etc. though it often means 'two-thirds'; see, for example, 1,26 bovates note. Stoney Middleton appears here (10,1
7) as some fraction of the two-carucate total of the outliers of Hathersage, and elsewhere as a manor of 4 bovates (1,34) and as a manor of 1 carucate (10,16). If the 'parts' were thirds and if the manors at 1,34 and 10,16 together represented the other t
hird of Stoney Middleton, then the two-thirds of Stoney Middleton in the present entry would exceed the total allotted here to all the outliers of Hathersage.
\par \tab \tab However, it may be wrong to see these parts as equal fractions. The purpose of the mention of 'h
alf of Offerton' is presumably to indicate that the outlier of Hathersage there was only a part of Offerton. The same is probably true of Stoney Middleton: it contains three or more parts or estates only two of which form an outlier of Hathersage. The 'tw
o
 parts' are intriguing unless the single outlier at Stoney Middleton consisted of two separate estates, and it is not clear where the other parts are and how many they are. If there was a further third which was an outlier, it is not mentioned in Domesday
 Book. If there were four parts to Stoney Middleton, then the other two would be the manors (1,34. 10,16), though in this case the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 dimidia}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('half') would have been expected. What is unusual here is the mention of these parts at all, as other vills we
re split without the fact being expressly mentioned. A further possibility is that 'two parts of Stoney Middleton' is simply a variation on phrases such as 'two Hammerwiches' (STS 2,16), that is 'two estates called Hammerwich', which were members of Lichf
ield, and could stand for 'Middleton and another (estate called) Middleton' as in 6,23 'another Hartshorne'.
\par \tab \tab On the interlineation, see 10,17 half note.
\par \tab PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,12 woodland note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 p}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ] }{\i\insrsid10361692 loca}{\insrsid10361692 
, extending the }{\i\insrsid10361692 p}{\insrsid10361692  downwards between }{\i\insrsid10361692 silua}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 past'}{\insrsid10361692 
 to act as an insertion mark. He may have interlined another two words in this entry at the same time: 10,17 half note.
\par 10,18\tab HARTHILL. This was a township of Bakewell Ancient Parish. Like Bakewell (1,27) It probably lay in Blackwell Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, High Peak Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 47.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.
\par \tab KOLLI HOLDS IT. On this name, see 4,2 Kolli note.
\par 10,19\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the individual notes) of the wapentake in which the places in 10,19-21 lay after 1086; see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BOULTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab PASTURE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 pascua}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,37 pasture note.
\par 10,20\tab WILLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab It was subsequently in the hands of Burton Abbey; see }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the Burton Abbey Surveys (Bridgeman, }{\insrsid10361692 pp. 236-38). According to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{\insrsid10361692  (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 47 no. XXII), Willington and its church (not mentioned in Domesday) was given to Burton Abbey by King Edward. If that is so, it may have failed to reach its destination or the land was alien
ated for some years before being restored after 1086. Willington reappears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 villam de Wilentona cum ecclesia}{\insrsid10361692  ('the vill of Willington with church') in a}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Bull of Pope Lucius III (}{
\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 42 no. XIII = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Burton Register}{\insrsid10361692 , folio 7a) which confirms the lands of Burton Abbey.
\par \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par 10,21\tab [KIRK] LANGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.

\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par 10,22\tab [IN HAMSTON WAPENTAKE]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence of the wapentake in which Ballidon lay after 1086; see 10,22 Ballidon note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.

\par \tab BALLIDON. This was a township of Bradbourne Ancient Parish. Bradbourne itself (6,6) almost certainly lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (6,6 Bradbourne note). Ballidon is later evidenced in Wirksworth Wapentake, the successor of Hamston Wapentake: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab \tab Ballidon was granted in 963 (as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Beligden in pago Pecset}{\insrsid10361692 ), that is, 'in the land of the Pea
k-dwellers', by King Edgar to Aethelferth for 20 mancuses of gold. The bounds attached to the charter suggest that the estate corresponded more or less to the township of Ballidon which in 1866 became a Civil Parish; see Brooks, Gelling and Johnson, ' New
 Charter of King Edgar'.
\par \tab LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par 10,23\tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence of the wapentake in which Ingleby lay after 1086; see 10,23 Ingleby note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
.
\par \tab INGLEBY. This was a township of Foremark Ancient Parish. It is later evidenced in Repton Wapentake (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48) and was no doubt in its predecessor "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086. Other parts (1,26. 14,5. 17,23) appear to have lain in the same wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 One }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manens }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 at Ingleby 
was granted by King Ethelred in 1009 to his minister, Morcar, presumably the same Morcar (thane of the Seven Boroughs, murdered in 1015) who received land in the will of Wulfric Spot: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 110 = Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 922 (= }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 60-64 no. 32).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab [* LEOFRIC BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HAD. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder is not identified, but it might have been a tenancy of either Leofric or Leofnoth, rather than of Leofric and Leofnoth (the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{
\insrsid10361692  
holders of the preceding two manors: 10,22) as Ingleby here is designated as a single manor. Both Crich and Ingleby were granted by King Ethelred to Morcar (10,23 Ingleby note), and Leofric and Leofnoth were Morcar's successors at Crich and Shuckstone (10
,11). As Crich and Shuckstone are designated as }{\i\insrsid10361692 2M}{\insrsid10361692 
 it is probable that one brother held one and the other brother held the other, that is Leofric held Crich and Leofnoth held Shuckstone if the order of tenants is meant to correspond with the order in which 
the estates are inscribed. Thus it is possible that Leofric held Ingleby. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably mechanically wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b' }{\insrsid10361692 here before realizing}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
no holder was provided. The Alecto edition has 'he had'. In 10,27 he omitted the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder, but later interlined him; see 10,27 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab THE SIXTH PART OF 1 CARUCATE. This is 1\u8531\'3f bovates at 8 bovates to the carucate and is presumably related to the 'two parts of 1 bovate' (two-thirds of a bovate) on another estate at Ingleby (17,23
). The individual assessments of Ingleby, though they may appear to be random, effectively add up to two carucates: 3 bovates at 1,26. 1 carucate and one-sixth of a carucate here at 10,23, 3 bovates at 14,5 and two parts of 1 bovate at 17,23.
\par \tab VALUE 10s. T
his value was added by scribe B; he probably wrote it in the margin, rather than on the line below, so as to leave a line's space before the entry for Wirksworth etc. (10,12) which had been added before rubrication across the foot of both columns on folio
 277ab by the main scribe of Great Domesday (10,12 entry note). For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.
\par \tab \tab It is clearly }{\i\insrsid10361692 .x. sol'}{\insrsid10361692  in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 .v. sol'}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par 10,24\tab [* 'APPLETREE' WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from equivocal later evidence of the wapentake in which Clifton lay after 1086; see 10,24 Clifton note and \{Introduction: Id
entifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab CLIFTON. This was a chapelry of Ashbourne Ancient Parish. Ashbourne itself (1,14-15) probably lay in Hamston Wapentake in 1086 (1,14 Ashbourne note). Clifton lay just over the border in 'Appletree' Wapentake l
ike several other parts of Ashbourne Ancient Parish, for example Yeldersley (6,45). However, at least in later times, it was connected with Kirk Langley (10,21) and so was regarded as an outlying part of Litchurch Wapentake. It was included in that wapent
ake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246, and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. In Domesday, places in Litchurch Wapentake have already been entered (10,19-21). This estate is not a late entry in Great Domesday and there is no reason to think that it was such in any pre
decessor document. It has therefore been assigned to 'Appletree' Wapentake here.
\par \tab LEOFRIC. See 10,8 Leofric note and, on his name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab [* HIS BROTHER *] LEOFNOTH. See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par 10,25\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is inserted from later evidence of the wapentake in which Ripley and Pentrich lay after 1086; see 10,25 Ripley note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}
. It has been suggested in DBY 10 Ralph 
note that this was the place intended for holdings in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in this chapter, but that the main scribe of Great Domesday drew Crich out of the material for this wapentake and entered it at 10,11 because it had dependencies in 'Scarsdale' 
Wapentake on which he had just been working.
\par \tab RIPLEY. This was a chapelry of Pentrich Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 246;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42.
\par \tab PENTRICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later:}{\i\insrsid10361692  Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246;}{
\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42. An outlier of Pentrich at Ufton in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake had already been entered at 10,15. For that dislocation, see 10,15 outlier note.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this place-name in slightly paler ink than he had used for the rest of the entry; see 6,79 "Muchedeswelle" note.
\par \tab \tab In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246, Pentrich is recorded as held by the Abbot of Darley from the barony of Crich.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692 . See 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par 10,26\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of Barrow-upon-Trent; see 10,26 Barrow note.
\par \tab BARROW[-UPON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known ecclesiastically as Barrow-with-Twyford. It will have lain in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 44. The River Trent was at this point a clear dividing line between the wapentakes of Litchurch and "Walecros". Other parts of Barrow-upon-Trent (1,19. 6,82) also seem to have been in Litchurch Wap
entake. However, places in Litchurch Wapentake had already been entered in this chapter at 10,19-21, but this entry, the penultimate in the chapter, looks like an addition, not to Great Domesday itself, but to the putative circuit volume. As a Jurisdictio
n
 of the royal manor of Melbourne (1,19) which was in a different fief and wapentake ("Walecros" Wapentake), it will have had to have been detached at some point from its original position and added to Ralph's fief. It is not certain that it really belongs
 here; the marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 S[OCA]}{\insrsid10361692  really requires that it should be with its parent manor, with Ralph son of Hubert holding it from the king as part of Melbourne. It is quite possible that it is a duplicate of the 12 \'bd
 bovates that are listed as an outlier of Melbourne at 1,19, the 12 bovates here being the correct figure; see 1,19 Barrow note.
\par \tab JURISDICTION AT MELBOURNE. That is, the royal manor of Melbourne (1,19). On the complications of this statement, see 10,26 Barrow note.
\par \tab \tab The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Soca ad Mileburna}{\insrsid10361692 . Strictly, this suggests that a verb, either }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet}{\insrsid10361692  ('lies') or }{\i\insrsid10361692 pertinet}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('belongs'), has been omitted and that }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692  is being used in the abstract sense: 'its jurisdiction lies in/belongs to Melbourne'; compare 9,3 jurisdiction note. On the other hand, the preposition }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ad}{\insrsid10361692  may be a variation on }{\i\insrsid10361692 de}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 in}{\insrsid10361692  with }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692 
 being used in a concrete sense: 'a jurisdiction of Melbourne'; see 1,26 jurisdiction note. The Alecto edition has 'THE SOKE [belongs] to Melbourne'.
\par 10,27\tab "WERREDUNE". The}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  has Warrington, though the evidence is slight: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 354 (PM). Because the order of the chapter has been interrupted by 10,26 (Barrow-upon-Trent) and both that entry and the present one may have been additions to the fief at some stage in t
he process of compilation, it is not possible to assign this unidentified place to a wapentake. There is no indication of the status of this land, though the presence of full detail suggests that it was a manor.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab LEOFNOTH }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]}{\insrsid10361692  [HAD]. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially omitted the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holder of this land, but interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuenot
}{\insrsid10361692  later, though he failed to add the verb }{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit}{\insrsid10361692  ('had') at the same time.. On Leofnoth, see 10,1 Leofnoth note and, on this name, 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left 6 blank lines; the run-over of the value occupies part of the first one. This may have been in case more lands of Ralph's should be
 discovered (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), or perhaps for aesthetic reasons. He left spaces after chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 16.
\par 11\tab LAND OF RALPH OF BURON. He also held in chief in Nottinghamshire (NTT 15). He was apparently from Buron of which there are two in the French d\'e9
partement of Calvados, one in the commune of Cairon (arrondissement Caen, canton Creully) and the other in that of Saint-Contest (arrondissement and Canton of Caen). He was lord of Hors
ley (11,2) and was succeeded by a Hugh of Buron. Ralph's holdings became a probable barony and passed down in his family until 1194 when the fief fell to the Crown; see Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 122-23, and Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 331.
\par \tab The material in this fief appears to be arranged by wapentake:
\par \tab \tab 11,1 [Litchurch Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 11,2-5 ['Morleystone' Wapentake].
\par \tab The chapter is not arranged as in some counties by putting the lordship estates first. The first entry is a subinfeudation, as is 11
,3. Lordship land might be entered at 11,2 although the position of 'Ralph holds it' rather suggests that this Ralph is a subtenant; see 11,2 Ralph note. The holders of 11,4-5 are not given.
\par 11,1\tab [* LITCHURCH WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence for the location of Weston Underwood; see 11,1 Weston note and \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab WESTON [UNDERWOOD]. This was a township of Mugginton Ancient Parish. Like Mugginton itself (6,95) it no doubt lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 44.
\par \tab WULFSI. On this name, see 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab WULFBERT HOLDS. The Phillimore printed translation has Gilbert here in error for the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gulb}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 er}{\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\insrsid10361692 t}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{
\insrsid10361692 ] of the manuscript. On the name Wulfbert, see 6,80 Wulfbert note.
\par 11,2\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from later evidence for the location of the estates listed in 11,2-4; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab HORSLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab THORGER <OF HORSLEY>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Turgar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), represents Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thorgeirr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Thorger}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 393. In the Phillimore printed edition the form Thorgar was used, but this has now been altered to the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Thorger. He may be the same person as Ralph's p
redecessor in 11,5, the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The two holdings are adjacent and Thorger is an uncommon name, occurring only nine times in all, none of them within 60 miles of Horsley (JP).
\par \tab RALPH HOLDS IT. At this point in an entry in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
Domesday Derbyshire the main scribe of Great Domesday usually recorded the subtenant, not the tenant-in-chief (though see 8,1 Walter note and 12,1 Hascoit note). However, there is no other occurrence of a Ralph as a subtenant of Ralph of 
Buron in Domesday; compare 9,6 Geoffrey note and 10,10 Ralph note. On this difficulty, see also 6,57 Henry note and 12,3 Hascoit note. On the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note.
\par \tab \tab It has been suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30) that this sent
ence was added. However, the pen and colour of the ink are the same as those used by the scribe in the rest of the entry and in the next ones. Moreover, if it had been added it would mean that he had originally left a line's space between this entry and t
he next, which would be unlikely as Horsley is not a multiple estate (see 1,13 space note) nor is there is a change in wapentake at 11,3.
\par 11,3\tab DENBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\insrsid10361692 E }{\insrsid10361692 of }{\i\insrsid10361692 DENBI}{\insrsid10361692  appears as a }{\i\insrsid10361692 P}{\insrsid10361692 
; see 1,19 Melbourne note. It is also not very clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par \tab OSMUND <OF OSSINGTON>. Ralph of Buron's predecessor in two manors in
 Nottinghamshire (Ossington and Kelham: NTT 15,1;3) was called Osmund, possibly the same man, though there is no documentary evidence and it was a common name, on which see 6,88 Osmund note.
\par 11,4\tab HALLAM. There were adjacent Ancient Parishes of Kirk Hallam (at SK4540) and West Hallam (at SK4341): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 468. Their relation to each other and to the Domesday }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Halun}{\insrsid10361692  is uncertain. In later times West Hallam was held by the Bishop of Lincoln and Kirk Hallam by the honour of Percy: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 984, 992, 997, 1150, 1195, 1445; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246, 252. Denby (11,3) is held by the same honour. A provisional explanation is that the single Domesday estate of Hallam was subsequently divided between Kirk Hallam and West Hallam. This est
ate probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 252. For Little Hallam, see 13,1.
\par \tab \tab Two }{\i\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{\insrsid10361692  at }{\i\insrsid10361692 Burhhalun}{\insrsid10361692  were granted in 1011 by King Ethelred to }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elemod}{\insrsid10361692  his }{\i\insrsid10361692 minister}{
\insrsid10361692 : }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 110 no. 112 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 923 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 64-66 no. 33). Because of the uncertain relationship between }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cassatae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and carucates, it is not clear which of the estates at Hallam 
in Domesday (11,4. 13,1) represents this grant, or whether both do. Although the charter was in the Burton Abbey archives, that abbey seems to have had no interest in Hallam.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab DUNSTAN <OF ETWALL>. On this name, see 9,2 Dunstan note.
\par 11,5\tab "HERDEBI". The place-name has not been found after 1086 and the site of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herdebi}{\insrsid10361692  is unknown. It is suggested by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 570, that Coxbench (in Holbrook chapelry, Duffield Ancient Parish) may be its site, but only on the basis of 'the geographical d
istribution of Domesday names'. In the Phillimore printed translation the name appears as 'Herdby', but in its index there is a cross-reference to Coxbench under 'Herdby'. The form 'Herdby' is a misleading modernisation and should not imply that the place
 has been identified as a deserted site. It was left unidentified in the Alecto edition.
\par \tab \tab The name occurs again in 6,66 as part of the manor of Duffield. As Duffield and all its other members were probably in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, it is likely that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Herdebi}{\insrsid10361692 
 also was and that there is no further wapentake head to insert in this chapter.
\par \tab THORGER <OF HORSLEY>. See 11,2 Thorger note.
\par \tab 5 PARTS OF 1 CARUCATE. In 6,66 Henry of Ferrers has the sixth part of a carucate in "Herdebi", part of the manor of D
uffield. This complements the 5 parts of 1 carucate here and makes it likely that this manor had broken away from Duffield which would thus have been assessed at 8 carucates.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left 6 blank lines; the run-o
ver of the value occupies part of the first one. This may have been in case more lands of Ralph's should be discovered (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16), or perhaps for aesthetic reasons. He left spaces after chapte
rs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16.
\par 12\tab LAND OF HASCOIT MUSARD. The name Hascoit is Breton, but his place of origin is unknown. Some time after 1086 he became a monk at Ely Abbey (or Priory as it became after 1109 when a cathedral was established there; some ye
ars before he had given the future Bishop Hervey (1109-1131) his manor of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Estune }{\insrsid10361692 (probably Aston Somerville: GLS 66,4). Hascoit was succeeded by his son Robert; see Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 83; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 246.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his Christian name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascoit}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascoit}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascoith}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Ascuit}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascuith}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascoius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hascolfus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hasculfus}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent the Breton names }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hasco\'ebt}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ascoet}{\insrsid10361692 : Dauzat, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\insrsid10361692 , under }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Hasco\'ebt}{\insrsid10361692 . JRM chose Hascoit as it was the spelling most often found in the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition also has Hascoit. Musard is Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 musard}{\insrsid10361692  ('absent-minded', stupid'): Tengvik, }
{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 352.
