NOTES
(version 1a)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title SNOTINGH'SCIRE. in vermilion capitals across the top of folio 280ab, folio 281abcd, and each of folios 282cd- 293ab, centred above both columns; he wrote the form (SNOTINCH'SCIRE on folio 283cd and SNOTINGHÂSCIRE. on folio 289ab. The letters H'SCIR of the head on folio 280ab are written over an erasure: he probably briefly omitted a letter, as part of an original letter E can be seen between the R and E and is reproduced in the Alecto facsimile (though not in the Ordnance Survey facsimile). It is odd that he did not write a title on folio 280cd (containing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Customs and the Nottinghamshire Landholders' List), but the omission on folio 282ab was because that page is blank. There is an erasure above the title on folio 288cd.

When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon letters thorn (þ) and eth (ð) are reproduced as th.

B	BOROUGH. Nottingham is 'the ham of the people of a man called Snot' and was probably in origin an agricultural estate. Lying north of the River Trent and able to guard an important crossing point, it presumably acquired strategic significance at the time of the Danish attacks. It seems probable that the Danes built or refortified a burh there. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 868 records that 'the same [Danish] army went into Mercia, to Nottingham and took up winter quarters there'. Of the West Saxon and Mercian counter-attack it says that they went to Nottingham 'and came upon the enemy in that fortress and besieged them there'. However, there was 'no serious battle' and the Mercians made peace with the Danes. Nottingham and its hinterland became the base for a Danish army which was not dislodged until 918 when King Edward the Elder captured the borough of Nottingham 'and ordered it to be repaired and manned both with Englishmen and Danes. And all the people who had settled in Mercia, both Danish and English, submitted to him' (the translations from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are by D. Whitelock and others). It appears, however, that the area north of Nottingham still required reconquest or there was renewed trouble in Nottingham itself for in 920 King Edward had a second burh built at Nottingham on the south side of the river, opposite the other, the two being linked by a bridge, and then went into the Peak District to Bakewell where he also had a burh built. On the site of this second burh (in West Bridgford or Wilford), see Haslam, 'Second Burh of Nottingham'.
		From the middle of the tenth century, Nottingham became a member of the Confederation of the Five Boroughs, a defensive alliance formed (with West Saxon help) against the Vikings of York: King Edmund had 'liberated' the five boroughs (Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Stamford and Derby) from the 'Norsemen' in 942 (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). Probably during that same century Nottingham also became the capital of a new shire; see {Introduction: History}. In the early summer of 1068, King William marched north to face the first of the northern revolts. He constructed a castle at Nottingham, two at York, a castle in Lincoln 'and everywhere in the district' (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; the information is incorrectly entered under 1067); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228. The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but it appears that the king put William Peverel in charge of it: deinde rex Snotingheham castrum construxit et Guillelmo Peverello commendavit (' then the king constructed a castle [at] Nottingham and entrusted it to William Peverel'): Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ii. (Chibnall, pp. 218-19). On this castle, see Drage, Nottingham Castle, especially pp. 13-25, 31-37. It is presumably not mentioned in Domesday because it was built outside the borough and its construction did not require the demolition of houses as in several other towns. To its west lay parkland, to the east, the new (French) borough, which was probably begun after the castle was built.
		The guarding of the river and road routes to and from the north (B20) may be connected with the strategic importance of Nottingham. There was a mint in Nottingham both in 1066 and in 1086 (B1;7) and coins have been found dating back to c. 925; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 13.
		In 1086, there were, in effect, two boroughs at Nottingham: a 'new' borough which became known as the French borough, adjacent to the castle and comprising the Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas, and the 'old' or 'English' borough which corresponded to the Ancient Parish of St Mary; see B3 borough note.
		On the borough as a whole, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 235-39; Owen, 'Borough of Nottingham'; Rogers, 'Parish Boundaries and Urban History'; Roffe,‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 24-27.
	The details of the borough of Nottingham appear, as was usual, on the first folio (folio 280a). Normally the borough survey would be followed by the list of landholders, then by the details of the estates in the king's fief. However, although space was left on the first folio of Derbyshire (folio 272a) for details of the borough of Derby, they were inserted on the first folio of Nottinghamshire (folio 280b), after those of the borough of Nottingham. Between them, these two boroughs occupy the recto of that folio. They are followed (on folio 280c) by the 'customs' that both shires had in common, then by the Nottinghamshire Landholders' List on the bottom half of folio 280d. It is likely that these shared 'customs' made the main scribe of Great Domesday adopt the arrangement he did of putting the two boroughs together; there is no reason to think (pace, Roffe, 'Introduction', Derbyshire Domesday, pp. 2, 19), that this indicates the subordinate status of Derbyshire. Derby had more burgesses than Nottingham in 1066, but by 1086 the numbers at Derby had declined from 243 to 140; however, the number for Nottingham had reduced from 173 to 136 when Hugh son of Baldric (the sheriff) was appointed and then to 120 by 1086 (assuming that the 'men' in NTT B3 were burgesses). Derby paid more than Nottingham (£24 as against £18) in 1066, but Nottingham paid more (£40 as against £30) in 1086. Even so, there is quite a leap from these figures to concluding that the supposed relative importance of these boroughs influenced the layout of Great Domesday.
		The two shires had a number of things in common, not least, it appears, a joint sheriff, a very similar assessment and arrangement of wapentakes; see {Introduction: History}; {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}; {Introduction: Wapentakes}.
		The Domesday account of the borough is divided into sections. The choice and arrangement of material is very similar to that of the borough of Derby. The first (B1-7) lists the people, land, churches and messuages that were in the borough in 1066 and 1086 and ends with the total payment, which formed the firma burgi ('the revenue of the borough'). This represents the king's interest in the borough. There is a passing mention of a complaint by the burgesses about their fishing-rights.
		The second section (B8-16) lists eight individuals with their interests in the borough which appear to be independent of the king's. Included here are the 65 houses in the priest's croft and the annual value of St Mary's Church, which belong to the king by virtue of his ownership of the church. The essential difference between this and the previous section is that the possessions of these individuals, who presumably enjoyed full jurisdiction, do not contribute dues to the king as lord of the borough. In this second section no values are given for the lands (although one is given for the church), presumably because they were the concern only of the individuals, or were attached to their rural estates. In some counties (for example in Leicestershire) such connections are expressly made and an entry in Warwickshire (WAR B2) says: 'These messuages belong to the lands which these barons hold outside the borough and are valued there'.
		The transition to the final section (miscellaneous information that the scribe had either missed or did not know where to put) is unclear. The 1 carucate held by King Edward (B19) might better have been placed near the entry for Earl Tosti's land (B2), except perhaps that it did not contribute to the revenue of the borough. The information about guarding the land and water routes to Nottingham or in Nottinghamshire (B20) naturally falls in a section of 'other information', since it does not relate to either of the first two sections of material. It is uncertain, however, whether the details of the entries at B17-18 (houses built in the borough ditch, land given by the king to William Peverel) belong in the second section, or, as seems more likely, among a final heterogeneous group of four (B17-20).
B1	173 BURGESSES. These are strictly speaking 'resident burgesses' (burgenses manentes), as opposed to those who are based in a rural manor but have a house in town; see DBY B1 resident note.
	19 VILLAGERS. Like a number of boroughs, Nottingham had some arable land attached to it, in this case 6 carucates, as well as meadow and underwood, making it appear partially to be a rural manor. In 1066 the villagers may have cultivatd this land under the 38 burgesses who share it. However, in an apparent repeat mention of these 6 carucates for 1086 (B5), the land is worked by 20 smallholders and 14 ploughs.
	6 CARUCATES OF LAND, [LIABLE] TO THE KING'S TAX. The Latin is car' t're, the terrae being added to indicate that carucates (carucatae) not ploughs (carucae) are implied by the abbreviation car'. The king's tax is in this case the geld, indicating that these carucates are rated in the same way as those on a rural estate.
		These 6 carucates are apparently here described as they were in 1066. The same reappear as they were in 1086 at B5. It is likely that Earl Tosti's carucate (B2) is additional to these six, because it is assesssed in a different way, as is the 1 carucate that had belonged to King Edward (B19). The 5 bovates of land that belonged to the church (B4) are expressly said to be part of the 6 carucates. This may be true also of the 5½ acres of land there.
	UNDERWOOD. The Latin siluê minutê could be either nominative plural or genitive singular. As the unû p'tû ('one meadow') is nominative, the former case for the underwood might seem more likely, but the plural 'underwoods' is incompatible with the dimensions which represent a single oblong. It is more probable that the scribe intended to put siluae minutae .vi. quarentinae in longitudine 7 . v. in latitudine ('6 furlongs of underwood in length and 5 in width') where quarentinae is nominative and siluae a dependent genitive, but after beginning, he lapsed into the more familiar formula in which quarentinas is accusative of extent and should depend on a nominative silua minuta with which longa and lata would agree (silua minuta. vi. quarentinas longa et. v. lata). Alternatively, he was anticipating using a square measure such as 'x acres of underwood'. Compare 5,10 woodland note.
	38 BURGESSES. These are presumably a sub-set of the 173 burgesses previously mentioned and in charge of the 19 villagers who presumably worked the land.
	FROM THE DUES OF THE LAND AND THE WORK OF THE BURGESSSES. The Latin for 'dues of the land' (de censu terrae) suggests that this render is separate from the geld that the 6 carucates yield. The geld was a variable amount imposed annually, whereas this due is probably the same as landgabulum ('land tribute') which is paid on the ground within the borough.
		The corresponding entry to this in Derby (DBY B1) has 'from dues and tolls and fines and all customary dues ... '. This more clearly illustrates how the sum of 75s 7d was composed. In particular it illustrates that the 'work of the burgesses' is a money payment in place of a former custom consisting of various types of labour service. These separate sources of income combine to produce the redditus burgi ('render' or 'revenue of the borough'); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 247 note 1.
	PAID. The Latin redd' could abbreviate reddit (the present tense) meaning 'pays' as translated by the Phillimore printed edition. However, it could also abbreviate reddebat or reddidit (both past tenses) which, in view of the past partita fuit in the first half of the sentence, is more likely and is how it is translated in the Alecto edition. In the context, this appears to be a 1066 payment, as the text goes on to state how the number of burgesses (and therefore probably their payments) had changed by the time Hugh son of Baldric was appointed sheriff (B3).
	75s 7d. The old English currency lasted for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated as £[ibrae], s[olidi], d[enarii] (JRM). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (for example, 20d in 10,2) and above a pound in shillings (as here).
	FROM TWO MONEYERS 40s. These men would have been in charge of the mint mentioned in B7.
B2	EARL TOSTI. Tosti(g) was the third son of Earl Godwin(e) of Wessex and brother of Earl (King) Harold. He succeeded Siward as Earl of Northumbria in 1055. His subjects ejected him from his Northumbrian earldom in 1065 and chose Morcar to replace him. As he received the third penny from this carucate of land, it appears that Nottinghamshire had been part of his earldom, although Derbyshire lay in Mercia and was then subject to Earl Edwin. There was no earl in 1086; see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Tosti, Tostius and, once each, Thostin and Tostillus - represent Old Danish/Old Norse Tosti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 387. The Alecto edition has Tosti.
	THE KING HAD 2 PENNIES; THE EARL HAD THE THIRD HIMSELF. The division of a borough's revenues between the king and the earl (sometimes between the king and the sheriff), particularly before 1066, at a rate of two-thirds to one-third is frequently recorded in Domesday Book (for example, HEF C12. STS B12. CHS C2;22. DEV C2. KEN D1. GLS B1); see also Tait, Medieval English Borough, pp. 139-93. These revenues generally included the house rents, ground rents, market tolls, profits of the court, the mint, the king's mill etc; see Tait, Medieval English Borough, p. 141; Round 'The 'Tertius Denarius' of the Borough', pp. 62-64. The earl received the tertius denarius redditus burgi. However, in the case of Nottingham no such division is recorded of the total revenue of the borough (B7), only of the render from this solitary carucate, which is probably additional to the one carucate mentioned in B1.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1240.
B3	HUGH SON OF BALDRIC, THE SHERIFF. The sheriff of Nottingham was also the sheriff of Derby until the later sixteenth century, and was already so before 1086, since his returns were attested by the 'witness of the two shires' (DBY B15). In 1086 Alstoe and Martinsley Wapentakes of 'Roteland' were also 'attached to the sheriffdom of Nottingham for the king's tax', Alstoe Wapentake was equally divided between Thurgarton Wapentake and Broxtowe Wapentake, with which it had no geographical connection; these wapentakes are therefore entered immediately after Domesday Nottinghamshire on folios 293c-294a (JRM).
		Hugh son of Baldric was also sheriff of Yorkshire. He held in chief in Nottinghamshire (NTT 22).
		The Domesday form of his Christian name, Hugo (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is Hugonis, the accusative Hugonem, the dative Hugoni and the ablative Hugone), represents Old German Hugo, Old French Hugon, Huë: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin Hugo (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh. The Domesday form of his father, Baldric(us), represents Old German Baldric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 191. The Alecto edition also has Baldric.
	FOUND. That is, when he was appointed at an unknown date before 1086.
	136 MEN ... NOW THERE ARE 16 LESS. These 'men' are presumably burgesses. Similarly in Derby there had been a decline in burgess numbers, in that case from 243 to 140.
	ON THE EARL'S LAND. Presumably, that is, on the 1 carucate held by Earl Tosti (B2).
	IN THE NEW BOROUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined the words In nouo burgo, extending the I of In downwards to the line below to act as an insertion sign. Farley printed in and a separate vertical insertion mark, as he did frequently; no further mention of his practice has been made in these notes. This addition may have been done during the initial writing of this county, to aid understanding. The scribe had originally intended to say only that these 13 new houses were built on the earl's land (attached to but not in the (old) borough of Nottingham). The interlineation explains where Earl Tosti's carucate (formerly arable land) lay, that is, the new borough has been built on it. This was what became known as the French borough, adjacent to the castle, and encompassing the Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas in contrast to that of St Mary which was the Ancient Parish of the English borough; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 237; Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 26. It appears that the streets called Castle Gate, Hounds Gate and Friar Lane were all laid out in relation to the castle and that they formed the nucleus of the new borough; see Drage, Nottingham Castle, p. 19. The shape of the two Ancient Parishes of St Peter and St Nicholas suggests that they were carved out of the Ancient Parish of St Mary.
		There were also 'new boroughs' at Rye in Sussex (SUS 5,1), Rhuddlan in 'North Wales' (CHS FT 2,19) and at Northampton (NTH B1). In Nottingham their customs diverged in various ways, including, in the English borough, inheritance by ultimogeniture; see Stevenson, 'Land Tenures in Nottinghamshire', pp. 66-71.
	THE OLD BOROUGH. That is, the Anglo-Saxon borough. It was fortified by a semi-circular rampart, with a cliff forming its southern defence; see B1 borough note. The two 'boroughs' were not separated, but adjoined each other. For their history and topographical relationship, see Mastoris, 'Boundary between the English and French Boroughs', pp. 68-74; Rogers, 'Parish Boundaries and Urban History', pp. 51-56; Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 25-26 and map.
B4	ONE CHURCH, IN THE KING'S LORDSHIP. This appears to have been the church of St Mary; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 238. This was clearly an important church, probably collegiate, endowed with land and rendering £5 per annum (B15).
		The church must have been granted by William I or a subsequent king to William Peverel for at some time before 1108 the latter founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were the church of St Mary in Nottingham; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100.
	IN WHOSE [LAND]. The Latin in qua ('in which') literally says that the messuages lie in the church, but 'in the church's appurtenant land' is implied.
	MESSUAGES. The Phillimore printed translation has 'residences'. The Latin is mansiones, which is difficult to differentiate in meaning from ma(n)surae. Because of its occasional association with domus ('house', 'dwelling') mansio is clearly more than a house. A messuage is a house-site, and may or not contain one or more houses. In Nottingham Roger of Bully has 3 mansiones in which there are 11 houses (B8). The Alecto edition has 'messuages'.
	OF THE ABOVE SIX CARUCATES. That is, of those mentioned in B1 and B5. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined sex, extending the s downwards to act as an insertion sign; this was probably an immediate correction, like the interlined eo in B6.
