DEVON
(version 1a)

INTRODUCTION

THE COUNTY BOUNDARY
The border of the 1086 county has not remained unchanged until the twentieth century, even if the 1974 county reorganization (here ignored) is laid aside. Churchstanton (37,1) was transferred to Somerset in 1896 and Thorncombe (16,165), long a detached part of Axminster Hundred entirely surrounded by Dorset, was transferred to that county in 1844. Stockland (DOR 3,14) was brought into Devon in 1832 and Chardstock (DOR 3,13) in 1896; on the same boundary Hawkchurch (see DOR 11,1 Cerne note and DOR 17,1 Frampton note) and Dalwood (see DOR 1,4 Fordington note and DOR 12,14 Stockland note), not separately mentioned in Domesday Dorset, were taken into Devon in 1896 and 1832 respectively.
	The boundary between Devon and Cornwall was fixed as the left bank of the Tamar by King Athelstan, and in 1066 would essentially have been the same. However, there have subsequently been some changes:

Maker 
A part of Maker had become a dependency of the Devonshire manor of Walkhampton at an unknown date before 1066 but by 1086 the relationship had ended (1,22). Maker is there said merely to have been removed from Walkhampton. It had not necessarily been returned to Cornwall and it is not certain that the one tax-paying virgate of Maker held in Domesday Cornwall (CON 5,2,14) by Reginald (of Vautortes) from the Count of Mortain is the same land, since the plough estimates differ. Maker, originally granted as 5 hides in the early eighth century, may have been split into several parts. A part of Maker known as Vaultersholme tithing (named from the Vautortes family) included Mount Edgecumbe and was certainly in Devon before the end of the thirteenth century and remained there until 1844; see Hoskins and Finberg, Devonshire Studies, p. 26.

Werrington 
Further up the Tamar, the large estate known as Werrington straddled the Tamar. It included the parishes of North Petherwin and Werrington, west of the Tamar, and St Giles-in-the-Heath east of it. Werrington appears to have been royal land since the time of King Egbert (802-839). In King Edward's time it was a holding of Countess Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin, and was granted by her to Abbot Sihtric of Tavistock between 1066 and 1068. Apparently, proof of this grant was lacking or the Conqueror did not wish to confirm it, for the Domesday Commissioners treated Werrington as belonging to the king, together with many of Gytha's other lands, although the abbot's counterclaim is entered in Exon 178b2 (see 1,50 Werrington note).The date of the transfer of the whole estate at Werrington to Devon is uncertain. Finberg (Lucerna, p. 172) argued that it was shortly before Domesday on the grounds that Tavistock Abbey's lordship portion of Werrington must be part of the 1 hide and 1 virgate exemption given to the abbot in the Tax Return for the Cornish Hundred of Stratton. This may be so. However, the abbot held at least one other land in Stratton Hundred at Tregrenna (CON 3,4) and the returns for both Stratton Hundred and the adjacent Rillaton Hundred seem impossible to reconstruct with certainty largely because of deficiencies in the figures that Great Domesday itself gives; see {CON Introduction: Hundreds}. If Werrington is not needed to account for some of the tax exemption in Stratton Hundred, its transfer to Devon could have taken place at any time between Tavistock's acquisition of it and 1086. It would have been convenient for Tavistock Abbey if the whole manor of Werrington were placed in Devon. However, Gytha's lands in Cornwall were in the hands of the Count of Mortain by 1086, and it is possible that the Conqueror would have preferred to have Werrington in Devon and watched over by Baldwin the sheriff. It appears that the Count of Mortain had already removed Boyton (5,5,4) from Werrington and kept it in or returned it to Cornwall. Werrington was restored to Tavistock Abbey in 1096 (Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 497; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 97 no. 378) and the abbot continued to hold it until the Dissolution: Feudal Aids, i. p. 327; Valor Ecclesiasticus, ii. p. 381. The Tamar was re-established as the boundary here in 1966, when Werrington and North Petherwin returned to Cornwall. On the history of Werington, see 1,50 Werrington note.

Landinner and Trebeigh
In 1066 Landinner and Trebeigh, although in Cornwall, had been dependencies of Lifton in Devonshire. They were apparently the last survivors of a much larger arrangement mentioned in the will of King Alfred; see CON {Introduction: History}.

Borough and Tackbeare
In the Middle Ages, the parishes of North Tamerton (Cornwall) and West Bridgerule (Devon) were divided by the county boundary. A boundary adjustment of 1844 tidied this up by transferring to Devon the Cornish manors of Borough and Tackbear (1015 acres in all), both of them Domesday places (CON 5,11,6. 5,24,18) lying west of the Tamar. Part of North Tamerton (1043 acres east of the Tamar) was transferred to Cornwall in exchange. Part of Boyton (Northcott hamlet) was transferred to Devon at the same time.

Similarly this border, until recent times parts of the Cornish parishes of Whitstone, Launcells, and Kilkhampton, though east of the Tamar, have lain in that county and parts of the Devonshire parishes of Pancrasweek, Luffincott and Northcott lay west of the Tamar. This, however, does not mean that any Domesday estate centre was geographically in the wrong county.

Lundy Island was and is a part of Devonshire; it is not mentioned in Domesday, but was probably surveyed as part of Hartland (Rotuli Hundredorum, i. pp. 73b, 89b).

Place	1086	Later	
Devon/ Cornwall Border

BOROUGH (CON 5,11,6)

MAKER (1,22. CON 5,2,14)

TACKBEAR (CON 5,24,18)

WERRINGTON (1,50)	

In Cornwall

Part possibly in Devon; certainly there by the thirteenth century

In Cornwall

In Devon, but previously in Cornwall

To Devon in 1844

To Cornwall in 1844

To Devon in 1844

To Cornwall in 1966	
Devon/Dorset Border

CHARDSTOCK (DOR 3,13)

DALWOOD ( DOR 1,4 Fordington note; DOR 12,14 Stockland note)

HAWKCHURCH (DOR 11,1 Cerne note; DOR 17,1 Frampton note)

STOCKLAND (DOR 12,14)

THORNCOMBE (16,165)

In Dorset

In Dorset

In Dorset

In Dorset

In Devon	

To Devon in 1896

To Devon in 1832

To Devon in 1896

To Devon in 1832

To Dorset in 1844	
Devon/ Somerset/ Border

CHURCHSTANTON (DEV 37,1)

In Devon	

To Somerset in 1896	

HUNDREDS
In the Phillimore printed edition, the Domesday estates were allocated, for the purposes of indexing and mapping, to the 'later' hundreds; this was the policy that the general editor (JRM) had wished to be applied to counties that lacked hundredal rubrication. However, the Notes for this county show that in most instances places can be allocated to the 1086 hundreds on the basis of the Tax Returns which are included in the Liber Exoniensis, here called Exon; (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) or by a study of the hundredal sequence in which they are entered in the text of Exon itself. Tabulated here are, in the first column, the names of the 'later' hundreds that were used for the maps and index of places in the Phillimore printed edition and, in the second, the names of the 1086 hundreds; in the case of the latter, alternative forms are given when they are found in the sources. A blank in the first column means that a hundred had ceased to exist by that time. Where names on the same line in adjacent columns are substantially different (for example Hayridge/ Silverton), this indicates that the Domesday hundred has been renamed. The use of single inverted commas ('Cliston' for Cliston) indicates that the place which named the hundred is no longer in existence, although it is evidenced after 1086. Double inverted commas ("Al(l)eriga") indicate that the hundred-name is not found after 1086. Torrington Hundred has been called [Black] Torrington Hundred and Tawton Hundred called [North] Tawton to indicate that these hundreds are not named from Great Torrington or South Tawton.

Phillimore Printed Editio	This Revision	

Axminster
------------
Bampton
-----------
Braunton
Budleigh
Cliston
Coleridge
Colyton
Crediton
Ermington
Exminster
Fremington
Halberton
Hartland
Hayridge
Haytor
Hemyock
Lifton
--------------
--------------
South Molton
Ottery St Mary
Plympton
Roborough
Shebbear
Shirwell
Stanborough
North Tawton
--------------
Teinbridge
Tiverton
Black Torrington
--------------
Witheridge
Wonford
	
Axminster
Axmouth
Bampton
Berrynarbor
Braunton
Budleigh
'Cliston'
Chillington
Colyton
Crediton
Ermington ("Al(l)eriga")
Exminster
Fremington
Halberton
Hartland
Silverton
Kerswell
Hemyock
Lifton
Molland
North Molton
South Molton
Ottery St Mary
Plympton
Roborough (Walkhampton)
Merton
Shirwell
Diptford
[North] Tawton
South Tawton
Teignbridge (Teinton)
Tiverton
[Black] Torrington
Uffculme
Witheridge
Wonford

Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds
This note describes the probable hundredal organisation of Devonshire in 1086 and surveys the main differences between that pattern and the medieval hundreds, as shown by later documents including Feudal Aids, the Book of Fees and the Lay Subsidy Rolls. These hundreds survived into the nineteenth century.

With the exception of the five south-western counties, Great Domesday Book usually indicates, at the end of the first line of each entry, or group of entries (or, sometimes, in the space left after the 'Value' statement of the preceding entry), the hundred in which the place or places lay. In many counties it can be shown that the hundredal groups of places are entered in the same or very similar order within each individual fief; see Sawyer, 'Original Returns'. In Domesday Devon there is no hundredal rubrication, although a few Hundreds are mentioned incidentally in the text: thus Molland (1,41) is said to receive the third penny of the hundreds of North Molton, Bampton and Braunton; Moretonhampstead (1,45) receives the third penny of Teignbridge Hundred, and 2 ½ virgates belonging to Iddesleigh (1,63) lie in [North] Tawton Hundred; moreover one furlong (ferdinus) of waste which 'no man claims' lay in 'Molton' Hundred according to the Exon Terrae Occupatae (500a4); see {Introduction: Exon Extra Information and Discrepancies}.
	Despite the absence of any systematic reference within individual fiefs to hundreds, places appear to be entered in Exon in a series of exclusive geographical groupings, that is in a largely consistent order of hundreds, or groups of hundreds, as can be seen from the detailed introductory note to most chapters in the Notes. In itself, this allows some conception of the 1086 hundreds to be formed which can be amplified from a study of the Tax Returns for Devonshire (Exon folios 65a-7 la) covering thirty-one hundreds. As is explained in the {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}, these record the total hidage for each hundred, the amount of lordship land for each holder and details of holdings on which tax is owed. From these returns, valuable evidence for the identification of places can be obtained when the names of landholders or the lordship hidage or the land stated to be owing tax are compared with Domesday entries, even though the Tax Returns rarely contain place-names.
	The names of the late eleventh-century Hundreds can also be seen from two lists of Devonshire hundreds which are bound up with the Exon Domesday (folio 63a). As can be seen from the table below there are many similarities between the names in these two lists and the hundred names of the Tax Returns as well as of those of the later period. Tabulated below are the names of the hundreds found in the two Exon Lists, followed by those of the Tax Returns (these last being given in the nominative case, whereas in the Exon manuscript they occur in the genitive, ending in -e or -ę (for -ae) in phrases such as 'In the Hundred of Lifton'), and finally, in the last column, the name of the later hundred which each formed, or into which it was incorporated. The numbering of the Tax Returns and of the Exon hundred-lists is that of the present editors, following their order in Exon. The order of tabulation is dictated by Exon Hundred List II for reasons that will become apparent. In the first three columns royal manors have been starred and an 'M' indicates that the 'Hundred' was only a manor with few or no members.

EXON LIST II	EXON LIST I	TAX RETURNS	LATER HUNDRED	

1 Listona*

2 Toritona*

3 Hertilanda*

4 Mertona

5 Framintona*

6 Tauuuetona*

7 Crediatona

8 Esseministra*

9 Clistona*

10 Badentona2

11 Brantona*

12 Scireuuilla

13 Sut Moltona*

14 Wenforda*

15 Budeleia*

16 Hamioth*

17 Wetriga*

18 Tuluertona*

M19 Otric4

20 Halbretona*

21 Axeministra*

22 Carsuella*

23 Culintona*

24 Alsemuda*

25 Cadelintona*

26 Aleriga

27 Rueberga*

28 Plintona*

29Dippeforda*

30 Tainebruga

M31 Ofecolum

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

18 Lifetona*

4 Toritona*

1 Hertilanda

2 Mertona

5 Framintona*

6 Tautona

25 Chridiatona

11 Essemenistra*

12 Clistona*

21Badentona3

23 Branctona*

22 Scireuuella

24 Moltona*

10 Wenforda*

27 Budeleies*

------------------

20 Witric*

19 Tueruetona*

32 Otric Sanctę Marię5

31 Halsbretona*

30 Axaministres*

8 Chersuuelles*7

28 Cullinctona*

29 Axamudes*

16 Cædelintona*

13 Hermintona*8

14 Walchentona*

15 Plintona*

7 Dippesforda*

9 Taintona*

-----------------

17 Sulfertona*

M3 Mollanda*

M26 Hertesberia (Berrynarbor)
	
1 Liftona

3 Toritona*

2 Hertilanda

5 Mertona

4 Framintona

9 Tauuentona

8 Chridiatona

23 Æsseministra*1

12 Clistona

22 Badentona

6 Brantona* and Scireuella

6 Brantona* and Scireuella

7 Sut Moltona

31 Wenfort*

16 Budeleia*

14 Hamiohc*

10 Witric*

11 Tuuuertona

18 Otri6

17 Hasbertona

19 Axemenistre*

25 Carsewilla*

20 Culintona*

21 Axemuda*

27 Cadelintona*

30 Alleriga

29 Walchentona*

28 Plintona*

26 Dippesforda*

24 Taintona*

15 Offecolum

13 Sulfertona*

-------------------

-------------------

Lifton. Tavistock

Black Torrington

Hartland

Shebbear

Fremington

North Tawton

Crediton

Exminster

'Cliston'

Bampton

Braunton

Shirwell

South Molton

Wonford

Budleigh

Hemyock

Witheridge

North Tawton

Ottery St Mary

Halberton

Axminster

Haytor

Colyton

part of Axminster

Coleridge

Ermington

Roborough

Plympton

Stanborough

Teignbridge

part of Bampton

Hayridge

part of South Molton

part of Braunton

The folio reference for each Tax Return hundred together with its hidage are given in a table in {Introduction: The Tax Returns}.

Textual Notes on the Table
1 aesseministrę in the Exon manuscript, a diphthong squiggle being added to an original a; Ellis misprinted Esseministrę.

2 Badentonę in the Exon manuscript; Ellis misprinted Badentone.

3 In the Exon manuscript Badentone hund' is interlined (in paler ink and by a different scribe) above Clauuetonae which is underlined for deletion. Ellis omitted the underlining and prints Clauuueton&.

4 In the Exon manuscript Otric with Scę (with an abbreviation line over the e) Marię interlined; Ellis misprinted Otrie with scę (with an abbreviation line over the c) marie.