\par \tab The estates in this fief all seem to have lain in a single wapentake ('Scarsdal
e' Wapentake). All the lands seem to have been held by Hascoit himself except for Killamarsh (12,5) for which no holder is recorded. Unless a subtenant is given it can be assumed, but not proved, that the tenant-in-chief held it himself; see 12,3 Hascoit 
note.
\par \tab NEXT TO THIS CHAPTER HEAD, in the central margin, are written the letters }{\i\insrsid10361692 fr}{\insrsid10361692 . There is also an }{\i\insrsid10361692 f }{\insrsid10361692 written beside chapters 13 and 15 and }{\i\insrsid10361692 fr }{
\insrsid10361692 beside chapter 14. Compare NTT 18 chapter note. The purpose of these letters is obscure, but they were not writt
en by the main scribe of Great Domesday or scribe B or any of the other scribes of Great Domesday. For a discussion of these letters, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 129-30 and Fig. 16 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
The Story of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 195-97 and Fig. 15.16).
\par 12,1\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. For want of contemporary evidence, this head is inserted from later evidence (given in the individual notes) of the wapentake in which the places lay after 1086; see \{Introduction: Identifying 
and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BARLOW. This was 'Great' Barlow, a chapelry of Staveley Ancient Parish. For 'Little' Barlow, see 17,1. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab HAKON <OF STAVELEY>. It is probable that the Hakon who was Hascoit's predecessor in Staveley (12,2) was the same person; the holdings are less than six miles apart. On this name, see 6,37 Hakon note.
\par \tab \tab It is also likely that this Hakon was the same man as the thane at Calow (17,9), a similar distance away. The other Derbyshire holding, Henry of Ferrers' manor at Ashe some 40 miles away, is less likely to be connected (JP).
\par \tab HASCOIT MUSARD HOLDS IT. This information is written at a point in the entry normally reserved for the name of the 1086 subtenant, though see 8,1 Walter note: \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
. Here the presence of the byname Musard leaves no doubt that this is the tenant-in-chief, but it also makes uncertain the identity of the individual in similar posi
tions in those cases where a plain name occurs that is the same as the name of the tenant-in-chief, as in 12,3-4; see 6,57 Henry note, 9,6 Geoffrey note, 10,10 Ralph note, 11,2 Ralph note and 12,3 Hascoit note.
\par 12,2\tab STAVELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab HAKON <OF STAVELEY>. On this name, see 6,37 Hakon note.
\par 12,3\tab 'HOLME'. This is 'Holme Hall' (SK354724) in the township of Newbold and Dunston in Chesterfield Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 277. Like Chesterfield itself (1,1) it probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. 'Holme Hall' survived until at least 1962 (Ordnance Survey seventh series one-inch map) but appear
s since to have been overtaken by building. There is a Holmebrook Valley Park at SK356727.
\par \tab WADSHELF. This was a settlement in Old Brampton Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 222. Wadshelf is named from Wada, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E}{\insrsid10361692 . holder of another por
tion (8,2) which is part of the manor of Old Brampton and Wadshelf. It no doubt lay in lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 222.
\par \tab [OLD] BRAMPTON. Brampton was an Ancient Parish, usually known ecclesiastically as Old B
rampton which is the current name of the principal settlement. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086. In this entry and the next (12,4) it is associated with Wadshelf and both Old Brampton and Wadshelf have a further part each that together for
m a single joint manor at 8,2.
\par \tab DUNNING. On this name, see 6,34 Dunning note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. This is equivalent to 1\'bd plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab HASCOIT HOLDS IT. Because of the rarity of the name, this man is likely to be Hascoit Musard, the ten
ant-in-chief, despite the position of this information in the entry; see 12,1 Hascoit note. It is not strictly necessary (and is missing in 12,5) because the assumption is that the tenant-in-chief holds the land himself unless a subtenant is mentioned.

\par \tab \tab It has been suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30) that this sentence was added. However, it is in the usual place for a subtenant in this county (see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
) and the pen and colour of the ink are the same as those used by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the rest of the entry and in the next ones.
\par 12,4\tab [OLD] BRAMPTON. See 12,3 Brampton note.
\par \tab WADSHELF. This was a settlement in Old Brampton Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 222. See 12,3 Wadshelf note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab BRANDWIN.}{\insrsid10361692  The Domesday form, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Branuuine}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Brandwin}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 207. This is the only occurrence in Domesday Book of this name, which appears in the Phillimore printed translation as Branwin. The Alecto edition has Brandwin.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE. Scribe B wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Nescio cuius}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 in the central margin next to the middle of this entry, apparently referring to its holder. He might have failed to see that this entry did in fact have a holder, the tenant-in-chief, Hascoit Musard, because the }{\insrsid10361692 
main scribe of Great Domesday had written this detail in a half-line run-over at the end of the entry: at a quick glance it appeared to be part of the next entry (12,5) which, curiously, does lack a 1086 hold
er. PM in his note on this in the Phillimore printed translation took the marginal note to be a question ('Whose?') and suggested that the answer 'Hascoit holds it' was added later; this could not have been an addition, however, as the first line of 12,5 
deliberately ends early in order to avoid this half-line. For scribe B's other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab HASCOIT HOLDS IT. See 12,3 Hascoit note.
\par }{\insrsid10361692 12,5\tab KILLAMARSH. The Domesday name-form is written as }{\i\insrsid10361692 CHINEWOLDE maresc}{\insrsid10361692  by the main scribe of Great Domesday and therefore seems to have been understood as meaning 'In }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Chinewolde}{\insrsid10361692 , marshland, Alwold had \'bd bovate of land taxable'. The correct form }{\i\insrsid10361692 CHINEWOLDEMARESC}{\insrsid10361692  ('Cynewald's marsh') appears at 17,2; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 274.
\par \tab \tab Killamarsh was a chapelry of Eckington Ancient Parish. Eckington itself (1,1. 12,1) probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as Killamarsh probably did. It is evidenced in that wapentake later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 259;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For another part, see 17,2.
\par \tab ALWOLD. On this form, see 6,39 Alwold note.
\par \tab PERCHES. See 8,2 meadow note.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four blank lines, probably for aesthetic reasons rather than because he suspected that mor
e lands of Ralph's might be discovered (as was the case with Henry of Ferrers and Roger of Bully: DBY 6, DBY 16). He left spaces after chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16.
\par 13\tab LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT. He came from Ghent in Flanders and was the son of Ral
ph, lord of Alost, near Ghent and Gisla. Gilbert married Alice, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughter who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the mo
nastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a cell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Baronies}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46; Keats-Rohan, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 210. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 On his Christian name, see 9,5 Gilbert note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab The two lands in this small fief appear to have lain in a single wapentake ('Morleystone' Wapentake). Both were subinfeudated to Mauger.
\par \tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to the chapter head is written an }{\i\insrsid10361692 f}{\insrsid10361692 ; see DBY 12 chapter note.
\par 13,1\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from the location of Ilkeston and Shipley (13,1-2) according to later documents.
\par \tab ILKESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 252; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 42. The Domesday name-form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tilchestune}{\insrsid10361692 , here and at 17,13, has acquired an initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 T-}{\insrsid10361692  probably from an Old English word such as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aet }{
\insrsid10361692 ('at'). Compare }{\i\insrsid10361692 Telvve}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Telma}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 Teluia}{\insrsid10361692  in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid10361692 ) for [Great] E
lm (SOM 39,2). }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tvmbeli}{\insrsid10361692  for Ubley (SOM 42,2) and }{\i\insrsid10361692 In Addela}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 m}{\insrsid10361692 ] for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ad Delam}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('at Deal') in KEN M14. Compare 6,59 Edlaston note.
\par \tab [LITTLE?] HALLAM. Little Hallam was a settlement in Ilkeston Ancient Parish. Because this }{\i\insrsid10361692 Halen}{\insrsid10361692  is included with other places in 
a total of 6 carucates and 6 bovates, it is impossible to determine its size relative to the Hallam of 11,4; nor has the relation of Kirk Hallam to West Hallam been determined (see 11,4 Hallam note). Nonetheless, the present entry is likely to refer to Li
ttle Hallam because of its relationship to Ilkeston. On the other hand, Kirk Hallam is close to Ilkeston and West Hallam further off. A Domesday forebear for Little Hallam is not recognised by }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 474. The Phillimore printed edition identified the place simply as Hallam; the Alecto edition, like }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 351, has West Hallam.
\par \tab STANTON[-BY-DALE]. This was an Ancient Parish. Geographically it will have lain in 'Morleystone' Wapentake like Ilkeston and Hallam.
\par \tab ULF FENMAN. He was Gilbert of Ghent's predecessor also in HUN B2, LIN 24,1. CW17. CK41 and CAM 23,1-6 (his byname provided by the corresponding entries in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis}{\insrsid10361692 
). He is probably the same man as the plain Ulf who preceded Gilbert
 of Ghent in HUN 21, in BUK 22,2, in RUT 5,15, in some of his Nottinghamshire holdings (NTT 17; on the space left after Ulf in most of these entries, see NTT 17,1 Ulf note) and in most of his holdings in Lincolnshire (LIN 24), and as 'Ulf, a thane of King
 Edward' in BDF 27,1 and BUK 22,1. According to Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 135, }{\i\insrsid10361692 fenisc}{\insrsid10361692  is Old Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid10361692 fjonski}{\f703\insrsid10361692 
 ('from Fjon' = F\'fbnen, a Danish island), quoting }{\i\insrsid10361692 EHR }{\insrsid10361692 25 (1910), p. 594 (a review by J\'f3n Stef\'e1nsson of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und fr\'fchmittelenglischer Zeit}{
\insrsid10361692 ); Tengvik rejects derivation from Scandinavian }{\i\insrsid10361692 fe-niskr }{\insrsid10361692 ('niggard'). However, }{\i\insrsid10361692 fenisc}{\insrsid10361692 
 may be 'Fenish', 'from the Fens', though this may imply more than 'from the fens', possibly that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage. On the name Ulf, see 6,46 Ulf note.
\par \tab 6 BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected }{\i\insrsid10361692 vi bou'}{\insrsid10361692  from an original }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii bou'}{\insrsid10361692 
; this is one of the commonest scribal errors, caused when three minims are written and the first two are imperfectly joined at the base.}{\i\insrsid10361692 '}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab IN BREASTON, A JURISDICTION, 2 CARUCATES OF LAND. The Phillimore printed translation ('In Breaston, jurisdiction. 2c. of land taxable') could mislead. In the Latin the }{\i\insrsid10361692 SOCA}{\insrsid10361692  is essentially a note at the en
d of the line and draws attention to the status of Breaston. So the meaning is not '2 carucates (unnamed), a jurisdiction of Breaston', but 'In Breaston, a jurisdiction (of Ilkeston), 2 carucates'; see 16,1 seized note. The full-stop inserted after 'juris
diction' in the Phillimore translation, but not found in the Latin, also suggests that the 2 carucates do not lie in Breaston.
\par \tab \tab These two carucates have already been mentioned, it seems accidentally, in 9,5; see 9,5 Gilbert note. The total assessment of Breaston is 6 carucates (3 bovates at 6,65, 1 bovate at 9,5, 2 carucates at 13,1 and 3 \'bd carucates at 16,1).
\par \tab \tab Breaston was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish, and was no doubt in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 6,65. 9,5. 16,1.
\par \tab LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS AND 6 OXEN. In other words for 8 \'be plough-teams; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab MAUGER <OF ILKESTON> HOLDS IT. Gilbert of Ghent's subtenant Mauger in 13,2 is probably the same as his subtenant here. According to Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 294, he granted land at Ribton to the Priory of Bridlington at its foundation. She mentions possible family connections, but has five references to folio 277d, though Mauger only appears twice there and four place-names are recorded; on this proble
m of her referencing, see 10,4 Robert note.
\par \tab \tab The Domesday forms of his name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Malgerus}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Malgerius}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old French }{\i\insrsid10361692 Maugier}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 184. However, Dauzat (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionnaire des Noms et Pr\'e9noms de France}{\insrsid10361692 , under }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mauger}{\insrsid10361692 
) suggested a Germanic origin: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Amal-gari}{\insrsid10361692 , with loss of the initial letter. The Alecto edition has Mauger.
\par 13,2\tab SHIPLEY. This was a Liberty and township of Heanor Ancient Parish. Like Heanor itself (7,6) it will no doubt have lain in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 252; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. The grid reference (SK4444) is to the village. Shipley Hall is at SK438442 and the remains of the home farm at SK436442.
\par \tab BRUN. On this name, see 1,30 Brun note.
\par \tab OTHENKAR <OF ASHBY>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Odincar}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Odincarle}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Odincarl}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Oudenecar}{
\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Othenkar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 l}{\insrsid10361692 ): von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 342. The Alecto edition has Othenkar. The Phillimore
 printed translation has Odincar here and this form occurs elsewhere, together with Othencarl in LIN; they have been standardized as Othenkar in this edition. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire. An Othenkar was also a predeces
sor of Gilbert of Ghent in LIN 24,74.
\par \tab \tab Othenkar is an uncommon name. If the predecessor of Roger of Bully is excluded (NTT 9,1;76;92(-93);96;100;106;108), the name occurs (or may be inferred) on nine other holdings. Although they lay in three counties and 
on the fiefs of five tenants-in-chief, it is possible that they had belonged to only one or two men. Gilbert of Ghent acquired Croft in Lincolnshire (LIN 24,74) from an Othenkar, almost certainly the same man as his Derbyshire predecessor in view of the r
a
rity of the name. Croft had an outlier in Wainfleet (LIN 24,75) where Jocelyn son of Lambert also had a Jurisdiction (LIN 28,41). The pre-Conquest landholders here and at Croft are unnamed but were presumably Othenkar since this and two other holdings of 
J
ocelyn (LIN 28,39-40) were Jurisdictions of Ashby where Othenkar is named (LIN 4,65), as the predecessor of the Bishop of Bayeux. This identification is put beyond reasonable doubt by the fact that Bishop Odo himself had a Jurisdiction of Ashby in Enderby
 
and Markby (LIN 4,66), vills in which Jocelyn's other two Jurisdictions lay. The one remaining holding in Lincolnshire (LIN 48,1), which devolved upon Odo the bowman, may well have belonged to the same Othenkar given that every other holding in the county
 
did; but in the absence of tenurial associations it is impossible to verify this. The tiny holding in Leicestershire acquired by Countess Judith (LEC 40,5), held by the only Othenkar to have survived to 1086, may too have been his, given the Normans' proc
l
ivity for conferring scraps of land upon once substantial landowners; but again there are no other clues to an identification. The situation of the Derbyshire and Leicestershire holdings does, however, suggest an interesting speculation: was Roger of Bull
y
's predecessor in Nottinghamshire the same man, too? His block of properties lay between the Derbyshire and Leicestershire holdings on the one hand and those in Lincolnshire on the other. Unfortunately, this can be no more than speculation in view of the 
paucity of the Anglo-Saxon evidence (JP).
\par \tab MAUGER <OF ILKESTON>. He is probably the same person as the Mauger of 13,1; see 13,1 Mauger note.
\par \tab THE SWORN MEN ... WOULD. It has been suggested by Roffe (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30; also in 'Domesday Book and Northern Society: a reassessment', p. 326, note 3, and in 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 4) that this sentence was added. It may be written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a slightly smaller script than 
the rest of the entry, but this is probably largely illusory as he was writing a long sentence with only one figure in it rather than several short sentences with many figures and spaces. He was also more likely to have been copying a statement, rather th
an editing and rearranging material. There is no change in pen or ink colour as there very often is when material was added by him. Compare 6,99 Ralph note.
\par \tab SAY THAT THIS LAND DID NOT BELONG ... BUT THESE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Hanc terram dicunt homines qui iurauerunt non pertinuisse ad Vlf fenisc T.R.E. sed ipsi .ii. taini ita tenuerunt ut potuissent dare 7 uendere cui uoluissent.}{
\insrsid10361692  The Phillimore printed translation is 'The sworn men stated that this land had not belonged to Ulf Fenman before 1066, but that these t
wo thanes so held it that they could grant or sell to whom they would'. However, at the beginning, the abbreviation }{\i\insrsid10361692 dnt}{\insrsid10361692  (with an abbreviation line over the }{\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\insrsid10361692 ) stands for }{
\i\insrsid10361692 dicunt}{\insrsid10361692  (present tense) not }{\i\insrsid10361692 dicebant}{\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\insrsid10361692 dixerunt}{\insrsid10361692  (past tenses). In the middle there is 
nothing in the Latin corresponding to the second 'that', because this is not a further indirect statement, but a direct one. At the end, the Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 et}{\insrsid10361692 , not }{\i\insrsid10361692 vel}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('grant and sell' rather than 'grant or sell') and the subjunctives }{\i\insrsid10361692 potuissent}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 uoluissent}{\insrsid10361692  are pluperfect. The sequence of tenses is abnormal. The }{\i\insrsid10361692 ita
}{\insrsid10361692  ('in such a way that', 'on the basis that') undoubtedly introduces a 'result' ('consecutive') clause, but the normal sequence would require imperfect subjunctives (}{\i\insrsid10361692 possent}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
uellent}{\insrsid10361692 ) or possibly perfect subjunctives (}{\i\insrsid10361692 potuerint}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 uoluerint}{\insrsid10361692 ). The pluperfect subjunctives might have been unconsciously produced out of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 pertinuisse}{\insrsid10361692 , influenced by its termination and having no pluperfect force. It is possible that they are potential ('could have', 'might hav
e'), implying an unspoken if-clause: 'if they had desired to give or sell'. It is more probable that the }{\i\insrsid10361692 potuissent}{\insrsid10361692  and the }{\i\insrsid10361692 uoluissent}{\insrsid10361692 
 stress the fact that these two thanes no longer held the estate; they 'had been able to give or sell to whoever they had wanted to', but they can no longer do so since they are dispossessed or dead. The jurors themselves may have said }{
\i\insrsid10361692 potuerant dare et uender}{\insrsid10361692 e ('they had been able to grant and sell') rather than }{\i\insrsid10361692 poterant dare et uendere}{\insrsid10361692  ('they were able to grant and sell'), 
similarly stressing how long ago it all was.