	TO THIS CHURCH BELONG 5½ ACRES OF LAND. This detail clearly makes the church a superior instituton. It is unclear whether the 5 ½ acres were additional to the 6 carucates or were or had been part of them.
		The ad was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in larger letters than the surrounding text to fill the space caused by the erasure of a longer word.
B5	6 CARUCATES. These 6 carucates have already been mentioned (in B1) as they were in 1066. By 1086 they may have, in effect, been reduced by the loss of 5 bovates (held by the church, B4) and perhaps by a further 5 ½ acres which belonged to the same church (also B4), unless the burgesses were also ploughing these. The population had also changed, the 19 villagers being replaced by 20 smallholders, a classification of population that seems to have arrived with the Conquest.
	OF LAND FOR PLOUGHING. The tre (= terrae) is interlined, the main scribe of Great Domesday extended the r downwards to indicate its position. For its importance, see B1 land note.
		The Latin phrase ad arandum is clumsy; it strictly means 'to plough' or 'for ploughing' rather than the 'to be ploughed' required here. It has probably been transferred from some other phrase such as boues/ animalia ad arandum ('oxen/ cattle for ploughing'). The Latin arabiles would have served better or terra totidem carucarum ('land for as many ploughs') or terra totidem boum ('land for as many oxen'). The phrase does, however, make an important point that the 'fiscal carucates' (ad geldum regis, B1) and the 'field carucates' (ad arandum) are the same; see Round, 'Domesday Measures of Land', pp. 199-201; VCH Derbyshire, i. p. 318; and DBY 6,101 carucates note.
B6	THEY. That is, the burgesses ('men') just mentioned.
	RIVER TRENT. The Latin is in aqua Trente. The Trente could conceivably be genitive, that is Trentae ('in the water of the Trent').
	THAT. The Latin quod here, with interlined eo, is not 'because', as in the Phillimore printed edition, but 'on the grounds that': it introduces the statement of their complaint.
	PREVENTED FROM FISHING. The Latin piscari prohibentur contains the mild verb prohibeo ('stop' or 'prevent') which was translated in the Phillimore printed edition as 'forbidden', as if the Latin were piscari uetantur.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1241. She has 'because they are prohibited from fishing'.
B7	£18; NOW IT PAYS £30 AND £10 FROM THE MINT. These sums are the amounts for which the borough was 'farmed'. The £10 from the mint replaces the 40s that two moneyers paid in 1066 (B1); the latter sum was probably included in the £18; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 236.
		This statement terminates the first part of the survey of the borough.
B8	ROGER OF BULLY. He was the largest landholder in Nottinghamshire in 1086; see NTT 9 Roger note.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Rogerius, Rogerus, but frequently abbreviated to Rog' - represent Old German Hrodger, Rodger, Rotger, Rog(g)er etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger.
	3 MESSUAGES. See B4 messuages note.
B9	WILLIAM PEVEREL. For his fief, see NTT 10 and NTT 10 William note.
		The Domesday form of his Christian name, Willelmus (often abbreviated to Will's), represents Old German Willihelm, Willehelm, Willelm, Romance Guill[i]elm: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.
	48 MERCHANTS' HOUSES. The presence of these mercatores implies the existence of a mercatum ('market').
	12 HORSEMEN'S HOUSES. Probably of milites, in garrison immediately after 1066; William Peverel was or had been keeper of Nottingham Castle (JRM). However, these horsemen (Latin equitum, the genitive plural of eques, which is the equivalent of Old English cnicht) might also have been escorts, conveyed messages and assisted in guarding the main lines of communication; see B20 Nottingham note, and, on the castle, see {Introduction: Castles}.
	8 SMALLHOLDERS. Their presence implies that William Peverel has a share of the borough's arable land.
B10	RALPH OF BURON. For his fief, see NTT 15 and NTT 15 Ralph note.
		The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Radulfus, Radulf, Radolf - represent Old German Radulf, from which Norman Radulf and Old French Raoul were derived: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from Radulf and Raoul (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the T.R.E. holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.
	HORSEMEN'S HOUSES. See B9 horsemen's note. It is possible that Ralph of Buron had some responsability (otherwise unmentioned) for the protection of Nottinghamshire.
B11	WULFBERT <OF NOTTINGHAM>, 4 HOUSES. The main scribe of Great Domesday added this statement in a space at the end of the account of Ralph of Buron's houses (B10); lack of space meant he had to interline .iiii. dom'. This insertion was done using a finer pen.
		The Domesday forms of Wulfbert - Vlbert(us), Gulbertus, Wlb[er]t[us] - represent Old German Wulfbert: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 418; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 259. The Alecto edition has Wulfbert for T.R.E. holders, Gulbert for 1086 ones.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		Wulfbert is an uncommon name, occurring on fewer than twenty holdings in Domesday Book, none of them close enough, or with tenurial associations or other links, to be plausibly connected with this urban holding in Nottingham (JP).
B12	RALPH SON OF HUBERT. For his fief, see NTT 13.
		For his name, see B10 Ralph note. The Domesday forms of his father's name, Hubertus, often abbreviated to Hub[er]t[us], represents Old German Hugubert, Hubert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 156. The Alecto edition also has Hubert.
B13	GEOFFREY ALSELIN. For his fief, see NTT 12; see NTT 12 Geoffrey note.
		The Domesday forms of his first name - Goisfridus, Gosfridus, Gaufridus, Gaufridus, Gaosfridus - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as Galfridus or Gaufridus and Goisfridus and Gosfridus' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Jeffray etc.). Goisfridus and Gosfridus represent Old German Gosfrid, Romance Josfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 125-26. Gaufridus apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as Gaufrid, Gautfred, Waldfrid, Walfrid: ibidem, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German God(e)frid (on whom, see ibidem, pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME Geffrey, from Old French Geuffroi, Jeufroi or Old French Jefroi (Reaney, ibidem). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', Index of Persons, p. ix.
	AITARD THE PRIEST. The Domesday forms - Aitard[us], Aitardus - represent Romance Aitard, Old German Eidhart: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 17-18. The Alecto edition has Aitard.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and there is only one other occurrence in Great Domesday (CHS 9,17), almost certainly not the same as this priest. The name occurs several times in Little Domesday, however; on the identification by John Palmer of Aitard [* of Vaux *], see NFK 1,106 Aitard note. Aitard here was possibly the principal priest of the royal church of St Mary (B4).
B14	IN THE PRIEST'S CROFT. This priest presumably served the important royal church of St Mary (B4). The Phillimore printed translation has 'priests' croft', as if p[res]b[ite]ri were genitive plural, not singular.
		Evidently not all 65 houses were occupied by a priest or priests, but the houses appear to have been built on church land. Crofta presbiteri is almost a street-name ('Priest's Croft'), relating to a group of dwellings of mixed ownership dominated by and named from the croft of a priest.
	THE KING HAS FULL JURISDICTION. This follows from his holding of the church of St Mary (B4).
		The Latin cum saca et soca is from Old English sacu ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and socn (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of saca in the phrase implies one particular meaning of soca; for others, see {jurisdiction}. Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to investigate and hear cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and justice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.
B15	THIS ENTRY is really part of the previous one with which it shares a gallows sign, used by the main scribe of Great Domesday to mark out divisions in the account of the Borough of Nottingham.
	THE CHURCH. That is, the royal church of St Mary (B4).
B16	THIS ENTRY was probably briefly omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he was listing the other men's houses in the borough (B8-13). There is no sign in the manuscript that it was a later addition like the entry for Wulfbert's houses (B11 Wulfbert note), pace Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 30.
	RICHARD THE FRAIL. The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Ricard(us), Ricard - represents Old German Ricard, Richard: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 213-14; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 349. The Alecto edition also has Richard. Here Richard is given the nickname 'the frail': fresle is Old French from Latin fragilis ('breakable'); see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 313. Both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition call him Richard Frail. Although plain Richard occurs five times in Nottinghamshire (3,4. 9,37;88. 13,11. 22,2), this is the only occurrence of this byname in Domesday Book. Any or none of the men called simply Richard may be the same as the present individual. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 365, under Ricardus Fresle, mentions a Richard Freslart.
B17	IN THE BOROUGH DITCH. This is probably the defensive ditch that encircled the wall of the borough. It seems to be implied that these houses have sprung up since 1066, a sort of shanty town under no one's authority or control.
	17 HOUSES, AND 6 OTHER HOUSES. This odd expression could have been the result of the main scribe of Great Domesday's drawing his information from two sources and failing to combine it, or 'horsemen's' or 'merchants' ' could be missing from the 17 houses.
B18	WILLIAM PEVEREL. For his fief, see NTT 10; and for his houses in the borough, see B9. On the name William, see B9 William note.
	TO MAKE AN ORCHARD. The Latin pomerium is an alternative medieval spelling for pomarium, derived from pomum ('fruit', 'apple'). There is a Classical Latin pomerium, meaning 'a bare strip of land marking the formal boundary around a town' which seems unlikely here, as the 5 acres seem to imply a compact area of land rather than a narrow strip. If, however, William Peverel had been given land to 'create an enceinte', then he would appear to be the founder of the new, French borough at Nottingham; see B3.
B19	EDWARD. The Domesday forms - Eduuard(us), Eduardus, Eaduuardus, Edw[ardus], Euuard[us] etc. - represent Old English Eadweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- and the second element -ward for Old English -weard, as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edward has survived into modern times and the king is known as Edward. The Alecto edition also has Edward.
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND WITH THE TAX. The 'tax' is Latin geldum, so this land pays tax on arable land in the normal way, as would be expected from the content of the entry, which, in effect, records a rural estate; see B1 land note.
		This entry is duplicated at 1,63 where the estate is identified as being in Sneinton which was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Nottingham St Mary.
	12 ACRES OF MEADOW. The Latin ac[ra]s, accusative plural, could be the object of either 'the king has' or '11 villagers who have'. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation, preserved here, suggests the latter, while that in the Alecto edition, with a comma after the 4 ploughs, implies the former. However, in the repeat of this entry at 1,63 there is no ambiguity: the villagers have both the 4 ploughs and the 12 acres of meadow. See 1,1 fishery note.
	NOTHING IN LORDSHIP. That is, no lordship land or ploughs.
B20	IN NOTTINGHAM. It is possible, in view of the content of the entry that 'Nottinghamshire' should be understood. Even though this is the last entry in the 'Borough section', this position is also the repository for miscellaneous information. The county town is put for the shire in other instances; see, for example, Derby for Derbyshire (DBY B15) and Stafford for Staffordshire (DBY 1,25). Ostensibly this section is about guarding routes by land and water, and it may be connected with the large number of horsemens' houses mentioned in this section (B9-10). The River Trent debouches into the River Humber near Hull and was certainly navigable from Nottingham to the sea, as well as upstream as far as Repton (in Derbyshire). However, the road is said to be 'to York' rather than to London, which suggests that the prime concern may have been to keep open the routes leading northwards in the event that a rapid advance was needed from the south to crush a renewed revolt in the north, as well as to ensure that the king's messages could reach York and further north and that food and goods could pass freely. There is an echo of this in Yorkshire (YKS C37), where in connection with the city of York, Domesday says 'The King has three routes by land and a fourth by water'. In the case of this Nottinghamshire entry, identification of these routes hinges on the identity of the fossa (here rendered as 'dyke'). If it is the Foss Way, then as that Roman road from Leicester to Lincoln to York does not pass through Nottingham, '-shire' should probably be supplied. If that is so, then the road towards York might be what became the Great North Road; that is now largely the A1 trunk road throughout much of its length, which crosses the Foss Way at Newark-on-Trent. That too passes through Nottinghamshire, but not through Nottingham; nor does it lead directly to York and its date of establishment as a through-route to the north is unknown. However, both identifications seem doubtful; see B20 canal note and B20 road note.
		It is possible that the grant by Henry I of tol et theam et infangenetheof et telonia to the burgesses of Nottingham, confirmed by Henry II, was a transfer to them of rights that he had enjoyed and which were connected with the 'guarding' of these routes. The burgesses are to enjoy these rights a Thurmotestona usque ad Newerc, et de omnibus Trentam transeuntibus, ita plenarie ut in burgo de Nottingeham, et ex alia parte a duito ultra Rempestunam usque ad aquam de Radeford in Nort ('from Thrumpton as far as Newark[-on-Trent] and from all crossing the [River] Trent, as fully as in the borough of Nottingham, and elsewhere from the watercourse beyond Rempstone as far as the water of ?'Radford' in the north': Stevenson, Nottingham Charters, p. 2 (= Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 198). Thrumpton (SK 5031) lies south of Nottingham on the River Trent near the point (SK5133) where the river begins to form the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Newark-on-Trent lies to the north-east. Stenton in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 238, took the de omnibus Trentam transeuntibus as meaning 'all people passing along the Trent'; this may be so, because Latin transeo, in a nautical sense, can mean 'sail across' but also 'sail along', as in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 303, where viam ad transeuntes impedivit referring to a fishery on a river means ' it blocked the passage of those sailing along it'. However, the et might suggest that this is a further source of revenue for the burgesses. Rempstone (SK 5724) lies in the south of the county. The road from the south (the A60) crosses a brook (the Kings Brook) at SK 5723 by a bridge (Kings Bridge); it is 'beyond Rempstone' if one starts from Nottingham. This brook is no doubt the duito of the charter which is a French form (with Latin termination) of Latin ductus (from duco, 'to lead'), more commonly found in this sense in the compound form conductus, French conduit ('passage', 'course', 'pipe'). Stenton, following Stevenson, took the aquam de Radeford to be the River Ryton at Blyth. In fact the same major road, the A60, crosses this river at Oldcoates (SK5888) shortly before leaving the county. However, there is no trace of a Radeford nearby. A possible candidate for that is East Retford and West Retford where the Great North Road (the A638 at this point) crosses the River Idle at SK 7081. There is an (Old) Radford on the west side of Nottingham, on the River Leen, but it is not 'in the North'. It is quite possible that Radeford is the same place that features in the toll that Roger of Bully gave to Blyth Prior, that is, probably, 'Radford' in Worksop, a fording-place on the River Ryton; see 9,49 Blyth note. On this toll, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, iii. p. 271 no. 737; Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 21.
		The charter also concerns itself with free passage: Et iter de Trenta liberum esse debet navigantibus quantum pertica una obtinebit ex utra parte fili aquae (' And the route along the Trent must be open to those travelling by boat to the extent of one perch on either side of the course of the water').
	THE RIVER TRENT. It is unlikely to be mentioned as affording a route southwards by water, although small craft could reach Repton (in Derbyshire) and Burton-on-Trent (in Staffordshire). As far as Nottingham and in both directions as far as Lincoln it was certainly important since a writ of King Henry I regarding the construction of a bridge at Newark-on-Trent asks that it does not 'injure' his boroughs of Nottingham and Lincoln; see 6,1 Newark note.
		An entry for Torksey (Lincolnshire), which lies on the Trent, indicates the river's importance: 'if the king's officers should come there, the men of this small town should conduct them with their boats and other equipment for navigation as far as York ... ' (LIN T1).
	THE CANAL. The Latin is fossa which is derived from the verb fodio ('to dig') and itself has a basic meaning of 'something dug', 'something excavated'. Among its more precise meanings are 'ditch or 'channel' or 'canal'. The Phillimore printed edition has 'dyke'; the Alecto edition has 'ditch'. 'Dyke' could be misunderstood as it also commonly refers to an embankment to keep water in or out. VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 239, mentions three possibilities. According to Ballard, Domesday Boroughs, p. 85, it was the city ditch. However, Domesday itself mentions the borough ditch (the fossatum burgi not the fossa burgi) in which there are 23 houses. This former ditch (presumably part of the defensive works of the burh) is unlikely to have been in use or have needed guarding. Green, Conquest of England, p. 439, apparently connected the fossa with the York road and would translate 'the ditch and the road that runs to York', though it is difficult to see what this really signifies. Stenton himself in VCH suggested the Foss Way, pointing out that 'it forms the high road from Newark to Nottingham for 12 miles', but failed to note that it did not actually come to Nottingham. JRM considered this possible and said: 'possibly the Foss Way; more probably either a defence work linking the old Borough with the new Borough built in 924 south of the Trent, or the great ditch that joined the Norman Castle to the old Borough'.