 5 Otric in the Exon manuscript; Ellis misprinted Otrie.

6 In the Exon manuscript Otri is a correction from Odtri; the d, though erased, is still partially visible.

7 Chers,uelles in the Exon manuscript; Ellis misprinted Cersuelles.

8 Hernītone hūdret in the Exon manuscript; Ellis misprinted herm'tone hūðret.

It will be seen that the discrepancies between the various lists are few: Exon List II omits Silverton (later Hayridge) Hundred, but otherwise corresponds to the hundreds of the Tax Returns; List I, while omitting a number of the names of Tax Return hundreds, includes Molland and Berrynarbor that are not in the Tax Returns. Moreover, the correspondence between the Tax Return hundreds and the later hundreds is strikingly close, except that Uffculme was treated as a separate hundred and Braunton and Shirwell as a single joint Hundred, places belonging to these last two hundreds being intermixed in the order of Exon.
	It will be noted also that no Devon hundred in the Tax Returns contains 100 hides or even an approximation (if that was the original total), but the hide can also be a measure of tax liability and is not always a measure of area (see 1,4 hide note). Many of the king's manors have a low tax-value but a large number of ploughs that suggests a larger areal hidage.
	The first Exon List contains a Hundred of Clauuuetona [Clawton], the name being deleted and Bampton inserted. It is not certain that in deleting the name the scribe was intending to substitute another name for the same hundred. There is a Clawton in [Black] Torrington Hundred (17,15), which in later surveys occurs as a complex manor accounting for a number of places (17,15-18) separately mentioned in Domesday and covering the modern parishes of Clawton, Pyworthy and Tetcott. Moreover, all these lands had the same 1086 holder and the lands of no other magnate intruded upon them. It may be that at some stage in the Domesday Enquiry a manorial return was mistaken for a Hundredal one.
	The differences between the two Exon Lists and the hundreds of the Tax Returns must lie in their different purposes. Some 'hundreds' may well have been temporary, artificial creations by a particular landholder or for the needs of a particular survey. Sometimes isolated royal manors might be treated as a hundred, their manorial details forming a separate return for some purposes, but if they were exempt from tax, they would not appear among the Tax Returns. The hundredal organisation that produced the Tax Returns may not have been identical to that which produced Domesday, and may well have differed from the hundreds which under the Anglo-Saxon kings had particular administrative and judicial functions.
	In the case of the adjacent Somerset, many manors (usually royal or ecclesiastical) had by 1086 been withdrawn from the hundreds in which geographically they lay and had either become small self-contained administrative units, also called 'hundreds', or were treated as remote outliers of their holder's chief manor (see SOM {Introduction: Hundreds}; for the purposes of the Tax Returns, however, these separate 'manorial Hundreds' are sometimes grouped with other manors.
	To a lesser degree, the same seems to have been true of Devon. Berrynarbor (Hertesberia) of the first Exon List, held by Walscin of Douai in 1086, seems to have been a separate unit when the List was completed, yet it can be identified in the Tax Return for Braunton and Shirwell Hundred (23,2 Berrynarbor note); Berrynarbor may once have been a royal or church manor-hundred, a fact not mentioned in Domesday. Uffculme Hundred (for which there is a Tax Return) was another single-manor hundred; it had belonged to Glastonbury Church (DEV 4 Glastonbury note and 23,9 Uffculme note) and was probably a small ecclesiastical 'hundred' like several in Somerset. Molland (1,41), also included in the first Exon List, was a royal manor and was probably separately administered like several royal manors that appear in the corresponding Exon Hundred-Lists for Somerset (folios 63b-64b). The details for Molland, however, seem to appear in the Tax Return for South Molton Hundred.
	The list of manors that were 'manorial Hundreds', though grouped with larger units in the Tax Returns, should probably be extended: a Hundred of North Molton is mentioned in connection with Molland (1,41) and probably represents only the royal manor of North Molton (1,37) treated as a Hundred. South Tawton was also probably a manorial hundred, since in the Exon order of Chapter 1, otherwise consistent, it is entered in the wrong place for a member of Wonford Hundred, where it later lay. Moreover, it received a number of customary dues from places that later formed part of Wonford Hundred, but which, each in their particular fief, occupy a place at the beginning of the schedule (1,29 note and Reichel, 'South Tawton Hundred'). On the other hand, the fact that these dues gain a special mention in Domesday does not necessarily suggest that South Tawton was the caput of a full Hundred with a number of tenants-in-chief, although there was a Hundred of South Tawton (first evidenced in 1170; Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 99) in later times. The alleged members of the 1086 Hundred of South Tawton are in fact found in the Tax Return for Wonford Hundred. The existence
of a Domesday Hundred or Hundred-manor of Winkleigh should be treated with even more reserve. Winkleigh (1,64) appears in the correct place in the schedule for a [North] Tawton Hundred place and is in the Tax Return for that Hundred; but a medieval Hundred of Winkleigh (first attested in 1238; Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 85) enjoyed a brief existence.
	The advance of feudalism, with its stress on the stratification of tenure and the lordship of the Hundred, is reflected in the names used for the hundreds in the Exon Lists and in the Tax Returns. In other counties the Anglo-Saxon names, from which most Domesday hundreds were named, were derived from the meeting places of the undred, often a prominent tree, hill-ridge or barrow, but in the case of Devonshire, the Lists and the Tax Returns refer to Hundreds by the names of their chief manors in every case except "Al(l)eriga", and possibly Merton which was named from a manor held in 1086 by the Bishop of Coutances. "Al(l)eriga" was later called after its chief royal manor, Ermington (1,23) as it already was in the first Exon List, and Merton became Shebbear (first noted in 1168; see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 87) after the royal holding (1,39). But in many cases the medieval and later name of a Hundred is probably the restoration of its moot-name: Roborough Hundred (already evidenced in 1086) for Walkhampton Hundred; Stanborough Hundred for Diptford Hundred; Coleridge Hundred for Chillington Hundred; Haytor Hundred for Kerswell Hundred; Hayridge Hundred for Silverton Hundred and possibly Teignbridge Hundred (the name already evidenced in 1086) for Teignton Hundred. Roborough is called from Roborough or Roborough House in Bickleigh parish (SX5062) or from Roborough Down in Buckland Monachorum (southwards from SX5069; see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 91). "Al(l)eriga" is unidentified, but is perhaps near Modbury (from Old English gemot-beorg 'moot-hill'; see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 92). Stanborough Hundred's meeting-place was perhaps the 'camp' or.'fort' marked on the Ordnance Survey map at the former junction of the parishes of Moreleigh, Halwell, Blackawton, East Allington and of several roads (SX7551). This site now lies in Halwell parish, Coleridge (formerly Chillington) Hundred, the parish and hundred boundaries having moved to the west. Coleridge is both an Old English moot-name and a Domesday place (23,23). Haytor can scarcely be connected with Haytor rock in Ilsington parish, which is not in Haytor Hundred: it was possibly near the place called Moothill Cross near Staverton (SX7964). Hayridge is unidentified; although it is tempting to connect it with Whorridge in Bradninch (so Finberg, 'Place-names of Devon', p. 38), the derivation is philologically unlikely (see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 84 and Place-Names of Devon, ii. p. 554). Teignbridge is so called from the bridge over the river in Kingsteignton parish (Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 98; see the article by Davidson).
	Not only are the hundreds of the Exon Lists and the Tax Returns named after the chief manor; the great majority of these are manors belonging to the Crown or to the king himself. The only clear exceptions are Crediton and Ottery St Mary Hundreds which were in the hands of churches. Most of the other hundred-names have some connections with the king. "Al(l)eriga" changed its name to Ermington when the king acquired the latter manor (and Blackawton) by exchange for Bampton (see 1,23-24), which as a royal manor had named Bampton Hundred. Shirwell was not named after a royal manor, but may have been administered by Braunton (1,5) with which it shares a Tax Return. Fremington was not royal land in 1086 (3,6 Fremington note) but had been held by Earl Harold before 1066; Merton (3,5) may have been in a similar position.
	The purpose of the first Exon List of hundreds is unclear, as is the corresponding list for Somerset. But the second List (as also in the case of Somerset) is a key to the order of Exon. This List, given in order with the names modernised, is: Lifton, [Black] Torrington, Hartland, Merton, Fremington, [North] Tawton, Crediton, Exminster, 'Cliston', Bampton, Braunton, Shirwell, South Molton, Wonford, Budleigh, Hemyock, Witheridge, Tiverton, Ottery [St Mary], Halberton, Axminster, Kerswell, Colyton, Axmouth, Chillington, "Al(l)eriga", Roborough, Plympton, Diptford, Teignbridge, Uffculme. If allowance is made for the omission of a return for the manors contributing to South Tawton and of one for Silverton (later Hayridge) Hundred, and for the fact that the last two, Teignbridge and Uffculme, may have been passed over and then added to the List at the end, this order is very close to that in which hundreds are entered in individual chapters of Exon and can illuminatingly be compared with the order as shown in the introductory note to most chapters in the Notes. It seems that this second List (in a variety of hands) was a schedule made of the hundreds in which the Domesday material had been arranged (possibly for checking before the hundred courts) as they were entered fief by fief in the Exon folios. 
	In comparing this List with the hundredal order of individual fiefs, it must be allowed that a scribe, faced with the task of looking through each hundred return for the manors of a particular tenant-in-chief, sometimes missed one or more manors and so entered them in the schedule partly or wholly later than the normal position for the hundred group; or that, because of the pressure of time, two or more scribes were working simultaneously on the gatherings of parchment or'booklets' that formed each individual fief list and exchanged the returns as they finished them. Even without such allowances made, some fiefs are entered hundredally in exactly the order of the second Exon list (although no fief actually contains a manor in every hundred). Other fiefs appear to show a greater variation in order for the reasons suggested above or because some information was entered not hundred by hundred, but in groups of hundreds: Places in Braunton Hundred and Shirwell Hundred, for example, are not only entered together but often mingled with places from South Molton Hundred and 'Cliston' Hundred. On the other hand, places in Lifton Hundred are always entered before those of [Black] Torrington Hundred, those in [Black] Torrington Hundred before those in Hartland Hundred, those in Hartland Hundred before those in Merton hundred and so on.
	The list of Exon order standing as the second note for most chapters in the Notes will illustrate the order of individual fiefs and it will be seen that the pattern is often striking: the third to sixteenth entries in the Count of Mortain's fief (DEV 15) in Exon are all in Merton Hundred, the first eleven of Baldwin's fief (DEV 16) are in Lifton Hundred, the next seventeen in [Black] Torrington Hundred and so on. A study of the Exon returns for Devon suggests the following patterns which, allowing for the grouping of some hundreds, is almost identical to Exon List II (the names are modernised):
	Manors paying dues to South Tawton, perhaps forming a hundred of South Tawton; 	Lifton Hundred;
	[Black] Torrington Hundred; 
	Hartland Hundred; 
	Merton Hundred; 
	Fremington Hundred; 
	[North] Tawton Hundred; 
	Crediton Hundred; 
	Exminster Hundred;
	Braunton Hundred, Shirwell Hundred, Bampton Hundred, Uffculme Hundred, South Molton Hundred and 'Cliston' Hundred intermingled; 
	Silverton Hundred, Wonford Hundred, Hemyock Hundred, Budleigh Hundred, Witheridge Hundred, Teignbridge Hundred and Tiverton Hundred intermingled; 
	Ottery [St Mary] Hundred; 
	Halberton Hundred;
	Axminster Hundred, Kerswell Hundred, Colyton Hundred and Axmouth Hundred intermingled; 
	Chillington Hundred, "Al(l)eriga" Hundred, Diptford Hundred, Roborough Hundred and Plympton Hundred. 

It should be noted that Reichel, 'Devonshire Hundreds', pp. 583-84 proposed a similar order; see Whale and Reichel, 'Analysis of Exon. Domesday', p. 391, VCH Devon, i. p. 378 and Finn, 'Devonshire Domesdays', pp. 103-108.)

The Later Hundreds
The differences between the 1086 hundreds and those of later times is not great. North Molton 'Hundred' and Molland 'Hundred' both of uncertain status in 1086, were later combined with South Molton Hundred; Uffculme Hundredwas amalgamated with Bampton Hundred; South Tawton Hundredwas absorbed by Wonford Hundred, and Axmouth Hundred by Axminster Hundred. Some of these survived separately beyond the eleventh century, South Tawton Hundred, North Molton Hundred and Molland Hundred still being found in the Nomina Villarum of 1316 (in Feudal Aids, i. pp. 373, 376; see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, pp. 77-78, 99). Uffculme was recorded as a hundred as late as 1428 (Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 80). Axmouth Hundred was often treated separately in the Middle Ages, while Tiverton Hundred and Halberton Hundred were frequently combined. These last two may have been close in earlier times since parts of a parish in one are sometimes tithings of the other hundred; it is interesting that a duplicate entry for Tiverton (1,35; see 1,35 entry note) occurs next to Halberton (1,70) in the order of Exon.

New Hundreds
New hundreds were also created. A Hundred of Winkleigh (dates of 1238-1428 are quoted in Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 85) has already been mentioned. West Budleigh, earlier a detachment of [East] Budleigh, was given separate status in the fourteenth century (Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 100) and Tavistock Hundred, grouping some of the possessions of the Abbey, was created out of Lifton Hundred in 1114 (Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 89; Reichel, Tavistock Hundred', pp. 222-226 Oliver, Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, p. 95 and Place-Names of Devon, i. p. 213).

Composition of the Hundreds
In a few cases, a hamlet, village or vill is shown by the Tax Returns or the order of Exon to have lain in one hundred in 1086, but is later found in another (usually adjacent) hundred. Since the contents of the Tax Return hundreds are very largely those of later times, it is not necessary to give all the members of each hundred as deduced from them, but differences evidenced, or presumed, are given here. 
	Lifton Hundred in 1086 included Willsworthy (39,1 Willsworthy note) which lay here also in 1316 (though it was later in Roborough Hundred), as well as those lands (Liddaton, Milton Abbot, Leigh and Tavistock) which later lay in Tavistock Hundred.

	[Black] Torrington Hundred contained Kigbeare (16,22 Kigbeare note), a tithing of the hundred in 1334, later in Lifton Hundred.

	Fremington Hundred counted Little Weare (42,5 Weare note) among its lands, later in Shebbear Hundred, the successor to Merton Hundred.

	Merton Hundred, later Shebbear Hundred, was affected by later boundary changes. Wedfield (15,33 Wedfield note) was here in 1086, though later transferred to [Black] Torrington Hundred, while three places now in Roborough parish, Fremington Hundred (Barlington, Villavin and Owlacombe; see 3,15 Barlington note; 25,1 Villavin note and 36,7 Owlacombe note), were in this hundred in 1086 and in the Middle Ages. See also 36,2 Bucks note and 42,4 Huish note.

	Braunton and Shirwell Hundreds are treated as a unit by the Tax Returns and this masks any evidence that Pickwell, Bridwick, Woolacombe Spreacombe and Hole (see 3,39 Pickwell note, 3,47 Bridwick note; 19,11;Woolacombe note 36,11 Spreacombe note; 36,15 Woolacombe note), which in the fourteenth century were a detached part of Shirwell Hundred within Braunton Hundred, were so in 1086. Snydles (16,88 Snydles note) and Swimbridge (13a,2 Swimbridge note) seem to have lain in these hundreds in 1086, rather than in South Molton Hundred.

	Crediton Hundred included part of Down St Mary (6,4), the rest of the parish lying in [North] Tawton Hundred; also Chaffcombe (2,2 Crediton note) and possibly Bury (2,3 Bury note), these last two being parts of [North] Tawton Hundred later.

	[North] Tawton Hundred on the other hand included the main holding of what was later Morchard Bishop in Crediton Hundred (1,68 Morchard note), as well as Shobrooke (24,29 Shobrooke note). On the border, with Merton (later Shebbear) Hundred, part of Iddesleigh was here in 1086 (1,63 Iddesleigh note) and Brimblecombe (40,3 Brimblecombe note). Irishcombe (1,66 Irishcombe note) and Affeton (1,3 Tawton note) were outliers of [North] Tawton Hundred manors lying within Witheridge Hundred. Emlett (in Woolfardisworthy) was a similar case in the Middle Ages, although it is not mentioned in Domesday.