\par \tab \tab On this dispute, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 125 no. 332. Her translation 'The sworn men say that this land did not belong to Ulf Fenisc }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 but instead to two thegns who could grant or sell to whom they wished' substitutes a 'who' for Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ita}{\insrsid10361692  ('so') and an 'or' for Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('and') and does not address the question of the tenses of }{\i\insrsid10361692 potuissent}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 uoluissent}{\insrsid10361692 . Moreover, she shortens 'but these 2 thanes held it in such a way that they ...' to '
but instead to two thegns who ...' as if the Latin were a}{\i\insrsid10361692 d ipsos .ii. tainos qui ... }{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab \tab The 'sworn men' are probably the jurors of the wapentake giving their testimony in the shire court during the compilation of the Domesday Survey. However, Roffe (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday
}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 4) asserts that this dispute had been resolved by the time that Domesday was written up and that this testimony dates from a later court session at which the vill was not represented. Domesday does not say or imply that t
he dispute has been resolved; in fact it is mentioned precisely because it is unresolved. On the issue of the second court session and the absence of representatives of the village, both of which seem to be misunderstandings of the process, see 6,99 wapen
take note. Roffe further asserts that this part of the entry is postscriptal.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab COULD GRANT AND SELL. This is the only occurrence of this phrase in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire and in the rest of circuit VI it only occurs in HUN D18. It was, however, a very common phrase to describe the type of }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  tenure in circuit III (Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire).
\par 14\tab LAND OF NIGEL OF STAFFORD. His origin and the source of his title are unknown. He is not attested as a son of Robert of Stafford nor was he the sheriff of Staffordshire; see Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 302. Nigel was the ancestor of the Gresley family of Church Gresley and Castle Gresley, estates not named in Domesday but lying at the junction of Nigel's estates of 
'Drakelowe' and Hearthcote (14,1), Swadlincote (14,3) and Linton (LEC 14,34 which he holds from Henry of Ferrers), and no doubt accounted for in one or more of them in 1086. According to }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 306, Hearthcote is the estate that contained Gresley. William of Gresley, the son of the Domesday holder Nigel of Stafford, established the priory of Gresley in the time of King Henry I or King Stephen near his castle of Gresley.
\par \tab \tab On the name Nigel, see 6,17 Nigel note.
\par \tab \tab The lands of this fief appear
 all to have lain in a single wapentake ("Walecros" Wapentake, later known as Repton Wapentake). The only estate that Nigel is expressly said to hold in lordship is 'Drakelowe' and Hearthcote (14,1). No 1086 subtenants are mentioned, but lordship land occ
urs several times.
\par \tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday originally wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 XIII}{\insrsid10361692  for this chapter number, but did his best to turn it into }{\i\insrsid10361692 XIIII}{\insrsid10361692  by adding a small }{\i\insrsid10361692 i}{
\insrsid10361692  above the third }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692 ; the closeness of the large capital letter }{\i\insrsid10361692 I}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 In}{\insrsid10361692  prevented him from adding it after }{
\i\insrsid10361692 XIII}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to the chapter head are written the letters }{\i\insrsid10361692 fr}{\insrsid10361692 ; see DBY 12 chapter note.
\par 14,1\tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the later location of the manors that follow (14,1-10); see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab DRAKELOWE. This was a township (usually known in that context as Drakelow) of the Ancient Parish of Church Gresley. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was evidenced in Repton Wapentake (the
 successor to "Walecros" Wapentake) in later times: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. The site is said to be deserted: it is given as lying approximately at SK240200 in Beresford, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lost Villages}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 346, in Beresford and Hurst, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Deserted Medieval Villages}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 185, and in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. However, a Drakelowe House is marked on the modern 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map at SK249201.
\par \tab \tab Land here was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 83 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 484 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 10 no. 6).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab HEARTHCOTE. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Church Gresley, represented by Hearthcote Farm: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 637. Its location in that parish and its association with Drakelowe suggest that it was probably in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086. See DBY 14 Nigel note.
\par \tab ALRIC. On this form, see 6,24 Alric note.
\par 14,2\tab STAPENHILL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was evidenced in Repton Wapentake (the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake) in later times: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 255; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. The majority of Stapenhill had been taken into Burton-on-Trent (Staffordshire) by 1904; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab Land in Stapenhill (either corresponding to this entry, or to 3,5 or to both) was granted to Wulfsige the black (possibly a kinsman of Wulfric Spot) by King Edmund in 942: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Early Charters of Northern England}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 104 no. 102 (= Sawyer, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Charters}{\insrsid10361692 , no. 1606 = }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Charters of Burton Abbey}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 11-13 no. 7).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab GODRIC. Nigel of Stafford had three predecessors called Godric (14,2-3;8), possibly the same individual, although it was a very common name and see 6,29 Godric note. On the name Godric, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par 14,3\tab SWADLINCOTE. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Church Gresley and probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it did later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46.
\par \tab 1 TRIBUTARY. See 1,37 tributaries note.
\par \tab GODRIC. See 14,2 Godric note, and on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par 14,4\tab FOREMARK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it did later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab ULFKIL <OF FOREMARK>. On this name, see 6,7 Ulfkil note.
\par \tab \tab The name Ulfkil occurs on eleven holdings in Derbyshire, nine of them acquire
d by Henry of Ferrers, probably from the same individual: see 6,7 Ulfkil note. Foremark and its dependency (14,4-5) are less than five miles from the nearest of Henry's acquisitions and so may have been held by the same Ulfkil in 1066. But there appears t
o
 be no reason why Henry should have been denied Foremark if it were held by his predecessor Ulfkil - it is not the only Ulfkil holding in its wapentake, for instance - so it is safer to assume Ulfkil of Foremark was another individual. Nigel of Stafford, 
on whom Foremark devolved, did not succeed an Ulfkil in any other county (JP).
\par 14,5\tab A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Foremark (14,4).
\par \tab INGLEBY. This was a township of Foremark Ancient Parish and like Foremark itself (14,4) will have lain in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab \tab For other parts of Ingleby, see 1,26. 10,23. 17,23.
\par \tab 3 BOVATES. The individual assessments of Ingleby, though they may appear to be random, effectively add up to two carucates: 3 bovates at 1,26, 1 carucate and one-sixth of a carucate at 10,23, 3 bovates at 14,5 and 2 parts of 1 bovate at 17,23.
\par \tab LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, the equivalent of half a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par 14,6\tab TICKNALL. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it did later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab NIGEL HAS IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH AND 1 VILLAGER AND 1 SMALLHOLDER. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'm }{\insrsid10361692 abbreviates }{\i\insrsid10361692 uillanum}{\insrsid10361692 , accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692 ; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\insrsid10361692  is probably also accusative (}{\i\insrsid10361692 bordarium}{\insrsid10361692 ). See 1,27 villagers note.
\par \tab 
BELONGS TO REPTON, A MANOR OF THE KING'S. That is, to Repton (1,20) of which another part of Ticknall (1,22) was also a jurisdiction. Nigel held no part of Repton in his fief, so there is no manor of his on which this jurisdiction can depend. It is possib
le that Ticknall is, in fact, an alienation, and should be in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par \tab THE FOURTH PART OF THE PASTURABLE WOODLAND. Pasturable woodland at Ticknall is mentioned at 1,26 where the same dimension (1 league by \'bd league) is given; see 14,6 whose note. P
resumably the dimensions are repeated and refer to the total size of Ticknall's wood, not simply to Nigel's part of it: 14,6 whose note. The Abbot of Burton holds a fifth of the pasturable woodland here (3,7) but no dimensions are given.
\par \tab WHOSE LENGTH. Strictly speaking the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 cuius}{\insrsid10361692  ('whose') refers to the last noun written, in this case }{\i\insrsid10361692 villae}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('village'), but more probably relates to the previous noun }{\i\insrsid10361692 siluae}{\insrsid10361692  ('woodland'). It is most unlikely that it refers to the }{\i\insrsid10361692 quarta pars}{\insrsid10361692  ('fourth part') at the begi
nning. Thus the clause is referring to the total size of Ticknall's wood (as apparently given also at 1,26), and not merely to Nigel's portion.
\par 14,7\tab SMISBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it did later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249;}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab EDWIN. On this name, see 1,9 Edwin note.
\par 14,8\tab RAVENSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish most of which lay in Leicestershire in 1086; see LEC 26,1. At that time the Derbyshire portion was probably in "Walecros" Wapentake just as it was later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 47. The Derbyshire portion of Ravenstone was transferred to Leicestershire in 1884; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab GODRIC. See 14,2 Godric note, and on his name, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par 14,9\tab DONISTHORPE. This was a hamlet divided between the Ancient Parishes of Church Gresley and Measham in Derbyshire and of Seal and Ashby-de-la-Zouch in Leicestershire. For the Leic
estershire portion, see LEC 14,28. The Derbyshire part of Donisthorpe was no doubt in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it was later in its successor (Repton Wapentake): }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. The Derbyshire portion of Donisthorpe was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab KARLI <OF DONISTHORPE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Carle}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Carlo}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Carl}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Karle}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Garle}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Karl(i)}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 301-302. The Alecto edition has Karli. This is the only occurrence of this name in}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire.
\par 14,10\tab OAKTHORPE. This was a township partly in the Ancient Parish of Stretton-en-le-Field and partly in the Ancient Parish of Church Gresl
ey. Like Stretton-en-le-Field itself (6,16) it was divided with Leicestershire in 1086. The Leicestershire portion of Oakthorpe is not named in Domesday but its details are included under Donisthorpe; see LEC 14,28 Donisthorpe note. In 1086, the Derbyshir
e portion no doubt lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 just as it did later in its successor (Repton Wapentake) later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. The Derbyshire portion of Oakthorpe was transferred to Leicestershire in 1897; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab ERNWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernuin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ernuin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{\i\insrsid10361692 Erneuin}{\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ] - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Earnwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 244. JRM preferred the first element Ern- for Old English}{\i\insrsid10361692  Earn- }{\insrsid10361692 and the second element -win for Old English \-}{\i\insrsid10361692 -wine}{\insrsid10361692 
, because they reflected the Domesday spellings. The form Earnwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Ernwin. The Alecto edition has Earnwine.
\par 14,11\tab "TRANGESBY". This place has been identified with Thringstone. The identification assumes that the Old English termination -}{\i\insrsid10361692 tun}{\insrsid10361692  was substituted for Scandinavian -}{\i\insrsid10361692 by}{\insrsid10361692 
, both elements having a similar meaning; see Ekwall, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dictionary of English Place Names}{\insrsid10361692 
, under Thringstone. Ekwall probably drew his information from Wainwright ('Early Scandinavian Settlement in Derbyshire', p. 108), who did not elaborate on the identification. A complication is that }{\i\insrsid10361692 -tun}{\insrsid10361692 
 is an early element in place-names and it would be surprising to see it appear after 1086, unless Thringstone represents the revival of the pre-Danish name.
\par \tab \tab Thringstone is close to the other places just mentioned here (14,8-10) and if it were part of Derbyshire in 1086 it would no doubt have
 been in "Walecros" Wapentake. It now lies in Leicestershire but there is no record of its ever having been in Derbyshire. Unlike the other places (14,8-10) which were subsequently transferred to that county, it was already in Leicestershire by 1334: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 161. Moreover, it was a chapelry of Whitwick Ancient Parish, Leicestershire. It is not in later records, but it is coupled with Osgathorpe (LEC 14,27) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 238, where the Prioress of }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gratia Dei}{\insrsid10361692  (the Priory of Grace-Dieu at Belton in Leicestershire, SK 4318) holds 4 virgates in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Threngeston}{
\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Osegothorp}{\insrsid10361692 ; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 161. As the two places are adjacent, it is possible that Thringstone was an unnamed part of Osgodthorpe in 1086. In the absence of clear evidence of its manorial descent it has been left unidentified for the present. For another part, see 1,23.

\par \tab ALNOTH. On this form, see 7,13 Alnoth note.
\par 15\tab LAND OF ROBERT SON OF WILLIAM. In Leicestershire (LEC 43,9) }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Robert (the usher) is said to be Robert, son of William the usher; see LEC 43,9 entry note. A Robert, identified as Robert the usher in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Inquisitio Eliensis}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , occurs in Cambridgeshire (CAM 39,3), but he is not necessarily the same man. However, it is possible that the Robert son of W
illiam who holds the present fief and who also holds the adjacent fief to William the usher in the Nottinghamshire folios (NTT 28-29) is the same as the Leicestershire Robert. A William the usher also occurs in Devon (DEV 5,9. 51,2-12). See }{
\insrsid10361692 Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , pp.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  389, 492. On the name Robert, see 1,36 Robert note and, on the name William, see 1,29 William note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 This fief consists of a single manor.
\par \tab IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to the chapter head is written an }{\i\insrsid10361692 f}{\insrsid10361692 ; see DBY 12 chapter note.
\par 15,1\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from later evidence regarding Stanley; see 15,1 Stanley note.
\par \tab STANLEY. This was a chapelry of Spondon Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 607. Spondon itself (6,67) was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake later as was Stanley: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par \tab ULVAR <OF STANLEY>. The Domesday forms - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlfar}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vluer}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulfarr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ulvar}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 398-99. The Phillim
ore printed translation for YKS 9W12 has Ulfr in error. The Alecto edition has Ulvar. These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Book.
\par 16\tab LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY. He probably originated from Bully in the French d\'e9partement of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufch\'e2
tel. His lands ultimately became the honour of Tickhill named from his castle there (in Yorkshire). Both the honour and the castle are sometimes referred to as those of Blyth. Roger and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory (N
ottinghamshire) shortly after 1086. After Roger's death his lands were seized by Robert of Bell\'ea
me, son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Roger and Robert may have been related. Robert lost his lands in 1102 for rebellion and the honour was in royal hands until
 King Stephen gave it to Henry, Count of Eu, son of William (the Domesday holder) and Beatrice, Roger of Bully's daughter. In the fourteenth century Roger's lands were held of the honour of Lancaster. See }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 223-28; Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 401-402. On his Christian name, see DBY 5 Roger note.
\par \tab This fief appears to consist of land in two wapentakes:
\par \tab \tab 16,1-2 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab ___________________________
\par \tab \tab 16,3-8 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake].
\par \tab The information about the second group of estates is a later addition. All the estates are subinfeudated except for 16,8 whose holder is not stated. Where no subtenant is given, the assumption is that it was held by Roger himself.
\par 16,1\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is restored from evidence relating to the later location of Breaston and Risley (16,1-2). See \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BREASTON. This was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish. Sawley itself (2,1) was in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later. Breaston was in that wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 246; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For other parts, see 6,65. 9,5. 13,1.
\par \tab "LIGULF". The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a lightning-shaped transposition sign above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ligulf'}{\insrsid10361692 
 and a corresponding one above the same name later in the entry to indicate that they were the same person. On the name, see 1,30 "Ligulf" note.
\par \tab YOUNG LEOFWIN. See 6,29 Leofwin note and, on the name Leofwin, see 1,9 Leofwin note. A person called plain Leofwin was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in 16,5 and in NTT 9,79, but it has not been proved that they were Young Leofwin.
\par \tab HAD. The main scribe of Great Domesday added }{\i\insrsid10361692 r}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 h'b'}{\insrsid10361692  to turn the abbreviation for the singular }{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit}{\insrsid10361692  into that for the plural }
{\i\insrsid10361692 habuerunt}{\insrsid10361692 , probably as soon as he realized there was more than one }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder.
\par \tab 3 CARUCATES. The total assessment of Breaston is 6 carucates (3 + \'bd carucate of jurisdiction here, 3 bovates at 6,65, 1 bovate at 9,5 and 2 carucates at 13,1).
\par \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for about seven or eight letters after }{\i\insrsid10361692 T'ra}{\insrsid10361692  which has no }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{
\insrsid10361692  (dot) after it; see 1,35 land note.
\par \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *]. The Domesday forms of his first name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Fulco}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Fulcho}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Fulco}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Folco}{\insrsid10361692 : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 98. Some of the people named Fulco in the present edition appear as Fulk in some of the Phillimore printed translations. 
The Alecto edition has Fulk here. On the possible identity of this man, see 16,1 seized note.
\par \tab MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Fulco ... habet}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('Fulco ... has'). In the Phillimore printed translation a new sentence begins with the meadow. In the Alecto edition the meadow is part of the same sentence as Fulco and the villagers with their ploughs.
\par \tab THIS "LIGULF". The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a lightning-shaped transposition sign above }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ligulf'}{\insrsid10361692  and a corresponding one abo
ve the same name earlier in the entry to indicate that they were the same person.
\par \tab \'bd CARUCATE, A JURISDICTION. The Phillimore printed translation has '\'bd carucate of the jurisdiction'. The Latin phrase means that Fulco has \'bd carucate of land unnamed (though probably in Breaston) which is a }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{
\insrsid10361692  (that is, 'sokeland' or 'a Jurisdiction') of Breaston. The prepositional phrase }{\i\insrsid10361692 de soca}{\insrsid10361692  is 'defining': '\'bd carucate consisting of jurisdiction (-land)'. The Alecto edition has ' \'bd
 carucate of sokeland'. Compare 1,35 jurisdiction note and 6,48 jurisdiction note.
\par \tab FULCO OF LISORS HAS SEIZED FROM GILBERT OF GHENT. The Phillimore printed translation has 'which Fulk of Lisors usurped, against Gilbert of Ghent'. The Alecto translation reads: 'which Fulk de Lisors has, having 
seized it to the loss of Gilbert de Ghent.' The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 quam Fulco de Lusoris habet interceptam super Gislebertum de gand}{\insrsid10361692 . The verb }{\i\insrsid10361692 intercipio}{\insrsid10361692 
 has the idea of interrupting or disrupting something by seizing, or simply (as a compound of }{\i\insrsid10361692 capio}{\insrsid10361692 ) of 'seizing', 'capturing', 'taking'. The preposition }{\i\insrsid10361692 super}{\insrsid10361692 
 often means 'to the loss of' or 'in despite of' in such contexts, the usage originating from its sense of 'overcoming', 'overpowering', 'being more powerful', as in the verbs }{\i\insrsid10361692 supero}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 
supersum}{\insrsid10361692 . If }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet interceptam}{\insrsid10361692 
 were found in Classical Latin, it would have the sense which is given to it by the Alecto translation: Fulco possesses it having 'intercepted it', 'captured' it. The main scribe of Domesday was a purist and a classicizer, but he seems here to have 
slipped into a Medieval Latin way of forming the perfect tense, followed by French in which }{\i\insrsid10361692 habeo}{\insrsid10361692  (= French }{\i\insrsid10361692 avoir}{\insrsid10361692 ) is a mere auxiliary verb, }{\i\insrsid10361692 quam Fulco}{
\insrsid10361692 ...}{\i\insrsid10361692  habet interceptam}{\insrsid10361692  being the equivalent of modern French: }{\i\insrsid10361692 que Fulco }{\insrsid10361692 ...}{\i\insrsid10361692  a intercept\'e9e}{\insrsid10361692 . For a similar u
sage, see BKM 18,3 }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii. uirgatas quas Willelmus et Rogerius habent occupatas et celatas super regem}{\insrsid10361692  ('3 virgates which William and Roger have seized and concealed against the king').