		Clearly the three items here (the River Trent, the fossa and the road to York) correspond to the two methods of transport (by water or by road) given later in the entry. From its position in the list, the fossa could be either a land route or a water route. However, it is by no means certain that fossa alone can stand for the Foss Way or that the road itself was known by that name in 1086. In documents cited in 6,1 Newark note it is called a regia strata ' a royal paved way' or chiminum fossae, either 'the track of the ditch', perhaps a loose expression for 'ditched track' or 'the track called the Foss', the genitive fossae being used as in Civitas Londinii ('the city of London'). The Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 11, cites viam de Fosse (1250), stratam quae dicitur Fosse (thirteenth century), via de Fosse (1289). Only apud Fosse (1330) in a limited context suggests the use of simple fossa for Foss Way. In other counties through which the road passes the word Fos, or Foss or Fossa alone is rarely used to denote the highway. In Gloucestershire it is stratum quae vocatur Fosse in 931 (Place-Names of Gloucestershire, i. p. 17), in Wiltshire it is regia via vocata Fos (Place-Names of Wiltshire, p. 15). In Warwickshire (Place-Names of Warwickshire, p. 7) it is stratam publicam que ab antiquis stret nunc fos nuncupatur ('the public road which [was called] stret by earlier generations and is now called fos'), and in alta via quae dicitur Fosse ('on the high road which is named Fosse'). Examples where the word is used alone as in a boundary clause as andlang Foss, 'along the Fosse' (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 115) or in another as in Fosse juxta Bretford (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1577) are in contexts where the meaning is clear. It is impossible to be certain, but it seems probable that had the main scribe of Domesday, who usually wrote with clarity, intended the via quae vocatur fosse or some such phrase, he would have used it.
		The most obvious conclusion is that fossa is a channel or canal. As it approaches Nottingham, the River Trent forms a number of loops which were abbreviated at unknown dates by 'cuts'. Moreover, the Trent did not pass the gates of medieval Nottingham and it is possible that a canal brought its waters and the ships on it closer to the walls of the borough or of the castle. It is the River Leen that passed below the fortifications of the castle. It appears that its course was altered at some time to serve mills belonging to the borough (Drage, Nottingham Castle, p. 19) but it could also have been canalised from its confluence with the River Trent. There was also a 'leat' in existence in the Middle Ages from the River Trent at Wilford (SK5637) to serve some mills near the borough (Drage, Nottingham Castle, p. 63), though it is not certain if this was its original purpose. More significantly, there were medieval complaints about obstuctions to the navigation of the River Trent that prevented ships from coming to the castle; see Deering, History of Nottingham, pp. 189-90. Drage (Nottingham Castle, p. 64) is inclined to dismiss this as hyperbole, but the matter requires further investigation and elucidation.
	THE ROAD TO YORK. The most obvious implication is that this road leads from Nottingham to York and corresponds in its southern section to the A614. This through route leaves Watling Street at Stony Stratford (SP 7940) in Buckinghamshire (as the A508), passing through Northampton and Leicester to Nottingham, then onwards to York via Blyth and Doncaster. An alternative as far as Doncaster is what is now the A60 passing through Mansfield and Worksop.
	HINDERS THE PASSAGE OF SHIPS. The Latin naues can mean 'boats'.
	MAKES A DITCH. Such an excavation would narrow or undermine the road. In the borough of Derby according to Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 62, the Abbot of Derby was accused of constructing a ditch (60 feet by two feet) too close to the king's road.
	2 PERCHES. The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 ½ feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, Dictionary of English Weights and Measures, under perch; see also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 120). Perches also appear in NTT 1,20;42. 9,126. 16,9, but there they are part of the two measurements given for pasturable woodland and/or meadow.
	HAS TO PAY A FINE OF £8. The use of the Latin habet with an infinitive (of which 'has to' is an exact translation) is idiomatic for emendare debet. The strict notion of emendare is 'to make amends', 'to make compensation' and the 'fine' itself is expressed as the means by which compensation is made, literally 'rights the fault by means of eight pounds'.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1242.
	AFTER THIS FINAL ENTRY on the borough of Nottingham, on folio 280b, the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the account of the borough of Derby. For the notes to this, see DBY B1-16.
LIST 1	[SHIRE CUSTOMS]. These transcribe an English record, since they speak of the Earl, though there was no Earl in 1086 (JRM). The tenses are present.
		The two shires of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were closely linked and shared a sheriff. The Domesday record of the two shires seems to have been approved at a joint session of the shire court; see DBY B15 shires note.
S1	KING'S PEACE, GIVEN BY HIS HAND OR SEAL. That is, peace given personally by the king or by someone else on his behalf carrying his seal or the imprint of it.
	A FINE IS PAID BY 18 HUNDREDS [OF "ORAE"]; EACH HUNDRED [OF "ORAE" MAKES] £8. This particular use of the word 'hundred' describes a fine imposed for a breach of the king's peace, that is a long hundred [120] of "orae", making £8 at 16d to the "ora". The "ora" was reckoned at both 16d and 20d, the 20d rate generally being thought of as implying payments by tale to allow for clipping, though Grierson ('The Monetary System under William I', Domesday Book Studies, p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 112-13)) thinks a 4d allowance is excessive and payments at 20d were widespread; see {Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}. £8 is the equivalent of 12 silver marks, though at the rate of 20d to the "ora"; see S3 marks note. The boroughs of Lincoln (LIN C32) and York (YKS C38) had similar customs. They are also implicit in the provision of the Wantage Code of King Ethelred II (III Æthelred, c. 997), where breach of the peace, given in the assembly of the Five Boroughs, 'is amended by 12 hundred [silver "orae"]', peace given in the meeting of one borough by six and in the wapentake by one. The detailed provisions of the Code are:
		(1.1) And the peace which the ealdorman or the king's reeve gives in the meeting of the Five Boroughs, that is to be atoned for with twelve hundred.
		(1.2) And the peace which is given in the meeting of one borough is to be atoned for with six hundred; and that which is given in a wapentake, is to be atoned for with a hundred, if it is broken; and that which is given in an alehouse, is to be atoned for, if a man is killed, with six half-marks, and if no one is killed with 12 "orae". [The rate for death would be double that for assault without killing if the rate of 20d to the "ora" is used, but if the 16d rate is used, 30 "orae" would be the equivalent of six half-marks (£2: S3 marks note).]
		The translation is from English Historical Documents, vol. i. pp. 439-40 no. 43. For the text, which is both in Old English and in Latin, see Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i. p. 228, and Robertson, Laws of the Kings of England, pp. 64-65, 318-19. See also Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 509-10. These 'hundreds' are clearly units of money, as they are in a charter of immunities confirmed on the cathedral church of York successively by King Henry I, King Stephen and King Henry II cited by Round (Feudal England, p. 69) from John of Hexham (in Raine, Priory of Hexham, i. p. 61): Si quis enim quemlibet cujuscumque facinoris aut flagitii reum et convictum infra atrium ecclesiae caperet et retineret, universali judicio vi hundreth emendabit; si vero infra ecclesiam xii hundreth, infra chorum xviii... In hundreth viii librae continentur ('For if anyone captures and holds in the precinct of the church someone accused and convicted of any crime or sin, by the judgment of all he will pay a fine of 6 hundred ["orae"], if within the church itself, of 12 hundred, if within the choir, of 18 [hundred] ... £8 are contained in a hundred'). The mention of these hundreds in the Wantage Code does not prove the existence at that time of the territorial small hundreds that are bound up with carucation, although the latter, which were in existence by 1086, may have become the territory responsible for providing the fine; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 242; and {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'through the 18 Hundreds; each Hundred, £8', while the Alecto edition has 'by 18 hundreds, each hundred [paying] £8'. Roffe, 'Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 18, says of the territorial hundred: 'Its basic function, however, was related to the maintenance of law and order. Breach of the king's peace in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was amended by eighteen hundreds, each of which paid £8, twelve paying to the king and six to the earl'. (However, in Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 18, under 'Danish Ora', it is stated that 'breach of the peace was based on a long hundred, i.e. 120, of the same sum 16d x 120d [sic] = £8'.) Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1243, has: 'In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, when the King's peace is broken, which has been given by his hand or his seal, a fine is paid throughout eighteen hundreds, with each hundred paying £8. The King has two-thirds of this fine and the earl a third: that is twelve hundreds pay the king a fine and six the earl'.
		In these translations, it appears that the hundreds envisaged are the territorial units, whereas both the Wantage Code and John of Hexham make clear that these hundreds are sums of money. This territorial interpretation may have been influenced by the presence of the Latin preposition per. This is evident in Fleming's translation 'throughout eighteen hundreds'. However, although per was originally spatial in sense ('through', 'throughout'), it is used in Classical Latin and commonly in Medieval Latin as an alternative for the Ablative of the Agent (as a substitute for the preposition a or ab) or for the Instrumental Ablative ('by means of') which itself appears as a plain case without preposition and could therefore mislead. It is this ablative that is used in the Latin version of the Wantage Code, for example emendetur xii hund[redis] ('compensation should be made by 12 hundreds') and pax quae dabitur in ealahus emendetur de homine occiso sex dimidiis marcis, de vivo duodecim oris (literally 'for [the breaking of] peace which shall be given in an alehouse, compensation should be paid by six half-marks concerning a man killed and by 12 "orae" concerning [a man injured but] alive'.The meaning of the present text em[en]da[tur] p[er] xviii. hundrez and of YKS C38 emendatur p[er] xii hund[dreda] appears to be identical (apart from the Nottinghamshire figures and the mood of emendatur) with the Wantage Code's emendetur xii hund[redis]. What Domesday contains and the Wantage Code does not is a fine for breach of the peace given by the king's own hand. In the Wantage Code the fine of twelve hundred is for breach of peace given by the ealdorman or king's reeve.
		It follows that these hundreds are amounts of money and when in the present entry the Latin reads Vnu[m]q[uo]dq[ue] hund[dredum] .viii. lib[rae] and in YKS C38 un[um] q[uo]dq[ue] hund[redum] .viii librae, the meaning is 'each hundred [of "orae"] is [equivalent to] £8'. The phrasing of LIN C32 is similar in that it has emendatur p[er] xviii hundrez ('a fine is paid by 18 hundreds [of "orae"]'), but that is followed by un[um]q[uo]dq[ue] hund[redum] soluit .viii. libras. Latin soluit (' pays') fits better with the notion of a territorial hundred and it would be wrong to force it to mean 'amounts to', though 'renders' would suit the notion of a hundred "orae" producing £8. Nonetheless it is possible that the scribe himself was momentarily thinking of the territorial unit but the translation adopted for that entry ('12 hundreds [of "orae"] are the fine paid to the king and 6 to the earl') does not violate the Latin.
		Despite this, it appears that there is nothing in these several Domesday entries that clearly indicates that these hundreds were units of land. Examples from before and after Domesday show that these are units of money and it would be strange if Domesday in adopting very similar provisions from Ethelred's Code couched in nearly identical phrasing should at the same time be supplanting one meaning of 'hundred' with an entirely different one.
	ARE THE FINE PAID. The Latin (extended) is xii hundreda emendant regi et vi comiti, literally, '12 hundreds [of "orae"] repair the fault/ expiate the crime to the king and 6 to the earl'; see S1 hundreds note
	THE EARL THE THIRD. See B2 pennies note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly to separate the important fine for breach of the peace from the other fines and dues.
S2	FOR ANY CRIME. The Latin is pro aliquo reatu, literally 'for any state of being accused', reus being 'a man accused' and reatus his situation in so being.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1244.
	TO HIM. The main scribe of Great Domesday added ei in slightly darker ink and smaller letters, oddly hard up against the preceding word, though there was plenty of space before the vertical score delimiting the ruled space of this column.
S3	A THANE WHO HAS MORE THAN 6 MANORS. For a similar provision, see YKS C40. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1245. She omits to translate both occurrences of tantum ('to the king alone' and 'only 6 [manors] or less') and renders the subjunctive maneat ('wherever he may live') by an indicative; she also seems to 'translate' ubicunque ('wherever') as 'whether'.
	DEATH-DUTY. The relevatio or relevium, the 'relief' or 'heriot', was paid by the heir on taking up his inheritance. The scale of rates was laid down in the law codes, especially 2 Canute 71 and 'Laws of King William' 20 [= Robertson, Laws of the Kings of England, pp. 210-11, 262-63]. The villanus paid an ox, cow or horse, the censarius (10,3 tributaries note) a year's tribute (JRM).
	3 SILVER MARKS. A silver mark was worth 13s 4d, so 3 silver marks were worth £2. This is at a reckoning of 20d to the "ora", as the mark contained 8 "orae" in England as in Scandinavia (Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 510). If the "ora" is the lighter one (= 16d), then 8 "orae" would be the equivalent of 10s 8d and three would be 32s. See Grierson, 'The Monetary System under William I', Domesday Book Studies, p. 75 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 112-13); he only mentions that the mark was worth 13s 4d. According to Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 18, under 'Danish Ora', the mark consisted of 10 "orae" at 16d.
S4	A THANE WHO HAS FULL JURISDICTION. Despite the tense (List 1 customs note), this refers to the situation in 1066, when many men, among them, no doubt, a number of thanes, held land with full jurisdiction; see, for example, HUN 11,1. NTH 1,27. 2,1-2. 3,1. 4,1;8. 5,2-3. 16,2. 18,1. Such men are not normally described explicitly as thanes, but in NTH 48,4 four thanes held Wollaston with full jurisdiction. On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.
	FORFEITS HIS LAND. The Latin verb forisfacio, a compound of foris and facio, means 'to make outside', 'put beyond', and refers to the loss of the use of a piece of land as punishment for a crime or sin.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1246. She treats forisfecerit as subjunctive ('should forfeit'). It is much more likely to be future perfect ('shall have forfeited') as commonly in such clauses, usually rendered by the present indicative ('forfeits') in accordance with normal English usage. The Phillimore printed translation has 'should forfeit', but the Alecto edition has 'forfeits'.
	POSSESSIONS. Latin pecunia has several meanings, including livestock (the word comes from pecus, 'flock', 'herd') and money, and has to be translated according to the context. Thus in LEC 6,4, it must refer to the resources of an estate having been included in the previous entry. Here it probably means all that he owns. The Phillimore printed translation has 'money', the Alecto edition 'resources' and Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1246, has 'goods'.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space to separate the shire customs from the list of those who had full jurisdiction and market rights etc.
S5	LIST OF THOSE WHO HAD. In keeping with the customs themselves, this is a list that refers to 1066, although Earl Hugh, Henry of Ferrers and Walter of Aincourt only arrived at or after the Conquest. The see of Lichfield was only transferred to Chester in 1075, so the mention of a Bishop of Chester is also anachronistic; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 231. On this section, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1247.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Hic notant' qui habuer' over an erasure.
	FULL JURISDICTION. The number of those having full jurisdiction in 1066 will greatly have exceeded those on this list; thus the phrase is to be take in conjunction with 'full market rights'. Those listed were the rare possessors of both.
		On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.
	MARKET RIGHTS. Thaim is jurisdiction over disputed 'warranty'; in connection with toll, it is probably concerned with the seller's title to cattle and other goods taken to market (JRM).
		Thol 7 Thaim, from Old English toll ('tax') and team ('cattle'), is more commonly translated 'toll and team', as (for example) in the Alecto translation. It means the 'right to receive tolls on merchandise and probably to hold a market', according to the Glossary in Domesday Book Studies.
	THE KING'S CUSTOMARY DUES OF 2 PENNIES. That is, the two pennies that usually went to the king when revenues were divided two-thirds/ one-third between king and earl; see B2 pennies note. The earl (there being one in 1066) still received his.
	ARCHBISHOP OF YORK OVER HIS MANORS. See NTT 5.
	COUNTESS GODIVA OVER NEWARK WAPENTAKE. See NTT 6,1 and 6,1 dues note.
		The Domesday forms of her name - Godeua, Godeue, Godiua, Godgeua etc. - represent Old English Godgifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 264. JRM preferred the form Godiva as it reflected most of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Godgifu.
	ULF FENMAN. He was the predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent; see 17,1 Ulf note.
		The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Vlf(us), Olf(us), Wlf etc. - represent Old Norse Ulfr, Old Danish Ulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 400-401. Ulfr appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but has been standardized now as Ulf. The Alecto edition has Ulf.
		According to Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 135, fenisc is Old Scandinavian fjonski ('from Fjon' = Fûnen, a Danish island), quoting EHR 25 (1910), p. 594 (a review by Jón Stefánsson of Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und frühmittelenglischer Zeit); Tengvik rejects derivation from Scandinavian fe-niskr ('niggard'). However, fenisc may be 'Fenish', 'from the Fens', though this may imply more than 'from the fens', possibly that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage.
	THE ABBOT OF PETERBOROUGH OVER COLLINGHAM. See NTT 8,1.
	THE ABBOT OF BURTON. See DBY 3.
	EARL HUGH OVER MARKEATON. See DBY 4,1. Earl Siward had held it in 1066. On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.
	THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. See DBY 2. In 1066 the bishop's seat was at Lichfield.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. The Domesday forms - Tochi, Toka, Toche, Toke, Tocha, Tochil, Thoka, Toca, Toco, Tocho, Tohe, Toc etc. - represent Old Norse/Old Danish Toki: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 385-86; see note 5 on the Toki here and elsewhere in Nottinghamshire, as also in DBY, NTH, LEC, YKS and LIN being the son of Auti. On this important T.R.E. landholder, see Foster and Longley, Lincolnshire Domesday, p. xxx; see also VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 231; VCH Derbyshire, i. p. 305; VCH Northamptonshire, i. p. 292. The Domesday form of his father's name is Outi (LIN C4. T5). The other Domesday forms of Old Danish Auti are Auti(us), Alti(us): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 169; see Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 43-44. There is a Tochi f[ilius] Otta in YKS C36, who had virtually identical rights in York as Toki son of Auti did in Lincoln and as Toki here. However, Otta represents Old Danish Otti according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 342; but see Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, p. 208. Neither she nor von Feilitzen, nor Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 193, made the link between Tochi filius Outi and Tochi filius Otta and it is possible that as both Auti and Otti were Old Danish names there were two people with sons called Toki, but it is also possible, in view of the position of both men in Lincoln and York and of Toki here, that Otta (interlined in YKS C36) is a scribal error at some stage in the Domesday process for Outi. The Alecto edition has Toki and Auti and Toki son of Auti for YKS C36.
		On Toki being one of Geoffrey Alselin's chief predecessors, see 12,1 Toki note.
	SWEIN SON OF SVAVI. The Domesday forms of Swein - Suain, Suen(us), Suuen, Suein, Suuain, Suan(us), Suuan, Suin[us] etc. - represent Old Norse Sveinn, Old Danish/Old Swedish Sven: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire this name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition also has Swein. The Domesday form of his father's name, Suaue (genitive), represents Old Danish Svavi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 380. It appears as Swafi in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has Svavi.
		Swein son of Svavi only appears as such here and in LIN C9 and T5; in the latter he also had full jurisdiction and market rights, as here. The Swein who was Roger of Bully's predecessor may have been Svavi's son (see 9,31 Swein note), but there is no evidence that any of the other men simply called Swein who held in Nottinghamshire in 1066 were this individual. Swein was a very common name.
	SIWARD BARN. The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Siuuard, Seuuard(us), Seuuar, Seiard(us), Seiar - probably represent Old Danish Sigwarth rather than Old English Sigeweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 361-63. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Siward. His byname is Old Norse Barn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 192. This is the only reference to Siward Barn in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but he appears in LIN T5 as having full jurisdiction and market rights in that county, as he did here. He was Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in one of his Warwickshire estates (WAR 19,1, but probably 19,2-3 as well), as also in GLS 59,1 and LIN 21,1, and his predecessor Siward here (24,1-2), in DBY 6,5;14;17;54;57;66;69-70;79;100 and in BRK 21,11;18 was probably Siward Barn. He was the man who joined Hereward the Wake in 1071 in rebellion on the Isle of Ely, and not the same as Siward, Earl of Northumbria (pace the Phillimore printed edition of Derbyshire note to 4,1); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234; VCH Derbyshire, i. pp. 300-301; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 361, note 7.
	AZUR SON OF SVALA. The Domesday forms of Azur - Azor, Azur, Azer, Atser[us], Azorius, Atsur, Assorin[us] - represent Old Danish/Old Swedish Azur: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 170-71. In the Phillimore printed edition this name is generally rendered Azor, but Atsurr in YKS and LIN. The Alecto edition has Azur. The Domesday forms of Svala - Saleua, Sualeua - represent the Old Norse feminine name Svala: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 378. The Phillimore printed edition has Saleva. The Alecto edition has Svala. She only appears twice in Domesday Book, both times as the mother of Azur: here and in LIN T5, where Azur son of Svala also had full jurisdiction and market rights.
	YOUNG WULFRIC. The Domesday forms - Vluric(us), Vlricus, Vlfric, Wluric(us), Wlfricus, Wlfuricus, Vlfriz etc. - represent Old English Wulfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric. Cilt means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child' in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has Cild.
		There is no other occurrence of a Wulfric designated cilt in either Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire, but there are several references to men simply called Wulfric in both counties. It was a common name and therefore hard to tell whether any of them refer to Young Wulfric.
	ALSI "ILLING". The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Alsi, Alsius, Elsi, Aelsi, Alsicus, Alsidus etc. - could represent Old English Ælfsige, Old English Æthelsige or perhaps Old English Ealdsige, Ealhsige: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 151-52, under Al-sige, see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English -sige, as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alsige . However, in some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alfsi and Alfsige appear for people who in the present edition are now rendered Alsi because the forms of their names lack an -f- or -v- which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 180, under Old English Ælfsige, and on pp. 187-88, under Old English Æthelsige). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English Ælfsige.
		On his byname (jllinge), which could represent a number of Old English or Old German personal names, see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 144. The Alecto edition has [of] Illing, but there appears to be no English place with this name and no reason to think that jllinge is a toponym rather than a patronymic. Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 217 no. 1247, has 'of Illing', though there is no word for 'of' in the text.
		This is the only reference to an Alsi with this byname in Domesday Book. He is clearly distinguished in this list from Alsi son of Karski, the T.R.E. holder of Worksop (9,43). Otherwise it is difficult to identify Alsi "Illing" with any of the 1066 holders simply called Alsi in Derbyshire (DBY 6,11) and Nottinghamshire (2,7. 9,2;77;90;95. 14,5). Of these, the Alsi of 14,5 can probably be ruled out, as he had no hall. An Alsi was the predecessor of Roger of Bully in several estates (NTT 9) and some or all of these might be Alsi "Illing", but this assumes that Alsi son of Karski held only Worksop.
	LEOFWIN SON OF ALWIN. The Domesday forms of Leofwin - Leuuin(us), Leuuine, Lefuuinus, Leuin(us), Liuuin[us] etc. - represent Old English Leofwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English -wine as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.
		The Domesday forms of his father's name - Aluuin(us), Aluuine, Aeluuin(us), Aeluin(us), Aluin(us), Eluuine, Eluuin(us), Eluinus - could represent Old English Ælfwine, Old English Æthelwine, Old English Ealdwine or even Old English Ealhwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 158-60, under Al-wine, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English -wine, as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under Al-wine. Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English Ælfwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 181, but the Domesday forms (Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius) do not contain the -f- or –v- that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. Some also appear under Old English Æthelwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin(us), Aluinus) do not contain the -d- or -g- which JRM thought was the requisite for inclusion under that name. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alwine and A(i)lwin appear, but these have now been standardized as Alwin.
		Leofwin son of Alwin also appears among those who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire (LIN T5), but as Leofwin was a very common name it has been impossible to identify him with any of the men called simply Leofwin in either Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire.
	COUNTESS AELFEVA. She is not recorded as holding any land in her own right in Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire, though she had held in Leicestershire and her fief (LEC 12) was still intact in 1086 after her death. However, she had been the wife of Earl Algar who is recorded as having held two estates in Nottinghamshire (1,59. 27,1).
		The Domesday forms of her name - Alueua, Aelueua, Alueue, Elueua, Elfgiuae, Aluiua, Aueue - represent Old English Ælfgifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 173-74. JRM preferred Aelfeva as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Ælfgifu.
	COUNTESS GODA [* GYTHA *]. The Domesday forms of her Christian name - Goda, Gode - represent the feminine Old English Gode: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 263. Goda is a masculine Old English name, but as it is obvious that in Domesday the two names coalesced and as the countess is regularly called 'Goda', it was decided by JRM and accepted by JMcND that she should be called Countess Goda. The Alecto edition has Countess Gode, except in Buckinghamshire, where it has Countess Goda, probably in error.
		However, it would seem that at some stage in the Domesday process the name of Countess Goda (Goda here, Gode in 10,5 and 23,1) was confused with that of Countess Gytha; see 10,5 Gytha note.
	ALSI SON OF KARSKI OVER WORKSOP. On the name Alsi, see S5 Alsi note. The Domesday forms of his father's name - Caschin, Caschi - represent the hypothetical Old Norse Karski: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 302. The Phillimore printed translation has Kaskin, but the Old Norse form has been chosen for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Karski. An Alsi had held the manor of Worksop before Roger of Bully (9,43). On Karski, see 9,35 Karski note.
	HENRY OF FERRERS OVER EDNASTON AND DOVERIDGE AND BRAILSFORD. See DBY 9,3. 6,25;40. These had been held by Toki [* son of Auti *], Earl Edwin and Earl Waltheof respectively. Possession of Ednaston is attributed by Domesday to Geoffrey Alselin.
		The Domesday form of Henry, Henric(us), represents Old German Heinric, Henric, Old French Henri: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 147; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 289. JRM preferred the common name Henry, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Henry.
	WALTER OF AINCOURT OVER GRANBY AND MORTON AND PILSLEY. Granby had been held by Hemming as a manor in 1066 (11,26). Morton was a Jurisdiction of Southwell, a manor of the Archbishop of York, which appears also in Walter's fief (11,16). Pilsley (with Owlcotes and Williamthorpe) was a manor held by Young Swein in 1066 that passed to Walter (DBY 8,3).
		The Domesday forms of Walter - Walterius, Walterus, Galter(us) - represent Old German Walter, Old French Gaultier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter.
	EXCEPT FOR. This sentence is made unclear by the number of sub-clauses. The sense seems to be that the archbishop, Ulf Fenman and Countess Godiva could have the third penny that normally belonged to the earl and his assent was not required for this. In the case of the others, the earl had to give his assent and it did not bind his successors who could renew or withdraw the assent after the earl's death. Understanding is made easier by the fact that Countess Godiva held Newark-on-Trent (6,1) of which it is said 'All the customary dues of the king and the earl from this wapentake are attached to Newark-on-Trent'.
	THE ARCHBISHOP. That is, the Archbishop of York.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, presumably so that the list in this entry should be separate from the note on Clifton.
S6	CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION WHICH IS AN ADJUNCT OF CLIFTON. The Latin super socam introduces a new topic: 'Now, on the subject of the jurisdiction... '. The Phillimore printed translation has 'Over the jurisdiction ... '. The same translation also has 'which lies in Clifton', but this confuses Latin iacet ad with iacet in; see 1,66 adjunct note. The Alecto edition has 'Over the soke which belongs to Clifton ....'.
		The Clifton intended appears to be the manor held by Countess Gytha (already mentioned above as holding full jurisdiction and market rights) which was a multiple estate with a head manor (10,5) and nine places specifically designated as Jurisdictions (10,8-11;13-14) to which can probably be added Barton-in-Fabis (10,7) and Adbolton (10,12).
	THE EARL OUGHT TO HAVE. Countess Gytha was married to Earl Ralph of Hereford, but the earl intended is no doubt the Earl of Northumbria or of Mercia; see{Introduction: Administration of the Shire}. The information relates to 1066, and is out of date in its detail, so the king would be entitled to all the dues and services in 1086, unless he had granted a third to some individual such as the sheriff or a prominent Norman; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228.
	THE THIRD PART OF ALL CUSTOMARY DUES AND WORK . The Latin is terciam partem omnium consuetudinum 7 operum. Strictly speaking there is some duplication here as consuetudines cover both customary payments and customary services, the second often being commuted to payment in money. The Latin operum is plural and implies customary labour services; see B1 work note.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1248.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank, as also half of the next one (folio 280d).
L	LIST OF LANDHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this list with a finer pen and slightly darker ink than he had used for the account of the boroughs of Nottingham and Derby and their shared customs (folio 280a-c). In other counties in Great Domesday Book the landholders' list sometimes shows signs of being inserted at a different time to the immediately preceding and/or succeeding text. In the case of Nottinghamshire the inclusion of Count Alan, Earl Hugh and the Count of Mortain (L2-4) before, rather than after, the ecclesiastical landholders proves that it was written after the insertion of the half-sheet containing their fiefs; see NTT 2 fief note.
	IN 'ROTELAND'. In 1086, the northern two-thirds of the later county of Rutland were attached to Nottinghamshire, the southern third (Witchley Wapentake) was an integral part of Northamptonshire. For this reason the eleventh-century land-unit is referred to here as 'Roteland', which is the form generally used in the survey of that area on folios 293c-294a. The attachment of 'Roteland', that is, of the wapentakes of Alstoe and 'Martinsley', to Nottinghamshire was fiscal: 'These two wapentakes are attached to the sheriffdom of Nottingham for the King's tax' (RUT R3). A half of Alstoe Wapentake (presumably one of its hundreds) was included in the assessment of the Nottinghamshire wapentake of Thurgarton, the other half in Broxtowe Wapentake. This arrangement was probably quite recent and the result both of 'Roteland''s complicated history and the re-rating of Nottinghamshire for tax. See RUT R3 Nottingham note; RUT {Introduction: History} and NTT {Introduction: Carucation}.
		The landholders in 'Roteland' are given in the normal way, as a list of seven holders, beginning with the king. However, the text of 'Roteland' itself is arranged territorially, that is by wapentakes, and the main scribe of Great Domesday had some difficulty in reconciling feudal chapters with a text in which the prime divisions are wapentakal, then hundredal; see RUT {Introduction: Writing}.
L5	THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote eboracensis over erasure, using a finer pen, but writing it larger than the preceding Archiep's in order to cover an original longer word. This correction would seem to have been done at the same time as three in Lincolnshire; see LIN 22,26 villagers note. Next to it, in the centre margin, was written a horizontal line with a dot above it, similar to the one in the outer margin of folio 281b (see 1,20 margin note) and one interlined above the last line of folio 38d (HAM 1,28). Marginal signs like this, sometimes with two dots (as on folio 281b), were commonly used in contemporary manuscripts to indicate a correction or amendment that needed to be made; one appears in the margin of one of the other manuscripts written by the main scribe of Great Domesday next to a correction over erasure (Oxford, Trinity College 28, folio 90r). This one was written in vermilion and was almost certainly done during rubrication because the scribe noticed an error (corrected later by the eboracensis). Sometimes these signs were erased when the correction had been made. It was reproduced in both the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile; however, Farley did not print it.
1	THIS FIEF was not given the number I by the main scribe of Great Domesday; he failed to do this in a number of counties for some reason.
	LAND OF THE KING. King William, known as 'the Conqueror', was born in 1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette, daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy 1035-1087, he invaded England and seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25th December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders, who predeceased him. Among his children were Robert Curthose, William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by his son Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).
		The Land of the King contains 66 entries, but many fewer manors. These manors with their dependencies had been held by a small number of individuals: King Edward, Earls Tosti, Algar and Morcar and by an Alwin. The core of the royal lands consisted of five great manors, Dunham-on-Trent (1,1), Bothamsall (1,9), Mansfield (1,23), Arnold (1,45) and Orston (1,51); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214. All, except Bothamsall, had been held by King Edward; Bothamsall was held by Earl Tosti and had probably been a royal grant to him or a predecessor in recognition of his office.
		The first 62 entries are arranged by wapentakes in standard county order, the sequence being 1,1-22 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, 1,23-50 Broxtowe Wapentake and 1,51-57 Bingham Wapentake; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}. The chapter ends with a single entry for Thurgarton Wapentake (1,63), out of sequence, probably because the main scribe of Great Domesday initially missed it, then with three later additions (1,64-66). If this standard order is the product of the way material was brought before the shire court, wapentake by wapentake, to be sworn to, then the fact that the order of the Terra Regis is not different to that in other fiefs undermines the contention of David Roffe ('Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 2-3) that this chapter emanated from a separate stage of the enquiry or from a separate survey of royal lands.
	The order is:

  Wapentake; Place; Status	   T.R.E. Holder	
'BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE
1,1-8 Dunham-on-Trent (manor)
1,9-16 Bothamsall (manor)
1,17-21 Grimston (manor?)
[1,22 Farnsfield in Thurgarton Wapentake (status uncertain)]

BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE
1,23-43 Mansfield (manor)
[1,44 Saundby (serjeanty?)
1,45-50 Arnold (manor)

BINGHAM WAPENTAKE
1,51-57 Orston (manor)
1,58 'Newbold' (manor)
1,59-60 Upper Broughton (manor)
1,61 Flintham (manor)
[1,62 Kneeton (Jurisdiction of Flintham?)]

[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]
1,63 Sneinton (status not given)

ADDED ENTRIES

[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]
1,64 Meering (status unknown)

['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE] 
1,65 Misson (Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey in Lincolnshire)
1,66 Misson (Jurisdiction of Laughton in Lincolnshire)

King Edward
Earl Tosti
?
?

King Edward
?
King Edward

King Edward
Earl Morcar
Earl Algar
Alwin
Alwin?

King Edward (B19)

William

Tosti

Ulfgrim? (holder of Laughton: LIN 57,7)	

	In many, but not all, cases the outliers and Jurisdictions were in the same wapentake as their manor. Domesday rarely indicates where there is a difference and, in line with this, wapentake heads which would show this have not been entered in the text of this edition. However, it is noteworthy that in 1,31 the main scribe of Great Domesday indicated that the remaining members of Mansfield (itself in Broxtowe Wapentake) lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake: 'Also Jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake'.
		A significant number of estates were shared by the king and Roger of Bully, who had the most important fief in Nottinghamshire, although he had no known position of authority in the shire. These estates had presumably been granted from royal land, possibly by King William to Roger himself, in which case their various 1066 holders had presumably been holding them from the king. They are listed in NTT 9 Roger note.
1,1	WAPENTAKE. This was the equivalent of the hundred in Danish areas. The Nottinghamshire wapentakes are normally entered in the same order in each chapter. Domesday enters headings for manors only. Dependencies are often in different wapentakes (JRM). See {Introduction: Wapentakes}.
	DUNHAM[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		The manor and its constituent parts are surveyed in 1,1-8. All the outliers and Jurisdictions with the possible exception of Little Gringley (1,4 Gringley note) seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	WITH 4 OUTLIERS. They all appear to have lain in the same wapentake ('Bassetlaw' Wapentake) as Dunham-on-Trent itself.
	RAGNALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228; in the latter source (p. 233), it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
	'WHIMPTON'. This was a settlement in Ragnall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. It is represented on the map by the site of the deserted village of Whimpton (SK791738) and by Whimpton Moor (SK788740). For the identification, see Pryce and Dobson, 'Whimpton, Nottinghamshire'; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 57.
	DARLTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109. In the Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
	'SWANSTON'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Dunham-on-Trent. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like Dunham-on-Trent itself; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 49. It is located at SK c.810750 in Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 201.
	EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.
	CARUCATES. The carucate was the equivalent in the Danish areas of the hide; comprising 8 bovates. 96 or 48 carucates to the wapentake seems to be the Nottinghamshire norm (JRM).
	NOW THE KING HAS 2 PLOUGHS IN LORDSHIP; 50 VILLAGERS AND 3 SMALLHOLDERS. The Latin uill' could be extended to either the nominative uillani (as in 10,53-54) or the accusative uillanos after h[abe]t (as definitely twice in 5,1, and apparently in 1,9. 5,9. 7,6. 9,96;121;127;130. 10,16. 15,7. 16,2. 17,1;14. 30,6-7;19;25;31-32;34;38-39;43;45;50;52, and for the Freemen - soch[mannos] - being in the accusative case, see 9,69;88;94;120;126. 30,1;46-48); the case of the smallholders is also unknown. The Phillimore printed translation opts for the accusative, putting 'and' after the lordship ploughs, but elsewhere JRM preferred to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin by putting a semi-colon after the lordship ploughs and this has been followed for the present edition. The Alecto edition has a semi-colon. This ambiguity occurs frequently elsewhere in Domesday Nottinghamshire, including in the entries where there is further ambiguity and which are listed in 1,1 fishery note. No further reference is made in these notes to this replacement of 'and' by a semi-colon, but see 6,12 villagers note. The situation is complicated by the presence of the accusative case in the fishery and acres of meadow; see 1,1 fishery note.
		On the appearance of modo ('now') here, which occurs some dozen times in this county with the lordship statement and which was perhaps not edited out of a fuller preceding text containing the lordship details in 1066, see DBY 1,9 now note. Compare 4,6 now note.
	FISHERY ... MEADOW, 120 ACRES. The Latin is piscariâ ... cxx. ac[ra]s p[ra]ti, where piscariam and acras are both accusative; the case of the preceding mill is unclear. These resources could be the object of either 'the king has' or '50 villagers and 3 smallholders who have'. The Phillimore printed translation puts them all in a separate sentence, but it has been decided here to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin by putting a semi-colon after the 10 ploughs held by the villagers and smallholders. The Alecto edition has a comma there. In Domesday Nottinghamshire the main scribe of Great Domesday frequently used the accusative case for the resources after 'villagers ... who have ... '; see 1,2 meadow note and compare 11,11 meadow note. This ambiguity also occurs in 1,58-59. 2,9. 3,1. 4,3. 5,3. 7,6. 9,3;12;20;28;37;39;41;43;52;65;69;72;76;95. 10,3;9;18;24;31;51;55;59. 11,8;22. 12,1. 13,11. 14,7. 15,1. 16,8. 17,11-12;16. 18,7. 20,3;6. 22,1. 23,1. 30,1;3. For an instance of the villagers definitely having the meadow, see B19 acres note, but compare 1,9 meadow note and 10,10 meadow note. Occasionally the main scribe seems to have written acras in error for the nominative acrae, as in 5,5;8. 9,73. 10,56. 11,28. 24,3. 30,8, often because there are words in the accusative case earlier in the entry or in surrounding entries; see also 9,126 perches note.
		The main scribe also wrote the pasturable woodland in a separate sentence here, as he frequently did for woodland in other counties, though in the Phillimore printed translation a semi-colon precedes it. The Alecto edition puts it in a new sentence. In the present edition a new sentence has been used for the woodland (pasturable, plain or underwood) in entries where other resources are in the accusative case (that is, those entries listed in the present note, in 1,2 meadow note and 1,9 meadow note), but not in other entries where there can be no ambiguity.
		The fishery was no doubt on the River Trent.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the Phillimore printed edition, this phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where silua is a noun and pastilis an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This is obvious when in DBY 1,13 he recorded silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also in YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both pastilis and minuta are adjectives that describe the silua, literally 'woodland, pasturable and low-growing'. It is also evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded silua pastilis ... 7 alia silua ... ('pasturable woodland ... and other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable.
		Great Domesday does not make it clear whether the pasture had been created by assarting or whether the woodland was naturally open. This phrase is not a reference to the pannage of pigs, but essentially replaces the normal entry for woodland combining it with a mention of pasture (principally for the plough-oxen). In such cases, separate pasture is rarely mentioned, an exception being in DBY 6,32: iiii ac' pascuae. Silua pastilis dimidiam leugam longa et dimidiam lata. ('pasture, 4 acres. Pasturable woodland ½ league long and ½ wide'). In fact throughout Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Yorkshire, the woodland normally provided the pasture as well. When this was not the case, the scribe tended to note it, as in DBY 1,28;30. 5,5. NTT 14,8. YKS 5N8. 5W5 (silua non pastilis; see also NTH 9,6) and YKS 23N10 (silua sine pastura); see 14,8 woodland note. An apparent exception is HUN 1,10: l acras siluae pastilis. De pastura xx solidi ('50 acres of pasturable woodland. From pasture 20s.'). There, however, there was pasture that exceeded the requirements of the estate and which was a source of income presumably from another village or other villages that lacked this resource. There pastura is really 'pasturage' and the grazing could actually have taken place in the silua pastilis. In LIN 56,16 there is an interesting entry: Silua pastilis viii quarentinas longa 7 v lata: medietas pascuae alia medietas minutae siluae (' Pasturable woodland 8 furlongs long and 5 wide: half [consists] of pasture, the other half of underwood'); here alia ('another') seems to be used in place of altera ('the other') as not infrequently. The purpose of the final phrase seems to be to give the relative proportions of pasture and underwood. No doubt these resources were intermingled on the ground and this is really silua minuta 7 pastilis ('pasturable underwood') as in DBY 1,13; if the underwood and pasture were in separate blocks, they would have been expressed as such. Woodland and open land are similarly intermixed at YKS 1Y2, though at Tupton and Norton in Derbyshire (DBY 1,8) they are separate resources. See also 1,45 woodland note.
	6 SESTERS OF HONEY. This render of honey is ancient and found on a number of manors, especially royal ones and in some boroughs; see, for example, GLS G1. HAM 1,27. HEF 1,1. LEC C1. NTT 1,1. OXF B1. WAR B4-5. By 1086 it had been commuted to a money payment.
		The sester was a measure, sometimes of liquid, as here, sometimes dry and of uncertain and probably variable size. It originated with the Romans as a sixth of a congius ('bucket') and appears to be about three-quarters of a modern gallon. A mid eleventh-century grant to St Albans Abbey reckoned a sester at 32 oz. However, the sums of money into which honey-payments were commuted varied, and it is likely that there was no standard size. At Gloucester (GLS G1) the burgesses paid 12 sesters of honey ad mensuram eiusdem burgi ('at the measure of that borough'). The payment at Deerhurst (GLS 19,2) was ad mensuram regis ('at the king's measure') and in Warwickshire (WAR B4-5) the shire together with the borough made a payment of 36 sesters and of a further 24 cum maiori mensura ('with a/the larger measure'); see Zupko, Dictionary of English Weights and Measures, p. 155; Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 82-83 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 124-25).
	WITH EVERYTHING THAT BELONGS THERE. That is, including the four outliers and the Jurisdictions in 1,2-8. No church is mentioned as being an appurtenance of the manor in 1086; however, one was given soon afterwards by the king to Archbishop Thurstan of York (1114-1140) who made it a prebend in the church of Southwell; see Monasticon Anglicanum, viii. p. 1314; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214; and 5,1 prebend note.
1,2	[EAST] DRAYTON. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Drayton-with-Stokeham. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. The royal estate was at Est Drayton: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109. For West Drayton, see 9,31. 16,11.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative and the object of 'have', like the 13 ploughs. The Phillimore printed translation has a full-stop after these ploughs (with the exception of 11,5), but this has been corrected here to 'and'. The Alecto edition has a comma after them. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the pasturable woodland in a separate sentence here, however, so this has been reproduced in the present edition (as in the Alecto edition), though the Phillimore printed translation precedes it by a semi-colon. The population also seems to have had some of the resources (mostly the meadow, though occasionally part of a mill, pasturable woodland or plain woodland) in 1,5;7;16-17;21;41;55;63. 3,4. 5,16. 6,9;12;14-15. 9,4-5;8;92;124. 10,4;11;13-14;50;53-54;57-58;60. 11,3;5-7; 11;19;23;25;27;29;31-33. 12,10;17;20. 14,8. 17,5;17. 20,1-2. 24,2. 30,40;49. No further references to the correction of this error has been made in these notes. Compare 9,119 meadow note.
1,3	[EAST] MARKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as 'Great Markham'. Another part (9,6) was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and probably the whole village was in that wapentake as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. The king still held land in Est Markeham in 1316: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107.
	SOME UNDERWOOD. The Latin is siluae min[utae] aliq[uan]tulum, literally, 'some small quantity of low-growing wood'. Similar terms are par[um] siluae min[utae] (' a small amount of underwood') in DBY 1,32 and siluae minutae modicu[m] ('a modest amount of underwood') in NTT 1,10. It is possible that parum and aliquantulum are equivalents and that modicum represent a larger, but not large, amount. See DBY 1,32 small note and NTT 1,10 amount note. The Alecto edition has 'a little scrubland'.
1,4	[LITTLE] GRINGLEY. Little Gringley was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. Clarborough itself was probably in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. There is also, apparently in the same wapentake, a Gringley-on-the-Hill. However, the similarity of the modern name-forms disguises an earlier difference, Grenleige (1,4), Greneleig (1,43) and Grenelei (5,8) being distinct from Gringeleia (9,122). The first three could be identified as Little Gringley (and their assessments roughly fit together to make 6 bovates), while the last (3 carucates) is Gringley-on-the-Hill; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 30, 59. Nonetheless in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, Grynngeley (there identified as Gringley-on-the-Hill, no doubt on the basis of the name-form) is designated as Ancient Demesne of the Crown (and is, in consequence, not assigned to a wapentake). This should mean that it represents a part of the 1086 Terra Regis, and, therefore, that it is, on geographical grounds, probably the estate at 1,43, which is so identified by VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 252. If this is so, then the Domesday name-form at 1,43 Greneleig is likely to be an error for Grengeleig.
		The other Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent, like Dunham-on-Trent itself, seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but it is not unusual for an outlier to be in a different wapentake to that of its head manor. Alternatively, since Little Gringley lies on the putative boundary separating the two wapentakes, it could have beeen in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	PART OF 1 BOVATE. In the Alecto facsimile the word uni' (unius, 'of 1') appears as cuii', possibly because there is a small patched hole in the parchment above it, though there is another one above the i. and p of vi. pars and that did not cause any problems of reproduction. On other unusual readings in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. It is clear in both the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
1,5	ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to this place, see 1,12-13. 9,19;23. 30,56; of these 1,12 and 30,56 are possibly duplicates of each other.
1,6	[{{GROVE}}] HEADON. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote Graue and then underlined it for deletion and interlined Hedune in replacement. Grove and Headon are adjacent. For Grove itself, see 9,22.
		Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,7;26.
	LAND FOR 1 OX. A plough-team normally consisted of eight oxen; for a smaller team of six, see CON 5,2,19 plough note. Single oxen are mentioned several times in Domesday Nottinghamshire, both as a form of plough estimate (= land for an eighth of a plough), as here, and as a real animal held by, for example, the priests in 1,51. Oxen, rather than ploughs or part-ploughs, also make regular appearances: 12 oxen (= 1 ½ ploughs) occur in a number of entries in the plough estimate, and in Costock (15,5) there is land for 14 oxen. Although in Costock this mirrors the assessment of 14 bovates, and the phrase 'land for as many oxen' does occur, there is very often no correlation between the number of bovates at which the estate is rated and the estimate of 'ploughs possible'.
1,7	UPTON. Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,8;27.
1,8	NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Clumber. It was a hamlet of Elksley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. This particular Normanton is represented by Normanton Farm (SK6574), Normanton Larches (SK6574), Normanton Screed (SK6475) and Normanton Hill (SK6674).
	HALF OF THIS LAND BELONGS TO DUNHAM[-ON-TRENT], THE OTHER [HALF] TO BOTHAMSALL. This entry apparently concludes the list of Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent (1,1); however, Normanton is unusual in being shared with the royal manor of Bothamsall (1,9), the next manor to be entered.
		It would be natural to assume from the layout of the text that Normanton was a Jurisdiction of Dunham-on-Trent, but the name-form given for Dunham-on-Trent here is unusual and has been subjected to correction. The main scribe of Great Domesday erased something immediately after dune (possibly ha[m], the second half of the spelling of Dunham-on-Trent in 1,1) and then, in much darker ink than he had used originally, he interlined ed, indicating its position in the line below with a comma sign. The reason for altering the place-name to eddune is unclear, though it is possible that eddune was the reading in his source and was an error for ad Dune ('to/at Dunham-on-Trent') and that originally the scribe recognized and corrected this error, but during checking he noticed the apparent place-name eddune and 'corrected' his original. The scribes of both the Abbreviatio (folio 201r) and the Breviate (folio 144r) read the place-name as eddune. If, however, eddune was indeed the correct reading, then it could refer to Headon. Part of Headon (Hedune:1,6) was a Jurisdiction of Dunham-on-Trent; another part (Hedune: 9,26) was a manor, and no doubt itself originated as a grant out of Dunham-on-Trent. In the case of the entry for Headon at 1,6, the main scribe had originally named the estate as Graue (Grove) and then replaced it with Hedune (Headon). It is possible that his apparent correction of Dunham-on-Trent to Headon was intended to apply to Grove and that he did not return to undo his mistake when he interlined Hedune above Graue in 1,6.
1,9	BOTHAMSALL. This was a chapelry of Elksley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		The manor is surveyed in 1,9-16. All the constituent parts seem to have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	EARL TOSTI. See B2 Tosti note.
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative and the object of 'the king has', as is probably the mill, though not the pasturable woodland. The Phillimore printed translation fails to indicate these accusative cases, but the Alecto edition has commas after the 2 ploughs held by the villagers and smallholder. See also in 9,96;127. 15,3;7. 16,2. 30,36;38-39;45;47-48;50-52. See also 10,10 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.
	FURLONGS [WIDE]. The main scribe of Great Domesday mistakenly wrote l[on]g[a] ('long'), instead of lat[a] ('wide'), as he did on several other occasions.
1,10	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate this heading, though he had rubricated the similar heading above the Jurisdictions of Dunham-on-Trent earlier in this column (1,2). He also rubricated most of the other headings of this type in Nottinghamshire, but missed out the one for Oswaldbeck Wapentake on folio 281b (above 1,31) and ones on folio 281d (above 1,52), folio 283d (above 6,2), folio 284c (above 9,13), folio 285a (above 9,38), folio 285b (above 9,49), folio 285c (above 9,56), folio 286c (above 9,117), folio 286d (above 9,123), folio 288c (above 11,3;5), folio 288d (above 11,19), folio 289a (above 11,27), folio 289b (above 12,2), folio 289c (above 12,20), folio 290c (above 17,5;10) and folio 290d (above17,17). He was also careless with his rubrication of some of the manorial place-names in entries that were written during his initial writing up of this county: SVDWELLE (5,1), FENTONE (9,112) and IBIDĒ (9,128. 10,48. 13,2. 14,2. 17,7). See also 30,36 wapentake note.
	ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 9,32. 30,41.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from i to ii by inserting a second minim in darker ink rather carelessly in front of it.
	A MODEST AMOUNT OF UNDERWOOD. The Latin is siluae minutae modicu[m], and is evidently more than parum siluae minutae (DBY 1,32) which is 'a small amount of underwood', but may be similar to the siluae minutae aliquantulum in 1,3 (see 1,3 some note). The translation of the Phillimore printed edition, 'a little underwood', might suggest that all the underwood was in one place, whereas the Latin is referring to the quantity of wood, not its shape or location. The Alecto edition also translates modicum as 'a little'.
1,11	MORTON. This was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, particularised as 'North' Morton in Domesday, see 9,34. 30,42.
		Domesday distinguishes Morton, 'North' Morton, and 'the other Morton'. There are now six adjacent Mortons, covering about five square miles, none of them now called 'North'. The most northerly are Morton and Morton Hall (JRM).
		To represent the three 'Mortons' of Domesday, there are several adjacent places: Morton (SK676800), Great Morton (SK683799), Morton Grange (SK684781), Morton Hall (SK652800), Upper Morton (SK661778), Little Morton Farm (SK676788), Morton Hill Farm (SK652788). However, it is unclear how to allocate these names to the Domesday estates. In particular, no 'North' Morton has survived. It is either an abandoned site or its name has changed; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 66.
	THE OTHER MORTON. The Latin altera strictly means 'the other', 'the second', but in medieval usage often overlaps in sense with alia ('another'). In contexts such as this, the use of both words is in origin scribal, to draw attention to the second occurrence of the same place-name in a list. They refer to another estate and do not in themselves prove the existence of a separate settlement or village. In the present context, however, within a single entry and with a joint total of 10 bovates, they may well represent separate settlements, just as at 1,16 the 6 bovates of Lound and Barnby Moor do. If altera has its strict meaning, then the settlement concerned must be the one that Domesday also designates as 'North' Morton (9,34. 30,42). On this use of alia and altera, see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
1,12	BABWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 9,33.
	2 ½ BOVATES ... 4 ½ BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .ii.bo' 7 dimid' 7 .iiii. bo' 7 d' above Baburde and the first part of Odestorp. Despite the linking 7 ('and'), it has been assumed that the 2 ½ bovates refers to Babworth and the 4 ½ bovates to "Odestorp". It is possible that at the same time as he interlined these bovates, he corrected, by erasure only, part of the place-name Odestorp; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This interlineation is the first of scribe B's forty-two contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, mirroring the extent of the main scribe's remedial work on this county (see {Introduction: Writing and Correction}. All but one of scribe B's contributions are in the first Nottinghamshire quire (folios 280-288) and there are fifteen in the Terra Regis alone, which is a high proportion for him, though it is beaten in Derbyshire (see DBY 1,12 Bonsall note). The main scribe generally included the individual carucages of members of manors, but sometimes failed to do so, when he gave a total tax assessment as in the present entry. Scribe B added seven carucages in this county, though more could have been added, as in 5,4. 6,1. For these, see also above Ordsall later in the present entry, the two each in 1,13 and in 1,21, and one in 10,10. His other contributions include the addition of six members of manors (1,33;50. 5,8 (part of). 9,97 (part of). 10,12;52 and see also 1,17;41), again more than in any other county, nineteen corrections and additions to the tax assessments (1,12;16;24. 4,3;7. 6,8. 9,15;31;38;70;96;112;124;129;131. 10,26;33;57. 15,3), two additions to place-names (9,5. 10,48), two to plough estimates (1,17;59) and one each to the village population (9,115) and their ploughs (10,16), to resources (5,8) and to the T.R.E. holders (9,69). Several of his additions were made in one campaign; see 9,5 Clifton note. He may also have been responsible for some of the erasures (see 1,12 "Odestorp" note and 1,17 land note) and for the deletion of an entry (see 10,23 entry note).
	"ODESTORP". The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote Ostlestorp (parts of the long s remain) and then either he or scribe B (see 1,12 bovates note) erased the first s and part of the cross-bar of the first t in an attempt, not very successful, to make Odestorp. His source may have been unclear here, but Odestorp is the form found in subsequent entries (9,42;71. 30,12) and was read as such by Farley in this entry.
		This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. In the text of Domesday it is surrounded by places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake here and at 9,42. At 9,71 it is coupled with West Retford (in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake), as a Jurisdiction of Weston (9,70), which is itself in 'Lythe' Wapentake. At 30,12 "Odestorp" is a manor that follows an entry for Normanton (30,11) in Thurgarton Wapentake and is followed by another Normanton (Normanton-on-Soar) in Rushcliffe Wapentake (30,14). The intervening entry (30,13) is added, and so has little bearing on the wapentake in which "Odestorp" lay. On balance it seems likely that "Odestorp" was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to Ordsall, see 1,5;13. 9,19;23. 30,56. It is possible that the added entry at 30,56 is a duplicate of this one; see 30,56 Ordsall note.
	1 BOVATE. Scribe B interlined .i. bou' above Ordeshale; see 1,12 bovates note.
	IN TOTAL, 7 ½ BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written .v. bou' t'rę 7 dim' ad g'ld' ('5 ½ bovates of land taxable'), possibly because he had not provided the individual carucages here, though he often made arithmetical mistakes even when he did include them. When scribe B inserted these carucages (see 1,12 bovates note) he interlined Int' tot' ('In total'), extending the I of Int' downwards to act as an insertion mark and added two minims to the original v. However, he should have added a third minim to this figure and erased the 7 dim', or erased all of .v. bou' t'rę 7 dim' and written .i. carucata t'rę, as the correct total is 8 bovates (= 1 carucate). On his failure to correct a total tax assessment of members when he interlined individual carucages, see 1,24 total note.
	IT IS WASTE EXCEPT FOR 1 VILLAGER AND 2 SMALLHOLDERS WITH ½ PLOUGH. This unusual phrase shows how Latin wasta has more the sense of 'derelict', 'abandoned', 'set-aside' than of 'wasted', 'destroyed'. The villager and smallholders presumably cultivated a small portion, but that was not enough to give a value to the estate. See also 9,12 and 30,35.
1,13	RANBY. This was a hamlet of Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,14. 9,24-25.
	3 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .iii. bo' above Ranesbi; for his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including his addition of similar carucages of members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.
	'SOUTH' ORDSALL. 'South' Ordsall, which is not attested after 1086, was no doubt in Ordsall which was an Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 90. Ordsall itself probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to Ordsall, see 1,5;12. 9,19;23. 30,56. Domesday rarely uses affixes to distinguish places of the same basic name, but in Nottinghamshire North Muskham and 'North' Morton are so distinguished, as is 'Eastern' Chilwell and West Markham.
	2 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .ii. bo' above Suderdeshale; for his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including his addition of similar carucages of members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. In both the Ordnance Survey and Alecto facsimiles the number of bovates resembles .iii., perhaps because of its closeness to the S of the place-name, but in the manuscript it is separate and clear; Farley read it as .ii..
1,14	RANBY. See 1,13 Ranby note, and on this entry being duplicated in 1,30, but then struck through for deletion, see 1,30 Ranby note.
1,15	MATTERSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,132.
1,16	LOUND. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 5,7. 9,51.
	BARNBY [MOOR]. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 9,54.
	6 BOVATES OF LAND, {{AND ½ AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE}}. Scribe B corrected this joint tax assessment of Lound and Barnby [Moor] from 5 ½ bovates and the third part of 1 bovate to 6 bovates, by squeezing in a minim after the v and underlining for deletion 7 dim' 7 .iii. pars uni' bou'. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
		The confusion probably arose when all the parts of Lound and Barnby Moor were together in a territorially-arranged schedule which a scribe (perhaps in compiling the putative circuit volume) was splitting between fiefs. There were 2 bovates and 2 parts of 1 bovate of taxable land at Lound (9,51) and 1½ bovates of taxable land at Barnby Moor (9,54). The amount of taxable land at Lound (5,7) cannot be determined because it is included in that of other estates.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate that the words are deleted at all, so the assessment appears to be 6 ½ bovates and ⅓ bovate; it also fails to indicate the deletions in other entries such as 1,30. 3,1. 9,69-70. 10,6;23. 14,6 in this county.
1,17	GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,18;24;27.
		The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement which is at Grimston Hill (SK6965); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 250 note 3; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 65. For its depopulation, see Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'.
	4 BOVATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. The erasure in the middle of this tax assessment may have been of 7 dim' (making 4 ½ bovates) and may have been done by scribe B when he corrected the plough estimate later in this line or when he added the detail of this holding being an outlier of Mansfield on the next line (if both these corrections were not done together). See 1,17 outlier note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. Scribe B corrected the plough estimate from one to two by adding a second minim over the main scribe's original punctus before i. and adding a new punctus. See 1,24 outlier note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including another on the plough estimate, see 1,12 bovates note.
	OUTLIER OF MANSFIELD. Scribe B wrote BER' In Mam'esfed. over the erasure of a longer original phrase by the main scribe; at the same time he overwrote the first two letters of Ibi, the succeeding word. It is impossible to tell from the manuscript what could have been written here originally. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
		Despite being written over an erasure, Mam'esfed is clear in the manuscript, but the long s used by the main scribe of Great Domesday here resembles an f in both the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile, making the place-name appear as Mam'effed.
		This information contradicts the marginal M' (for manerium, 'manor') beside the place-name. Since Grimston itself appears to have had Jurisdictions of its own (1,18-22) though not all are designated as such, it seems likely that this portion of Grimston was in fact a manor and that it is the phrase 'outlier of Mansfield' that is erroneous. In view of the other erasure and correction to this holding (see 1,12 land note and 1,12 ploughs note), it is possible that during a check of the source material for the multiple estate of Mansfield scribe B found an entry for 4 bovates of land in Grimston which was an outlier and had land for 2 ploughs, and failed to see that it had actually been included at 1,27 (though with some differences) and that the present entry was a manor, so altered it to make it agree with his findings. If so, the details of Grimston had been correctly provided by the main scribe: it was a manor, its assessment might have been 4 ½ bovates, it had land for 1 plough and the erasure here could have been of something like Ibi ht' m' rex[? i car'] ('Now the king has [? 1 plough]'), as for the multiple estates of Dunham-on-Trent, Mansfield and others in this chapter. Alternatively, scribe B may have been right to alter this entry, but failed to go far enough and erase the marginal M' and the meadow and change the village population (their 2 ploughs agree with those in 1,27, as does the pasturable woodland as 6 furlongs is the same as ½ league).
		There remains, however, the problem over Grimston's Jurisdictions, on which scribe B's work amounted only to interlining .ii. (bovates) above two of them (1,21 Beesthorpe note and 1,21 Carlton note). The reality may thus have been more complex. Grimston had seven dependencies (1,18-22), four of which reappear under Mansfield itself in what seems to be a summary (1,24). Further, the details of the entry for Grimston under the manor of Mansfield at 1,27 duplicate in several respects those given here, though the duplication was less before scribe B's corrections. Tabulation will show the similarities:

1,17-22 Manor of Grimston	1,23 Manor of Mansfield: List of members in 1,24+	1,24 Manor of Mansfield: details of outlier at Grimston+	
1,17 Grimston.
Manor, also(?) outlier.
4 bovates† taxable.
Land for 2‡ ploughs

3 Freemen and 3 smallholders have 2 ploughs.
Meadow, 2 acres.
Pasturable woodland ½ league long and 4 furlongs wide.	1,24 Grimston.
Status not given.
½ carucate.	1,27 Grimston.
Outlier.
4 bovates taxable.
Land for 2 ploughs.
The king has 1 plough;
8 villagers and 1 smallholder who have 2 ploughs.

Pasturable woodland 6 furlongs long and 4 furlongs wide 	
1,18 Grimston. 
Jurisdiction
1½ bovates.			
1,19 Kirton.*
Status not given.
½ bovate.	1,24 Kirton.
Status not given.
1½ bovates.		
1,20 Willoughby and Walesby. 
Jurisdiction.
2 bovates.	1,24 Willoughby.
Status not given.
1½ bovates++
(Walesby not mentioned)		
1,21 Beesthorpe. 
Jurisdiction.
2 bovates.	1,24 Beesthorpe.
Status not given.
2 bovates.		
1,21 Carlton-on-Trent.
Jurisdiction.
2 bovates.	1,24 Carlton-on-Trent.
Status not given.
2 bovates.		
1,22 Farnsfield.
Status not given.
1 bovate.			