	Witheridge Hundred contained Dockworthy (35,25 Dockworthy note) which later lay in [North] Tawton Hundred.

	Tiverton Hundred was closely related to Halberton Hundred. Sampford Peverell (27,1 Sampford note) lay in both hundreds, while it would appear from the order of Exon that Uplowman (25,19 Uplowman note), Coombe (24,9 Coombe note), Murley (24,9 Murley note) and Kidwell (24,8 Lowman note; 34,43 Uplowman note) all of which were parts of Uplowman parish, Halberton Hundred in later timer, lay here in 1086. Chieflowman, also in Uplowman parish, appears to have been a part of Halberton manor in 1086, but probably lay in Tiverton Hundred, where the Tax Return records a portion of the royal manor of Halberton (1,70 Halberton note). The hundred also had, as evidenced in Domesday and in the Middle Ages, an outlying portion at Ivedon (19,42 Ivedon note; 15,43 Ivedon note; 34,45 Ivedon note; 34,47 Ivedon note) now in Awliscombe parish, Hemyock Hundred, and another at Nutcott (46,2 Nutcott note) and at Batsworthy (42,21 note). Both the latter were finally in Witheridge Hundred.

	'Cliston' Hundred contained Larkbeare (39,10 Larkbeare note), that was later in Hayridge

	Silverton Hundred, afterwards known as Hayridge Hundred, had Up Exe (3,70 Exe note) in 1086 and the Middle Ages (though it was afterwards in Wonford Hundred, and possibly Coddiford (52,23 Coddiford note) as an outlier.

	Budleigh Hundred was not yet divided between East Budleigh Hundred and West Budleigh Hundred in 1086. The order of Exon suggests that Strete Ralegh (34,38) was in this hundred in 1086, as in the Middle Ages, although later in 'Cliston' Hundred. In the outlying part that later became West Budleigh Hundred were included Yeadbury (34,36 Yeadbury note) and Yowlestone (19,33 Yowelestone note), finally in Witheridge Hundred, and this area seems to have included Langley (1,9 Budleigh note) finally in Cadeleigh, Hayridge Hundred, and Thongsleigh (36,20 Coombe note) finally in Cruwys Morchard, Witheridge Hundred, neither being directly mentioned by Domesday.

	Halberton Hundred was involved with Tiverton Hundred. While much of
Uplowman parish was in Tiverton Hundred, Whitnage (25,22), another part of the parish, lay in Halberton Hundred; as did Canonsleigh which was in that part of Burlescombe parish that was not in Bampton Hundred.

	Axminster Hundred had not yet been enlarged by amalgamation with Axmouth (xxi). Smallicombe (16,168 Smallicombe note) may have counted as an outlier, dependent on Trill in 1086 as later.

	Axmouth Hundred contained in the Middle Ages, before its incorporation in Axminster, the Domesday estates of Axmouth, Bruckland, Combpyne, 'Down Umfraville', Musbury, Rousdon and Stedcombe (see Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties, p. 103; Feudal Aids, i. pp. 318, 384). The Domesday hundred, as it can be reconstructed from the Tax Return, was of the same extent except that Musbury (16,164) was divided between both Axminster and Axmouth Hundreds.

	Bampton Hundred. The Tax Return indicates that Burlescombe parish was divided in 1086, as later, between Bampton Hundred and Halberton Hundred. Burlescombe itself, the unidentified Ciclet and Fenacre (24,30-31. 25,12) lay in Bampton Hundred. It is probable that the boundary between this hundred and Witheridge Hundred was adjusted soon after 1086, since in the Tax Return for Bampton Hundred Bishop G(eoffrey) has 1 hide and 354 furlongs (fertinos) of lordship land, which it seems can only be accounted for by most or all of Spurway (3,74 Spurway note), Coombe (3,75 Coombe note), "Celvertesberie" (3,76 "Celvertesberie" note) and Stoodleigh (3,77 Stoodleigh note) which later lay in Witheridge Hundred. Reichel, 'Bampton and Uffculme Hundreds', pp. 453-455 would go further: see 16,150 Tapps note; 16,151 Woodburn note; 19,37 Oakford note; 34,40 Stoodleigh note; 34,41 Highleigh note; 36,25 Rifton note; 47,13 Whitnole note and 52,43 Waspley note.

	Exminster Hundred seems to have included in 1086 and later a detached moorland portion at Beetor (16,60 Beetor note) and Shapley (16,61 Shapley note), Venn (16,61 Shapley note) and Jurston (16,61 Shapley note), as well as 'South Teign' (1,26 Kenton note). A part of Manaton (52,27 Manaton note) and Netherton (in Haccombe, south of the river Teign; see 19,10 Haccombe note) also lay here in 1086, as in the Nomina Villarum of 1316 (Feudal Aids, i. p. 377).

	Teignton (Teignbridge) Hundred appears from the Tax Return to have included a part of Ashton (6,6 Ashton note), the rest lying in Exminster Hundred. From Exon order it seems to have embraced Canonteign (3,97 Canonteign note) which was here in the Middle Ages, though later still in Wonford Hundred, as well as Buckland-in-the-Moor (48,10 Buckland note) later in the detachment of Haytor Hundred (formerly Kerswell Hundred), and also Buckland Barton and Haccombe (19,41Buckland note; 16,152 Haccombe note). These last two were later tithings of Haytor Hundred (formerly Kerswell Hundred) within a detached part of Wonford Hundred.

	Kerswell Hundred later Haytor Hundred, had a detached moorland portion in 1086 and later; it may have originated in moorland pasture that formed outlying parts of Kerswell Hundred manors, such as 'Dewdon' which was a member of Cockington (20,10) and Blackaton (16,163 Wolborough note) attached to one of Baldwin's manors.

	Diptford Hundred, later Stanborough Hundred, encompassed, according to Exon order, Hazard (29,2 Hazard note), Poulston (1,34 Chillington note and 17,43 Poulston note) and East Allington (30,3 Allington note), all found here in the fourteenth century, though later in Coleridge Hundred (the successor to Chillington Hundred), and possibly Englebourne (20,17 Englebourne note), also subsequently in Coleridge Hundred.

	Chillington Hundred, subsequently called Coleridge Hundred, had Grimpstonleigh (39,13) as an outlier of Grimpstone in 1086 and later, as well as Dodbrooke (52,53 Dodbrooke note). Both were afterwards in Stanborough Hundred (the successor to Diptford Hundred).

	"Al(l)eriga" Hundred, later named Ermington Hundred, included Dunstone (29,4 Dunstone note and 52,42 Dunstone note) in 1086 and the Middle Ages; it was still later in Plympton Hundred. Lupridge (15,27 Lupridge note; 24,20 Lupridge note) and Butterford (17,61 Butterford note), both ultimately in Stanborough Hundred (the successor to Diptford Hundred), were here in 1086.

	Wonford Hundred contained West Clyst (16,92 Clyst note) both in 1086 and in the fourteenth century; it was later in 'Cliston' Hundred. In 1086 and later Wonford Hundred had a detached portion in three parts: (a) an area south of the River Teign, known as 'Teignhead' and corresponding to the modern parishes of Haccombe with Coombe, St Nicholas and Stokeinteignhead; (b) the parish of Ogwell (including East Ogwell, West Ogwell and Holbeam) lying to the west; finally (c) a part lying in Ilsington parish (itself in Teignbridge (Teignton) Hundred) and consisting of Bagtor (48,7 Bagtor note), Sigford (35,23 Sigford note), as well as a part of Horridge (19,29 Rocombe note, but see 32,6 Ilsington note). Staplehill (48,9) which was in Teignbridge (Teignton) Hundred in 1086 was added to this last area in the Middle Ages. 'Teignhead' is a corruption of 'Ten Hides', influenced by the river-name 'Teign' (Place-Names of Devon, ii. p. 459). The sum total of the Domesday manors in the three parts of this detachment, including Buckland (19,41), Netherton (see 19,10 Haccombe note) and Haccombe (16,152), which though they form a natural part of this detachment seem to have been assessed in other Hundreds in 1086, is just short of ten hides.

Tithings
As will have been understood above, a number of places while locally situated in one hundred, because that is where their parish lies, are actually tithings of another. These tithings have different origins and differ from one list to another, but a list of major tithings is given below, since in many cases the tithing recalls the Hundred in which the place lay in 1086:

Place	Tithing in	Actually in	
Snydles (16,88)

Pickwell (3,39) 

Spreacombe (36,13) 

Woolacombe (19,11. 36,15) 

Burlescombe (24,30) 

Ivedon (19,42-43. 34,45 ;47) 

Nutcott (46,2)

Uplowman (25,16;19. 34,43) 

Appledore (24,14) 

Canonsleigh (24,15) 

Ayshford (24,13) 

Kigbeare (16,22)

Yeadbury (34,36)

Strete Ralegh (34,38)

UpExe(3,70) 

Bagtor (48,7)

Sigford (35,23) 

Staplehill (48,9) 

WestClyst (16,92) 

Canonteign (3,97) 

Shapley (16,61-62;64. 45,1) 

Butterford (17,61-62) 

Dunstone (29,4. 52,42) 

Lupridge (15,27. 24,20. 25,26) 

Buckland (19,41) 

Haccombe (16,152. 19,10) 

Grimpstonleigh (39,13)
	Braunton Hundred

Shirwell Hundred 

Shirwell Hundred 

Shirwell Hundred 

Bampton Hundred 

Tiverton Hundred 

Tiverton Hundred 

Tiverton Hundred 

Halberton Hundred

Halberton Hundred

Halberton Hundred

[Black] Torrington Hundred

[West] Budleigh Hundred 

[East] Budleigh Hundred

Hayridge Hundred 

Wonford Hundred

Wonford Hundred

Wonford Hundred

Wonford Hundred

Teignbridge Hundred

Exminster Hundred

Ermington Hundred 

Ermington Hundred

Ermington Hundred

Haytor Hundred

Haytor Hundred

Coleridge Hundred
 	Chittlehamholt parish, South Molton Hundred 

Georgeham parish, Braunton Hundred 

Mortehoe parish, BrauntonHundred

Mortehoe parish, Braunton Hundred 

Halberton Hundred: rest of parish of Burlescombe 

Awliscombe parish, Hemyock Hundred 

Rackenford parish, Witheridge Hundred 

Halberton Hundred - rest of parish of Uplowman 

Burlescombe parish, Bampton Hundred

Burlescombe parish, Bampton Hundred 

Burlescombe parish, Bampton Hundred 

Okehampton parish, Lifton Hundred

Cruwys Morchard parish, Witheridge Hundred 

Whimple parish, 'Cliston' Hundred

Rewe parish, Wonford Hundred

Ilsington parish, Teignbridge Hundred

Ilsington parish, Teignbridge Hundred

Ilsington parish, Teignbridge Hundred

Broad Clyst parish, 'Cliston' Hundred

Christow parish, Wonford Hundred

Chagford parish, Wonford Hundred

North Huish parish, Stanborough Hundred

Yealmpton parish, Plympton Hundred

North Huish parish, Stanborough Hundred

Haccombe parish, Wonford Hundred

Wonford Hundred: rest of parish of Haccombe 

Woodleigh parish, Stanborough Hundred 

The composition of the medieval hundreds can best be studied in the volumes of the Book of Fees, the Feudal Aids which contains the important Nomina Villarum of 1316, also in the Rotuli Hundredorum and the Lay Subsidy Rolls (Lay Subsidy Roll, Devon (1332); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334)). The nineteenth century hundredal organisation is reproduced in the earliest censuses and in Directories and Gazetteers such as White, Devonshire, and Kelly,Directory of Devonshire, as well as on the large-scale maps such as Cary, Map of Devon and Greenwood, Map of Devon. The works of the earliest antiquarians, such as Hooker, Synopsis of Devonshire Pole, Description of the County of Devon, Polwhele, History of Devonshire and Risdon, Survey of Devon, still have value as do the various studies by Whale and Reichel. The best study of the names and composition of the hundreds is the work of Anderson, English Hundred Names: South-Western Counties.

RELATED OR 'SATELLITE' TEXTS
The Liber Exoniensis (Exon)
For the south-western counties there exists the Exeter Book known as the Liber Exoniensis, Exon or the Exeter or Exon Domesday (henceforward Exon), the bulk of which appears to be a preliminary draft of these counties in Great Domesday, though differently arranged and worded and containing much information not in its successor, such as details of villagers' land, numerous bynames, livestock and often more precise dating of the values of manors and how they were held. It seems very likely, however, that Great Domesday was taken directly from the Exon; see {Introduction: Relationship between Exon and Great Domesday}. Comparison with the Great Domesday version shows that certain folios in Exon have clearly not survived, such as all those dealing with Wiltshire except for one entry, more than half of Dorset and four fiefs and a few entries for Devon. In Exon the overriding principle of arrangement is the individual fief or, particularly in the case of Devon, the composite section of landholders (see DEV 8 holding note; DEV 22 William note; DEV 47 Godebold note; DEV 52 thanes note), and within these the hundred, whereas in Great Domesday it is the county and within this the fief. In Exon the lands of each holder are given, where they exist in that county, in the order Devon, Cornwall, Somerset (for example, the Count of Mortain's lands in Devon directly precede those in Cornwall and these latter precede those in Somerset); the returns for Dorset and the one Wiltshire entry form a separate group, placed near the beginning of the Exon as it is now paginated and bound. Within the fief, or composite section, the lands are often (especially in Devon) arranged in a set order of hundreds, though without the hundred name being given, (see {Introduction: Hundreds}) and this provides important evidence for the identification of places and in part offsets the lack of hundred headings in the text of Great Domesday here; see Introduction: the Identification of Places}. Information is sometimes duplicated in Exon, as for example in Cornwall where the same 11 hides are listed under the king's manor of Winnianton (folios 99-100) and among the Count of Mortain's holdings (folios 224-227) as he had seized them. In Devon a hide in Shapcombe which in 1066 had been attached to Broadhembury (42,16) but in 1086 was added to Greenway (23,20) is recorded under both manors (Exon 378a3 and 348a3), and the manor of Newton St Cyres is detailed as held by Dunn (52,34) and under the fief of the Bishop of Exeter (2,2) who claimed it (Exon 483a5 and 117a2); compare also 1,35 entry note.
	Apart from containing the Exon Domesday proper, the Liber Exoniensis includes the Tax Returns or geld accounts (entitled Inquisitio Gheldi on folio 532a) for all five counties (and in three versions for Wiltshire), compiled c. 1084-1086; see {Introduction: The Tax Returns}. Also included are details for Devon, Cornwall and Somerset of 'Appropriated Lands' (Terrae Occupatae), on folios 495-525; no doubt sections on Dorset and Wiltshire originally existed too. These contain condensed entries of certain manors which had had land taken from, or added to them, or which had not paid their customary dues, or which had been joined to the 'Honour' or lands of an (Anglo-Saxon) thane, or which had been held as two or more manors before 1066 by one or more holders, or which contained some illegality of tenure; see {Introduction: the Terrae Occupatae for Devon}. The information given in the Terrae Occupatae almost always repeats what is in the main Exon returns, but occasionally new information is given (see 1,25 manor note and DEV 44 Hervey note); the reference to the Terrae Occupatae entry is always mentioned in the Notes, however. A few lists of Hundreds and some summaries complete the Liber Exoniensis. A convenient contents table of the whole is printed in Galbraith Domesday Book in Administrative History, pp. 184-88. 
	The extant Exon folios dealing with Devon are: 63a (the two Hundred lists see {Introduction: Hundreds}); 65a-7la (Tax Returns); 83a-88a (= 1,1-24. C1-7); 93a-98a (= 1,25-56); 108a-111a (= 1,57-72;35); 117a-136a (= DEV 2-3); 161a (= DEV 4); 177a-180b (= DEV 5); 182a-184b (= DEV 6-7); 194a-196a (= DEV 8-13a, see DEV 8 Cranborne note for the order); 210a-223a (= DEV 15); 286a (= DEV 14); 288a-315a (= DEV 16); 316a-334b (= DEV 17); 335a-344a (= DEV 34); 345a-349b (= DEV 23); 356a (= DEV 18); 366a-369a (= DEV 20); 371a (= DEV 38); 376a-379b (= DEV 42); 382a (= DEV 37); 388a-397a (= DEV 24 and 25,1-27; see DEV 24 Walter note for the order); 398a (= 25,28); 399a-406a (= DEV 19); 407a-418a (= DEV 36, 35, 21); 419a-421b (= DEV 28); 456a-462b (= DEV 22, 26-27, 31-33, 40-41, 43, 45-46, 51,14 and an unrecorded manor; see DEV 22 William note for the order); 468a-473a (= DEV 47-50 and 51,1; see DEV 47 Godebold note for the order); 475a-476b (= 51,2-13); 481a-490a (= 51,15-16 and DEV 52); 495a-506b (Terrae Occupatae); 527 b 7 (the summary of Glastonbury Abbey's land in Devon); 531 a 3 (summary of the Count of Mortain's lands in Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall).
	The folios of the main Exon returns containing the material relating to DEV 29, 30, 39, 44, and a few entries at the ends of DEV 28 and DEV 35, have not survived.