\par \tab \tab Gilbert of Ghent holds 2 carucates of land in Breaston (13,1) which is a jurisdiction of Ilkeston: 13,1 jurisdiction note. The present information rightly belongs in that entry. It appears that Fulco has removed \'bd
 carucate of jurisdiction land from Gilbert of Ghent's Breaston (13,1) and added it to Roger of Bully's manor there (16,1). On this illegality, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 125 no. 333. She translates 'which Fulk de Lisors stole from Gilbert of Ghent'.
\par \tab \tab Both entries in the present fief were held in 1086 by a person called Fulco, identified in 16,1 as 'R
oger of Bully's man', while in Nottinghamshire 'Fulco, Roger's man' holds eight estates from him and one of his subtenants on three estates in Yorkshire is called Fulco. It is not certain that all these subtenants were Fulco of Lisors, who is actually onl
y mentioned here and in YKS CW14; Fulco was a common name. Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 201, identifies all Roger of Bully's subtenants as Fulco de Lisoriis, with reference to the Blyth Cartulary and the Rufford Charters. Certainly Fulco, named as of Li
sors, gave some of these estates (as well as others that he did not hold in 1086) to Blyth Priory which was founded by Roger of Bully and to whose foundation charter Fulco of Lisors was a witness; see NTT 9,49 Blyth note.
\par \tab \tab Fulco of Lisors' place of origin could either be Lisores in the French d\'e9partement of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot) or Lisors in the d\'e9partement of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Lyons-la-For\'ea
t). His wife was called Albereda and they had a son, Robert: Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 201. The Phillimore printed index has 'Fulk of Lusore', apparently an error for 'Lisors', as that is the form in the translation. On the name Fulco, see 16,1 Fulco note.
\par \tab \tab Since every one of the 19 Fulcos between the Wash and the Humber was a tenant of Roger of Bully, it is probable that they were the same individual (JP).
\par \tab GILBERT. On this name, see 9,5 Gilbert note.
\par 16,2\tab RISLEY. This was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish. Sawley itself (2,1) appears to have been in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later. Risley was in that wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part, see 17,20.
\par \tab WULFSI. A person called Wulfsi was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in 16,8 and in
 some of his holdings in Nottinghamshire. No evidence has been found to prove that these were all the same person and Wulfsi was a common name. On this name, see 6,47 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab \tab These holdings were in those wapentakes which Robin Fleming argues were granted to Roger as a block: Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kings and Nobles}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 148, 152, 162-64 (JP).
\par \tab GODRIC. Roger of Bully also had nine predecessors with the name Godric in Nottinghamshire (9,26;28;40;59;82;89;94;105;129) and four in Yorkshire (YKS 10W7;10;16;37). However,
 only for the Godric in NTT 9,94 is there any documentary evidence as to his identity (see NTT 9,94 Godric note); no other such evidence has so far been found to connect the other predecessors and Godric was a very common name, on which see 1,30 Godric no
te.
\par \tab \tab All but one of his holdings were in those wapentakes which Robin Fleming argues were granted to Roger as a block: Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kings and Nobles}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 148, 152, 162-64 (JP).
\par \tab 5 BOVATES OF LAND AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Wulfsi and Godric each held estates of this size here as did Leofwin in the other part of Risley (17,20). This suggests the partition of an estate of 2 carucates equally among heirs.
\par \tab LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday left no space after }{\i\insrsid10361692 T'ra}{\insrsid10361692  which has a }{\i\insrsid10361692 punctus}{\insrsid10361692 
 (dot) after it; presumably he intended the missing information to be interlined, as occasionally did happen. See 1,35 land note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab MEADOW, 20 ACRES. }{\insrsid10361692 The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac's}{\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 acras}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 is accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habent
}{\insrsid10361692  ('have'); see 1,12 meadow note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab FULCO [* OF LISORS *] HOLDS IT. He may be the same as the Fulco, identified as Roger of Bully's man, who was his subtenant in 16,1, and might be the same as Fulco of Lisors; see 16,1 seized note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ERNWIN [* ERNWY <OF STANTON> *] CLAIMS IT. }{\insrsid10361692 On the claim, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 125 no. 334. It is hard to identify Ernwin and understand the basis of his claim. An Ernwin was a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder at Oakthorpe (14,10), but no other man of this name occurs in the Derbyshire folios. However, an Ernwy had held Osleston (6,63) with a Leofwin (the name of one of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 
holders of Risley in 17,20), an Ernwy held part of Hucklow (7,10) in 1066 and an Ernwy is both a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E}{\insrsid10361692 . and a 1086 holder of Clowne (17,10) and a 1086 holder of Stanton-by-Bridge (17,22); this last is quite cl
ose to Risley. The confusion of the terminations \endash }{\i\insrsid10361692 wine}{\insrsid10361692  and -}{\i\insrsid10361692 wige}{\insrsid10361692 
 is not uncommon. It is possible that Ernwy was a relative of Wulfsi and Godric (and therefore probably of Leofwin) and expected to inherit this estate and hold it from the king among the land
s in chapter 17. He might be the son of Leofwin who holds Risley in 17,20. On the name Ernwin, see 14,10 Ernwin note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 k}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  in the central margin near the end of the entry; the pen and ink used suggest that he wrote it 
at the same time as the entry. It abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 kalumnia/kalumpnia }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 klamor }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
('claim') and refers to Ernwin's claim to this land (16,2 Ernwin note). However, later he also wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 d'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  in the outer margin roughly parallel to the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 k}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
; this was done using the same pale ink and different pen that he used for a campaign of addition after the county had been rubricated, which included the following six entries (16,3 entry note). This probably abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
disputatio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('dispute') or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 diratiocinandum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('to be determined/proved/established') and he may not have seen the marginal }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 k}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 or he thought that it needed to be emphasised. The result of this claim was not recorded in }{\insrsid10361692 Domesday Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , however. For other marginal }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 K}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 s}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 written beside claims, see 6,27 marginal K note and 17,9 claims note. On these and other marginal letters indicating disputes, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 124 (= Erskine and Williams, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 188-90).
\par \tab \tab It has been suggested that this }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 d'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 desunt}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('they are lacking'), referring to the six added entries: Roffe, 'Introduction', }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 2; in his }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  booklet, p. 30, he stated that the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 d'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  abbreviates }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 deficit}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('it is incomplete') also referring to the omitted holdings. This is unlikely, t
hough, because it was almost certainly written at the same time as these entries, so it would serve no point. Moreover, the similar }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 d'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 written by the main scribe in the margin of folio 206d refers to a claim recorded in the entry adjacent to it (HUN 20,3 marginal note).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 16,3\tab THIS ENTRY and the next five entries (16,4-8) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of Roger of Bully's fief. They were written in pale ink and in a slightly informal style during one of
 his later campaigns of addition after the rubrication of the county had taken place; for the other entries in Derbyshire and other counties entered during this campaign, see 1,17 entry note. These holdings were all in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake whereas the tw
o holdings already entered in Roger's fief were in 'Morleystone' Wapentake. On the }{\i\insrsid10361692 d'}{\insrsid10361692  that he added in the outer margin next to the preceding entry (16,2) at the same time as these six entries, see 16,2 scribe note.

\par \tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the wapentake in which the following estates later lay; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BEIGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For other parts, see 5,2. 10,3.
\par \tab \tab This village was confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully in 1088: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Blyth Priory Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , no. 325 pp. 207-209; see NTT 9,49 Blyth note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab Beighton was abolished for civil purposes in
 1967, parts being taken into the borough of Sheffield, Wales Civil Parish and Aston-cum-Aughton Civil Parish (all in Yorkshire) and other parts being absorbed by Eckington Civil Parish and Killamarsh Civil Parish (both in Derbyshire); see Youngs, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 68.
\par \tab SWEIN. A person called Swein was Roger of Bully's predecessor in NTT 9,31 and on several of his holdings in Yorkshire (where he is called Sveinn in the Phillimore printed translation ). In LIN C9 Swein son of Svavi had held 
a messuage in Lincoln which passed to Roger of Bully, so it is possible that his predecessor here and elsewhere was Svavi's son, though Swein was a very common name and no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them. On this name, see 1,30 
Swein note.
\par \tab HOWEVER, THERE ARE 4 PLOUGHS. Overstocking of ploughs when compared to the number in the plough estimate is almost four times as common in Domesday Derbyshire than understocking, so the use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 tamen}{\insrsid10361692 
 only here and in 17,22 is odd.
\par \tab ROGER HOLDS IT. Evidently this is the fief-holder, Roger of Bully.
\par \tab LEOFWIN <OF ASTON>. He might be the same person as Roger of Bully's predecessor in 16,5 and possibly as his predecessor in NTT 9,79, but it has not been proved that they were the same person as the You
ng Leofwin who held Breaston (16,1). On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par \tab \tab It is likely that he is the same individual as the Leofwin of 1,9 and 17,5-6; see 1,9 Leofwin note (JP).
\par 16,4\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 16,3 entry note.
\par \tab DORE. This was a chapelry of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Dronfield itself (1,6) probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 and Dore is evidenced there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Dore was taken partly into Sheffield (Yorkshire) and partly into Eccleshall (also Yorkshire) in 1929 and fully into Sheffield in 1934: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 73-74.
\par \tab EDWIN. On this name, see 1,9 Edwin note.
\par 16,5\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 16,3 entry note.
\par \tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Dore (16,4).
\par \tab LEOFWIN <OF ASTON> [HAD]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the verb }{\i\insrsid10361692 habuit/habebat}{\insrsid10361692  after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Leuuin'}{\insrsid10361692 . See 16,3 Leofwin note. On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.

\par \tab THE PARCHMENT here is thin and greasy and there is some print-through from the verso of folio 278, and this has distorted some of the words in the Alecto facsimile; see 1,1 carucates note, 17,6 Handley no
te and 17,8 Tapton note. In this entry, for example, there are several marks between the two lines at the end of the entry in that facsimile. In the next entry (16,6) }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 Bada. xii. ...}{\insrsid10361692  ('and Bada 12 ... ') and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T'ra .ii. car' }{\insrsid10361692 ('Land for 2 ploughs') can be seen more clearly in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile than in the Alecto facsimile; see also 16,8 Rowthorne note.
\par 16,6\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 16,3 entry note.
\par \tab NORTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab Part of Norton was incorporated into Sheffield (Yorkshire) in 1901 and in 1934 the rest was divided between the borough of Sheffield and the Civil Parish of Coal Aston (Derbyshire): Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 81.
\par \tab GODIVA <OF NORTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godeua}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godeue}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godiua}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godgeua}{\insrsid10361692 
 etc. - represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godgifu}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 264. JRM preferred the form Godiva as it reflected most of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Godgifu. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab Since the nearest other occurrence of the name is over 50 miles from this modest property, it is likely to have been the only holding of this Godiva (JP).
\par \tab BADA <OF NORTON>. The Domesday form of this name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bada}{\insrsid10361692 , represents Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Bad}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 d}{\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\insrsid10361692 a}{\insrsid10361692 
: von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 191. The Alecto edition has Bada. This name only occurs twice in Domesday, both times in DBY, the other being in 17,8, where he had held an estate a few miles from this one, which also contains an unusual reference to acres in its assessment.
\par \tab \tab On the reading in the Alecto facsimile, see 16,5 parchment note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. On the reading in the Alecto facsimile, see 16,5 parchment note.
\par \tab INGRAM <OF BILBY> HOLDS FROM ROGER. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ingram}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ingrannus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old German }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ing(e)ram}{\insrsid10361692 
, or perhaps }{\i\insrsid10361692 Ingelram}{\insrsid10361692  with loss of }{\i\insrsid10361692 l}{\insrsid10361692  : Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 73-74. In the Phillimore printed translation the name Ingran appears. The Alecto edition has Ingram. There 
are only three occurrences of this name in Domesday Book: here and in 16,7 and, described as Roger of Bully's man, in NTT 9,45 (Bilby); they were probably the same man.
\par 16,7\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 16,3 entry note.
\par \tab ALFRETON. The Domesday name-form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Elstretune}{\insrsid10361692  which is accepted without comment as Alfreton (otherwise }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alferton}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alverton}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Auferton}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Alfreton}{\insrsid10361692  etc.) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 187-88. This was an Ancient Paris
h. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 251;}{\i\insrsid10361692  Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab [* EARL *] MORCAR. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Morcar}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Morcharus}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Swedish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Morkar}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 329-30. JRM preferred the form Morcar as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; also the earl's name is normally spelt that way. The Alecto edition also has Morcar.
\par \tab \tab Although the name Morcar occu
rs over 150 times in Domesday Book, it probably represents only eight individuals, which makes the task of identifying the earl where his title has been omitted easier than it is for his brother [Earl Edwin]. As no other Morcar is recorded as a lord of me
n
, the Morcar of BUK 12,31 is likely to have been the earl even though the holding is close to those of Morcar <of Clifton>. The Morcar holdings in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire all devolved upon Roger of Bully which makes it probable that
 they had been held by one individual, almost certainly the earl in view of the value (\'a3
15) of the handsome manor of Gunthorpe (NTT 9,74), one of the half-dozen most valuable manors in the county, and barely 10 miles from the earl's manor of 'Newbold' (NTT 
1,58). In Yorkshire, there can scarcely be any doubt that the Morcar who had held the royal manors, or those (whose values suggest most had been royal) which devolved upon Drogo of la Beuvri\'e8
re, or the Bishop of Durham. Probably, though less certainly, the
 large manors acquired by Count Alan of Brittany had also been held by the earl. Apart from the holdings held by Morcar <of Smeaton>, the remaining Yorkshire properties were all connected to one or more of these holdings attributed to the earl. In Lincoln
shire as in Yorkshire, Earl Morcar was evidently the predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvri\'e8
re (LIN 30), several of whose manors cluster around Skillington (2,37) and Sempringham (27,57) to which they had been connected in the past, making it likely that the Morcar on those holdings and others in the same fiefs was the earl: }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Anglo-Saxon Wills}{\insrsid10361692 , edited by Dorothy Whitelock, no. 39, pp. 95-97;207-12. The remaining Lincolnshire holdings (LIN 56,9-10) were close to his manors of Bassingham (LIN 30,27) and Carlton (LIN
 1,26), and substantial enough to please an earl. See also Clarke, }{\i\insrsid10361692 English Nobility}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 215-217, whose list omits the dependencies of manors and BUK 12,31. 23,2. CHS 2,21. YKS 6W2;5-6. 6N162. (6E1) (JP).
\par \tab INGRAM <OF BILBY> HOLDS FROM ROGER. See 16,6 Ingram note.
\par 16,8\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 16,3 entry note.
\par \tab ROWTHORNE. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 269. Ault Hucknall
 does not itself appear in Domesday, but a number of its constituents do: Bramley Vale (16,8), 'Blingsby' and Hardstoft (5,5), Rowthorne (16,8) and Stainsby (5,4). Rowthorne, like these other places, probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did
 later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name appears clearly as }{\i\insrsid10361692 RVGETORN}{\insrsid10361692 , as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it could be misread as }{\i\insrsid10361692 RVGETORNE}{\insrsid10361692 
 because of print-through; see 16,5 parchment note.
\par \tab WULFSI. The form of this personal name is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlsi}{\insrsid10361692  here, which is the most commonly found form of the Old English personal name }{\i\insrsid10361692 Wulfsige}{\insrsid10361692 
; see 6,47 Wulfsi note. In the Phillimore printed translation it appears as Ulf by mistake. On this predecessor of Roger of Bully, see 16,2 Wulfsi note.
\par \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. On this name, see 5,1 Stenulf note.
\par \tab AS A MANOR. This information is probably included to counter the natural assumption that, there being two }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders, there were two manors in Rowthorne in 1066.
\par \tab BRAMLEY [VALE]. The Domesday form is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Branlege}{\insrsid10361692 . This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Ault Hucknall. It was represented by Bramleylane Farm and Bramleyvale Farm in 1959 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 269) and now by a development called Bramley Vale (
SK467668). It is not certain if these represent the site of Bramley. Bramley Vale Farm is earlier found on the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 82 of 1840, reprinted as sheet 28 in 1970). On that map Bramley Lane is the name of a part of w
hat is now the A617 road.
\par \tab 2 BOVATES OF LAND, A JURISDICTION OF ROWTHORNE. The Latin is }{\i\insrsid10361692 ii bovatae terrae de soca Rugetorn}{\insrsid10361692 
. The Phillimore printed translation reads: '2b. of land, of Rowthorn jurisdiction'. Although the Latin phrase is clumsy, the meaning is clear: these two bovates of land are a }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{\insrsid10361692 
 (' a jurisdiction') of Rowthorne. The problem with the Latin is that }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rugetorn}{\insrsid10361692  is not given a Latin case ending; the name is simply copied from the head of the entry. The scribal practice on this is variable, bu
t normally Old English names of this type are not given Latin inflections but the Latin is so phrased as to avoid uncertainty in meaning. Here }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rugetorn}{\insrsid10361692 
 should be genitive and the translation: '2 bovates of land (consisting) of a jurisdiction (or 'jurisdict
ion-land') of Rowthorne'. The main scribe of Great Domesday had other phrases available for the same task, for example: '2 bovates of land. Jurisdiction of Rowthorne'. The Alecto translation reads: '2 bovates of land of the sokeland of Rowthorne.'
\par \tab IN LORDSHIP ... MEADOW. The phrasing here implies that the meadow was part of the lordship land, rather than for the use of the manor's inhabitants generally, as in other entries. This is unusual in Domesday, but not unique: LIN 24,56 has }{
\i\insrsid10361692 vi uillani 7 viii bordarii cum i caruca 7 xxx acris prati. Dominus quater xx }{\i\up6\insrsid10361692 ti}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 acras prati}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('6 villagers and 8 smallholders with 1 plough and 30 acres of meadow. The lord [has] 80 acres of meadow'). In HRT 33,12 there is 'Meadow for 1 \'bd ploughs and for the lord's work/use (}{\i\insrsid10361692 opus}{\insrsid10361692 )
. There is one instance in Domesday (LEC 1,3) where woodland for the lord (}{\i\insrsid10361692 silua dominica}{\insrsid10361692 ) is immediately followed by woodland for the villagers (}{\i\insrsid10361692 silua uillanorum}{\insrsid10361692 
); see LEC 1,3 woodland note. In GLS 7,1 the meadows and woodland were 'to maintain the manor'
, so were presumably shared by both lord and villagers as a whole. For the suggestion that the main scribe of Great Domesday tried to draw attention to meadow held by the villagers, see 1,12 meadow note.
