and Richard fitz Gilbert. In the case of Odo and Hugh, these tenements are called divisiones in the Survey, in the case of Richard leuga, and both terms suggest a comparison with the ancient rapes of Sussex. Was William pursuing a policy in Kent analogous to that pursued in Sussex,. of granting strategic positions with outlying supporting regions, old or new, in so far as was consistent with the great and scattered possessions of the churches? Can sufficient geographical integrity in the Kentish holding be found to justify such a suggestion? A study of the map will in part answer these questions.
   The lands of Odo were numerous. According to Larking’s computation⁴⁸ which is probably too low, at least for Kent, there were 184 lordships in Kent and 255 in other counties. They lay scattered throughout Kent, in all the settled parts. Together with the manors held by the church they often comprised all the lands in a given hundred, as in the cases of the hundreds of Axton, Eyhorne, Bridge, Calehill, Eastry, and Shamwell. The Conqueror had evidently made a sweeping grant of much of the county to his half-brother, while leaving undisturbed the church, and making certain provision for a very small number of lay lords. Along with these lands and others west of Winchester and south of Thames, Odo received the title and powers of Earl of Kent, a title accorded him at Pennenden Heath⁴⁹  and in an early charter.⁵⁰  Ordericus Vitalis, in a somewhat ambiguous passage, refers to him as ‘earl palatine,’ but probably confuses in this case his position as earl with his position as justiciar.⁵¹  He appears in the Survey only as bishop, probably because he had been in disgrace since 1082, his powers having lapsed and his lands been sequestrated,⁵²  a fact which is not mentioned in the Survey. His character is treated somewhat gently by Orderic ‘There were mixed in this man vices with virtues, if I mistake not ; he was more concerned with worldly deeds than with the graces (charismata) of spiritual thought (theoriae).⁵³  This was a more favourable judgment than the Conqueror’s, who, when intercession was made for Odo, replied : ‘Odo, my brother, is light minded and ambitious, cleaving to carnal desires and of boundless harshness, and will never be changed from his dissolute ways and noxious vanities.⁵⁴  The most common accusation against him is that he filched away the lands of churches, and Larking makes the most of the Domesday evidence against him. The Survey tells us that after the fire the returns from Dover enormously increased under his administration, and it seems probable that the 29 houses taken from the king, acknowledging him as ‘dator, protector, and liberator,’ were unjustly paying money into his pocket.⁵⁵  He may have been behind. Brumann’s aggressions, and seems to have been responsible for the inconvenient mill in Dover harbour. The chief story of his misdeeds comes to us from Pinnenden Heath where Lanfranc, with the king’s permission and by issue of the king’s writ, called him to account for his encroachments on
   ⁴⁸  Larking, op. cit. 188.
   ⁴⁹  Order. Vitalis, Hist. Eccles. II, 167, 173; Stenton, William the Conqueror, p. 425.
   ⁵⁰  Dugdale, Mon. Angl. I, 302.
   ⁵¹  Order. Vitalis, op. cit. ii, 222. ‘Quid loquar de Odone Barocense praesule qui consul palatinus erat.’ See also iii, 270, and H. W. C. Davis, Engl. under the Normans and Angevins, p. 519, and Round, Cal. Doc. in France, pp. 397, 399.
   ⁵²  For the story of his disgrace see Larking, op. cit. 184; Freeman, Norman Conquest, IV, 462 et seq.; Will. Maim. iii, 277; Order. Vitalis, op. cit. 647; Will. Pict. p. 149
   ⁵³  Order. Vitalis, op. Cit. ii, 222. Compare Will. Pict. p. 150.
   ⁵⁴  Order. Vitalis, op. cit. iii, 246.        ⁵⁵  See p. 203a.