The Exon manuscript is preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral and was printed in 1816 by Sir Henry Ellis in the third volume (fourth in certain bindings) of the Record Commission's edition of Domesday, from a transcript made by Ralph Barnes (1781-1869), Chapter Clerk. This transcript is faulty in a number of places; for example, in the following extract for 210 b 3 the abbreviation sign has been omitted from quēlib& in the half line after line 9 and Ansger' is a mistake for Ansgeri' in-line 10, while in the Terrae Occupatae extract, 497a8, the abbreviation sign over ten' in line 2 is not reproduced; see {Introduction: Ellis' Text of Exon and the VCH Devon Translation}. No Ordnance Survey facsimile, such as the Ordnance Survey made for Great Domesday, exists for Exon The manuscript consists of 532 folios of parchment, the majority of them measuring about 6 ½ by 9 ¾ inches (16.5 by 25 centimetres); folios 1-3 and 526-528 are smaller. The quality of the parchment is varied, sometimes thick and white, at other times very thin, yellow and 'greasy' so that the writing on one side of a folio shows through to the other. Each folio contains a single column on each side, most with about 20 lines; there is no rubrication. These folios fall into a series of quires, or gatherings, varying in number between one and ten folios. Generally a new quire was started for each major landholder and a new side for most tenants. This led to many blanks, the number of which was increased by spaces sometimes left for information apparently not to hand. There is no indication of the original sequence of quires, and the present order and system of reference date from the last rebinding in 1816; alas, these are not perfect: folios 519-525 were bound after folio 494 and folio 400 should have been numbered 402 and folios 401-402 should be 400-401. The manuscript is the work of about a dozen scribes and the hand changes often between entries and even within them (for example, 2 or 3 times in Exon 98a3 = Domesday 1,50); see Finn, 'The Exeter Domesday and its Construction'; Finn, 'Devonshire Domesdays'.
	The text cannot be economically reproduced in full in this edition; nine-tenths of it is repeated in the Domesday Survey, with discrepancies of a fraction of one per cent in many tens of thousands of figures. Ellis' text was originally used for this edition, though a partial check has been made against a newly acquired print-out of the microfilm of the Exon manuscript and the manuscript itself has been consulted where Exon and Domesday differ and in a great many other places. The principal corresponding Exon reference, where it survives, is given at the head of the Notes to each entry, after the Domesday reference with other references (for example, to the Terrae Occupatae) in the Notes; the last number refers to the order of the entry on each folio side, as indicated in the manuscript generally by gallows marks. Material supplied by Exon for Devon, both in the main returns and in the Terrae Occupatae, which is additional to that in Great Domesday is included in this edition in several ways. Wherever the layout of Great Domesday translation allows and where the meaning there would not thus be changed, extra information (from the main Exon entry, unless otherwise stated in the Notes below) is incorporated in the translation in special type, though not always in the same order as in Exon (for example, when Domesday has omitted part (or all) of the resources (as at 47,13) these are added before the livestock from Exon instead of in their usual order in Exon after the livestock, so that the order is uniform with the Domesday entries where all the resources are given). Where Domesday has the phrase 'n ploughs (which are) there', but Exon supplies details of the ploughs in lordship and those held by the villagers (as well as the lordship and villagers' land holdings in many cases), this information is given in the table of Lordship and Villagers' Land and Ploughs (see {Appendix}). Likewise, where details of a subholding (or, in the case of 34,27, of a manor with two subtenants) are given in Exon but not in Domesday, these are incorporated in the {Appendix: Details Table}. Finally, all other information and all the discrepancies between the Domesday and Exon texts are given in the Notes. The scope of these is given in {Introduction: Exon Extra Information and Discrepancies}.The substance, though not in the wording, of the whole of the Exeter Domesday returns for Devon is therefore reproduced in this edition. A specimen entry, with the Domesday equivalent, showing the differences in formulae is given below.

For a detailed description and evaluation of Exon, see Galbraith Making of Domesday Book, pp. 184-88; Finn, Liber Exoniensis; Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, ii. pp. 800-807; Ellis, Domesday Book, iii. (Libri Censualis), Introduction, pp. ix-xiv.

EXTRACTS TO SHOW COMPARISON BETWEEN EXON AND EXCHEQUER DOMESDAY ENTRIES

DEV 15,12 
Ansger[us] ten[et] de. Co[mite]. BOCHELAND. Edmer teneb[at] T[empore]. R[egis]. E[duuardi]. et geldab[at] p[ro] .iii. hid[is] dim[idia] virg[ata] t[er]rae min[us]. T[er]ra. e[st] .xx.car[rucis]. In do[mi]nio s[un]t .iii.car[ruci].7 vii.serui.7 xlii .uill[an]i 7 v. bord[arii] cu[m] .viii. car 7 dimid[ia]. Ibi .xl. ac[rae] p[ra]ti. 7 c. ac[rae] siluae. Pastura .i. leu[gam] l[on]ga. 7 dimid[iam] leu[gam] lat[a]. 
Olim 7 modo ua[lebat] vii.lib[ras] 7 x. solid[os].
Huic M[anerio] est addit[a] GALESHORE. Eduui teneb[at] T[empore]. R[egis]. E[duuardi]. p[ro] uno M[anerio]. 7 geldb[at] p[ro] dim[idia] v[irgata] t[er]rae.T[er]ra.e[st] .i. car[rucae]. q[uae] ibi. e[st] cu[m] .iii.uill[an]is.7 xx. ac[ris] pafturae. Olim 7 modo ual[ebat] x. solidos.

Ansger holds BUCKLAND [Brewer] from the Count [of Mortain]. Edmer held it before 1066. It paid tax for 3 hides, less ½ virgate of land. Land tor 20 ploughs. In lordship 3 ploughs; 7 slaves;
	42 villagers and 5 smallholders with 8 ½ ploughs.
	Meadow, 40 acres; woodland, 100 acres; pasture 1 league long and ½ league wide. Value formerly and now £7 10s.
	GALSWORTHY has been added to this manor. Edwy held it before 1066 as one manor. It paid tax for ½ virgate of land. Land for 1 plough which is there, with 
	3 villagers. 
	Pasture, 20 acres. 
Value formerly and now 10s.

Exon 210b3 (main entry)
Comes h[abe]t. i. mans[ionem] q[uae]: uocat[ur] Bochelanda. q[uam] tenuit Edmarator[us] ea die q[ua] rex .E[duuardus]. f[uit]. u[iuus]. et. m[ortuus]. et reddidit gildu[m] p[ro]. iii. hidis dimidia uirga min[us]. has poss[unt] arare xx. carr[ucae]. Et m[odo] tenet ea[m] Anfgeri[us] brito de comite. Inde h[abe]t. A[nsgerius]. dimidia[m] hida[am]. et. iii. carr[ucas] in d[omi]nio. et villani. ii. hidas. et.i. uirga[m]. et dim[idiam]. et. viii. carr[rucas] et dim[idiam]. Ibi h[abe]t. A[nsgerius]. xl. ii. uillanos. et. v. bordarios; et iii. porcarios et vii. feruos. et xix. animalia. et. cl. oues. et. l. capras. et. c. agros nemoris. et xl. agros pti. et. 1. leuga[m] pascue in long[itudine]. et dimidia[m] in lat[itudine]. haec ualet. vii. lib[ros]. et. x. sol[idos]. et q[ua]ndo comes ea[m] recepit. ualebat tantu[n]de[m]. Huic mansioni est adiuncta. i. mans[io] q[uae]: uocat[ur] Galeshora q[uam] tenuit Edwi. ea die q[ua] rex E[duuardus] f[uit] u[iuus] et m[ortuus] et potuit ire ad que[m]libet d[omi]n[u]m et reddidit gildu[m] p[ro] dim[idia] uirga. hanc pot[est] arare. i. carr[uca]. hanc tenet Anfger[ius] de comite. Ibi h[abe]t. A[nsgerius]. iii. villanos. q[ui] h[aben]t i. carr' et.xx. agros pascuae. haec ualet. x. sol[idos]. et q[ua]ndo comes recepit ualebat tantu[n]de[m].

The Count [of Mortain] has a manor called BUCKLAND[Brewer] which Edmer Ator held in 1066*. It paid tax for 3 hides, less ½ virgate. 20 ploughs can plough these. Now Ansger the Breton holds it from the count. Ansger has ½ hide and 3 ploughs in lordship and the villagers (have) 2 hides and 1 ½ virgates and 8 ½ ploughs. Ansger has there 42 villagers 5 smallholders, 3 pigmen, 7 slaves, 19 cattle, 150 sheep, 50 goats, 100 acres of woodland, 40 acres of meadow, 1 league of pasture in length and ½ in width.Value £7 10s; value when the count acquired it, as much. To this manor has been added a manor called GALSWORTHYwhich Edwy held in 1066; he could go to whichever lord he would. It paid tax for ½ virgate 1 plough can plough it. Ansger holds it from the count. Ansger has there 3 villagers who have 1 plough and 20 acres of pasture+. Value 10s value when the count acquired it, as much.

Exon 497a8 (Terrae Occupatae)
Comes de moritonio h[abe]t. i. mans[ionem] q[uae] uocat[ur] Bochelanda. huic [est] adiuncta dim[idia] uirg[a] t[er]rae. q[uae] uocat[ur] Galefhora. q[uam] ten[ebat]. i. tagn[us] parit[er]. haec n[on] p[er]tinuit huic p[rae]dictae mans[ioni] ea die q[ua] rex. E[duuardus]. f[uit]. u[iuus]. et. m[ortuus].
Hanc tenet. Anfger[ius] brito de comite. et ual[ebat] p[er] ann[um]. x. sol[idos]. et tantu[n]de[m] ualeb[at] q[ua]n[do] comes ea[m] accep[it].

The Count of Mortain has a manor called BUCKLAND [Brewer]. ½ virgate of land has been added to it, called GALSWORTHY, which a thane held jointly. It did not belong to the above manor in 1066*. Ansger the Breton holds it from the count. Value 10s a year; value when the count acquired it, as much.

* ea die qua rex .Eduuardus fuit uiuus et mortuus:'on the day when King Edward was alive and dead', that is, 5th January 1066; in this edition it is always translated 'in 1066' and is equivalent to Great Domesday's T.R.E. 'before 1066' (see C4 before note).

+It is not clear from the Latin whether Ansger or the villagers have the pasture.

Exon Extra Information and Discrepancies
	Scope of the Notes concerning Exon
The Notes incorporate material supplied by the Exon Domesday returns and the Terrae Occupatae for Devon, which is not in Domesday and which it has not proved possible to include either in special type in the translation or in the Lordship and Villagers' Table or in the {Appendix: Details Table} (for both these tables, see {Appendix}). Also mentioned in the Notes are any differences between the texts, other than simply of phrasing, and information given in Domesday that is not in Exon. Information given in Domesday or the corresponding Exon main entry, that is omitted in the Terrae Occupatae, is not generally mentioned. The information that can be gleaned from the Tax Returns is cited where it illuminates the text of Domesday.
	The summary of the one land of Glastonbury Abbey in Devon is given in DEV 4 Glastonbury note, and reference is made in DEV 15 count note to the summary of the Count of Mortain's fief.
	Scribal errors in the Exon manuscript, of which there are a great many, are given only when they occur in a quotation. Ralph Barnes' errors of transcription are pointed out as far as possible; see {Introduction: Ellis' Text of Exon and the VCH Devon Translation}.

One item of information not in the main Exon nor in Domesday, occurs in the Terrae Occupatae at 500a4 between details of the Abbot of Tavistock's newly acquired manor of Raddon (5,9 Raddon note; it is interesting that that entry also records an item of information not in the main Exon nor in Domesday) and the Bishop of Coutances' combined manor of Aylescott (3,40 Aylescott note): 'In the Hundred of Molton is 1 furlong (ferdinus) of land which 1 plough can plough. It lies completely waste (penitus uastatus iacet). No man claims it'. It is not clear whether this is North Molton Hundred or South Molton Hundred; see {Introduction: Hundreds}. Because the furlong ('ferling') could not be assigned to anyone's fief (unlike the virgate attached T.R.E. to Shilstone, Domesday 43,3, which 'no one holds', though there are 2 villagers on it), it does not appear in the main Exon returns and thus not in Domesday. It is unlikely that the reason for its non-appearance was due to details of it arriving after the main Exon had been written. For other whole Terrae Occupatae entries not in the main Exon nor in Domesday, see 1,25 Lifton note; 1,66 Lapford note; 2,2 Crediton note; 15,14 Bulkworthy note and DEV 44 Hervey note, and, for those Terrae Occupatae entries which add significant information to Domesday, see that same note (DEV 44 Hervey note).