\par \tab AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday 
left the remaining third of the column blank, perhaps in case yet more lands of Roger's should be discovered (as happened with Henry of Ferrers: DBY 6), or perhaps for aesthetic reasons. He left spaces after chapters 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
\par 17\tab LAND OF THE KING'S THANES. This chapter, like similar final chapters in many Domesday counties, groups together lands held by Englishmen. This group is probably more miscellaneous than at first appears. Some held these lands }{\i\insrsid10361692 
T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 , others may be relatives of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder, yet others may have received these lands in exchange for other lands (often larger or a larger number) that they held in 1066; a further group may have been rewarded by the king after 1066. The names of some 1086 holders have been omitted and
 it would be rash to assume that in every case they are the same as the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders. On these thanes, see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 307.
\par \tab In some counties, the arrangement of such a chapter is by landholder. Here the order is strictly by wapentake:
\par \tab \tab 17,1-10 ['Scarsdale' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 17,11-12 ["Walecros" Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 17,13-20 ['Morleystone' Wapentake]
\par \tab \tab 17,21 [Litchurch Wapentake?]. The identity of the place is uncertain.
\par \tab \tab ______________________________
\par \tab \tab 17,22-23 ["Walecros" Wapentake]. These are added entries.
\par \tab The lands of one 1066 holder, Tholf, are brought together (17,4-5) but they lie in the same wapentake. The lands of Ernwy, if he is the same man (17,10 Ernwy note), are separated as they lie in dif
ferent wapentakes (17,10;22); only in the latter did he hold both in 1066 and 1086.
\par 17,1\tab [* 'SCARSDALE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from evidence of where the places in 17,1-10 lay later. See \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab BARLOW. This is 'Little' Barlow, a hamlet of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Dronfield itself (1,6) appears to have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake, as was 'Great' Barlow: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. For Great Barlow, see 12,1.
\par \tab LEOFRIC. On this name, see 3,2 Leofric note.
\par \tab UHTRED. On this name, see 6,3 Uhtred note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 5 OXEN. In other words for five-eighths of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder of this entry 
and of the next three (17,2-4) and of 17,12;21, and possibly of 17,14;16-17; the information may have been missing in the putative circuit volume. There is space for this detail to be added later at the end of 17,2-4, the normal position for 1086 subtenan
ts (see \{Introduction: Layout of Entries\}
), but also for many of the 1086 holders in chapter 17. However, there is very little room at the end of the present entry, unless the central margin is used. It is possible, therefore, that the space left by the scr
ibe at the end of the next line was for an overrun; see 17,2 [***] note.
\par 17,2\tab KILLAMARSH. This was a chapelry of Eckington Ancient Parish. Both North and South Wingfield (7,13. 8,3) were probably in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as they were later and as was Killamarsh: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 259; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For another part of Killamarsh, see 12,5.
\par \tab GODRIC. On his name, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par \tab [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for about ten or eleven letters after }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godric}{\insrsid10361692 . He may have thought that there were four}{\i\insrsid10361692  T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders of Killamarsh, not three, despite the marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 anerium}{\insrsid10361692 ] with }{\i\insrsid10361692 III}{\insrsid10361692 
 above it; there are other examples in Domesday of such spaces, some of which were later filled. However, he may have left this spa
ce when he realized that there would not be room at the end of the previous entry (17,1) for the later insertion of the 1086 holder; this space would allow for the overrun of part of }{\i\insrsid10361692 [name] tenet de rege}{\insrsid10361692 
 (the wording used in 17,5 on) with a gallows sign to separate it from }{\i\insrsid10361692 Godric}{\insrsid10361692 . Weight is lent to this latter suggestion by the use of such a space in 17,8 and also in 12,4.
\par \tab EDRIC <OF KILLAMARSH>. On the name Edric, see 6,7 Edric note.
\par \tab \tab Killamarsh is likely to have been the only holding of this Edric. His o
nly namesakes within 100 miles were Henry of Ferrers' predecessors on the other side of the county (see 6,7 Edric note), and a tiny holding at Weston in Nottinghamshire (NTT 9,70) some 50 miles away, neither of which is likely to have been connected to th
is modest holding (JP).
\par \tab THORGISL. On this name, see 6,43 Thorgisl note.
\par \tab 70 PERCHES. That is, 1 furlong and 30 perches; see 8,2 meadow note.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. On the omission of the 1086 holder, see 17,1 holds note.
\par 17,3\tab [OLD] TUPTON. This was a 
township of the Ancient Parish of North Wingfield. Both [South?] Wingfield and [North?] Wingfield (7,13. 8,3) were probably in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as they were later. Other parts of Old Tupton appear in groups of places that seem to have been i
n 'Scarsdale' Wapentake at 1,8 and 8,3.
\par \tab DOLGFINN <OF TAPTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dolfin}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Delfin}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Dolgfinnr}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 225-26. JRM preferred not to have a final r in 
Old Norse names such as this because it is not present in the Domesday forms. The form Dolfin, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for DBY and the form Dolgfinnr in that for Yorkshire; both have now been standardized as Dolgfinn. The Al
ecto edition has Dolgfinnr.
\par \tab \tab As there are only three occurrences of this name in Domesday Derbyshire, it is possible that they represent the same person, despite the present one being a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder and the other two (17,8-9) holding and claiming respecti
vely in 1086. However, while Tapton and Calow (17,8-9) are adjacent, they are 9 miles from [Old] Tupton. A king's thane called Dolgfinn appears as holding land in Craven in YKS 29W39-41, but is unlikely to be connected to the men of this name in Derbyshir
e.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. On the omission of the 1086 holder, see 17,1 holds note. It could be Dolgfinn, the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holder, if he is the same man as the 1086 holder of 17,8 and the claimant of 17,9; see 17,3 Dolgfinn note.
\par 17,4\tab TOTLEY. This was a township of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Dronfield itself (1,6) appears to have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake, as was Totley: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. Totley was taken partly into Sheffield (Yorkshire) and partly into Eccleshall (also Yorkshire) in 1929 and fully into Sheffield in 1934: Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{
\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 86; see \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab \tab In the manuscript this place-name appears clearly as }{\i\insrsid10361692 TOTINGELEI}{\insrsid10361692 . In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\insrsid10361692 G}{\insrsid10361692  appears more like an }{\i\insrsid10361692 O}{\insrsid10361692 
, so the name could be misread as }{\i\insrsid10361692 TOTINOELEI}{\insrsid10361692 ; see 1,19 Melbourne note. It is clearly a }{\i\insrsid10361692 G}{\insrsid10361692  in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
\par \tab THOLF <OF ASTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tol}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toul}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tolf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tou}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Toulf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tulf}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tof}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thol}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tholfr}{\insrsid10361692 
, Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tholf}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 389-90. Some of the people named Tholf in the present edition appear as Tholfr, Tulf and Toli in some of the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto ed
ition has Tholf. As there is only one other occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire, in the next entry (17,5), for Coal Aston, and as that holding is only just over three miles away from Totley, it is likely that they were the same person.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. On the omission of the 1086 holder, see 17,1 holds note.
\par 17,5\tab [COAL] ASTON. This was a township of Dronfield Ancient Parish. Dronfield itself (1,6) appears to have been in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake, as was Coal Aston: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that this manor had once been part of the royal estate of Unstone and [Temple] Normanton (1,9); it is adjacent to Unstone. It is also possible that the present holder, Leofwin, was the same as the man who held that royal manor (wi
th Edwin) in 1066.
\par \tab THOLF <OF ASTON>. See 17,4 Tholf note.
\par \tab LEOFWIN <OF ASTON> HOLDS FROM THE KING. It is likely that he is the same person as the Leofwin who holds the next entry (Handley, 17,6), Coal Aston and Handley being within 3 \'bd
 miles of each other. See also 17,5 Aston note. On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par \tab \tab Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30, has suggested that this sentence, as also the same one in the next entry (17,6), were added (by the main scribe of Great Domesday); see
 also 17,7 "Sedret" note. There is no sign of addition in the manuscript, however.
\par 17,6\tab HANDLEY. The Domesday place is represented by Middle Handley (SK4077), Nether Handley (SK4077) and West Handley (SK3977) in Staveley Ancient Parish: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 302. These two entries (17,6-7) are its only appearance in Domesday, but geographically it is likely to have lain in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile the }{\i\insrsid10361692 L}{\insrsid10361692  of }{\i\insrsid10361692 HENLEIE}{\insrsid10361692  appears as a }{\i\insrsid10361692 b}{\insrsid10361692 , though it is clear in the manuscri
pt, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile; print-through from the recto of this folio may have caused this: 1,1 carucates note, 16,5 parchment note and 17,8 Tapton note. See also 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par \tab GODRIC. On his name, see 1,30 Godric note.
\par \tab 7 BOVATES. A further bovate needed to make a carucate is in the other manor at Handley (17,7)
\par \tab LEOFWIN <OF ASTON>. It is likely that he is the same person as the Leofwin who holds the previous entry (17,5). See also 17,5 Aston note. On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par 17,7\tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Handley (17,6).
\par \tab RAVEN <OF WINSTER>. On this name, see 6,2 Raven note.
\par \tab 1 BOVATE. This single bovate added to the seven in the other manor at Handley (17,6) make a carucate.
\par \tab "SEDRET" HOLDS FROM THE KING. This is the only occurrence of this name-form in Domesday. There is no reference to the name in Forssner, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England}{\insrsid10361692 
, and as he is a 1086 holder there is nothing in von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 . It has the
refore been decided to keep to the Domesday form. In the Phillimore printed translation it appears as Sidred. The Alecto edition has Sedret.
\par \tab \tab Roffe, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 30, has suggested that this sentence was added; see also 17,5 Leofwin note. The main scribe of Great Domesday certainly had to write }{\i\insrsid10361692 tenet de rege}{
\insrsid10361692  at the end of the previous entry (17,6), separating it from that entry by a gallows sign, but this could have been done at the time of writing this entry to save space. There is no sign in th
e manuscript that this sentence was added, the pen, ink and character of the writing being the same as for the rest of this entry.
\par 17,8\tab TAPTON. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Chesterfield itself was undoubtedly in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086, as was another part of Tapton; see 1,1 Chesterfield note.
\par \tab \tab In the Alecto facsimile }{\i\insrsid10361692 TAPETVNE }{\insrsid10361692 is clearly visible, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 T\'e6PETVNE }{\insrsid10361692 
with a vertical stroke, like an }{\i\insrsid10361692 l}{\insrsid10361692 , above the }{\i\insrsid10361692 E}{\insrsid10361692  and a large dot above the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T}{\insrsid10361692 
; this may be caused by print-through from the recto of this folio: 1,1 carucates note, 16,5 parchment note and 17,6 Handley note. See also 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par \tab BADA <OF NORTON>. See 16,6 Bada note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 2 OXEN. This is the equivalent of a quarter of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab NOW. Here and in the next entry (Calow 17,9) and in 17,12;14 the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 modo}{\insrsid10361692  ('now') might seem to draw attention to the discrepancy between the assessment: in the present entry land for 2 oxen (that is, \'bc
 plough) and the 1 plough that is there. However, in Domesday Derbyshire there were generally more ploughs at work than mentioned in the plough estimate (see 16,3 however note) and it would have been clearer if the main scribe of Great Domesday had used }
{\i\insrsid10361692 tamen}{\insrsid10361692  ('however') instead of }{\i\insrsid10361692 modo}{\insrsid10361692 , if indeed that was his intention. However, the word }{\i\insrsid10361692 modo}{\insrsid10361692 
 may actually have little force here and the word may merely have crept in from the putative circuit volume, especially if it included details of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 population immediately before the 1086 population, as Little Domesday Book does; see 1,9 now note.
\par \tab 1 ACRE IN LENGTH AND 1 ACRE IN WIDTH. Here, the acre is used, as occasionally elsewhere, as a linear measure. The assessment is equivalent to
 a single acre as a square measure, but the main scribe of Great Domesday in rearranging and abbreviating his material may not have seen that the dimensions were the same.
\par \tab DOLGFINN <OF TAPTON> HOLDS FROM THE KING. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this at the end of the first line of the next entry (17,9), interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 de rege}{\insrsid10361692 
 because of lack of space; it was not added. See 17,3 Dolgfinn note.
\par 17,9\tab CALOW. This was a township of Chesterfield Ancient Parish. Chesterfield itself was undoubtedly in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086; see 1,1 Chesterfield note.
\par \tab ESBIORN <OF CALOW>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sbern}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Sberne}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Esbern}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ], }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Esber}{\insrsid10361692  - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Asbiorn}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Esbiorn}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book
}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 165. The form Esbern appears in the Phillimore printed translations for some counties; it has now been standardized as Esbiorn. The Alecto edition has Esbiorn for the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders, but Esbern for the only 1086 holder (WIL 67,93). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab Since the nearest namesake, Esbiorn Crook, held equally modest properties some 40 miles away, it is likely that this was the only holding of the Esbiorn of Calow (JP).
\par \tab HAKON <OF STAVELEY>. See 12,1 Hakon note; on the name Hakon, see 6,37 Hakon note.
\par \tab LAND FOR 12 OXEN. In other words, land for 1 \'bd plough-teams
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab STENULF <OF SUTTON>. On this name, see 5,1 Stenulf note.
\par \tab DUNNING. On this name, see 6,34 Dunning note.
\par \tab NOW. See 17,8 now note.
\par \tab 17 VILLAGERS AND 1 SMLLHOLDER. The case of the Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uill'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 bord'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is unknown; see 1,11 villagers note.
\par \tab DOLGFINN }{\insrsid10361692 <OF TAPTON> }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 CLAIMS IT. }{\insrsid10361692 On this, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 125 no. 335. Calow is adjacent to Tapton which is he
ld by a Dolgfinn, probably the same man (17,8); see 17,3 Dolgfinn note.
\par \tab \tab The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote }{\i\insrsid10361692 K}{\insrsid10361692  in the outer margin next to this entry. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 It abbreviates }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 kalumnia/kalumpnia }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 or }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 klamor }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ('claim') and refers to Dolgfinn's claim. For other marginal }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 K}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 s}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
written beside claims, see 6,27 marginal K note and 16,2 scribe note. On these and other marginal letters indicating disputes, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 124 (= Erskine and Williams, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Story of Domesday Book}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 188-90).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 17,10\tab CLOWNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Scarsdale' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 48. For another part, see 10,4.
\par \tab \tab For an estate at Clowne bequeathed by the will of Wulfric Spot, see 10,4 Clowne note.
\par \tab ERNWY <O
F STANTON >. He is probably the same man as the 1086 holder, and possibly the same as the 1086 holder called Ernwy in 17,22 (Stanton-by-Bridge). He might be the E[arnwig] who occurs as sheriff or under-sheriff in 1093 in Derbyshire and as the same in Nott
inghamshire (1075 x 1092); see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}. On the possible confusion between the names Ernwy and Ernwin, see 16,2 Ernwin note. On the name Ernwy, see 6,63 Ernwy note.
\par \tab ERNWY <OF STANTON > HOLDS. See 17,10 Ernwy note.
\par 17,11\tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied on the basis of later evidence for the location of Lullington and Edingale (17,11-12).
\par \tab LULLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros": }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 248; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46.
\par \tab AUTI <OF LULLINGTON>. On this name, see 6,27 Toki note.
\par \tab \tab There are no tenurial or other links to men of this name elsewhere, all of whom are over 40 miles away, so this may be his only holding (JP).
\par \tab EDMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Edmund}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Aedmund}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) - represent Old English 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Eadmund}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 233. JRM preferred the first element Ed-}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 for Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Ead-}{\insrsid10361692  as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edmund.
\par 17,12\tab EDINGALE. This was a chapelry of Alrewas Ancient Parish. Edingale was in Derbyshire in 1086, though Al
rewas was and is in Staffordshire. Until Edingale itself was transferred to Staffordshire ecclesiastically in 1899 and for civil purposes in 1934, the county boundary snaked through the settlement, but the church was included in Derbyshire; see Youngs, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 410. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in its successor, Repton Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 46. For another part, see 6,15. See also \{Introduction: County Boundary\}.
\par \tab ALGAR. On this name-form, see 6,43 Algar note.
\par \tab 2 CARUCATES. Edingale (6,15. 17,12) totalled 3 carucates, a figure which appears to be one of the basic blocks of carucation; see \{Introduction: Carucation\}.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. On the omission of the 1086 holder, see 17,1 holds note.
\par 17,13\tab [* 'MORLEYSTONE' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from the later history of several of the places that seem to form a group of places in 'Morleystone' Wapentake (17,13-21). see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes
\}.
\par \tab ILKESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 246, 252; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 48. For other parts, see 13,1. 17,14. The Domesday name-form }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tilchestune}{\insrsid10361692 , here and at 13,1 has probably acquired an initial }{\i\insrsid10361692 T-}{\insrsid10361692  from an Old English word such as }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Aet }{\insrsid10361692 ('at').
\par \tab OSMUND "BENZ". On the name Osmund, see 6,88 Osmund note. Tengvik, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Old English Bynames}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 289-90, suggested a connection between }{\i\insrsid10361692 benz}{\insrsid10361692  and Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 bend}{\insrsid10361692  ('bond', 'ribbon', 'fillet'), the significance of the nickname being unclear, or with Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 bent}{\insrsid10361692 
, modern English 'bent' referring to his physical appearance, his frame being twisted or Osmund being hunched; or with postulated Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 bunt}{\insrsid10361692 , meaning 'stout', 'short', 'stocky'. The termination in -}{
\i\insrsid10361692 z}{\insrsid10361692  (= -}{\i\insrsid10361692 ts}{\insrsid10361692 
) is probably due to Anglo-Norman influence. The second interpretation seems more probable in view of the Norman liking of bynames associated with physical and mental appearance, but it is safest to ke
ep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Osmund Benz. It is possible that he is the same man as plain Osmund holding in Sandiacre and "Cellesdene" (17,16;18).
\par 17,14\tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Ilkeston (7,13).
\par \tab TOLI <OF SANDIACRE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toli}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tholi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Tolius}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Thole}{\insrsid10361692 
 - represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Toli}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 386. The Alecto edition has Toli.
\par \tab \tab As this name only occurs in Domesday Derbyshire in this entry and the next (17,15, both as a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 and as a 1086 holder) it is likely that they are same person and an example of a thane retaining his land after 1066.
\par \tab \tab No other Toli held land within 50 miles so these were probably the only holdings of this man JP).
\par \tab AS MANY OXEN. That is, for three oxen, three-eighths of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab NOW. See 17,8 now note.
\par \tab 5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. A plough needs pairs of oxen, so the remaining three were probably on an adjacent holding, perhaps 17,13, where the number of oxen is not given.