	+ Only the places that are listed in column 1 are included
	† Corrected by erasure, probably by scribe B
	‡ Corrected from 1 by scribe B
	* Entry added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after rubrication
	++ It is possible that Walesby amounted to ½ bovate
	Not all of the 19 estates listed in 1,24 are duplicated elsewhere (for a possible reason for the omission of two, see 1,28 Edwinstowe note), but those nine listed in the group (1,25-30), of which the fuller entry for Grimston (1,27) is part, are all found in 1,24. That entry is simply a plain list of places, apparently dependencies of Mansfield but with no status allotted and only the name and taxable extent given. Places appearing there should not be regarded as duplicate entries but merely part of a list of which fuller details are mostly given elsewhere. It should be noted that ½ carucate is the same as 4 bovates and 6 furlongs the same as ½ league. Thus the taxable extent and the size of the pasturable woodland is actually the same in different entries for Grimston. On the other hand, the fact that the same dimensions are expressed differently suggests that the main scribe did not simply copy twice from the same sheet of parchment. Moreover, there are differences in the spellings of place-names, and Carlton[-in-Lindrick], if correctly identied, is 4 carucates in 1,24, but 2 carucates in 1,30; on this, see 1,30 Carlton note.
		Of the dependencies of Grimston (1,18-22), the first one is not repeated under Mansfield at 1,24, nor is there any mention there of another estate at Farnsfield, possibly a Jurisdiction (see, however, 1,22 Farnsfield note). What may have happened is that Grimston was a member of Mansfield in 1066 but was in the process of being granted out in 1086. It was, in other words being assembled as a manor, on a rough basis of half Grimston itself and half each of a group of Jurisdictions that were being granted with it. In that case these entries (1,17-22) are not duplicates but halves of a series of split estates. Certainly Grimston did not remain a part of Mansfield. It was in lay hands by the end of King Stephen's reign then passed to the Bishop of Lincoln; see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 15.
	The use of in here in BER' In Mam'esfed is idiomatic and implies some longer phrase with a verb or participle such as berewica iacens in hoc manerio ('outlier/berewick lying in this manor'). In the absence of a verb the natural translation is 'an outlier of... '; see 9,7 jurisdiction note.
1,18	THERE ALSO ^[GRIMSTON]^. See 1,17 Grimston note.
1,19	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space at the end of the entry for the Jurisdiction in Grimston. The I of In was not rubricated and it was written with a sharp pen and in a more cursive script than he normally used, so it was almost certainly a late insertion. It cannot be linked to any other campaign of addition, before or after rubrication, in this county. Its position here presumably indicates that it was related in some way to Grimston (1,17); the scribe probably intended the marginal S' in the line above to show that it was also a Jurisdiction. On a possible indicator of this originally-omitted entry, see 1,20 margin note. For the other entries added by him, in several campaigns, that were never rubricated, see 1,53;64-66. 2,3;5;10. 4,4. 5,2;6;12. 9,23;47-48;93;?132. 10,7;64-66. 11,13. 12,12;22-23. 13,5;12-14. 16,12. 20,8. 23,2. 30,10;13;42;53-56.
	KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for other parts, see 9,13. 12,2. 17,2.
		The Domesday forms for this place are Schidrintune (1,19), Schitrintone (1,24), Schidrinton (9,13), Schidrinctune (12,2) and Schidrictune (17,2). There is no continuity between these forms and those of Kirton (typically Kirchetona, Kirktone). However, it does appear that Kirton has displaced this earlier name; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 245 and p. 250 note 4; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 52-53.
1,20	IN THE OUTER MARGIN next to the first line of this entry is written a horizontal line with a dot above and below it, similar to the division sign used in arithmetic. Marginal signs like this, sometimes with only one dot (as on folio 280d), were commonly used in contemporary manuscripts to indicate a correction or amendment that needed to be made; see L5 archbishop note. It was probably written by the main scribe of Great Domesday: the pen and ink are the same as used for the adjacent text, whereas the ink used by scribe B in 1,17;21 is darker. It is more likely that it refers to this entry as it is within the first ruled line of 1,20, though it might be connected with the later insertion of Kirton (1,19 entry note). It was not reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but it is clearly visible in the Alecto facsimile; Farley did not print it.
	WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been displaced by it in importance. Like Walesby (1,20), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 12,3.
	WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,13. 12,4. 16,10.
	PERCHES. See B20 perches note.
1,21	BEESTHORPE 2. Scribe B interlined .ii. above Bestorp, at the same time as he interlined an identical figure above Carletone (1,21 Carlton note). Although the main scribe of Great Domesday had provided the total taxable assessment of these two Jurisdictions of Grimston, scribe B obviously thought it important to indicate the extent of each, as the 4 bovates total could have been split between them in any proportion.
		Beesthorpe was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8) and Carlton-on-Trent, the other outlier with which it is coupled here. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 12,9.
		JRM noted that 'some of the references may be to Besthorpe (SK8264), opposite Carlton-on-Trent'. This seems unlikely as Besthorpe was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of South Scarle and lay in Newark Wapentake. The three occurrences of Bestorp in Domesday appear to be in 'Lythe' Wapentake and are therefore to be identified as Beesthorpe.
	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT] 2. Scribe B interlined .ii. above Carletone; see 1,21 Beesthorpe note.
		Carlton[-on-Trent] was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. Although Grimston (1,17), the head of the manor, was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, this outlier, like Beesthorpe, was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for other parts, see 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.
1,22	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is inserted because it is possible that Farnsfield is not a dependency of Grimston (1,17); see 1,22 Farnsfield note.
	FARNSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
		This is more a note than an entry. Apart from its taxable extent, it lacks all details, including its T.R.E. holder. There is no indication of its status (marginal B' or S') nor, apart from position, of its relation to Grimston (1,17). Moreover, there is no other estate depending on Grimston or Mansfield in Thurgarton Wapentake. It appears to be the part of Farnsfield that was not granted with Southwell in 956 to the Archbishop of York. Since it is possible that Southwell itself was granted from the royal estate of Mansfield (1,23), it is probable that Farnsfield had the same origin and that what was left to the king in 1086 was an isolated rump; see 5,1 Southwell note, 5,1 outliers note and {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
	1 BOVATE. This is one of two bovates in Farnsfield mentioned in Walter of Aincourt's fief (11,17), where it is said to be in the jurisdiction of the king, but nevertheless to belong to Southwell Hundred. On this hundred, see 5,1 Southwell note.
	NEAR NOTTINGHAM. This information is surprising. There is no other place in Nottinghamshire with the same name (Franesfeld, Farnesfeld) as Farnsfield and Farnsfield is about 11 miles from Nottingham. One possibility is that this bovate was a detached part of Farnsfield that lay near the borough. It is perhaps more likely that, since this bovate is neither a manor, nor an outlier nor a Jurisdiction, is assigned to no wapentake and is, as it were, floating, the statement that it is 'near Nottingham' is an attempt to give it a vague location.
1,23	MANSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish, that of Mansfield St Peter and St Paul. It lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, both Mansfield and Mansfield Woodhouse (SK5363) are listed as Ancient Demesne, a continuation of the situation in 1086.
		Mansfield was a major estate with two outliers and over forty other dependencies (1,24-44) which were presumably Jurisdictions, though not all are indicated as such. They lay in the wapentakes of 'Bassetlaw', 'Lythe' and Oswaldbeck; unusually, Domesday provides a heading above this last group (1,31). Despite the long list of dependencies, it appears that some places that lay within this gigantic estate were not named, probably because they were part of the royal lordship. Thus in Papplewick, which only appears in Domesday among the lands of William Peverel (10,21), there appears to have been part of the royal lordship for 1 carucate there was held in alms by the canons of Newstead (de Novo Loco) 'by gift of King Henry': Book of Fees, p. 150. Wudehus, Sutton' and Nettelwurd' are likewise mentioned as Jurisdictions of Mansfield in Book of Fees, p. 1000. Of these Sutton-in-Ashfield is in Domesday (1,23), but Mansfield Woodhouse (SK5463) and Nettleworth (SK5465) are not.
		Associated with Mansfield in later times at least was Sherwood Forest. Sherwood means the 'wood of the shire' and is first mentioned in 958. It probably fulfilled the same function originally as the 'woodland of the whole sheriffdom, called "Hereswode" '(that is, 'the wood of the army') in Leicestershire (LEC C18). It was not formally afforested until later: in the Pipe Roll of 1130, William Peverel answers de placitis forestae ('for the pleas of the forest'); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214; and {Introduction: Forest}.
		On the early history of Mansfield, see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield' and Crook 'Lindhurst'.
	SKEGBY, AN OUTLIER, AND SUTTON[-IN-ASHFIELD], AN OUTLIER. Both seem to have been in the same wapentake (Broxtowe Wapentake) as Mansfield itself. The treatment of the outliers of Mansfield is rather confused: the main scribe of Great Domesday listed two only here, then later another two (Grimston and Edwinstowe, 1,27-28), which he perhaps found when he was abstracting a schedule relating to 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in which they lay. See {Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}.
		Skegby was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Mansfield St Peter and St Paul. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110, where it is listed with Le Wodehouse [Mansfield Woodhouse, SK5463]. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.
		Sutton[-in-Ashfield] was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110, where it is Sutton super Asshefeld. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.
	EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.
	5 FREEMEN, WITH 3 BOVATES OF THIS LAND, AND 35 VILLAGERS ... WITH 19 ½ PLOUGHS. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation with a semi-colon after 'land', implies that the Freemen did not share the 19 ½ ploughs with the villagers and smallholders, but there is nothing in the phrasing or punctuation to suggest this.
		The Latin for the first phrase is v. soch' de .iii. bouat' hui' t'rê. Latin de normally means 'of' or 'from', though in Domesday it also has the meaning of 'at' in a phrase such as ii molini de xxxii den[ariis] ('2 mills at 32d'). Here, however, the precise sense of de is unclear; it is possibly elliptical for '5 Freemen with a holding consisting of/assessed at 3 bovates'. Nonetheless the easiest translation is 'with', even though this now is the same translation as that of cum as in the phrase 'Freemen with x ploughs'.
	20 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote a figure beginning with x, then erased a letter or two after it (the original punctus is still visible in the manuscript) before adding a second x in darker ink and interlining ti (the last two letters of viginti, '20') in clarification.
	1 MILL AND 1 FISHERY, 21s. This would seem to be a joint render from the mill and the fishery. The Latin is unâ piscariâ, accusative; molin' may also be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
		The fishery may have been on the River Maun where Domesday Geography of Northern England (p. 262) places it. However, in view of the size of the multiple estate of Mansfield and the fact that the resources of the capital estate do not have to be adjacent to the manorial centre, it is difficult to be certain.
	2 CHURCHES AND 2 PRIESTS. Presumably one church lay in Mansfield and the other in one of the two outliers. The church of Mansfield was granted, along with the Derbyshire churches of Chesterfield and Ashbourne (DBY 1,1;14) and the church of Orston (1,51), by William II in 1093 to the Bishop of Lincoln: Monasticon Anglicanum, viii. p. 1271 (the page number is misprinted as 1237) no. 6; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 87 no. 337; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 313; VCH Derbyshire, i. p. 312; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214. This grant makes reference to one by William the Conqueror which is lost. Besides the churches themselves, the grant includes 'the chapels in the outliers of these four manors'. None of these chapels is mentioned in Derbyshire, but the second church of Mansfield may have been one of them. A church at Sutton-in-Ashfield is mentioned in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 313, as long held by Thurgarton Priory. It is not certain when it was founded and if it is the second church of Domesday; see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', pp. 18-19.
1,24	THIS ENTRY and those following (1,25-44) appear to be dependencies of Mansfield (1,23), presumably outliers or Jurisdictions, though only those in 1,27-32;34-43 are designated as such. Perlethorpe (1,26) is said to 'lie in [the lands of] Mansfield'. The great majority of these places lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but no heading has here been supplied, as the scribe did not usually indicate the wapentake in which dependencies lay; the heading at 1,31 'Jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake' is unusual.
		Six of these dependencies (Beesthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent, Eakring, Kirton, Ompton and Willoughby) were shared with Laxton (12,1) which had presumably once been a part of Mansfield.
		The list given in 1,24 is skeletel in the extreme with only a place-name and a taxable extent, similar to the entries in the Yorkshire summary (but without the holder interlined) and they may have been derived from a checklist or even a taxation list. A number of estates in this list are not mentioned elsewhere under Mansfield or Grimston, but all those that are more fully described in 1,25-30 are in this list. Thus it seems probable that this list is a sort of index of the members of Mansfield/Grimston, which the scribe then intended to describe more fully but for some of which he could find no more details. If this is so, the discrepancies suggest that this list pre-dated Domesday. It is interesting that in over half the cases where fuller details are given, the assessments are the same.
		According to Roffe ('Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 2), 'A compound entry describing some seventeen sokelands of Mansfield ... displays a difference in the hand which suggests that it is a postscriptal addition to a space which had been intentionally left for the purpose'. This would seem to be the list of nineteen dependencies in the present entry, but there is no sign in the manuscript of their being added, any superficial 'difference' being due to their appearing to be more tightly written because of the number of Ins and the lack of manorial details joined by 7s. There were, however, five later corrections; see 1,24 carucates note, 1,24 3 ½ note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note and 1,24 total note.
	WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, a portion (corresponding to the present entry and 1,25) is listed as Ancient Demesne. For fuller details of Warsop, see 1,25, which is duplicated in 30,53. For another part, see 9,40. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).
	'CLOWN'. This is a lost place in Welbeck, which was itself an extra-parochial area. The name is represented by Clown Hill Plantation at SK583738; the site of the village was perhaps approximately SK580738; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 104; Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 200. Geographically, 'Clown' will have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, like Warsop and Carburton, the places here listed before and after it.
	CARBURTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as it was later; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 71. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.
		Carburton, Domesday Carb'tone, like 'Clown', Budby and Thoresby, does not appear elsewhere in Domesday, unless it is represented by Carletone (1,30) here identified, with reservations, as Carlton-in-Lindrick, but whose taxable extent (2 carucates) is the same as that of Carburton; see 1,30 Carlton note.
	CLUMBER. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, a portion corresponding to this present entry is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another part, see 9,41.
	BUDBY. This was a township of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.
	THORESBY. This was a hamlet of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. The grid reference is to Thoresby Hall (SK638712). There is a Thoresby Home Farm at SK647710.
	SCOFTON. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another reference, see 1,30.
	PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another reference, see 1,30; for other parts, see 1,26. 9,37. The Domesday form Torp later acquired the prefix 'Peverel', being Peureltorp in 1159. However, there is no known connection with the honour of Peverel (descent from William Peverel; see NTT 10 William note); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 91.
	RAYTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For another reference, see 1,30.
		The grid reference is to Rayton Farm (SK614792).
	2 CARUCATES. Scribe B corrected the number of carucates of Scrofton, Perlethorpe and Rayton by squeezing in a second minim over the main scribe's original punctus after his i; he then added a new punctus. For other corrections to the assessments in this section by the main scribe, see 1,24 3 ½ note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note and 1,24 total note.
	EDWINSTOWE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For fuller details, see 1,28.
	GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references, see 1,17-18;27.
		The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement, which is at Grimston Hill (SK6965); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 250 note 3.
	EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. This place does not appear elsewhere in the terra regis and the 3 ½ bovates do not reappear as such. There is ½ bovate at 12,5 and 12 bovates in 17,7-8.
	3 ½ BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 dimid' above .iii. bou'; see 1,24 carucates note.
	MAPLEBECK. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For fuller details, see 1,29 and for another part, see 17,11.
	BEESTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8). For fuller details, see 1,21 (where Beesthorpe is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for another part, see 12,9.
	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For fuller details, see 1,21 (where Carlton-on-Trent is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for other parts, see 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.
	KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,19. 9,13. 12,2. 17,2, and, on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.
	1 ½ BOVATES. This assessment might have been written partially over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday. The assessment of Kirton in 1,19 is ½ bovate; see 1,17 outlier note. On other corrections by him to the assessments in this entry, see 1,24 carucates note. Further parts of Kirton (9,13 with Walesby. 12,2. 17,2) are each assessed at 2 bovates, but it is not certain that the missing bovate is to be sought among them.
	WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been displaced by it in importance. Like Walesby, it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For fuller details, see 1,20 (where Willoughby with Walesby is part of Grimston, not Mansfield) and for another part, see 12,3.
		This entry is preceded by one for Kirton which probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and followed by one for Ompton which may have lain either in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake or in 'Lythe' Wapentake; see 1,24 Ompton note. There is also a Willoughby in 'Lythe' Wapentake (5,15. 12,15 and probably 24,3), but it seems probable that the present Willoughby is the one surveyed with Walesby in 1,20.
	1 ½ BOVATES. In the fuller entry (1,20), Willoughby and Walesby are assessed together as 2 bovates.
	OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall itself (17,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages Kneesall was divided between 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 12,6. 15,2. 17,10.
	1 BOVATE AND ½ BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined .i. boū above Almuntone and squeezed 7 in after it, extending it downwards to act as an insertion mark for the addition. On other corrections by him to the assessments in this entry, see 1,24 carucates note.
		Ompton does not appear elsewhere in the terra regis. The assessment of other parts of Ompton are 2 bovates (12,6), 3 bovates (15,2) and 1 ½ bovates (17,10). This last corresponds to the present assessment but is not necessarily the same estate.
	CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]. The Domesday form Caretone is presumably an error for Carletone (it appears as Careltune in 9,50). This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other apparent parts, see 1,30. 9,50.
		The assessment here is 4 carucates. Often where an estate in the present list appears elsewhere in the terra regis, the assessment is the same. However, the assessment at 1,30, if correctly identified as Carlton-in-Lindrick, is 2 carucates and, barring a figure error, casts some doubt on one or other of the identifications; see 1,30 Carlton note.
	IN TOTAL, 13 CARUCATES OF LAND AND 6 ½ BOVATES TAXABLE . The number of bovates was corrected from v to vi, probably by the main scribe of Great Domesday: although it is in a slightly darker ink than he had used for the other corrections to the assessments in this entry (1,24 3 ½ note, 1,24 bovates note, 1,24 bovate note), it is not as dark as that used by scribe B for his correction to the carucates of Scofton, Perlethorpe and Rayton (1,24 carucates note). This total, either before or after this present correction, does not agree with the sum of the individual assessments, either before or after their corrections. This is a frequent occurrence in Domesday Book; compare 1,12 total note.