	Relationship between Exon and Great Domesday
The relationship between the Exon main returns and Great Domesday has been the subject of much discussion. According to Eyton, Somerset Survey, i. pp. 4-5, Reichel in VCH Devon, i. pp. 377-379 and Salzmann in VCH Cornwall, ii. part viii, pp. 45-46, Exon was completely unconnected with Domesday, though Eyton did suggest that the same 'Commissioners' Notes' that preceded Exon were later sent to Winchester to be used in the production of Great Domesday; at the same time Reichel and Salzmann believed that the Dorset and Wiltshire sections in Exon were taken from Great Domesday, but that for Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, Domesday and Exon were 'independent compilations'. Meanwhile, Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 228, maintained that Exon was a later document 'written for the use of the Abbey of Tavistock or, at any rate, by scribes prejudiced in its favour'! Round (in VCH Somerset, i. 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday' pp. 383-432) professed himself uncertain as to the character, origin and object of the Exon Domesday. However, Baring, 'Exeter Domesday, came to the conclusion that Domesday was derived from Exon. More recently, the idea has been put forward that a fair copy was made of the Exon we now possess, and it was sent to Winchester and was used in the compilation of Domesday and afterwards destroyed, having served its purpose ('our' Exon manuscript meanwhile remained at Exeter); see Finn, Liber Exoniensis, pp. 28, 52-54; Finn 'Immediate Sources', and Finn, 'Devon Domesdays', p. 114, also Galbraith, Making of Domesday Book, pp. 31-32, 102-22.
	The present editors, however, are convinced that the Great Domesday scribe had in front of him the Exon manuscript in its present form, no doubt with the portions of Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire that have not survived. The evidence for this is various.
	One of the first aspects of the five south-western counties that strikes the reader of Domesday Book, is the lack of hundred headings. Although the policy throughout Domesday was to include them, it would seem that for some reason they were omitted in Exon (perhaps because not thought necessary, on which see Galbraith, Making of Domesday Book, pp. 114-15) and by the time that volume reached Winchester it was too late to discover in which hundreds the thousands of places lay and so the Great Domesday scribe was forced to follow his copy in not including them. Secondly, within a fief the order of entries in Great Domesday frequently, especially in Devon, Somerset and Dorset, follows almost the exact order of those in Exon (see, for example, DEV 2 Bishop note; DEV 5 Tavistock note; DEV 6 Buckfast note; DEV 16 Baldwin note; DEV 17 Iudhael note; DEV 19 William note; DEV 20 William note; DEV 21 William note; DEV 23 Walter note; DEV 28 Robert note; DEV 29 Robert note; DEV 30 Richard note; DEV 34 Ralph note; DEV 35 Roald note; DEV 36 Theobald note; DEV 39 Alfred note; DEV 42 Odo note).
	But it is when one comes to study the manuscripts of Exon and Great Domesday closely that the immediate dependence of the latter on the former becomes unmistakable. Firstly, numerous items of information, misplaced in Exon, are often similarly misplaced in Great Domesday, for example, the salt-workers in 15,23 (15,23 salt-workers note), the fishery in 1,60 (1,60 fishery note), the slaves in 2,21 and 3,5 (2,21 slaves note; 3,5 slaves note), the pigmen in 23,9 and 42,6 (23,9 pigmen note; 42,6 pigmen note), the details of Maker in 1,22 (1,22 manors note). Compare also the details of Barlington (3,19) which were written in the margin of the Exon manuscript (though at an early stage) and missed by the Great Domesday scribe and then added later at the foot of the column, and the cases of the marginal par(iter) (15,47 jointly note) which are also often marginal or interlined in Exon. If a copy had been made of Exon, all or a great majority of these items would have been entered in their correct places. (Although the Great Domesday scribe was capable of adding information in the wrong place, there are too many such misplacements of the same items in both manuscripts to be coincidental.) It might be thought that late information was added to both Domesday and Exon at the same time, but in the vast majority of cases in Exon the ink colour and the scribe of the misplacements and additions are the same as for the main part of the entry, which would be unlikely if they were done much later, considering the number of scribes employed in writing Exon. (Although there is overwhelming evidence that the Exon manuscript was checked, this was done early on and the majority of the corrections were seen and incorporated by the Great Domesday scribe.)
	Secondly, errors in personal and place-names and figures, bad grammar and confused constructions in Exon are perpetuated in Domesday (for example, see 17,52 Alric note; 16,57 Wembworthy note; 34,13 Mowlish note; 52,10 Chittlehampton note; 5,1 land note; 20,13 land note; 35,22 this note and 17,1 Totnes note); again, one would have expected the scribe of the fair copy to have corrected at least a major proportion of these errors, this after all being the main purpose of a 'fair copy'.
	Thirdly, peculiarities in terms and formulae that appear in Exon regularly find their way into Great Domesday, such as the 5 virgates, in place of 1 hide 1 virgate, in 31,1 (and compare 4 virgates for 1 hide in 28,10), the rare -x ending in the personal name Alebrix (see 16,36 Aubrey note), the unusual phrase cum omnibus ibi pertinentibus in 1,7; see also 1,6 (virgates note.
	Fourthly, although the Domesday scribe largely adjusted the words and formulae of Exon to accord with the standardized Great forms (see {Introduction: Exon and Great Domesday Formulae}), there are several occasions where these are preserved (apparently by accident) in Domesday, such as the use of mansiones instead of maneria (see 1,22 manors note). In numerous instances the Great Domesday scribe has followed his copy too closely and this has led to errors; for example, the smiths in 1,27 and the beekeepers in 23,15 are in the accusative case as they are in Exon, not in the nominative as they should be in the Domesday formula (and compare 1,57 pasture note), qui has been mistakenly retained in a phrase which has been partially altered (see 2,1 acres note); see also General 16,151 held note and compare 3,82 pays note and 24,2 paid note. The fact that on several occasions a figure correction in Domesday is paralleled by one in Exon (see 2,24 Cottagers note, final paragraph) might be due to the Great Domesday scribe's correcting the Exon manuscript at the same time as, or soon after, he corrected the Domesday manuscript; but see 19,11 value note.
	It would be hard to explain away the countless discrepancies between Exon and Domesday by saying that there would have been few, if any, discrepancies between Domesday and the 'fair copy' of Exon, because this would mean that the compiler and/or scribe involved in this fair copy either had received a mass of information, presumably correcting the original Exon manuscript, or had himself introduced the mistakes (which the Great Domesday scribe then copied). Incorporating corrections to the original Exon would have taken an immense time, and time was very short: in fact it is far from clear whether there would have been time to make a copy at all of such a vast document. There is much evidence that 'our' Exon manuscript was corrected and this must have been a separate, earlier exercise to that envisaged by the upholders of the 'fair copy' view because the corrected material is reproduced in the Great manuscript, and because, if only one set of corrections had been done, then the figure and other errors in the original Exon (which form the discrepancies with Domesday) would have been altered at the same time as the ones we see in the manuscript today; and if this had been the case, then there would be far fewer discrepancies.
	Moreover, a study of the Exon manuscript explains a great many of these discrepancies: in several cases interlineations or marginal additions in Exon (though done at the same time as the main body of the entry, judging by the colour of the ink and with no change in scribe) led to omissions by the Great Domesday scribe (for example, of the subtenant in 48,1, the pigmen in 15,12 and 16,23, the market (which is also misplaced) in 11,1) or to delayed inclusion (for example, of the house in Exeter in 32,6) or to incorrect figures (for example, the Domesday scribe missed the interlined 7 v of the value in 17,4 and the i in the woodland acres in 21,13; see 17,4 value note; 21,13 woodland note. Again, the Great Domesday scribe has obviously in some cases misread an Exon correction, such as in the number of pigs in 20,15 (20,15 pigs note) and in the value in 42,6 (see 42,6 value note), and in several cases a portion of an erasure in Exon seems to have been read as part of the correction, such as in the number of pigs in 23,15 (23,15 pigs note) and in the former value in 5,4 (5,4 value note) and the present value in 21,13 (21,13 value note); compare16,121 tax note and 17,85 villagers note. Bad writing in Exon may well have caused several of the discrepancies with Domesday (see, for example, 7,1 lordship note and 16,27 Honeychurch note; 16,44 Dolton note and 25,20 Ash note), and the greasy parchment of the Exon manuscript caused parts of the number of villagers in 7,4 and of slaves in 31,1 and of the value of the mill in 15,23 not to be clearly visible and the Great Domesday scribe omitted these parts. The fact that in several instances part of a number or measurement overruns a line in Exon and the Domesday scribe only copied the first part (see 3,86 ploughs note; 17,69 tax note and 34,25 tax note), is further proof that the existing Exon manuscript was used by the Great Domesday scribe: the composition of individual lines would be totally different in a copy. In 23,5 the Great Domesday scribe misunderstood carr' in the Exon manuscript because he missed the interlined t'ra' (see 23,5 villagers note and compare 52,10 lordship note), and also in this entry an interlineation may have caused the omission of some of the villagers (see 23,5 villagers note). For explanations of other discrepancies between Domesday and Exon see 15,4 villagers note and 19,16 Lynton note and 28,12 Beenleigh note (on place-names), also 1,50 villagers note, 2,6 underwood note and 5,4 value note (on figure discrepancies), 15,38 ploughs note (on ploughs) and16,30 villagers note; 16,87 villagers note; 17,71 villager note and 48,1 smallholders note (on lordship and villagers' ploughs).
	The omission in Domesday of items of information that are clearly written in the Exon manuscript and are of a type that the Great Domesday scribe normally includes, such as the lordship ploughs in a dozen manors, is harder to explain. At the first occurrence of each category of omissions, reference is made in the Notes to other omissions of it and possible reasons for this (thus, for the omission of woodland in some Domesday entries, see 1,4 woodland note, or of villagers see 23,4 smallholders note). Sometimes, however, one can see why the Great Domesday scribe failed to include an item: perhaps it was misplaced (like the salt-house for 35,20) or interlined (like the fishermen for 20,15 or the subtenant for 48,1), though in each case by the same scribe who wrote the rest of the entry, or a whole line was obviously accidentally omitted (see 32,5 woodland note) or the phrasing of Exon misled him (see 23,4 smallholders note and 49,3 plough note on the omitted villagers); see also 1,4 villagers note; 3,84 men note;16,44 pigmen note and 1,4 woodland note.
	Of course, not all the differences between the two texts can be explained away by looking at the manuscripts. There is some evidence that the Great Domesday scribe had access to other sources of information (such as, perhaps, Tax Returns or hundredal lists, local data or to the results of lawsuits; compare 24,17 tax note and 34,11Holcombe note), or had recourse to simple deductions (as probably for 3,51 and 23,1; see 3,51 land note and 23,1 land note), which would explain the few instances of information in Domesday which is not in Exon (see 3,51 land note). Moreover, information to correct the Exon may have come to light after it was compiled: this might be the case with changes in tenants (for example, see 24,14 Wulfwy note, and in some of the cases where Domesday has the tenant-in-chief holding a manor 'himself' and Exon gives a subtenant, the manor may have reverted to the tenant-in-chief, for which see, for example, 23,7 holds note; 34,16 holds note and 47,10 holds note) or in numbers of population or present values or acreage (see, for example, 17,67 meadow note). Finally, simple error on the part of the Great Domesday scribe no doubt played a large part in the discrepancies (for example, see 5,4 value note and 15,70smallholders note); certainly the Great Domesday scribe's carelessness can be proved in a number of cases (for example, see his misreading of several place-names, a list of which is given in 16,42 "Helescane" note).
	According to Finn, Liber Exoniensis, pp. 52-54, this fair copy of Exon contained some extra information, but perhaps did not include later additions to the surviving Exon manuscript, and the foliation was different. However, it seems odd that if such a copy were made, so few new details were added to it, in other words, that it was so like its original, as can be seen from Great Domesday. One would have expected, at least, that the obvious absences of certain items of information usually included would have been rectified, such as the full name of Baldwin's subtenant W for 16,175 (and compare 52,26 before note; 52,30 virgate note) and the plough estimate in 35,6. The hundred heads could also have been inserted in a fair copy. Finn's point about the later additions was intended to explain many of the discrepancies between Exon and Domesday (the corrections in our Exon which cause the discrepancies were done after the copy had been made) but a study of the Exon manuscript shows that, though undoubtedly some corrections were done at a later stage (though not necessarily after the manuscript had been used to produce Domesday), the great majority are 'immediate' corrections. In any case, it would be very odd if these so-called 'later' additions to the original Exon manuscript were not transferred to the copy for inclusion in the official Great Domesday: there would be little point spending time neatly correcting a manuscript which had already been superseded. The omissions in Great Domesday of material that appears in our Exon might be due to the accidental omission of such items in the copy, or to errors made by the Great clerks; see Finn, 'Devonshire Domesdays', p. 115. As to the foliation in the copy being different, this might explain the original omission'in Domesday of Dorset 36,4-11 (see DOR 36,4 entry note), but the method and order of the Great Domesday scribe's excerpting of Walter's lands from the composite section in Exon can only be explained by the 'quire' arrangement of the present Exon manuscript at this point (see DEV 24 Walter note); Finn attempts to avoid this objection by stating that in this case the booklets were the same. For Finn's view of the phrases hoc (or haec or hic) scripsit Ricardus and usque huc (not hoc, as Finn, 'Devonshire Domesdays', p. 115) scripsit R. in the margins of the Exon manuscript being the work of the scribe making this fair copy, see 17,5 folio note.
	According to Galbraith, Making of Domesday Book, pp. 105-107 (though Finn, Liber Exoniensis, p. 54 disagrees) some attempt was made in the fair copy of Exon to organise the king's lands and those of his thanes and servants in an order closer to that adopted for the other counties in Domesday (see DEV 1 king note; DEV 22 William note; DEV 24 Walter note; DEV 47 Godebold note; DEV 52 thanes note). These rearrangements, however, were neither too extensive nor too complicated to have been done entirely by the compiler of Domesday at the time of writing. Indeed, several aspects of the rearrangement in Domesday of the composite Exon sections can only be explained by assuming that the Great Domesday scribe had in front of him the extant Exon manuscript. If, for example, the large Exon section of French Men-at-Arms (see DEV 22 William note; DEV 22 William note) had been re-organised into individual chapters in the copy (as in Domesday), the reason for the Great Domesday scribe's omission of Flohhere's manor of "Sotrebroc" in his repeated scanning of this section during excerpting the holdings of tenants-in-chief, would disappear. Finally, the Exon manuscript is a document so regular and neat as a whole (in fact many folios are less corrected than those of Great Domesday for Devon) that it would not really need to be recopied to improve its legibility.
	For specific examples of the dependence of the Dorset Domesday on the Exon manuscript see DOR {Introduction: Exon Extra Information and Discrepancies}.

In Exon at the foot of folio 316a (in the middle of the entry corresponding to 17,5, though several lines below it), written up against the left, inner, edge of the Exon manuscript, are the words h' (or possibly h ') scipsit Ricardus 'Richard wrote this/these/here'. The scribe does not appear to be the same as for the entries on this folio or succeeding ones, though the hand is contemporary with the manuscript; the ink is paler than the rest of 316a and succeeding folios. There is no mark beside the words or in the text indicating what Richard wrote. Ellis did not print this statement, nor a similar one at the bottom of 406b: h. qd' Jordan scipsit 'what Jordan wrote' (with something written before it which is only partially legible: ...ic...de..et [or ber] se ?). It seems to be similar to that on 316a, although the writing is faint and the script small and the parchment is yellow and thick; see 19,28 folios note on the original position of this mostly blank folio and the damage to it. A third, similar piece of information, which Ellis did print (though not in the correct place), appears on 414a (see 35,19 Hankford note); the writing is larger than that of the other two.
	According to Finn, 'Immediate Sources', pp. 48-49, these phrases (he makes no mention of the one at the foot of 406b), together with the words consummatum est (see below), were written by scribes involved in making a fair copy of Exon (for Exchequer use). However, there is no proof that the person(s) writing these statements were Richard, Jordan or R; the statements could have been written, for example, by the chief clerk in the scriptorium (which would explain why the writing of two at least of the three seems to be the same and also why the script and ink colour are not the same as in the surrounding entries), possibly notes by him to be used as a record for the future payment of the scribes concerned. There may be more similar statements in the Exon manuscript, which only a lengthy and close study of it will reveal.
	As to the phrase consummatum est, it occurs nine times on the reverse of an otherwise blank last folio of a quire: on 209b, 370b, 387b, 449b, 451b, 455b (perhaps erased), 467b (there is writing on 467a; Finn, 'Immediate Sources', pp. 48-49  misprints 476b), 474b and 494b; once on 155a (the first page of a quire); and once, in the form consummatum est usque huc, in the middle of a quire on 490a in the right margin level with the 3-line space between the end of the 'Lands of English Thanes in Devonshire' and the beginning of the section on the English thanes in Somerset. These phrases appear after folios dealing with Somerset lands, apart from the one on 209b which comes after Cornish lands. With the exception of the phrase on 490a which is definitely written in the same colour ink, and by the same scribe, as the last entries for the Devon thanes and perhaps even the first for the Somerset thanes, these consummatum est phrases are written in large lower-case letters or capitals, often in a 'square' hand. It seems likely, as Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, ii. p. 804, thinks, that these phrases were meant to indicate that 'all the matter for the quire had been gathered in and that the blank space was to remain blank'. The fact that the phrase on 490a (if, as seems probable, it was written for the same purpose as the others) was clearly done by the scribe of the surrounding entries, argues against Finn's view that these phrases were the work of scribes involved in copying the manuscript: if this were the case the ink colour on 490a would not be the same.