\par \tab THIS LAND BELONGS TO SANDIACRE. That is, to Sandiacre (17,15-17). The use of }{\i\insrsid10361692 terra}{\insrsid10361692  here may cast doubt on the designation of this place as a manor (}{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 321), especially as it belongs to the manor of Sandiacre and lacks a value. Thrumpton (NTT 23,2) has a similar statement and the entry there lacks both a value and a marginal }{\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 
. However, a manor could less precisely be described as 'land', and the phrase 'the land of this manor' occurs. In 6,59 Wyaston and Edlaston are described as a manor, but also as villages.
\par \tab \tab It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder here as in other entries in this chapter (see 17,1 holds no
te), but it could be argued that as the 3 bovates here belong to Sandiacre they were held by Toli, the 1086 tenant given in the next entry (17,15).
\par 17,15\tab SANDIACRE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 p. 374; }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For other manors here, see 17,16-17. Ilkeston (17,14), though said to be a manor belonged to Sandiacre, as did Thrumpton in Nottinghamshire (NTT 23,2), held by Hugh of Grandmesnil.
\par \tab TOLI <OF SANDIACRE>. See 17,14 Toli note.
\par \tab CNUT <OF SANDIACRE>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cnut}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Cnud}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Chnut}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Chenut}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Gnut}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Canut}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ) - represent Old Norse }{\i\insrsid10361692 Knutr}{\insrsid10361692 , Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Knut}{
\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 305-306. JRM prefer
red the form Canute, but that form is rarely used now. Both Canute and Knutr appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Cnut. The Alecto edition has Knut, but Cnut for the king (as does the }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Handbook of British Chronology}{\insrsid10361692 ).
\par \tab \tab 
This name is rare south of the Humber, occurring only seven times and possibly representing four individuals. The nearest holdings to Sandiacre are some 50 miles away and without tenurial associations so Sandiacre was probably the only property of 
this man (JP).
\par \tab GLADWIN <OF WYSALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gladuin}{\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 us}{\insrsid10361692 ), }{\i\insrsid10361692 Gladuine}{\insrsid10361692  - represent the hypothetical Old English }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Gl\'e6dwine}{\insrsid10361692 : von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 261-62. JRM preferred the form Gladwin as it re
flected the Domesday forms more closely. The form Gladwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Gladwin. The Alecto edition has Gl\'e6
dwine. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Derbyshire.
\par \tab \tab The name Gladwin occurs only eight times in Domesday Book, and it is possible that the Gladwin here was the same person as Roger of Bully's predecessor in NTT 9,90 (Wysall) and as William Peverel's predecessors in NTT 10,16;65, the only o
ther occurrences in Nottinghamshire). However, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, nor them to any of the other }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 holders (STS 13,7. BUK 12,18. LIN 4,76) or to the single 1086 tenant (LEC 14,24).
\par \tab \tab More than half of the Glad
wins occur within a 40-mile radius of Stapleford, Nottinghamshire. William Peverel's predecessor at Stapleford, less than a mile away, was probably the same individual as was his predecessor at Selston (NTT 10,16;65). The holding of the other Gladwin in N
o
ttinghamshire (NTT 9,90), which devolved upon Roger of Bully, lay at a similar distance from Stapleford as Selston, and were of comparable size and status. This, plus the comparative rarity of the name, suggests they were held by the same man. It should b
e noted, however, that Robin Fleming's thesis on the bulk grant of some Nottinghamshire wapentakes to Peverel and Bully (see 6,7 Edric note) points to the opposite conclusion though Robin Fleming herself, in a confusing passage (}{\i\insrsid10361692 
Kings and Noble}{\insrsid10361692 s, p. 148), identifies the Nottinghamshire Gladwins as one individual (JP).
\par \tab TOLI <OF SANDIACRE> NOW HOLDS. See 17,14 Toli note.
\par \tab 4 CARUCATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of carucates from }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  to }{\i\insrsid10361692 iiii}{\insrsid10361692  by the addition of 
a fourth minim. At the same time he probably erased whatever was after }{\i\insrsid10361692 t're}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('of land') on the next line, perhaps a number of bovates, but failed to put in a link-line to indicate that nothing more was to be added there later. If the holdings of Toli, Knut
 and Gladwin had been detailed separately in the putative circuit volume, then he may have mistotalled these (as happened frequently) and a check revealed this.
\par \tab \tab }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 The [erased] letters cannot be recovered with ultra-violet light (PM).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par 17,16\tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Sandiacre (17,15).
\par \tab OSMUND [* BENZ *]. See 17,13 Osmund note.
\par \tab A SMALL AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. See 1,32 small note.
\par \tab IT IS POSSIBLE that the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder here 
as in other entries in this chapter (see 17,1 holds note), but it could be argued that the carucate here was held by Toli, the 1086 tenant given in the previous entry (17,15); see 17,17 holds note.
\par 17,17\tab THERE ALSO. That is, in Sandiacre (17,15).
\par \tab TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. On his identification with Toki son of Auti and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note.
\par \tab IT IS POSSIBLE that the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder here as in other entries in this ch
apter (see 17,1 holds note), but it could be argued that the 2 bovates here were held by Toli, the 1086 tenant given in the entry at 17,15. The fact that this entry lacks all reference to population, resources and value, yet was not waste (as was the prev
ious entry, 17,16) might suggest that it was incomplete in the putative circuit volume, but that the scribe decided to include it anyway, perhaps intending to get fuller details from somewhere. As it stands, there is little in this entry to justify the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 M}{\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\insrsid10361692 anerium}{\insrsid10361692 ] written beside it.
\par 17,18\tab "CELLESDENE".}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  The }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Domesday Gazetteer}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  identifies Chelton (PM). The Phillimore printed edition put Chelton in the text and "Cellesdene" in the index. }{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 355, tentatively has Chellaston. However, Chellaston appears in Domesday as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Celerdestune}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 Celardestun}{\insrsid10361692 
e (1,19. 6,84) and seems to have been in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Since 17,13-17;20 appear to lie in }{\insrsid10361692 'Morleystone' Wapentake, it is probable that this unidentified place was also there. It is left unide
ntified in the Alecto edition.
\par \tab OSMUND [* "BENZ" *]. See 17,13 Osmund note.
\par \tab 3 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii part' }{\insrsid10361692 has been translated as if }{\i\insrsid10361692 part'}{\insrsid10361692  abbreviated }{\i\insrsid10361692 partes}{\insrsid10361692 , but it could also abbreviate }{
\i\insrsid10361692 partem}{\insrsid10361692 , accusative ('the third part'). The main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have been aware of this ambiguity as he sometimes (though by no means always) clarified what he had written by interlining }{
\i\insrsid10361692 ciam}{\insrsid10361692  (the last four letters of }{\i\insrsid10361692 terciam}{\insrsid10361692 , 'third') over the }{\i\insrsid10361692 iii}{\insrsid10361692  or extending }{\i\insrsid10361692 part'}{\insrsid10361692  to }{
\i\insrsid10361692 partes}{\insrsid10361692 , as in LIN 16,34;40; however, more often it was scribe B who did this (see NTT 4,7 part note). The Alecto edition has 'the third part' .
\par \tab \tab The three parts - or third part - of 1 bovate ought to be complemented by another fraction or other fractions elsewhere in the text, allowing the place to be located, but they do not appear to be so.
\par \tab LAND FOR 6 OXEN. In other words, land for three-quarters of a plough-team; see 1,4 oxen note.
\par \tab HAS 3 VILLAGERS WITH \'bd PLOUGH; MEADOW, 2 \'bd ACRES. The case of }{\i\insrsid10361692 ac'}{\insrsid10361692  is unknown: it might be nominative, or accusative after }{\i\insrsid10361692 habet}{\insrsid10361692 , like the }{\i\insrsid10361692 uill'
}{\insrsid10361692 . It is therefore safest to replace the full-stop of the Phillimore printed translation with a semi-colon after the plough. The Alecto edition has '[there are]' before the meadow. Compare 1,22 meadow note.
\par 17,19\tab "VLVRITUNE". }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Since 17,13-17;20 appear to lie in }{\insrsid10361692 'Morleystone' Wapentake, it is probable that this unidentified place was also there.
\par \tab "ALUN". This is the only occurrence of this name-form in Domesday. Von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 154, was unsure what name it represented, so it has been decided to keep it in the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Alun.
\par \tab HEALFDENE <OF CROMWELL>. A thane of this name also holds in Nottinghamshire (NTT 30,2-6;30;33;36;45;47-48; see NTT 30,2 Healfdene note) and in Lincolnshire (LIN 68,32;34). According to }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Nottinghamshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 234, he was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell and was probably the same man as the Healfdene of NTT 4,1. He held land in Cromwell (NTT 30,4). Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 134, only mentions the thane called Healfdene in Nottinghamshire as being an ancestor of the Cromwell family.
\par \tab \tab If the unidentified }{\i\insrsid10361692 Vlvritune}{\insrsid10361692  was in the general area of the preceding entries, the
n it would have been close to some of those of the Nottinghamshire thane, just across the county border (NTT 30,30;32), and two survivors with the same name in this restricted area is unlikely, particularly as at least two other survivors of this name can
 be identified (HRT 36,19. LIN 68,28). Keats-Rohan, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday People}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 134, does not include among his holdings the tenant at Normanton (NTT 4,1), though this was close to the other holdings, and yet another survivor of this name is implausible [unless thi
s could be a continental name?]. This Healfdene may be identical with the men of this name who held }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 in Nottinghamshire whose holdings are with one exception close to one or more of those of the 1086 tenant. That being so, Robin Fleming's point about the block grants to Peverel (6,7 Edric note) may not be relevant to this case (JP).
\par 17,20\tab RISLEY. This was a chapelry in Wilne chapelry, Sawley Ancient Parish. Sawley itself (2,1) lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later. Risley was in that wapentake in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. For another part, see 16,2.
\par \tab LEOFWIN. On this name, see 1,9 Leofwin note.
\par \tab 5 BOVATES AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The other part of Risley (16,2) was exactly twice the same size and was held }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 by Wulfsi and Godric, who each had 5 bovates and the third part of 1 bovate. This suggests the partition of an estate of 2 carucates equally among heirs.
\par 17,21\tab [* LITCHURCH? WAPENTAKE *]. The insertion of this head depends on the identity of 17,21 }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mers}{\insrsid10361692  as Marsh Flatts; see 17,21 Marsh note.
\par \tab MARSH?. If this }{\i\insrsid10361692 Mers}{\insrsid10361692  is represented by Marsh Flatts, then it lay in the Ancient Parish of Aston-upon-Trent and will therefore, like Aston-upon-Trent (1,38. 6,93), have probably been in Litchurch Wapentake 
in 1086. However, the identification and therefore the wapentake in which it lay are not at all certain: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 428.
\par \tab LEOFNOTH [* STAR *]. No evidence has been found to link this man with any of the other }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders called Le
ofnoth in Domesday Derbyshire, on whom see 6,26 Leofnoth note and 10,1 Leofnoth note. However, see the note by JP: 1,32 Leofnoth note. On this very common name, see 1,30 Leofnoth note.
\par \tab [*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder here as in other entries in this chapter (see 17,1 holds note), but because the land was waste it might not have had a holder then.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 17,22\tab THIS ENTRY and the next one (17,23) were}{\insrsid10361692  added by the main scribe of Great Domesday
 after the end of the land of the king's thanes, the last chapter in the county. They were written in pale ink and in a slightly informal style during one of his later campaigns of addition after the rubrication of the county had taken place; for the othe
r entries in Derbyshire and other counties entered during this campaign, see 1,17 entry note.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 Both these holdings were in "Walecros" Wapentake, but the scribe may have preferred to add them in a large convenient space, rather than in the foot margin of folio 278c where they would have been close to the other two places in that wapentake (1}{
\insrsid10361692 7,11-12). Of course it is not certain that he knew their wapentake as he included only five wapentake heads in this county; see \{Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab [* "WALECROS" WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from evidence of the later location of Stanton-by-Bridge and Ingleby (17,22-23).
\par \tab STANTON[-BY-BRIDGE]}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46; it is }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Stonistanton}{\insrsid10361692  in Repton Wapentake (the successor of "Walecros" Wapentake) in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249. For the identity of this 'Stanton', see }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 660.
\par \tab EDWARD. On this name, see 1,11 Edward note.
\par \tab HOWEVER, THERE ARE 4 \'bd PLOUGHS. See 16,3 however note.
\par \tab ERNWY <OF STANTON >. See 17,10 Ernwy note.
\par 17,23\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated; see 17,22 entry note.
\par \tab INGLEBY. This was a township of Foremark Ancient Parish and like Foremark itself (14,4) will have lain in "Walecros" Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in Repton Wapentake, the successor to "Walecros" Wapentake: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{
\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 249; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 46. For other parts, see 1,26. 10,23 and 14,5.
\par \tab TWO PARTS OF 1 BOVATE OF LAND. This odd fraction is complemented exactly by the one-sixth of a carucate at 10,23, the 'parts' being thirds as in Ticknall (1,22). The individual assessments of Ingleby, though t
hey may appear to be random, effectively add up to two carucates: 3 bovates at 1,26, 1 carucate and one-sixth of a carucate at 10,23, 3 bovates at 14,5 and two parts of 1 bovate here at 17,23.
\par \tab IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] STANTON[-BY-BRIDGE]. That is, it belongs to Stanton-by-Bridge (17,22). Ingleby is adjacent to Stanton-by-Bridge, but even so the Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet in}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('lies in') appears to stand for the similar }{\i\insrsid10361692 iacet ad}{\insrsid10361692  ('is an adjunct of', 'belongs to'). The main scribe of Great Domesday was normally careful to distinguish the two; but see 10,12 land note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B1\tab IN THE BOROUGH OF DERBY. Although space was left on the first folio of Derbyshire (folio 272a) for details of the borough, they were inserted on the first folio of Nottinghamshire (folio 280b), after those o
f the borough of Nottingham. Between them, these two boroughs occupy the recto of that folio. They are followed (on folio 280c) by the 'customs' that both shires had in common, then by the Nottinghamshire Landholders' List (on the bottom half of folio 280
d). It is likely that these shared 'customs' made the main scribe of Great Domesday adopt the arrangement he did of putting the two boroughs together; there is no reason to think (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 2, 19), that this indica
tes the subordinate status of Derbyshire. Derby had more burgesses than Nottingham in 1066, but by 1086 the numbers at Derby had declined from 243 to 140; the number of burgesses in Nottingham had reduced from 173 to 136 when Hugh son of Baldric, the sher
iff, was appointed and by 1086 it was 120. Derby paid more than Nottingham (\'a324 as against \'a318) in 1066, but Nottingham paid more (\'a340 as against \'a3
30) in 1086. Even so, there is quite a leap from these figures to concluding that the supposed relative importance of these boroughs influenced the layout of Great Domesday.
\par \tab \tab The two shires had a number of things in common, not least, it appears, a joint sheriff and a very similar assessment and arrangement of wapentakes; see \{Introduction: History\}, \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\} and \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}.
\par \tab The origins of Derby are obscure. There was a Roman fort adjacent at Little Chester (SK3537) controlling a crossing of the River Derwent, and a civilian set
tlement may well have grown up around it. There may, however, have been no continuity with the later town. In 871 the body of Ealdorman Aethelwulf, killed by the Danes, was taken secretly }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
in Merciorum prouinciam in locum qui Northuuorthige nuncupatur}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  iuxta autem Danaam linguam Deorab}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 y ('into Mercia to a place called }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Northuuorthige}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , but according to the Danish tongue, Derby'):}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Aethelweard,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Chronicle }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (Campbell, p. 37). It appears that at that time }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Northuuorthige }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 was a place of safe retreat for the Mercians and only fell into Danish hands and acquired its present name a few years later (Aethelweard was writing }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 1000). It is unclear whether this 'northern enclosure' was a truly fortified place, or what it was north of: the reference may be to the River Trent (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 446), or to Tamworth (Staffordshire), another important Mercian }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 worthig}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Gelling, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 West Midlands}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 148), rather than to Repton (Roffe, 'Origins of Derbyshire', p. 111). It may possibly have been the centre of an importan
t royal estate, evidenced by the group of parishes centred on Derby, but stretching beyond the limits of the borough; Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 22.
\par \tab \tab In }{\insrsid10361692 917 Aethelflaed (daughter of King Alfred and wife of Ealdorman Aethelred of Mercia
) 'obtained the borough which is called Derby, with all that belongs to it' (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). One of the important churches in Shrewsbury was dedicated to St Alkmund who }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
was a Northumbrian prince said to have been murdered }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 c}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . 800 on the orders o
f King Eardwulf. The foundation of that church was attributed to Aethelflaed and it may be that she was the founder of the important church of the same name in Derby.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 In 918 King Edward the Elder, Aethelflaed's brother, captured the bor
ough of Nottingham 'and ordered it to be repaired and manned both with Englishmen and Danes. And all the people who had settled in Mercia, both Danish and English, submitted to him':}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (the translation is by}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\insrsid10361692 D. Whitelock and others)
. This brought an end to that particular Danish occupation of this area and began the process of its incorporation into a united England. Subsequently, Derby was allied with Leicester, Nottingham, Lincoln and Stamford in the Confederation of the Five Boro
ughs; see \{Introduction: History\}. There was a mint evidenced here in the reigns of Kings Athelstan, Edgar, Edward the Martyr, Harold Harefoot, Ethelred and Edward the Confessor, as indeed of the Conqueror himself; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 
VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 94; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 446; Hill, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 127, 131. On the borough as a whole, see }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 Darlington,}{\insrsid10361692  }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. xlv-lxviii; Hall, 'Pre-Conquest Burgh of Derby'; Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\insrsid10361692 The Derbyshire Domesday}{\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 19-24, and \{Introduction: History\}.
\par \tab \tab Town and country were linked in a number of ways. Domesday records the connection between Little Chester and one of the king's churches and between Quarndon and Little Eaton and another church (B1). The Ancient Parish of Derby 
St Peter contained the manors of Litchurch (B2-3) Cottons (1,19. 6,89), Normanton (1,19. 6,91) and Boulton (10,19), while the Ancient Parish of Derby St Michael extended outwards to incorporate Alvaston (9,1). It is probable that Mickleover (3,1) was orig
i
nally in the Ancient Parish of Derby St Mary, before becoming an Ancient Parish itself. Osmaston (6,88) may have contributed to the borough revenue rather than being assessed as a rural manor; see 6,88 pence note. A number of places in the survey of the b
orough were attached to rural manors (B4-12).
\par \tab Spaces left by the main scribe of Great Domesday indicate that he envisaged the survey of the borough as falling into five sections. There is a line's space between B1 and B2, one between B2 and B4 (then filled
 by additional details of Litchurch, B3), one between B12 and B13 and one between B14 and B15. The corresponding division of material seems to be as follows:
\par \tab \tab B1 The burgesses, land, churches and mills that were in the borough in 1066. However, the 12 carucates and the plough estimate relate to 1086.
