concerning the history of the church at the end of
the volume, which are here printed only in abstract, are probably in a
somewhat later handwriting. The date of the compilation of the Domesday
Monachorum, Dr. Ballard places’ in the year after the Domesday
Commissioners visited Kent’ basing his conclusion on a passage
occurring in the description of Sandwich (but see note 38 on p. 261).
The Survey proper is an ‘independent compilation from the original
Domesday returns,’—to quote Dr. Ballard again. The differences in
content between the Exchequer and the Monks’ Domesday will appear
quickly from an examination of the translations of the two documents. It
will be seen that they consist largely in variations in spelling and
phraseology, and, with more significance, in differences in the figures
for assessments and values, and in additional information supplied by
the Domesday Monachorum with regard especially to pre-Conquest and
Domesday sitting tenants and conditions in the boroughs.
The document ‘opens with a list of the customs paid at
Easter by priests and churches to the archbishop, which is followed by a
list of apparently minster churches with the churches subordinate to
them. Upon this list follows an Institute, showing the food-rents from
the various manors in sheep, honey, and bread, and in money before
Lanfranc’s day, a document evidently added after Lanfranc’s death in
1090. The Romescot of East Kent follows next, and a list of manors ;
those of the archbishopric, those of the church of Rochester, and those
of the monks. At folio five begins the Survey itself, followed by that
of the Rochester manors.3 The manors of the
archbishopric are entered first, those of the monks follow,—those
belonging to the knights of the archbishop, which Domesday keeps
separate, being included for the most part under those of the
archbishop,—and, thereafter, the manors of Rochester. A list of the
farm, gafol, and customs paid by the manors follows; then lists Of the
king’s holdings in Kent very briefly stated, and also brief statements
of the lands held of St. Augustine, St. Martin of Battle, St.
Wandregisil of Ghent, and of the tenants of the bishop of Bayeux. These
lists agree in the main with the Domesday lists, but should undoubtedly
be carefully examined and compared. A list of the knights of the
archbishop with the number of their fees is the next document, and
thereafter, and in conclusion, some interesting and curious documents
referring to the relations of archbishop and prior, of Canterbury and
Rochester, and of the grant of the church of Eynsford. The most
important document is undoubtedly the Survey itself, but all will repay
careful study. As evidence of conditions in Kent at the time of Domesday
and soon thereafter, the Domesday Monachorum is clearly of first rate
importance.
3 These entries should be
compared with those almost similar in Domesday Book. The Domesday
Monachorum Version contains several ancient Saxon letters. See Somner,
Antiquities of Canterbury, by Batteley, pt. i., app. No. 40. |