The Terrae Occupatae for Devon
Devon has 193 entries in the Terrae Occupatae, filling folios 495a-506b inclusive of the Liber Exoniensis. They are arranged, it would seem, partially by hundred (the first eight are in Lifton Hundred, and on 496a-497a with one exception come 11 in Chillington (later Coleridge) Hundred) and partially by subject (for example, 11 consecutive entries on 505b-506a contain details of withheld customary dues from houses in Exeter and, with one break, 9 at 505a,b deal with lands added to the Honours of Edmer Ator and Ordwulf). These are condensed entries, containing for the most part information already recorded in the main Exon; it is just possible that, despite several cases of information not to be found in the main Exon returns (see1,25 Lifton note and DEV 44 Hervey note), these Terrae Occupatae entries were taken from those returns. However, it is more probable that while our Exon manuscript (itself a condensation) was at Winchester being used in the compilation of Great Domesday, some of the earlier material relating to the Inquiry remained at Exeter for the hearing of claims and the sorting out of illegal tenure and occupation; this material, either fuller in itself or amplified or corrected at the hearings, may have produced the Terrae Occupatae (This would perhaps explain the omission from the Terrae Occupatae of some abstractions or additions one would expect to find therein, such as the dispute over Werrington (5,5 entry note) and see 3,32 before note and 2,2 bishop note; other instances of 'omissions' in the Terrae Occupatae seem to have been accidental, see 20,1 held note.) For Finn's views on the origin of the Terrae Occupatae, see Finn, Liber Exoniensis, pp. 56-60. As with the main Exon returns, a number of scribes were employed in the production of the Terrae Occupatae and the entries show no signs of being written continuously at a single time.
	As the name implies, these Terrae Occupatae are lands, either whole manors or parts of manors, which had been 'seized' or 'appropriated', though sometimes only in the weakened sense of 'disputed' or containing some illegality in tenure; they are of the same genre as the Clamores ('Claims') and 'Declarations' recorded at the end of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Huntingdonshire and are related to the Inuasiones ('Annexations') at the end of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The entries of the Terrae Occupatae fall into several categories. The largest group, comprising some 98 entries, has two subdivisions which sometimes overlap: there are those entries which concern manors which Domesday merely states had been held by two or more thanes, but for which the Terrae Occupatae formula is basically 'A (1086 holder) has a manor called B which a thane held freely/jointly in 1066; e hides which 1 or 2 (or more) thane(s) held freely/jointly in 1066 (or 'the lands of 1 or 2 (or more) thane(s) which they held ... They (the lands) paid tax for ... or 'another manor which ... It paid tax for ... ') have been added to it. C holds from A. Value (of the added lands) £y; when (A) acquired them £z'. In these Terrae Occupatae entries the T.R.E. holders are often called 'thanes' and they regularly held 'freely' or 'jointly' (see 1,15 freely note on these terms; the main Exon and Domesday entries also sometimes designate the manner of tenure thus in this type) and in several entries (see, for example, 17,14 Sydenham note; 19,4 Putford note) the added manors are said not to have belonged in 1066 to the manor to which they were added, hence the idea that they had been wrongly combined. In the Notes, this type of Terrae Occupatae entry is given next to the manor's name; see, for example, 3,12 Henscott note; 3,40 Aylescott note; 20,7 Worlington note; 28,2 Ottery note; 35,9 Putford note; 36,2 Bucks; note 39,6 Curworthy note; 39,15 Milton note; 47,14 Lowton note; 49,7 Huish note; 50,1 Poltimore note. The second subdivision of this largest group comprises entries which state either that a whole manor has been added to another manor or that parts of manors have been added. Where it is the case of a whole manor being added, neither the main Exon nor Great Domesday always records this fact for some reason (see 16,9 Lewtrenchard note for these cases). In this subdivision are details of two additions not recorded either in the main Exon or in Domesday (see 1,66 Irishcombe note and DEV 44 Hervey note).
	A second category of Terrae Occupatae entry, containing some 14 entries, deals with removals of land from manors (for example, see 1,40 manor note; 3,92 hide note; 7,4 manor note), including one only recorded there (see DEV 44 Hervey note). A third group of 36 entries concerns manors that had been added to the Honour/ lands of a particular thane; again reference to such entries appears in the Notes next to the manor's name (see, for example, 15,16 Torrington note; 15,17 'Stockleigh' note; 15,18 'Stockleigh' note; 15,19 Poughill note; 15,20 Holbrook note; 15,21 Farringdon note; 15,22 Rockbeare note). The 1066 holders are regularly said to have held 'jointly' or 'freely' or to be able to 'go to whichever lord they would with their land' and the land held is often said to have been added 'wrongfully' or to have 'not belonged' to the lands (generally of some important Anglo-Saxon thane such as Edmer Ator, Ordwulf or Brictric) which had been (legally) transferred to the 1086 holder (see, for example, 15,14 Bulkworthy note; 15,15 Smytham note;. 40,l Stafford note; 40,3 Brimblecombe note.). On this method of acquiring lands,
see 15,31 held note.
	Details in some 30 entries of withheld customary dues, whether owed to a royal manor (for example, see 1,11 manor note; 1,23 dues note) or from houses in Exeter (for example, 3,2 dues note; 9,2 paid note; 5,15 dues note), form a fourth group. Among them are details of two withheld dues not recorded either in the main Exon or in Domesday (see 1,25 Lifton note and 15,14 Bulkworthy note); see also 1,41 manor note. There are a few miscellaneous entries such as those on the appropriation of the whole or part of a manor (see 34,5 seized note; 35,4 holds note;. 42,4 held note; 1,70 land note) and those where some illegality of tenure is implied (see 5,9 Raddon note; 24,28 holds note; 24,29 Shobrooke note) and there is the entry at 500a4, not mentioned in the main Exon nor in Domesday, about the unclaimed furlong (ferdinus) in Molton Hundred; see {Introduction: Scope of the Notes concerning Exon}. See also those entries referred to in the next paragraph.
	Occasionally it is not clear why an entry was made in the Terrae Occupatae For example, the entry at 506a11 merely states that 'The Bishop of Coutances has a manor called (Lower) Creedy which Goda held jointly in 1066. Value 5s', unless in this case the scribe meant to include the fact that Lower Creedy belonged to Cruwys Morchard (which the main Exon and Domesday both state, 3,72-73). See also the Terrae Occupatae entries relating to Domesday 1,11 (1,11 hide note); 2,2 (2,2 Crediton note); 2,15 (2,15 Sidbury note; 13a,2 (13a2 Swimbridge note) and 42,10 (42,10 Nympton note).
	Finally, the case of the Terrae Occupatae entry referring to the ½ virgate added to Eastleigh (19,6), falls in two of the above categories because it was both added and had not paid tax (because concealed).
	Reference is always made in the Notes to the existence of a Terrae Occupatae entry and in many cases the whole of the entry is given in translation, otherwise only discrepancies or additions are recorded there.

Exon and Great Domesday Formulae
Without altering the sense of the Exon, the Great Domesday scribe changed many of its words and formulae and condensed not only the material but the elaborate phraseology. For example, for Exon's nemus, nemusculum and pascua he used silua, silua minuta and pastura, for Exon's mansio he substituted manerium, for quadragenaria, quarentena. He changed the lengthy ea die qua rex Eduuardus fuit vivus et mortuus ('on the day on which King Edward was alive and dead', that is, 5th January 1066) to the standard phrase (which is also to be found in Exon; see 5,6 before 1066 note) T.R.E. (tempore regis Eduuardi 'in King Edward's time', translated 'before 1066'. in this edition). The Exon phrase for the plough estimate '(z hides) which y ploughs can plough' was likewise altered to 'Land for y ploughs', and Exon's reddidit gildum was shortened to geldabat. For the Great Domesday scribe's alteration of Exon's reddit to valet in many entries (and occasionally vice versa), see 1,32 value note and 2,2 value note. See the specimen of Exon and Domesday at the beginning of this edition for other changes made by the Great Domesday scribe.
	Exon often omits nouns (as Domesday less often), as in 'the king has 3 ploughs in lordship and the villagers 4' where '4 ploughs' are intended: where Domesday gives the expected noun no attention is generally drawn here to the Exon omission. Exon regularly abbreviates personal names to the initial letter (for example, B. for Balduinus), generally when the name has already occurred in full in the entry. In these Notes the name thus abbreviated is always written, for example, 'B(aldwin)', except in the cases of rex E. and rex W. (for example, in the phrase quod tenuit rex E.) which are so common that there is no doubt about the full version of the names. Exon for Devon rarely states, as Domesday usually does, that the 1086 holder held his manor 'from the king' and references to these 'omissions' are not therefore made in the Notes, but see 51,14 holds note for the occasions when the phrase de rege is used in Exon for Devon.
	In the statement 'the villagers have y hides. . . z ploughs' Exon regularly uses the term villani in the general sense of the inhabitants of a villa, covering smallholders, Cottagers (coscez), cottagers (cotarii) - and possibly also other classes of population such as pigmen, salt-workers, etc. - as well as villagers in the strict sense; see 1,26 pigmen note. Often no villagers are mentioned in the holding, just smallholders and slaves (for example, for 16,50;90;100) and occasionally just slaves (see 16,6 slaves note also 1,3 slaves note). However, on several occasions in Exon (though not for Devon) where there are only smallholders and slaves on a manor, the term bordarii takes the place of villani in the statement of their land and ploughs; see 3,63 smallholders note.

Ellis' Text of Exon and the VCH Devon Translation
Ellis' edition of Exon is not as accurate as Farley's one of Great Domesday. Apart from larger errors and omissions, there are numerous occasions when either the transcriber Ralph Barnes (or Ellis, or his printer) left gaps where there are none in the manuscript and vice versa (see, for example, 40,6 Godric note), omitted underlining (indicating deletion) or put it in wrongly (for example, see 16,74 paid note 23,12 woodland note; 25,27 Wulfstan note; 34,6 Tovi note and 1,52 cattle note), positioned interlineations incorrectly, included parts or all of erased words and figures (see 16,121 tax note; 16,121 land note and 16,121 lordship note), omitted transposition signs, etc. There is also inconsistency in the use of dots for material that can no longer be read because the manuscript is faded or damaged, as distinct from their use for erasures. It must be said, however, that many entries in the manuscript are untidy with much erasure, overwriting and correction; also, some of the letters are malformed and misled the Great Domesday scribe as well as Mr Barnes (for example, see 25,20 Ash note and compare 24,22 smallholders note). The scope of this edition prohibits mentioning all but the more important mistakes of Mr Barnes and checking the transcription of all the place-names, though it is worth noting here that 7 out of the 8 textual notes on the table of hundred names in the Tax Returns and Hundred Lists (see {Introduction: Hundreds}) concern errors of transcription. Ellis' text has misled a number of people, especially in the case of the place-names.
	The main Exon returns and the Terrae Occupatae are translated VCH Devon, i. by O. J. Reichel; where the Exon folios have not survived (that is, those corresponding to Domesday DEV 29, 30, 39, 44 and a few entries at the ends of DEV 28 and DEV35), it is the Great Domesday text that is translated. The VCH Devon translation is not entirely satisfactory. Although Reichel seems to have looked at the Exon manuscript for the first few entries and possibly for the damaged folios 403a-405b, he appears to have used only Ellis' text for the rest and thus reproduced all Barnes' errors in transcription. He occasionally gives Great Domesday variants, though his method is inconsistent: at times figure discrepancies are given in brackets, at others it looks as if only the major differences are included (as for 19,35). Moreover, Reichel does not have a standard policy when dealing with the damaged folios, sometimes giving the Great Domesday reading in brackets for what is under the gall, but sometimes merely printing dots instead of reproducing the Domesday, and sometimes making guesses as to the correct reading without mentioning this fact; see 19,38 entry note; 19,39 entry note; 19,41 entry note. (Ellis' treatment here is inconsistent also, see 19,32 villagers note.) Again, Reichel varies in his translation of terms and phrases; for example, in the first Terrae Occupatae entry (495 a 1) he translates pariter as 'independently', then three entries later he uses the more usual translation 'in parage' (VCH Devon, i. pp. 536-537). He also occasionally omits material, such as on p. 433 the pasture and meadow with their measurements at 183b2 (= 6,12). Finally, he sometimes writes the Exon folio reference in the wrong place in the translation.
	In the Notes quotations are from, and references to, the Exon folios given at the heading of the notes to the relevant Domesday entry, unless otherwise stated. In these quotations the abbreviated forms of the Latin are extended only where there is no reasonable doubt; elsewhere either the exact form of the abbreviation is reproduced when this seems important (for example, 1,11 underwood note) or an apostrophe is used in place of the abbreviation sign (for example, see 1,11 value note). 

The Tax Returns
The Tax Returns, or Geld Rolls (Exon folios 65a1-70b1), although now bound up with Exon proper and probably close to it in date, are not for that reason to be considered part of the same survey: there are so many discrepancies of detail that it is difficult to regard them as strictly contemporary, or as compiled from the same material. The problem of dating and of the relation of the material to Domesday is admirably reviewed by Ann Williams in VCH Dorset, iii. pp. 115-23, and by Darlington in VCH Wiltshire, ii. pp. 174-76. For Galbraith's emphatic view that they date from 1086, see Galbraith, 'Date of the Geld Rolls', and his appendix to Galbraith, Making of Domesday Book, pp. 223-30. The survey of the Dorset boroughs in Exon is written in the same gathering of parchment as version B of the Wiltshire Tax Returns. This does not date the returns, but shows that one version at least of them and of the main returns in Exon proper were kept together from the beginning. 
	Tax Returns exist for all five south-western counties and were probably based on lists of tax liability that are now lost but which perhaps also contributed to the substructure of the Domesday Survey. They record the collection of geld at 6s to the hide, and a typical hundredal return begins with the total hidage of that hundred and (in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset) the amount of tax paid; this detail is entered later in the Tax Returns for Wiltshire and Dorset. 
	A typical return then names the holders of exempt land (usually the total of an individual fief-holder's lordship in that hundred), and finishes with a schedule of those by whom tax had not been paid; sometimes other details were added. They include some place-names, though only a handful for Devon: Halberton (67a1); Northlew (65a3); Werrington (65a3 and Winkleigh (68b2).
	However, the principal contribution of the Tax Returns to a study of hundreds lies in the fact that a comparison of holders and hidage with Domesday entries often allows particular Domesday estates to be allotted to particular hundreds listed in the Tax Returns. Sometimes it is possible to reconstruct a whole hundred by adding together the hidage of places considered likely to have been in that hundred, before adjusting the list to obtain the stated total. However, while some individual estates can be confidently identified from the detail of the Tax Returns, wholesale reconstructions based on figures alone cannot be considered completely secure.
	For Devon there are Tax Returns for 31 hundreds, Exon folios 65-71. They were printed by Ellis, Libri Censualis, pp. 59-65, and translated in the Devonshire Association volume, Devonshire Domesday. They were not published or analysed in VCH Devon, i., but indivual Tax Returns are tabulated and discussed by Reichel in his various articles on the hundreds of Devon. A reconstruction of the hundreds (unpublished) by F.R.Thorn based on the Tax Returns underpinned the notes concerning places in the Phillimore printed volumes for Devon and the map and indices, as also the 'Hundreds and Wapentakes' article in the Alecto edition. 