\par \tab \tab B2 Approximately the same information for 1086 (less the churches, but including meadow and underwood) together with the total payment made from the borough both in 1066 and in 1086
. The latter payment included a sum for Litchurch. These sums formed the }{\i\insrsid10361692 firma burgi}{\insrsid10361692 , ('the revenue of the borough') which in 1066 had been divided between the king and the earl.
\par \tab \tab [B3 Additional information about Litchurch, already mentioned in B2) that appears to have been written (perhaps immediately) in what may have been a line's space intended to separate different types of information.]
\par \tab \tab B4-12 A list of nine individuals with their interests in the borough which seem to be independent of the king's .
The essential difference between this and the previous sections is that the possessions of these nine individuals apparently did not contribute dues to the king as lord of the borough. No values are given for the lands or churches, presumably because they
 were all attached to rural estates and paid their dues there.
\par \tab \tab B13-14 Additional information which affects the revenue of the borough (payment of corn to the king and to the Abbot of Burton; 8 additional messuages that had been [Earl] Algar's)
\par \tab \tab B15-16 Two additional items: the render from 'Appletree' Wapentake and Stori's right to build a church. It appears that the scribe either missed this information or did not know where to put it.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab Roffe ('Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 19-20) divides the su
rvey of the borough into two broad sections, the first, in his view, being concerned with the 'borough proper' (that is, B1-2), and the second with 'land and interests ... of a different character'.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THERE WERE 243 RESIDENT BURGESSES. Generally these people were simply known as burgesses (Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 burgenses}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ), but the longer form }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 burgenses manentes}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  is more strictly correct as a designation of this group. }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is the present participle of the Latin verb }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 maneo}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('to stay') and means 'staying', 'remaining', 'residing'. These were people whose sole residence was in the borough in contrast to those who belonged to rural manors and had 'a house in town' (known as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 burgenses rure manentes}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  and later as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 burgenses forinseci}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 'foreign burgesses') which allowed them the privileges of a burgess, in particular the right to trade in the borough; see Bateson, review of Ballard, }
{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 The Domesday Boroughs}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , pp. 148-49; }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 308}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. The Phillimore printed translation has 'In the Borough of DERBY before 1066 lived 243 burgesses'. This rather loses the force of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 manentes}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The Alecto edition has 'there were 243 burgesses dwelling'.}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab There appear to have been several types of burgess in Derby either in 1066 or in 1086 or at both dates: the resident and non-resident, a superio
r group of 41 burgesses who were landholders, sharing 12 carucates and 12 ploughs (B1) and a group of 40 'lesser burgesses' (B2). Some of the non-resident burgesses probably lived in the messuages of Earl Hugh and Henry of Ferrers (B9-10). There might be 
additional burgesses attached to the rural estates of other tenants-in-chief, but missing from the survey of the borough: in other counties they are mentioned in connection with those estates, in the individual's fief.
\par \tab ARE ATTACHED 12 CARUCATES OF LAND. Like many boroughs, Derby had agricultural land attached to it. Like Nottingham (NTT B1), Derby had meadow and underwood as well (DBY B2). The 12 carucates may have formed a 'small hundred'; see \{
Introduction: Small Hundreds\}. The Phillimore printed translation reads 'were attached', but the Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 adiacent}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (present tense).
\par \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 These 12 carucates are specifically said to be a 1086 figure not a }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  one. It may be that they were there in 1066, but there is no reason to assume this. Whatever the 1066 figure, 
the relation of the other pieces of land attached to Derby in 1066 and 1086 is unclear, as it is in other Danelaw boroughs. It seems likely that the 2 carucates and the 9 bovates belonging to two churches that were 'in the king's lordship' (B1) were addit
i
onal to whatever assessment was laid on the borough. The 2 carucates of Litchurch (B3) appear to have been added to the borough's revenue after 1066, so are also additional. As to the 1 carucate of B6, the 1 bovate of B11 and the 1 bovate of B12, all of w
hich relate to 1086, there is not enough information to decide.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WHICH 8 PLOUGHS CAN PLOUGH. This form of plough estimate is the one used in }{\insrsid10361692 the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Liber Exoniensis}{\insrsid10361692 , which the main scribe of Great Domesday changed to 'Land for }{
\i\insrsid10361692 n}{\insrsid10361692  ploughs' for the five south-wes
tern counties of Domesday. This might suggest that the putative circuit volume had the same form for the plough estimate and that the Domesday scribe forgot to change it. The same phrasing occurs in connection with the 6 carucates held in 1066 by the Arch
bishop of York in York (YKS C22); see also YKS C26;30-35 and elsewhere in Yorkshire.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 41 BURGESSES. The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 burg'}{\insrsid10361692  above and after }{\i\insrsid10361692 .xl.i.}{\insrsid10361692  which he also corrected to }{
\i\insrsid10361692 .xl. 7 .i.}{\insrsid10361692  by interlining }{\i\insrsid10361692 7}{\insrsid10361692  with its tail reaching down after the }{\i\insrsid10361692 .xl.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab WHO ALSO HAD 12 PLOUGHS. The number of ploughs present in 1086 is not given and cannot be deduced from the '8 ploughs can plough'. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 By contrast, }{\insrsid10361692 
in NTT B5 there is a separate statement about the 14 ploughs that were in the borough in 1086, but no mention of the }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692 
 ploughs. The provision of 1066 and 1086 (and intermediate) figures for the ploughs (actually on the land) was requested in the putative survey questions recorded in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Inquisitio Eliensis}{\insrsid10361692 
, but in Great Domesday the 1066 figures are very rarely given (and when they are, they were often added and, on when they were not, see LEC 9,1 1066 note. LDB regularly gives both 1066 and 1086 ploughs. Compare 1,9 now note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab FROM DUES AND TOLLS AND FINES AND ALL CUSTOMARY DUES.}{\insrsid10361692  The Latin words are respectively }{\i\insrsid10361692 census}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 theloneum}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 
forisfactura}{\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\insrsid10361692 consuetudo}{\insrsid10361692 . }{\i\insrsid10361692 Census}{\insrsid10361692  is a general word meaning 'amount', 'tribute', 'sum of money', 'revenue', 'rent', but in a borough can refer to }{
\i\insrsid10361692 landgablum }{\insrsid10361692 ('land tribute'). These separate sources of income combine to produce the }{\i\insrsid10361692 redditus burgi }{\insrsid10361692 
('render' or 'revenue of the borough') and differ from tax on the carucates that are attached to the borough. There is no mention of a further source of revenue, the borough's mint; see }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 309.

\par \tab \tab On this, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 125 no. 336.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab TWO PARTS [WERE] THE KING'S, THE THIRD THE EARL'S. The division of a borough's total revenues between the king and the earl (sometimes between the king and the sheriff), particularly before 
1066, at a rate of two-thirds to one-third is frequently recorded in Domesday Book (for example, HEF C12. SHR C12. STS B12. CHS C2;22. DEV C2. KEN D1. GLS B1); see Tait, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Medieval English Borough}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, pp. 139-93. These revenues generally included the house rents, ground rents, market tolls, profits of the court, the mint, the king's mill etc; see Tait, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Medieval English Borough}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 141; Round 'The 'Tertius Denarius' of the Borough',}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 pp. 62-64. The earl received the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 tertius denarius redditus burgi}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . The last Earl o
f Mercia was Edwin; there was no Earl of Derbyshire in 1086, though one was created in 1138 on the appointment of Robert of Ferrers, the third son of the Domesday holder, Henry of Ferrers. Henry himself seems to have received the third penny of Osmaston (
6,88) and possibly had the revenue of 'Appletree' Wapentake; see 6,88 pence note, B15 'Appletree' note and \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}.
\par \tab 1 CHURCH \'85 WITH 7 CLERICS. This was probably one of two royal collegiate establishments or minster churc
hes in Derby. This church appears to be that of All Saints, and was granted (1100x1109) by King Henry I, along with the other royal church in Derby (St Alkmund's) and the church of Wirksworth (1,13) to St Mary's of Lincoln. It merged with the church of St
 Alkmund in the twelfth century: the Lincoln Cathedral}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Registrum Antiquissimum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (Foster, i. p. 19); }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 87; Knowles and Hadcock, }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 414, 424, 472; Darlington, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 , p. liii.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab FREELY. Scribe B wrote }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 libere}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('freely') over the neat erasure of a larger word. He wrote the letters larger than normal in order to fill the space, but still left a small gap after the word. For his other contributions in Derbyshire, see 1,12 Bonsall note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab [LITTLE] CHESTER. The Roman }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbentione }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 of the Ravenna Cosmography, more correctly }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derventione}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 a Latinized form of the British river name Derwent (PM); see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. pp. 452-53}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Alkmund, although it was probably originally associated with the church of All Saints whose parish seems to have merged with that of St Alkmund: }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 20}{\insrsid10361692 . Little Chester probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 58; }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab ANOTHER CHURCH \'85 6 CLERICS. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 altera }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 strictly meaning 'the other' the second' (of two), but is probably used here for }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 alia}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('another', 'a second'), as occasionally elsewhere in Domesday Book (as here in 6,27;34).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab This was, likewise, probably a royal collegiate foundation or a minster church. Because of the location of its possessions, it was probably the church of St Alkmund. The Ancient Parish of St Alkmund contained the town
ship of Little Chester, and the chapelries of Quarndon and Little Eaton: }{\insrsid10361692 Youngs, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Local Administrative Units}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 72}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 . However, ecclesiastically Little Chester appears originally to have been associated with All Saints' church; see Cox, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Churches of Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iv. pp. 71-76, 115-127; Darlington, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Darley Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. liii, 164-67 no. D2. It merged with the church of St Alkmund in 1253: }{\insrsid10361692 Knowles and Hadcock, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Medieval Religious Houses}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 414, 424, 472, }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 and DBY B1 church note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab What Domesday says about these two royal churches is repeated but with better place-name forms in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\insrsid10361692 , ii. p. 294: }{\i\insrsid10361692 
item in eodem burgo erant antiquitus in dominico regis Edwardi due ecclesie in quarum una erant septem clerici qui tenebant duas carucatas terre libere
 in PARVA CESTRIA et in altera ecclesia erant similiter sex clerici qui tenebant novem bovatas terre in QUUORDUN' et EYTON' quas Decanus Lyncolnie modo tenet et in predictis ecclesiis dat septem prebendas quo waranto et quo tempore et per quem fuerunt ali
enate ignorant et valent quadraginta libras per annum}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('further, in the same borough, there were formerly in the lordship of King Edward two churches in one of which were seven clerics who held two carucates of land freely in Little Chester and in a second 
church there were similarly six clerics who held 9 bovates of land in Quarndon and [Little] Eaton which [churches] the dean of Lincoln now holds, and in the previously mentioned-churches he provides seven prebends, [but] they (the jurors) do not know by w
hat authority, at what time and by whom they (the churches) were alienated and they are worth \'a340 a year').
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab QUARNDON. }{\insrsid10361692 This was a chapelry in the Ancient Parish of Derby St Alkmund. It probably lay in Litchurch Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247; 
}{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 43. In }{\i\insrsid10361692 Feudal Aids}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 247, three-quarters of Quarndon is held by the Bishop of Lincoln and a quarter by Robert }{\i\insrsid10361692 de Stutevil
}{\insrsid10361692  with his manor of Boulton (10,19).
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab [LITTLE] EATON. The Domesday name-form is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Detton}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , which is corrupt, but the identification seems secure; see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Rotuli Hundredorum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, i. p. 58, ii. p. 294 (where }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Eyton}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is held by the Dean of Lincoln) and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 327 note 2. }{\insrsid10361692 
This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Alkmund. It probably lay in 'Morleystone' Wapentake in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 42.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab FREELY. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 libera}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 m}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ], feminine accusative singular of the adjective }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 liber}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
; it apparently agrees with the last-mentioned feminine singular noun, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 terra}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 m}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ], rather than with }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 novem bouatas}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, as it strictly should. Nonetheless, the implication is that the clerics held them as free land. However, it is more likely that }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 libera}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 m}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ] is a sc
ribal error for the adverb }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 libere}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , which was used in the previous sentence to describe the tenure by other clerics of the church in [Little] Chester. Such confusions happened elsewhere in Domesday Book.

\par \tab IN THE TOWN ITSELF. This phrase returns the reader from the rural dependencies of the two churches to the survey of the borough proper. Derby is elsewhere called a }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 burgus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('borough') but the use of }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uilla}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  here is not so much a slip as an alternative. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uilla }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 gives French }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ville}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('town').}{\insrsid10361692 

\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 14 MILLS. They were no doubt on the River Derwent.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday left a line's space after this detail of the mills; see B1 Derby note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B2\tab 100 BURGESSES, AND ANOTHER 40 LESSER [BURGESSES]. The decline in numbers from 1066 (243 burgesses) is noteworthy. It is not possible to see if a similar change had taken place at Nottingham because, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
pace}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 310, no 1086 figure is given. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 minores}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  means 'less important' or 'minor' with an impl
ied contrast to other burgesses, who are, however, never described as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 maiores}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('greater') in Domesday Book. The distinction between burgesses and lesser burgesses is not clear. It may depend on status, size of holding (house, messuage) or the amount of due
s they paid; it is possible that the more important burgesses are the 41 in 1066 who not only had messuages, but also a share in land and ploughs (B1; see B1 resident note).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 103 MESSUAGES. The Latin is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mans}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 iones}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ], which is difficult to differentiate in meaning from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ma}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 surae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (as in B4). Because of its occasional association with }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 domus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('house', 'dwelling') }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mansio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is clearly more than a house. A messuage is a house-site, and may or not contain one or more houses. In the borough of Nottingham Roger of Bully has 3 }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
mansiones}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  in which there are 11 houses (NTT B8).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab These 103 unoccupied messuages presumably were lived in by 103 burgesses in 1066, making up the difference between the 140 burgesses in 1086 and the 243 in 1066.
\par \tab USED TO PAY DUES. Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 census}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ; see B1 dues note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab UNOCCUPIED. This (rather than 'waste' or 'devastated') is the usual meaning of Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 wastus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  or }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uastus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 when applied to urban property. The word describes the current situation, not the cause of it. In the Alecto edition it is translated as 
'waste' in such cases. Sometimes the reason, such as the erection of a castle, is clear from other information that Domesday provides. See B2 messuages note.
\par \tab NOW 10 MILLS. This number is reduced from the 14 that were there }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (see B1).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THE VILLAGE OF LITCHURCH. See B3.
\par B3\tab THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday, the details of the population, ploughs and meadow extending into the margin of folio 280b and continuing }{\insrsid10361692 
in a space at the end of the previous entry (B2) and finishing in the
 outer margin there. It is possible that he was unsure where to include this entry. It appears that Litchurch was simply a rural estate in 1066, and would therefore naturally belong in the }{\i\insrsid10361692 Terra Regis}{\insrsid10361692 
, but by 1086 it was appurtenant to the borough of Derby, and included in its revenue, hence his decision finally to include it here.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab LITCHURCH. }{\insrsid10361692 This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Derby St Peter. It must have lain in Litchurch Wapentake, which it named in 1086, as it was there later: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)}{
\insrsid10361692 , p. 44. It was counted as a member of the borough of Derby in }{\i\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 151, and has now been swallowed by it.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 1 FREEMAN ... 12 ACRES. This sentence}{\insrsid10361692  is clearly visible in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, t
he reproduction in the Alecto facsimile is not clear for most of the marginal additions: }{\i\insrsid10361692 soch'}{\insrsid10361692  appears as }{\i\insrsid10361692 sor}{\insrsid10361692  with possibly part of an }{\i\insrsid10361692 h}{
\insrsid10361692  after it; and }{\i\insrsid10361692 7 .xii. ac' p'ti}{\insrsid10361692  is hardly visible. The parch
ment is poor here, being thin, yellow and mottled; there is also print-through from folio 280c. See 1,1 carucates note and 1,19 Melbourne note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B4\tab THE ABBOT OF BURTON. He is a holder of lands in Derbyshire (DBY 3).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 1 MILL. }{\insrsid10361692 Two mills or 'mill-sites' were among a number of gifts to Burton Abbey attributed to King William, according to t}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 he }{\i\insrsid10361692 Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum}{
\insrsid10361692  (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 47 no. XXII). The relevant passage reads: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Item in Derby [dedit] ecclesiam sanctae Mariae cum suis pertinentii
s, duas sedes molendinorum videlicet Cope-castelmyln cum insula ejusdem, le Schirismylne cum caeteris terris}{\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\insrsid10361692 
 Et xii acras prati, cum ceteris consuetudinibus in Walwikstrete ibidem, in recompensatione caeterarum terrarum quas abstulit de praedicto monasterio, ut habetur in libro de Domusdaie apud Wintoniam et Westmonasterium}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('Similarly in Derby [he gave] the church of St Mary with its appurtenances, namely 2 mill-sites, that is 'Cope-castelmyln' with its island [and] 'Schirismylne' with the other lands. An
d 12 acres of meadow, with the other customs in 'Walwik' Street' (see }{\i\insrsid10361692 Place-Names of Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 456) there in compensation for the other lands which he took from the aforementioned monastery, as is said in Domesday Book at Winchester and London'). 
Much of this detail is missing from Great Domesday Book, but could have been included in a circuit volume. A}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  Bull of Lucius III who was pope from 1181 to 1185 (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Monasticon Anglicanum}{\insrsid10361692 
, iii. p. 42 no. XIII = }{\i\insrsid10361692 Burton Register}{\insrsid10361692 , folio 7a) confirming the lands of Burton Abbey, includes }{\i\insrsid10361692 ecclesiam sanctae Mariae de Derbeya cum duobus molendinis et terram in eadem villa}{
\insrsid10361692  ('the church of St Mary of Derby with two mills and land in that vill'). Although King William's original grant, does not survive, there is no reason 
to doubt this information. The 'Burton Abbey Surveys' (pp. 231-33) make a connection between some of these possessions and the estate of Littleover, which was a member of Burton Abbey's manor of Mickleover (3,1) in 1086. To Littleover are said to belong a
 mill, an island, two messuages with a house in each, three waste messuages and 12 acres of meadow. In addition, two-thirds of the men from two }{\i\insrsid10361692 vici}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('streets' or 'neighbourhoods') in Derby owe reaping-service at Littleover. In the middle of this is a separate sentence: }{\i\insrsid10361692 Item in Derbeia habemus ecclesiam quam tenet Godricus presbyter noster}{\insrsid10361692 
 ('Similarly in Derby, we have a church which Godric, our priest, holds'). This appears to have been inserted here because it relates to Derby, rather than to Littleover. L
ittleover had its own chapel and Mickleover a church and there is no reason to think that St Mary's was the church of either; see 3,1 Mickleover note and Darlington, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary,}{\insrsid10361692 
 pp. liii-liv. At all events Roffe (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , 
p. 21) is misleading when he says 'a twelfth-century confirmation [that is, the Bull of Pope Lucius III] and the 'Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum' of Burton indicate that the tenements in Derby, along with the church of St Mary, were granted by the king at
 
the same time as the manor of Mickleover and suggest that they were an integral part of the estate'. It is not clear from this whether Roffe thinks that St Mary's was granted as part of Mickleover, but neither of the documents cited says that the grants w
ere made at the same time nor that what was given formed a single estate.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Presumably the church of St Mary was omitted from Domesday, unless it is one of the churches held by Norman of Lincoln or Edric (B7-8).}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 1 MESSUAGE. It is}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  unam mansuram cum domo }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ('a messuage with a house')}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 in the Burton Cartulary (}{\insrsid10361692 
Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary',}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  p. 23) (PM). There is probably no difference between }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ma}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 )s(}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uram}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 ) }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 t}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 er}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 rae}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  here and the following }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ii}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ma}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 s}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uras}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
). Both appear to be messuages, that is, house-sites, which may or may not contain a house or houses. Further, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mansura}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 mansio }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
(as in B2) may well have the same meaning.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WITH FULL JURISDICTION. }{\insrsid10361692 The Latin }{\i\insrsid10361692 cum saca 7 soca}{\insrsid10361692  is from Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 sacu}{\insrsid10361692  ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and }{
\i\insrsid10361692 socn}{\insrsid10361692  (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of }{\i\insrsid10361692 saca}{\insrsid10361692  in the phrase implies one particular meaning of }{\i\insrsid10361692 soca}{
\insrsid10361692 . Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to inves
tigate and hear cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh-century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and justice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in 
their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Quite apart from the usual implication of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 cum saca et soca}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , this use of this phrase throughout this section (B4;9
-11;14) implies that these lands were not part of the borough's revenue: see Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 20.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab In all five of the abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, which include an account of this entry for Derby (probably taken from the same source), the wording is }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 ma}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 (}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 n}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 )}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 suram liberam }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ('free messuage'). This may be an attempt to 'explain' the more technical terms }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 saca}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 soca}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , or the response of an ignorant scribe to a phrase he did not understand. Alternatively, it could be a surrept
itious attempt by the monkish abbreviator to extend the abbey's privileges slightly by the use of }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 liberam}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, which could not only mean not subject to anyone else's jurisdiction, but also mean free from tax and dues.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B5\tab GEOFFREY ALSELIN. He is a tenant-in-chi
ef in Derbyshire (DBY 9). Toki was his predecessor on most of his manors there, as elsewhere; see 9,1 Toki note. His church was probably St Michael's, attached to his manor of Alvaston and probably the church with a priest mentioned in the Domesday entry 
for it (9,1). See Darlington, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. liii-liv, ii. pp. 534-35 nos. L4-5. On his Christian name, see 6,27 G[eoffrey] note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab TOKI }{\insrsid10361692 [* SON OF AUTI *]}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . }{\insrsid10361692 On his identification with Toki son of Auti and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see 6,27 Toki note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B6\tab RALPH SON OF HUBERT. He held a fief in Derbyshire (DBY 10). }{\insrsid10361692 On the name Ralph, see 2,1 Ralph note, and, on the name Hubert, see 2,1 Hubert note.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. He was one of the predecessors of Ralph son of Hubert: 10,8 Leofric note. On the name Leofric, see 3,2 Leofric note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WITH 1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This was added by the }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday in small lettering at the end of the line, extending into the outer margin of folio 280a.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab If the 
carucate belonged to the church, then the church was probably a third important church in Derby. It was almost certainly the church of St Werburgh, despite the fact that William son of Hubert's holding of Boulton (10,19) lay in the Ancient Parish of Derby
 St Peter. The identification of Ralph's church with St Peter's is regarded as probable by Roffe,}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 23; 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 21, but in 1156-1157 it was affirmed on oath that the Church of St Peter in Derby was 'founded and built on the patrimony of Hugh (the Dean) and his predecessors to whom the advowson of the said church belongs': Darlington, }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. lxv, 71-72 no. A12. There is no reason to connect Hugh the Dean with Ralph son of Hubert and the a
pparent importance of the church would suit St Werburgh's better. The issue is discussed in Darlington, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 , p. liv. }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 For the king's two churches, see B1.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B7\tab NORMAN OF LINCOLN. No man called Norman appears as a holder in Derbyshire (but see 7,9
 Hazelbadge note), but a Brun, perhaps the same man as Norman's predecessor here, does so (1,30. 6,24;62). It is possible that Norman was a subtenant of the king or of Henry of Ferrers, but was omitted from Domesday Derbyshire, or that this was his only h
o
lding in the county. In fact in the whole of Domesday, there is no Norman called 'of Lincoln', but the most important man named Norman in Lincolnshire was the fief-holder, Norman of Arcey (LIN 32). There is also a Norman the priest in Nottinghamshire (NTT
 9,1), but it has not proved possible so far to link these men called Norman.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par \tab \tab The Domesday form of his Christian name, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Norman}{\insrsid10361692 , is Norman French. It is used in the presen
t edition only for the 1086 holders, whereas in the Phillimore printed translations for several counties Norman was used for }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 holders as well, though the forms for them (}{\i\insrsid10361692 Norman}{
\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Normannus}{\insrsid10361692 ) almost certainly represent Old English }{\i\insrsid10361692 Northmann}{\insrsid10361692  (von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{
\insrsid10361692 , pp. 331-32). The Alecto edition has Norman for 1086 holders, Northmann for }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E. }{\insrsid10361692 ones.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 1 CHURCH. It is difficult to identify the churches held by Norman of Lincoln and Edric (B8). One may be St Peter's an
d the other St Mary's; the latter belonged to Burton Abbey, but may have been held by one of these individuals, unless it is entirely omitted from Domesday; see B4 mill note Even if these are the two churches, it is uncertain which is which; see Darlingto
n, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. liii-liv. Roffe (}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, p. 20) inclines to identify the churches held by Norman of Lincoln and Edric as St James' and St Helen's; see B8 Edric note.
\par \tab BRUN. See B8 Edric note. On the name Brun, see 1,30 Brun note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B8\tab 
EDRIC HAS 1 CHURCH. Henry of Ferrers succeeded to the lands of one or more people called Edric (6,7 Edric note), but it is unlikely that any of them are the same as the present 1086 holder. Edric is said to be the son of "Coln". A "Colne" is 
a 1086 holder at 1,15 (see 1,15 "Colne" note), but Edric will probably have inherited on his father's death. If so, the "Coln" who is the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 holder of Longstone (6,72) was possibly his father, although Edric did not hold that estate in 1086; see 6,72 "Coln" note. On the name "Coln", see B8 "Coln" note.
\par \tab \tab Roffe ('Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 20) speaks of "Coln" as Cola, but Cola and "Coln" are in fact different names: }{\insrsid10361692 von Feilitzen }{\i\insrsid10361692 
Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , pp. 217-18.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  In r
eferring, apparently to the 1086 holder Edric, he suggests that, like Norman of Lincoln, he does not appear elsewhere in Domesday Derbyshire and 'their estates were therefore probably purely urban'.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab Roffe further suggests that the churches held by Norman
 of Lincoln and Edric were possibly St James (given to Bermondsey Abbey (Surrey) 1140 x 1141 by Waltheof son of Swein), the other possibly St Helen's, given by a burgess of Derby to Darley Abbey: }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum}{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 , iii. p. 35 no. 92; Darlington, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. liii-liv, ii. p. 638. The memorandum (Darlington, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
, ii. p. 638) concerning the oratory of St Helen's is badly mutilated, but it seems that the burgess (whose name appears to have been }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Towyus}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (= Tovi) not only ga
ve the oratory but had founded it. In fact it seems likely that neither church was in existence in 1086 and that Norman of Lincoln's church (B7) together with Edric's church may be represented by St Mary's and St Peter's, though it is not certain which is
 which; see the discussion in Darlington, }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Darley Cartulary}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. liii-liv.
\par \tab "COLN". }{\insrsid10361692 According to von Feilitzen, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 218, this }{\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holder, and (as }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{
\insrsid10361692 ) the one in 6,72 and the 1086 holder in 1,15, may represent Old Norse/Old Danish }{\i\insrsid10361692 Kolli }{\insrsid10361692 (on which see }{\i\insrsid10361692 ibidem}{\insrsid10361692 
, p. 307, and 4,2 Kolli note), if the Domesday forms }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 Coln}{\insrsid10361692  are errors for }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692 . The Domesday form of one of the }{
\i\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\insrsid10361692  holders of Youlgrave (6,76) and of the 1086 holders in 4,2 and 10,18 is }{\i\insrsid10361692 Colle}{\insrsid10361692  (= Kolli), but as there seems to be no evidence linking them with the people called }{
\i\insrsid10361692 Colne}{\insrsid10361692 ,}{\i\insrsid10361692  Coln}{\insrsid10361692 , it has been thought better to keep the Domesday forms here. The Alecto edition has Kolli.
\par \tab \tab The }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 T.R.E.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  
holder of [Little?] Longstone (6,72) might be the same person as this "Coln", although his name is spelt "Colne" there, but it is improbable that he is the same as the 1086 holder "Colne" in 1,15.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B9\tab EARL HUGH. Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester. He holds a fief in Derbyshire (DBY4). On the name Hugh, see DBY 4 Hugh note.
\par \tab 2 MESSUAGES. That is, two house-sites, perhaps with houses on them. They were no doubt attached to one or more of his rural manors and inhabited by non-resident burgesses. Markeaton was suggested by Roffe, 'Introduction', }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Derbyshire Domesday}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 21, and this seems probable; see NTT S5 Markeaton note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B10\tab HENRY OF FERRERS. His was the largest fief in Derbyshire (DBY 6). On the name Henry, see 1,27 Henry note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 3 MESSUAGES. See B9 messuages note. They were probably appurtenant to one of Henry of Ferrers' rural manors.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B11\tab OSMER THE PRIEST. There is a 1066 tenant called Osmer who held Newton (6,8). The present Osmer is probably a different individual, possibly a priest of one of the borough's main churches. On his name, see 6,8 Osmer note.}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B12\tab GODWIN THE PRIEST. A Godwin is given as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers; see 6,7 Godwin note. The present individual is probably unconnected with that Godwin, and may have been priest of one of the impo
rtant churches in Derby.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab AFTER THIS DETAIL the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space; see B1 Derby note.
\par B13\tab MARTINMAS. That is, on November 11}{\cf1\up6\insrsid10361692 th}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  each year.
\par \tab 12 THRAVES OF CORN ... THE ABBOT OF BURTON HAS 40 SHEAVES. Until recent times these c
ontained 12 sheaves each (PM). The render probably represented 1 thrave per carucate. The Abbot of Burton's due is probably a rare example in Domesday of the render known as 'churchscot', which was distinguished from other payments by being owed at Martin
mas; see WOR 2,21;71. 9,7; Round, 'Churchscot in Domesday', p. 101, and }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 310.}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
\par B14\tab 8 MESSUAGES. They were presumably attached to Weston-on-Trent (1,37) which had been held by Earl Algar before King William.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THEY WERE [EARL] ALGAR'S. See 1,16 Algar note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab AFTER THIS DETAIL the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space; see B1 Derby note.
\par B15\tab THIS ENTRY and the next (B16) record information similar to that found in the }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Clamores}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  of Domesday Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and the section at the end of Huntingdonshire (see HUN \{
Introduction: Declarations\}). The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday may have found just these two results of court cases and not known where to put them.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab TWO PENNIES AND THE EARL'S THIRD. There is no mention of this wa
pentakal render in the rest of Domesday Derbyshire. However, the revenue of pleas and forfeitures in hundreds and wapentakes were the property of the Crown or shared by it with individuals or granted to important people or churches; see LIN CW9-11. ESS 17
,2. NFK 1,44;67. With the present tense }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 exeunt}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ('come'), the sentence seems slightly anachronistic as there was no earl in 1086. This may explain partly why they are in the sheriff's hands.}{
\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab 'APPLETREE' WAPENTAKE IN DERBY[SHIRE]. This is the only mention of 'Appletree' Wapentake in the Derbyshire text, though the reconstruction of the wapentakes proposed in the Introduction (see \{
Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes\}) and detailed in individual notes suggests that manors that lay within it occupy a series of identifiable blocks in individual fiefs.
\par \tab \tab There is no stated reason why 'Appletree' Wapentake is singled out, but it could be that the profits from the other wapentakes had already reached their rightful recipients (possibly the ki
ng in each case), while those of 'Appletree' Wapentake were still in the sheriff's hands. }{\i\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\insrsid10361692 
, i. pp. 299-300, points out that Henry of Ferrers held most of the estates in 'Appletree' Wapentake. On the other hand, if he held the wapentake itself
, there seems to be no reason for the involvement of the sheriff. The difference may be that the king was lord of all the other wapentakes, but that the lord of 'Appletree' Wapentake (if there was one) was a lay holder: 'Appletree' Wapentake was the only 
o
ne that contained no royal estate. The earl had formerly received a third of the receipts from the wapentake, and, as there was no earl in 1086, it may be that the sheriff was farming the wapentake and/ or collecting the dues. It is also possible that thi
s wapentake had earlier been created (perhaps out of Hamston Wapentake) for the Earl of Mercia; see \{Introduction: Links to Royal Manors\}.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab 'Appletree' Wapentake is not adjacent to and probably not appurtenant to the borough of Derby, whereas Litchurch Wap
entake and 'Morleystone' Wapentake were, divided from each other by the River Derwent which flows through Derby. It is likely, therefore, that 'Derby' interlined above }{\insrsid10361692 'Appletree' Wapentake }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
in this entry is an error for 'Derbyshire' just as in 1,25 'Clifto
n [Campville] in Stafford' is a mistake for 'in Stafford[shire]'. In the immediate context, the interlineation is unnecessary, but the details of the borough of Derby are on a page that is headed }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 SNOTINGH}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 [}{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 AM}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ]}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 SCIRE}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab In the manuscript }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derberie}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is clear, but in both the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile it appears as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derberic}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
. Farley read it as }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Derberie}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . On other failings in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,19 Melbourne note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab THE SHERIFF'S HANDS. The sheriff of Nottingham was also sheriff of Derby until}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 the later 16th century, and was already so before 1086, since his returns were attested}{\insrsid10361692 
 }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 by the 'witnesses of the two shires' (PM); see \{Introduction: Administration of the Shire\}.
\par \tab OR RATHER DUES. This was interlined by the }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday above }{\i\insrsid10361692 manu}{\insrsid10361692 .}{\i\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uel}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 (deriving from }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uolo}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  'I wish') strictly means 'if you like' and in a case like this introduces another way of expressing the matter (= 'or rather'); it is not a s
tark, mutually exclusive 'either... or...' alternative, which strictly speaking requires }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 aut}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ; }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uel }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ... }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uel}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  and }
{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 aut}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  ... }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 aut}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (both meaning 'either... or') differ in the same way. In Medieval Latin }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 uel}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  is sometimes used for }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 aut}{\cf1\insrsid10361692  (as in NTT S1) but in this prese
nt case, it probably seeks to remove any impression that the sheriff has pocketed the money and intends rather to suggest that it is in fact destined for the exchequer along with other shrieval payments. That the sheriff acted as a conduit for revenue is 
evident from WOR 1,5 where, of the manor of Tardebigge, it is said: 'the sheriff of Staffordshire receives and pays the revenue of this manor in Kingswinford'. Both Tardebigge (WOR 1,5) and Kingswinford (STS 1,1) were royal manors. Similarly in the }{
\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 Book of Fees}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , p. 142, the Staffordshire Hundred of Pirehill is held by William Griffin and pays six marks }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 per annum}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 through the hand of the sheriff as part of the farm of the county. It is possible in this case, however, that, rather than collecting the revenue an
d passing it on, the sheriff is 'farming' the revenue, that is, he is receiving what he can get, but paying a fixed rent for it; see}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692  VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. p. 328 note 2.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab BY WITNESS OF THE TWO SHIRES. The Latin is abbreviated (}{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 testim' duaru' sciraru'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 ) but it is likely that }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 testim'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 stands for the ablative }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 testimonio}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
 ('by witness of', 'by testimony of'). The two shires are Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire who shared a shire-court. This joint assembly was probably the one at which the Domesday Inquest for these counties was conducted; see }{\insrsid10361692 
Crook, 'Establishment of the Derbyshire County Court, 1256'}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 .}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 On this, see also Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 126 no. 337.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 B16\tab FOR THIS ENTRY, see B15 entry note.
\par \tab STORI }{\insrsid10361692 <OF BOLINGBROKE>}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 . He was probably Walter's predecessor in the borough. In both Derbyshire and}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
Nottinghamshire among his predecessors were Swein and Thori, named together in NTT 11,5;}{\insrsid10361692  }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 a possible but less likely alternative is that this name represents a contraction of the two,}{\insrsid10361692  }{
\cf1\insrsid10361692 (S)tori (PM); see }{\i\cf1\insrsid10361692 VCH Derbyshire}{\cf1\insrsid10361692 , i. pp. 304, 328 note 3. On the name Stori and its identification by JP, see 6,67 Stori note.}{\insrsid10361692 
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab WALTER OF AINCOURT. He holds in chief in Derbyshire (DBY 8). On his name, see DBY 8 Walter note.
\par \tab MAKE A CHURCH FOR HIMSELF ... WITHOUT ANYONE'S PERMISSION. T
his is an unusual entry. It is generally assumed that in the countryside any lord might erect a church on his manor. Evidently in a borough, or in the borough of Derby, there were restrictions, probably because of the presence of other churches and powerf
ul interests. The }{\insrsid10361692 main scribe of Great Domesday interlined }{\i\insrsid10361692 sibi}{\insrsid10361692 
 presumably to exclude the possibility that Stori could build a church for someone else. His possession and his rights are stressed repeatedly: }{\i\insrsid10361692 sibi}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 sua}{\insrsid10361692 , }{
\i\insrsid10361692 sua}{\insrsid10361692 , }{\i\insrsid10361692 suam}{\insrsid10361692 .
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 \tab \tab }{\insrsid10361692 On this, see Fleming, }{\i\insrsid10361692 Domesday Book and the Law}{\insrsid10361692 , p. 12 no. 338.
\par }{\cf1\insrsid10361692 
\par }}