Exon	Hundred	Hides	Exon	Hundred	Hides	
65a1
65a2
65a3
65a4
65b1
66a1
66a2
66b1
66b2
66b3
67a1
67a2
67a3
67b1
67b2
67b3	1 Lifton Hundred 
2 Hartland Hundred
3 [Black] Torrington Hundred
4 Fremington Hundred
5 Merton Hundred
6 Braunton and Shirwell Hundred
7 South Molton Hundred
8 Crediton Hundred
9 [North] Tawton Hundred
10 Witheridge Hundred
11 Tiverton Hundred
12 'Cliston' Hundred
13 Silverton Hundred
14 Hemyock Hundred
15 Uffculme Hundred
16 Budleigh Hundred
	20h
20h
34½h
20h
48h
50h
22h
20h
42h
30h
20h
27h
52h
24h
14h
72h	68a1
68a2
68a3
68b1
68b2
68b2
69a1
69a2
69b1
69b2
69b3
70a1
70a2
70a3
70b1
	17 Halberton Hundred
18 Ottery [St Mary] Hundred
19 Axminster Hundred
20 Colyton Hundred
21 Axmouth Hundred
22 Bampton Hundred
23 Exminster Hundred
24 Teignton Hundred
25 Kerswell Hundred
26 Diptford Hundred
27 Chillington Hundred
28 Plympton Hundred
29 Walkhampton Hundred
30 ''Alleriga'' Hundred
31 Wonford Hundred
 	18½h
25h
50h
25h 3v
9h 1v
25h
50h
30h
50h
39h
46h
25h
25h
40h
54h	

THE MANUSCRIPT
This is written on either side of leaves, or folios, of parchment (sheepskin) measuring about 15 inches by 11 inches (38 centimetres by 28 centimetres). On each side, or page, are two columns, making four to each folio. The folios were numbered in the seventeenth century and the four columns of each are here lettered a, b, c, d. The manuscript emphasises words and usually distinguishes chapters and sections by the use of red ink. Underlining in the manuscript indicates deletion.

A study of the manuscript has shown that on the whole Devon is a neatly executed county, particularly when it is compared with Herefordshire for example. The parchment is generally thick and of good quality and, with the exception of the first three folios, is 'whiter' than the yellow, greasy-looking parchment of counties such as Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Both these aspects are reflected in the fewness of Farley's errors relative to the size of the county (22 major ones, compared with more than a dozen in Dorset which is only just over half the size of Devon). Finn, Liber Exoniensis, p. 156, enumerates only three postscripts at the foot of columns, two marginal additions and a few misplacements, but in fact there are five postscripts (1,45. 3,19. 3,55. 3,75. and 49,7) and four important marginal additions (1,50. 3,6. 16,65. and 48,12) and three minor ones (1,57. 17,9. and 23,6). The Great Domesday scribe also completely omitted the manor of Sotrebroc held by Flohere which is detailed in the large Exon section 'Lands of French Men-at-Arms in Devonshire' (see DEV 22 William note), and the entry on Werrington (see 5,5 entry note). Apart from these, there are numerous neatly-executed minor corrections and interlineations of numbers and letters, most of which were done at once (judging by the colour of ink) and which are easily identified in the manuscript. Due to lack of space in the Notes, attention is usually only drawn to those occasions when a correction in Great Domesday is paralleled by a similar one in the Exon manuscript. Some entries are inevitably worse than others, for example, 3,54. 15,62 and 39,15 (see 3,54 meadow note; 15,62 slave note; 15,62 ploughs note; 15,62 value note. Some of the corrections and additions (for example 16,5 held note; 34,46 pasture note; 48,12 entry note and 49,7 entry note) and the marginal pars (see 15,47 jointly note) are done in much paler ink, probably at a later stage and perhaps as a result of checking the Exon manuscript (this is likely to have been the case with 49,7; see 49,7 entry note). In some cases entries were corrected in two stages (for example, see15,79 freely note and 17,13 held note). There are a few gaps left in entries for information not to hand at the time of writing (for example, 16,175. 35,6. 52,26;30 and perhaps also 15,7) and a certain amount of space is left at the end of some chapters for additional manors to be detailed if necessary (1,72 entry note and 13a,3 entry note), as well as after the account of Exeter (see C7 entry note).
	Despite the general clarity of the scribe's work on the county, the Ordnance Survey facsimile fails to reproduce, or reproduces incorrectly, some letters and signs, sometimes because they are fainter than usual or have become mixed up with the rubrication, but also on many occasions for no apparent reason; these are indicated in the Notes (see L11 mont note).
	With one exception (see below), Devon has four vertical scorings, one down each edge of the two columns, delimiting them, though it is not always possible in the present binding to see the side one on the inner edges of folios. There are only two horizontal scorings, marking the top and bottom, which are generally visible, but within them the number of lines per column varies, even between the two columns on one side of the folio; the average number of lines for Devon, however, is 60, which makes it one of the densest packed counties in Domesday. As the scribe generally used all the space between the two horizontal rulings, the appearance of anything below the bottom marginal ruling indicates that it was a later addition; similarly with the vertical scoring.
	The exception to this ruling is on the first folio of the county where the bottom half of folio 100a is ruled horizontally for the landholders' List and where there are four extra vertical scorings, one after the first letter of the landholders in the left column, one before the Chapter numbers in the right-hand landholders' column and two enclosing the first letters of each of the names in this right-hand column. The normal left-hand score falls between the chapter numbers and the first letters of the landholders in the left column (the chapter numbers 1-26 being in the margin); there may have been a fifth extra vertical score before the chapter numbers to match the one before those in the right column, but the binding now obscures it. This additional vertical scoring begins five lines above the top of the List. At the end of the county, folio 118d is scored, though blank, and the whole of folio 119 is blank and not ruled at all.

EDITORIAL
The Identification of Places
In the text of the south-western counties, neither Great Domesday nor Exon includes the hundredal rubrication that is an important aid to the identification of places. This absence is particularly important in a large county such as Devonshire, where a number of places are named only from the rivers on which they lie, such as Clist from the River Clyst, Lonmele or Lonmine from the River Lowman, Colum or Colun from the River Culm, Teigne or Taigne from the River Teign, Otri and variants from the River Otter, and Limet or Nimete from the old name of the two Yeo rivers (see Introduction: PLaces named from Rivers}. Moreover, a single Domesday form can represent two or more places in different hundreds or in widely separated parts of the county. Thus Domesday Wiche will be one of several places called Wick, Week or Wyke; there are two places called Aller represented by Alra, two called Bickleigh by Bichelie; Sampford Courtenay and Sampford Spiney are both represented by Domesday Sanford and there are many places represented by Bere or Bera, Bocheland, Lege, Cumba, Hele and Stoche. Only occasionally does Domesday differentiate places of the same basic name: Bovi and Adonebovi (3,8. 17,22); Racheneforde and Litel Racheneford (16,148. 23,13); Torilande and Liteltorelande (15,16. 34,9); Lonmine and Oplomie (25,19. 35,16) and Niresse and Ulpesse (3,69-70). All place-names need to be treated with care: thus Alphington and West Alvington happen to have different Domesday forms, but they have the same origin and other evidence, apart from the Domesday form, is needed to distinguish them.
	The absence of hundredal information can in part be made good from the evidence of the Exon Tax Returns for Devon (folios 65a-7la); see {Introduction: The Tax Returns} where there is a list of the hundreds with their hidages. In this edition, it is not intended to incorporate all the information recoverable from the Tax Returns but only that which is needed to support discussion of the text of Domesday and then only when the information is reasonably certain. Since the Tax Returns give the total hidage for each Hundred, it is sometimes possible to deduce all the constituent villages of a Hundred simply by adding together the hidage of places considered likely to be in the Hundred, then adjusting the list until the correct total is obtained. But this argument based on totals only, when there are many discrepancies between the Tax Returns and Domesday and when many villages have the same hidage figures, must be regarded as an unreliable procedure. This is the method adopted by Eyton in his analyses for Somerset and Dorset (Eyton, Somerset Survey; Eyton, Dorset Survey). It is wisely avoided by Reichel, but even so he is sometimes careless, sometimes excessively ingenious, and sometimes he employs mere guesswork in his identification of hidage figures with places. 
	A secondary source of place-name identification from within Great Domesday and particularly the Exon Domesday returns themselves is the order in which places are entered in each fief. In some counties where the text of Domesday has full hundredal rubrication, lands are found to be entered in a consistent order of hundreds within each chapter, probably as the scribe rearranged into fiefs information that was first returned, or later checked, by hundreds; see Sawyer, 'Original Returns'. Among the south-west counties, Cornwall, Devon and Somerset show a consistent sequence of hundreds within each chapter in the order in which material is arranged in the Exon Domesday. Moreover, in Somerset, the sequence is the same as that of one of two lists of hundreds included among the folios of Exon (folios 64a,b; see SOM {Introduction: Hundreds}). Similarly, in Devon the sequence is that of the second list found on folio 63a, with the proviso that hundreds are sometimes entered in groups rather than one following another in strict order (see {Introduction: Hundreds}).
	Where the order of Exon differs from that of Great Domesday, as for example in DEV 1, 3, 15 and 52 or in the treatment of DEV 8-13a, it is the Exon order that clearly preserves a standard sequence of hundreds. The process of condensing Exon into Great Domesday afforded the chance to rearrange some material: thus DEV 1 and DEV 15 were reconstructed on different lines (see DEV 1 king note and DEV 15 count note); DEV 52 was rearranged by subtenants; the lands of Walter of Claville were separated from those of Gotshelm to form the separate chapters DEV 24-25; the 'Lands of the Churches that have been given to the Saints in Alms' (DEV 8-13a), the Lands of the French Men-at-Arms (DEV 22 William note), of the King's Servants (DEV 51 servants note) and of the English Thanes (DEV 52 thanes note) were completely reorganised and this destroyed or distorted the original hundredal sequence.
	In the Notes it is thus the order of Exon that is cited to indicate the hundred in which a place lay in 1086; in most chapters the sequence is given in an introductory note. Although the order is not without occasional obscurities (see DEV 19 William note; DEV 34 Ralph note), if a place apparently belonging to one hundred falls within a group of places belonging to another, there is a strong presumption that either the place has been incorrectly identified or that a minor adjustment has been made to the boundary of the hundred since 1086; such cases are examined in individual notes and an overall summary given in {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	Total and secure identification of places, which is so vital for any serious study of the text of Domesday, is a long and complex task. First the editor must satisfy himself that the evolution of the place-name from the Domesday form to its modern-day form is credible and that there are enough intermediate forms to prove it. Then the 1086 hundred must be established in order to distinguish this place from others of the same name, elsewhere in the county. Then the identification must be clinched by a study of genealogy and manorial descent: thus a place held by Baldwin the sheriff in 1086 should later be found held by the Honour of Okehampton; a place held by Bretel under the Count of Mortain should reappear in the Honour of Ashill. Study of later documents will often confirm the 1086 hundred and give the extent and the sub-manors of the Domesday holding. Lastly, the details of Domesday, such as lands added or taken away, mills, fisheries, salt-workings, etc., must be harmonised with the identification.
	Much of this task is outside the scope of this edition and must await the work of other scholars: a full revision of the elderly and unreliable English Place-Name Society volumes (Place-Names of Devon, i.-ii.) would be needed in order to eradicate the many errors and omissions and allow a modern treatment of major names, and a fuller treatment of minor, and field, names; it is to be hoped that some day the indices of the Book of Fees, and of the Feudal Aids will be revised, and the appearance of further volumes of VCH Devon studying the county hundred by hundred and manor by manor will trace the descent of each Domesday holding, give greater exactness to old identifications and correct others. An editor for this county feels less secure using the tools currently available to him than one who has to hand the Dorset place-name volumes of A. D. Mills or the VCH Somerset volumes edited by Dr. Dunning.
	Nonetheless, the publication of VCH Devon, i. in 1906 marked an important stage in the identification of Domesday places. The Devonshire Association had published between 1884 and 1892 an extended text of Exon Domesday and of the Tax Returns, together with a translation, the former unfortunately rearranged to follow the order of Great DomesdayBook order; this had stimulated a number of Devonshire scholars and antiquarians, among them R. N. Worth, the Reverend T. W. Whale and the Reverend O. J. Reichel, to study a number of aspects of Domesday, including the place-names. Worth's superficial study (Worth, 'Domesday Manors of Devon', 1893) provoked Whale and Reichel to analyse the hundredal arrangement of Exon and to publish articles on the hundreds, the identifications of many places and on some of the major documents needed to follow the descent of Domesday manors during the next centuries. Reichel included Whale's identifications in VCH Devon, i. where there was disagreement, but the former is more usually correct and it is to him that are due all the durable identifications of Domesday places. Although the Domesday Gazetteer (1975) made a number of new proposals, there has been no full-scale study of the place-names since the publication of VCH Devon, the two volumes of the Place-Names of Devon, being largely based on Reichel's work.
	Reichel continued to publish articles reconstructing the 1086 Hundreds and following the history of manors, and also prepared a number of surveys that the Devonshire Association had not the means to publish during his lifetime; these appeared as ten supplementary volumes plus a cumulative index after his death, surveying eighteen hundreds in great detail and with a sound command of his material.
	Reichel's work is formidable in bulk and in detail and is still regarded as an authoritative source. But it must be used with caution. Some of his theories about the making of Domesday have been superseded and the work on individual identifications is very uneven: the early studies (for example those of Hartland Hundred and North Tawton and Witheridge Hundreds) use unreliable secondary sources, are poor in detail and method, and were never revised; but later work is often based on this insecure material. Throughout Reichel's work, his handling of place-name forms is frequently careless and unsound, with the result that many of his identifications cannot in fact be derived from the Domesday forms which he cites. Assumption and assertion, rather than conclusive evidence, play a major part in some of his identifications, especially of the unnamed subdivisions of Domesday holdings; moreover, in attempting to identify every entry in the Book of Fees, with a named Domesday counterpart, he ignores the fact that many represent unnamed subdivisions of named Domesday lands or are later subinfeudations; and that many Domesday lands are not later held by knight-service and so do not appear in feudal lists. This leads him to over-hasty identifications where other evidence is lacking.
	Much work remains to be done to trace the evolution of place-names and the descent of manors in Devon. Meanwhile, the Notes to this volume, while they do not claim to be exhaustive, are intended to offer enough later information from selected sources to support identifications that might reasonably have been questioned, and to show where further research is needed.

A number of adjacent modern settlements in Devon, now distinguished by affixes such as 'East' and 'West', 'Upper' and 'Lower', share the same Domesday place-name form. The existence of separate, but nearby, villages is rarely evidenced in Devon Domesday and such places are not normally distinguished in the translation. Where later evidence enables these modern separate villages to be traced from individual Domesday holdings, this fact is recorded in the Notes.
	On the other hand, to avoid confusion, affixes are included where two places of the same basic name are in different parts of the county, or in different hundreds. Thus South Milton appears in order to distinguish it from the distant Milton Abbot and Milton Damerel; East Putford and West Putford are adjacent but distinguished because they lie in different hundreds, but the adjacent villages of East Hagginton and West Hagginton appear simply as Hagginton.
	A number of identifications in this edition differ from those of VCH Devon, i. or Domesday Gazetteer. Such discrepancies are recorded in the Notes.

Places named from Rivers
Many places in Devonshire are named from the rivers on whose banks they stand; among places mentioned in Domesday are those called after the River Axe, the Bovey, the Clyst, the Coly, the Creedy, the Culm, the Dart and Little Dart, the Exe, the Lyme, the Lowman, the Lyd, the Meavy, the Otter, the Plym, the Sid, the Tamar, the Tavy, the Taw, the Teign, the Torridge and the two rivers called 'Nymet', now the Mole and the River Yeo, tributary to the River Taw. Where places had at first the same basic name, a process of differentiation by prefix, suffix and the addition of separate names from people, churches and other nearby places produces the modern distinct forms. This process had already begun in 1086: thus Alseministre or Axeministre distinguishes Axminster from Alsemude, Axmouth; Adonebovi, now LittleBovey, separates one place from two simply called Bovi; Colitone (Cullompton) and Culmestoche (Culmstock) stand out from several places simply called Colun or Colum; Sideberie (Sidbury) and Sedemude (Sidmouth) are distinguished from each other, as is Oplomie (Uplowman) from places called Lonmele, Lonmine; Taincome (Teigncombe) stands apart from two places called Teintone or Tantone and several called Teigne or Taigne.
	This process continued after Domesday, producing North Bovey and Bovey Tracey, Culm Davy and Culm Pyne, Mary Tavy and Peter Tavy, North Tawton, South tawton and Bishops Tawton, Teigngrace and Teignharvey as well as Kings Teignton and Bishops Teignton, Black Torrington, Great Torrington and Little Torrington and Uplyme (Domesday Lim) to distinguish it from Lyme Regis at the river mouth in Dorset. In some cases, completely different forms have displaced the original river names; thus besides Godameavy and Hoo Meavy, Gratton and Lovaton appear to have been named from the River Meavy in 1086 (see 17,79 Meavy note and 29,9 Meavy note).
	In the case of four rivers the problems of identification are made more complex by the large numbers of places that had the same Domesday form. There are similar examples in Domesday Wiltshire, and especially in Dorset:

	River Clyst
The River Clyst rises near Broadhembury in what was Silverton (later Hayridge) Hundred, passes through 'Cliston' Hundred, touches Wonford Hundred, then reaches the estuary of the River Exe through [East] Budleigh Hundred. Domesday Book itself distinguishes Clistone, now Broad Clyst, and Clisewic, new Clyst St George, but the other places called 'Clist' have to be identified from hundredal order and later evidence. The upper reach of the river is marked by Clyst William (form Old English æwielm 'river-spring') in Plymtree parish, Hayridge Hundred (the successor to Silverton Hundred). In 'Cliston' Hundred the river passes through Clyst Hydon, Clyst St Lawrence, Clyst Gerred, Ashclyst, Broad Clyst and West Clyst, which last lay in Wonford Hundred in 1086. Sowton, also in Wonford Hundred, was formerly called Clyst Fomison. In [East] Budleigh Hundred, the river flows through Clyst St Mary, then through Clyst St George.

	River Nymet, now the River Yeo and River Mole
This River Yeo is a tributary of the River Mole and the River Mole of the River Taw: both the former seem to have been called 'Nymet' in 1086. Domesday appears to distinguish two places called Nimetone (now Bishops Nympton and Kings Nympton) from two called Nimete; but Bishops Nympton continued to be called Bysshopes Nymet from time to time and Kings Nympton shows the same alternation of forms. The places called Nympton lie south of the river in what was Witheridge Hundred; on the north side in South Molton Hundred George Nympton was Nimete in 1086, and Nymet Sancti Georgii or Nymet Georgii until the fourteenth century. The name Nimete or Limet also appears to have applied to a portion of Satterleigh and Warkleigh parishes where other names have now replaced that of the river; see 1,41 Blackpool note.

	River Nymet, now the Yeo
Another Yeo feeds into the Taw and Domesday records ten places, all simply Limet or Nimet from its former name. They present some difficulties of identification since all lay in the same Hundred, [North] Tawton, and four are held by the same man, Baldwin. It seems likely that apart from Broadnymett, Nichols Nymet, Nymet Rowland and Nymet Tracey (alias Bow) which preserve the name, Burston, Hampson, Natson, Walson, Wolfin and Zeal Monachorum were also called from the river in 1086.

	River Otter
This river rises on the southern side of the Blackdown Hills where Churchstanton parish (formerly in Devon) abuts Otterford (in Somerset). It passes through the Hundreds of Axminster, Hemyock, Ottery St Mary and [East] Budleigh. With the exception of Otritone (Otterton), all twelve places were called plain Otri, Otrit or Oteri in 1086. Names of different origins have replaced several; thus in Axminster Hundred the river passes through Upottery, Mohuns Ottery and Combe Raleigh (Otri, see 23,21);next comes Ivedon (a detached part of Tiverton Hundred), Weston or Waringstone (in Hemyock Hundred) named from the 1086 holder Warin and Rapshays (in [East] Budleigh Hundred) which were all 'Ottery' in 1086. The river then passes through the ecclesiastical hundred named from Ottery St Mary, then descends through Dotton and Otterton, both in [East] Budleigh Hundred, to the sea.
	A masterly discussion of the Devon river-names is to be found in Ekwall, English River Names.

Unnamed and Omitted Holdings
The few main holdings for which place-names have not been included by Domesday are found at 3,32;71. 24,22. 29,10. 34,57. 51,4. 52,30. However, it is evident that Domesday does not include all the places that existed in the county in 1086. Its normal practice is to name one manor, large or small, and leave the individual members, villages, hamlets, sub-manors or subholdings unspecified, their resources and values being included under the main holding. Thus, as explained in the Notes, holdings such as 1,34 Chillington (7 hides), 2,2 Crediton (15 hides), and 5,1 Tavistock (3 ½ hides), included a number of other places which later evidence can often identify. Conversely some Domesday named 'manors' are in practice so small that they can scarcely have been independent units; later evidence often shows them as part of larger manors.
	Where documents survive that represent stages of the Domesday Enquiry earlier than Exon, they suggest that considerably more detail, including the names of sub-manors and lower levels of subtenancies, was collected than was actually used in the finished volumes (see WOR {Appendix}). Sometimes this information seems to have escaped the process of revision and pruning, as in 3,8 (Bovey Tracey), where Great Domesday names nine added lands. In two cases, Exon Domesday includes this information although it has been eliminated by the abbreviation which produced Great Domesday. Thus Battishill, Combebowe, Ebsworthy, Fernworthy, Kersford and Way are named as added to Bridestowe (16,7), and Burntown, Warne and Wringworthy to Mary Tavy (17,13). Exon also names Boode, part of Braunton (3,32), and includes two whole entries omitted from Domesday. That for Werrington entered under Tavistock Abbey (DEV 5 Tavistock note; see 5,5 entry note) may have been excluded as the land had been awarded to the king by the Domesday Commissioners (1,50 Werrington note), but Sotrebroc ('Shutbrook' or 'Floyers Hayes') seems to have been missed when the complex section called 'Lands of the French Men-at-Arms in Devonshire' was divided into individual fiefs (see DEV 22 William note). Both Exon Domesday and the Terrae Occupatae sometimes notice a customary due which Great Domesday passes over, and the Terrae Occupatae names a few places otherwise unrecorded: Esseorda added to Silverton (DEV 44 Hervey note and 1,7 Silverton note), Chaffcombe (2,2 Crediton note), Widefield (39,6 Curworthy note) and Whitley (DEV 44 Hervey note), and refers to an unnamed 1 furlong (ferdinus) in Molton Hundred which is waste and claimed by no one (500a4; see {Introduction: Scope of the Notes concerning Exon}). Neither Exon nor Great Domesday is entirely complete. Just as, in Somerset, a holding of Shaftesbury Abbey evidenced in the Somerset Tax Returns is nowhere to be found in Domesday, so the Devon Tax Returns and later evidence suggest that the fief of the wife of Hervey of Helléan was more extensive than recorded in Domesday (DEV 44 Hervey note) and that the Priests of Exminster held ½ hide in Exminster Hundred (1,4 Exminster note).
	Finally, neither Exmoor nor Dartmoor is mentioned in Domesday. The latter was appurtenant to Lydford (1,2 Lydford note) for administrative purposes and its presence can be felt in the references to wild mares and to moor, or waste, on the manors that lay around its perimeter.

State of Revision
The Phillimore edition of Devon was published in 1985 in two volumes. The translation was drafted by Caroline Thorn and Agnes O'Driscoll, the maps were the work of Frank Thorn and Jim Hardy and the volume was edited by Caroline and Frank Thorn. 

In their research the editors had incurred a number of debts to others which they acknowledged as follows: 
'The editors are again deeply grateful for the support and help, both large and small, of John McN Dodgson who is seeing this series through the press, Staff at the Public Record Office, Chancery Lane, and especially Mr R. Hunnisett, Miss Margaret Condon and Mrs E. Hallam-Smith, have been unfailingly helpful in allowing Caroline Thorn to consult the manuscript of Great Domesday, while Mrs Audrey Erskine and Mr Peter Thomas have provided a welcome at the Cathedral Library, Exeter, where the Exon Domesday is housed. Mr J.D. Foy has undertaken the arduous task of checking translations and indices and comparing the Exon and the Great Domesday entries with never-failing promptness and good humour. He has also made several helpful suggestions and consulted various sources for the editors. Mrs Angela Cartwright and Mrs Jenny Porter have laboured heroically to type Notes at short notice, as has Mrs Pauline Newton to typeset the whole volume. Finally, Mrs Frances Gardner has kindly provided material for the note on 'Beer' (16,174) and Mrs Mary A. Jordan for that on 'Guscott' (16,13).

John Morris, the originator and first editor of the series had died in 1977 and the subsequent volumes in the series were brought out under the supervision of John McN. Dodgson and Alison Hawkins. A note at the end of the Introduction said: 'At the time of Dr Morris's death in June 1977, he had completed volumes 2 [Sussex], 3 [Surrey], 11 [Middlesex], 12 [Hertfordshire], 19 [Huntingdonshire], 23 [Warwickshire], 24 [Staffordshire]. He had more or less finished the preparation of volumes 13 [Buckinghamshire], 14 [Oxfordshire], 20 [Bedfordshire], 28 [Nottinghamshire]. These and subsequent volumes in the series were brought out under the supervision of John Dodgson and Alison Hawkins, who have endeavoured to follow, as far as possible, the editorial principles established by John Morris'. The preparation of the volume was greatly assisted by a generous grant from the Leverhulme Trust Fund.

Devon is the most heavily-annotated volume in the Phillimore series, with just under a volume of Latin text and translation and just over a volume of similar size for notes. Nonetheless it would benefit from a revision because of its editors' further twenty-two years of study (not least on the manuscripts of Great Domesday and the Liber Exoniensis, on their scribes and the discovery of the work of the correcting scribe (scribe B) in Great Domesday) and the appearance of a number of important books and articles. As a result some of the statements in the Notes are not entirely accurate or would benefit from further elucidation. The editors intend to undertake such a revision in due course. The present edition is part of a project to convert the annotation of the Phillimore printed volumes to electronic form and to revise them. Because of the quantity of the Notes in the Phillimore printed edition, the merging of the General Notes and Exon. Notes (see below) and the timescale of the current project it has not proved possible to revise this county to the same standard as the other counties of Great Domesday; in particular the multitude of cross-references between the two sets of notes has not been fully checked and there may be errors in punctuation. However, a limited number of changes have been made to the printed notes:
•	The Appendix I ('The Devonshire Hundreds') has been incorporated in the Introduction ({Introduction: Hundreds}). That note on the hundreds has been left essentially as it was when published in 1985. John Morris, the general editor, had taken the view that, because of the lack of hundred heads in the text of any of the south-western counties, the 'later' hundreds should be used for the purposes of mapping and indexing. The note did indicate, however, where Great Domesday, Exon and the Tax Returns showed that the hundreds contained different places. F.R. Thorn's work for the Alecto edition of Devon (Thorn, 'Hundreds and Wapentakes', Devonshire Domesday, pp. 26-42, and map) showed that it was possible to reconstitute the 1086 hundreds practically in their entirety. That article remains the most up-to-date treatment of the question until the present note is fully revised.
•	The two sets of notes (General Notes and Exon. Notes) have been merged into a single sequence. The introductory section to the Exon. Notes ('Exon. Extra Information and Discrepancies with DB') now appears in {Introduction: Exon Extra Information and Discrepancies}. The introductory section to the Places Notes is now in {Introduction: The Identification of Places}. The contents of the tabulation of the differences in the identification of places between VCH Devon, i, Domesday Gazetteer and the Phillimore printed edition has now been divided into individual notes.
•	The two Exon tables (Table L: 'Details of Lordship and Villagers' Land and Ploughs omitted in DB and given in Exon'; Table D: 'Details of Holdings omitted in DB and given in Exon') have been placed in {Appendix: Details of Lordship and Villagers' Land and Ploughs omitted in DB and given in Exon'} and {Appendix: Details of Holdings omitted in DB and given in Exon }; cross-references to these in the notes are to {Appendix: Lordship and Villagers' Table} and {Appendix: Details Table}. 
•	The translation of some terms has been brought into line with those of the series as a whole.
•	The bibliographical and other conventions have been changed to align them with the other counties that have been revised for the current project.
•	Certain changes have been necessary in the conversion of the notes to a searchable electronic version, such as to the lead words for the notes, to cross-references and to punctuation. 
•	The form of the hundred names has been standardized so as to distinguish between those units that are named from places still extant and those that are not.
•	A number of the forms of personal names have been changed as part of an ongoing process to bring more consistency to the entire name stock of Domesday Book.
•	Some of the people have been further identified. When the identification comes from the person's occurrence in other documents or in other Domesday counties, this is shown in the translation between asterisks within square brackets. Where there is no documentary evidence for the identity of an individual, but it seems likely that a number of persons with the same first name are one and the same, this has been indicated in the translation by putting the name of one of the estates held by that person between < >. In this county some of the notes to justify both these forms of identification have been written by John Palmer and these have been attributed to him as (JP) put at the end of his paragraph.
•	Obvious typographical errors in the Phillimore printed notes have been corrected.

In the Phillimore printed volume, translations and annotation were provided for those places that lay outside Devon in 1086 but which were subsequently transferred to it. These places are tabulated here in {Introduction: The County Boundary}; for translation and notes, now see the counties concerned.

Caroline Thorn
Frank Thorn
May 2007
June 2007