1,25	THIS ENTRY is repeated at 30,53, in the chapter on the lands of the king's thanes, though there is no mention there of the blind man's having 1 smallholder with 6 oxen in a plough. That entry was a late addition to the county by the main scribe of Great Domesday, after it had been rubricated; see 30,53 entry note. For other added entries duplicating material already included, see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		It would seem that the scribe had difficulty in finding the right place for this entry. It really belongs outside the list of dependencies of Mansfield or in a separate chapter entitled 'The king's almslands'. It was presumably entered here as it was one of several parts of Warsop in a territorially-arranged schedule that preceded Domesday, and a piece of royal land referred to in the 'checklist' at 1,24.
	WARSOP. See 1,24 Warsop note.
1,26	PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references, see 1,24;30 and, for another part, see 9,37; for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.
	IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] MANSFIELD. Strictly speaking the Latin iacet in ('lies in') refers to location whereas iacet ad ('belongs to') refers to dependency. In practice, however, the two phrases overlap in meaning. Here Perlethorpe lay within the multiple estate of Mansfield and was no doubt a dependency of it.
1,27	GRIMSTON. This was a settlement in Wellow Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to Grimston, see 1,17-18;24.
		The original Grimston appears to correspond to the site of Jordan's castle (SK679665), below the modern settlement which is at Grimston Hill (SK681657); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 250 note 3.
		This entry really belongs with the two outliers listed after Mansfield itself in 1,23; see 1,23 outlier note. The BEREW' at the end of the first line may be intended to draw attention to its misplacement.
		For the possibility that this whole entry is duplicated by the one for Grimston at 1,17, see 1,17 outlier note.
1,28	EDWINSTOWE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24.
		This entry really belongs with the two outliers listed after Mansfield itself in 1,23; see 1,23 outlier note. The BEREW' above the end of the first line may be intended to draw attention to its misplacement.
		After 1086 Edwinstowe became detached from Mansfield, taking with it Carburton (1,24) and part of Thoresby (1,24); see, Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 15. It is possible that Carburton and Thoresby only appear in Domesday in the list of members of Mansfield because they were already included in Edwinstowe.
1,29	MAPLEBECK. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 17,11.
1,30	CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]?. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24 and for another part, see 9,50.
		Ostensibly this entry for Carletone is a slightly fuller statement of the estate listed as Caretone (for which one could plausibly read Carletone) at 1,24. However, the taxable extent of Caretone is 4 carucates, while that of the present estate is 2 carucates. Since the assessment of estates in the list at 1,24 is often the same in the fuller entries when they re-appear, this casts some doubt on the identification. A possibility is that Carletone is a misreading of the name that occurs as Carb'tone in 1,24, that is, Carburton: a b with or without an abbreviation line through it can easily be mistaken for an le (compare 11,31 Kinoulton note). In favour of this is that Carburton is assessed at 2 carucates as is Carletone. Also supporting this is the fact that Scofton, Rayton and Perlethorpe with their joint assessment appear in both 1,24 and 1,30 and are preceded by the 2 carucates in Carletone here and by the 2 carucates in Carb'tone in 1,24, whereas the 4 carucates in Caretone are further down the list in 1,24. Alternatively it may be that Carletone really is Carlton-in-Lindrick (which is philologically more satisfactory) and the 4 carucates are made up of the two here and the two at 9,50. This would also imply that the listing of 4 carucates in 1,24 had not caught up with the grant or alienation of two.
	SCOFTON. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24.
	RAYTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24.
		The grid reference is to Rayton Farm (SK614792).
	PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For a reference to this estate, see 1,24; for other parts, see 1,26. 9,37, and for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.
	{{IN RANBY 2 CARUCATES OF LAND, [A JURISDICTION] OF BOTHAMSALL}}. When the main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the tax assessment total for this entry (1,30 taxable note) he probably underlined this for deletion: he had already included this detail, in its correct place, with other Jurisdictions of Bothamsall (1,14). In the Phillimore printed edition the translation is 'In Ranby, from Bothamsall, 2 c. of land'; the italics denote deletion. However, the scribe intended the interlined de bodmescel to be deleted as well (pace, JRM in his note here); there would not anyway have been room to underline it separately. The Alecto edition translates 'In Ranby from Bothamsall 2 carucates'. By the interlineation de bodmescel´ the scribe meant Soca de bodmescel ('A Jurisdiction of Bothamsall').
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation fails to indicate any deletion; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
	THAT IS, {{6}} 4 [CARUCATES] TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday underlined the .vi. for deletion and interlined .iiii. in correction, the difference of 2 [carucates] being caused by his deletion of the 2 carucates in Ranby earlier in this line (1,30 Ranby note).
1,31	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 281b. It is rubricated and was probably done at the same time as the other eight rubricated added entries in this county, though there are a few slight differences between them: 1,46. 5,5. 9,7-9;21;91;81, most of which were inserted in the foot margins. The present entry is probably a duplicate of the entry for Clarborough and Tiln, listed among further Jurisdictions of Mansfield on folio 281c (1,41). The main scribe may have failed to realize the duplication because when he added it only Clarborough was recorded there, as the 'and Tiln' interlined by scribe B would not have been there then (see 1,41 Tiln note). There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the main scribe also added an entry for Clarborough after rubrication (30,54 entry note), there was scribe B's interlineation just mentioned and both places were the subject of further additions by scribe B (5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborough note).
		The heading IT' SOCA IN WARDEBEC WAPENTAC ('Also jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake') was added by the main scribe at the same time as this entry.
	ALSO JURISDICTION IN OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE. For the addition of this heading, see 1,31 entry note. The Latin item ('also', 'similarly') refers back to the phrase 'Jurisdiction of Mansfield' in 1,30. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not usually indicate the wapentake in which dependencies lay, if different from that where the manor was. He did not do so for the group in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake that began at 1,24. However, he or a scribe of the putative circuit volume may have abstracted this information from a schedule arranged by wapentakes and may have transferred the heading as well. At DBY 1,19 the main scribe of Great Domesday included for the Jurisdictions of Melbourne (itself in "Walecros" Wapentake) the heading 'This jurisdiction belongs to Melbourne, in Scarsdale Wapentake'. Although he had mistaken the wapentake, this is a parallel example.
		This group of estates continued to have an independent existence as the 'Soke of Oswaldbeck'. In the late thirteenth century, a jury stated that all the fees in Oswaldbeck Wapentake had belonged to the soke and had been granted to individuals by 'the king': Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 300-301; see Book of Fees, p. 999. If this is so, the process had begun before Domesday as not every estate in Oswaldbeck Wapentake was held from the king. See Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, p. 158; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214; Stenton Manorial Structures, p. 44, Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', pp. 15-17.
	TILN. This was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. The subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake (see 1,31 Oswaldbeck note), makes its position clear, as does its association with Clarborough at 1,41. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. On the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8.
1,32	[SOUTH] LEVERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 2,10. 5,4 and 9,130.
		The present holding appears to have been in South Leverton, which lay in the medieval Oswaldbeck Soke (the successor to this Jurisdiction in Oswaldbeck Wapentake). Another part (2,10) seems to have been a dependency of Treswell (2,9) which was an adjacent settlement. Sudleg'ton had been held by the king according to Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 302, and was held by the king and Thomas de Latymer as Suth Lever[ton] et Cotum [South Leverton and Cottam, SK8180; see 9,18 Cottam note] in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106. On the other hand, North Leverton (5,4) seems to have been a part of the archiepiscopal jurisdiction of Laneham (5,4); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 245, and p. 251 note 3.
1,33	THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry, although he had to use the central margin too and was forced to write ad geld' at the end of the previous line of that entry, separating it from the preceding text with a gallows sign. Lack of space forced him to omit terrae ('of land') after car', which the main scribe normally included when carucata ('carucate') rather than caruca ('plough') was meant, although here there is no confusion because of the ad geldum. He also initially omitted the IN and had to interline it, extending the I downwards to act as an insertion sign. This addition may have been made at the same time as his brief entry for 6 ½ bovates in Clarborough and an interlined phrase on the previous line; see 5,8 Laneham note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the addition of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. He also clarified the tax assessment in one of the other entries for Fenton; see 9,112 part note.
		No indication is given of the status of the estate (whether an outlier or a Jurisdiction) and its only relation to Mansfield is its position in the text; perhaps scribe B thought that the marginal S' beside the previous entry, whose space this shared, was sufficient.
	FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Sturton-le-Steeple. It lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086, another part (9,112) being directly below a head for that wapentake in the text. It was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
1,34	LITTLEBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	3 FURLONGS AND 10 VIRGATES LONG. The virgate is here used as a linear measure, that is, probably as an equivalent of a perch, which was often reckoned as 16½ feet. Strictly one would expect Latin virga ('rod', 'pole') for the linear measure, virgata, its derivative, being reserved for the square measure (a square perch), which is nonetheless not the same as the usual virgate of Domesday, that is, a quarter of a hide or 30 acres, if the hide contains 120 acres; see Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', p. 80 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 120). Apart from the use of this virgate here at Littleborough, it is found at Kelham (9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45) and at the nearby Hockerton (9,60).
1,35	STURTON[-LE-STEEPLE]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Sturton-le-Clay. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,114.
1,36	[NORTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. Part of North Wheatley (1,36. 9,115) subsequently passed to Westminster Abbey and was its peculiar jurisdiction until the Dissolution of the monasteries. Both places are adjacent. They probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
1,37	WALKERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 9,120.
1,38	MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 9,121;123.
1,39	WISETON. This was a township of Clayworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227.
1,40	CLAYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 9,126.
1,41	CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,39;54.
		It seems likely that the royal borough of East Retford was planted in a corner of this royal estate which otherwise became an Ancient Parish. It has been suggested by Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', p. 26, that it was actually built on the site of "Odestorp", a member of Dunham-on-Trent manor in 1086, and which is associated with Babworth and Ordsall in Domesday (1,12). Babworth abutted both West Retford and Ordsall, and Ordsall touched Clarborough. Bishop's argument is that Ordsall and "Odestorp" might contain the same first element and that "Odestorp" might therefore be the 'Thorpe' of Ordsall. Because the three occurrences of "Odestorp" in Domesday (1,12. 9,42;71. 30,12) lack an -r- before the d, the connection is philogically unlikely. Moreover, the arrangement of Domesday is not strictly topographical, so there is no reason to assume that "Odestorp" and Ordsall were close to each other on the ground.
		The first certain indication that East Retford was a borough dates from 1225 when an agreement was made between the burgesses of Nottingham and Retford concerning their rights to levy toll (Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', p. 26, citing Nottingham Corporation, Records of the Borough of Nottingham, i. (1882) p. 19). However, an earlier existence seems implied by a writ of Henry I of c. 1105 which confirmed on the monks of Blyth Priory the right to exact toll as granted by Roger of Bully in his foundation charter (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, pp. 207-209 no. 325; see 9,49 Blyth note), but excepting the merchants of the royal court and burgenses mei de novo burgo ('my burgesses of the new borough'). The writ of Henry I, which is not in the Cartulary, was confirmed by Henry II: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, p. 210 no. 326). It is likely that this new borough is East Retford; see Bishop, 'Origins of East Retford', pp. 27-28, and for later mentions of the borough, see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	AND TILN. Scribe B interlined 7 Tille above Claureburg. There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the main scribe of Great Domesday had already added an entry for Tiln at the foot of the previous column which seems to be a duplicate of the present entry (1,31 entry note), he also added an entry for Clarborough after rubrication (30,54 entry note) and both places were the subject of further additions by scribe B, though not done at the same time as this interlineation (5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborough note).
		Tiln was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. The subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake, directly above Tiln at 1,31, makes its position clear, as does its association with Clarborough here. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. On the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. For other parts, see 1,31 and 5,8.
1,42	WELHAM. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 5,8.
	"SIMENTONE". No trace of this place has been found after 1086 and it most probably merged with Welham, with which it is twice associated in Domesday (1,42. 5,8). If that is so, it lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086.
	PERCHES. See B20 perches note.
1,43	GRINGLEY[-ON-THE-HILL?]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107. For the possible identification, see 1,4 Gringley note and, for another part, see 9,122.
		In the Book of Fees, p. 998, [Gre]nleg' is associated with Stretton' [Sturton-le-Steeple, 1,35] and Leyrton' [Leverton, 1,32] as part of the Soke of Oswaldbeck; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 25, 301 (Stretton' et Grenlay). The vill of Gringele, coupled with the vills of Mist'ton' [Misterton, 1,38] and Walcringham [Walkeringham, 1,37] in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 306, seems to represent the same place despite the different spelling. These references are unlikely to refer to Little Gringley (1,4) which was a Jurisdiction, not a vill.
1,44	SAUNDBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 5,4.
	1 GARDEN. The Latin is ortus, from the Classical Latin hortus. This is not a formal or decorative garden or a 'cottage garden' planted with flowers, but a 'kitchen garden' or 'vegetable patch', whose meaning and use overlaps with the notion of 'smallholding', 'market-garden' or 'orchard'. The latter word contains Latin ortus and English 'yard', the second element explaining the first as in beetroot (Latin beta, English 'root'). For 'orchard', Domesday uses the Latin pomarium, from pomum ('fruit'); see B18. 'Gardens' are also recorded in 9,9 and 12,3.
	PAYS SALT. That is, the salt is a render in payment for holding the garden.
	FROM BYCARRS DYKE. The Latin is redd[it] sal[em] in bigredic, but the use of the preposition in is probably idiomatic. Bycarrs Dyke is not the place where he makes the payment, but where the salt is obtained. The Phillimore printed translation has 'in', but the Alecto edition has 'from'. It is possible that he made the payment in the nearby royal manor of Misterton (1,38). However, this entry could well describe the supply of fish for the major royal manor of Mansfield, at the end of whose account it was written.
		According to Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 1-2, Bycarrs Dyke is a cut that joins the River Idle (in Misterton) more directly to the River Trent, and thus appears to be a canal rather than a drainage ditch, although its original purpose, if different, is unclear. On the modern 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map, the name occurs at SK736966, well to the east of Misterton and the first series one-inch Ordnance Survey map (Sheet 86 of 1924 reprinted in 1970 as sheet 23) Bycarrs Dyke extends from South Carr (SK724967) to Haxey Gate (SK766962). There are three roughly parallel features here, the River Idle, Bycarrs Dyke and the Mother Drain. Of these, the Mother Drain looks comparatively recent, while Bycarrs Dyke looks like a re-alignment or additional drain for the River Idle. That river debouches into the River Trent at West Stockwith (at SK788946) and it and the dyke were no doubt tidal in 1086, as the Trent still is at West Stockwith. It would have been possible to pan salt there. The place-name is difficult to interpret but may contain the Scandinavian by ('settlement') and kiarr ('marsh'): there are a number of places called Carr in this marshy district, for example, three North Carr farms (at SK720957, at SK775957 and at SK767965), a South Carr Farm at SK724967, a Castle Carr Farm at SK 735950, and a Carr Farm at SK724946.
		For a fishery at Bikeresdik, see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 26, 301. It is reported in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 302, that a fishery had once been part of the Soke of Oswaldbeck, but had been given by King John to Newstead Priory. A fishery here had apparently been removed to the detriment of the royal manor of Gringel' [Gringley-on-the-Hill?, 1,43]; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 303.
	FOR THE KING'S FISH. Presumably the king's fish were salted to preserve them.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space. This may have been in case he found further members of Mansfield, as in fact he did (1,31 entry note) and there were some more for which he did not find details (if 1,24 is merely a list: 1,24 entry note). However, the space was more likely left to demark the end of the long entry for that multiple estate before he began the account of the next one. Alternatively, as a Broxtowe wapentake head is required above the next manor it is possible that the space was left for the later inclusion of it. He left spaces elsewhere within fiefs in this county; see 2,2 after note, 5,3 after note, 5,8 after note, 5,11 after note, 7,4 after note, 9,130 after note, 12,10 after note and 21,2 after note..
1,45	[* BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is supplied from evidence for the later location of Arnold and its Jurisdictions (1,45-50).
	ARNOLD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne.
		No church is mentioned as being here in 1086, but King Henry II gave the church of Arnold to Laund Priory (Leicestershire); see Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 189; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214.
	EDWARD. On this name, see B19 Edward note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is silua pastilis per loca. For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 1,1 woodland note. In the Phillimore printed edition the present phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture in various places' and in the Alecto edition as 'woodland, pasture in places'. The addition of per loca ('throughout the area') is potentially ambiguous. It could be read closely with silua ('woodland in places') meaning there is woodland scattered over the estate rather than in a single block, or with pastilis ('pasturable in places') which does not say whether the wood is in one place or dispersed, but means that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. If the first meaning was intended the scribe could have supported the phrase with a participle: silua pastilis per loca dispersa ('pasturable woodland scattered over the area [of the manor]'). For the second meaning ('pasturable in places') the order silua per loca pastilis would have been clearer, though too much reliance cannot be placed on word order. However, if this is the correct interpretation, the per loca is really unnecessary, as silua pastilis itself implies exactly what per loca is supposed to mean.
		In virtually every case it seems that the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is more probably the correct one. Although per loca may be ambiguous with silua pastilis it was also used of other resources by the scribe. Thus YKS 4N1: xxvi acrae prati per loca ('meadow, 26 acres in [various] places'); YKS 6N2: sunt prata per aliqua loca ('there are meadows in some places'); YKS C22: haec non fuit hospitata T.R.E. sed per loca culta a burgensibus ('this [land] was not inhabited before 1066 but cultivated in places by the burgesses'). An alternative to the use of per loca would be in aliqubus locis ('in some places'); a similar phrase is found in GLS 3,5: In quibusdam locis pratum 7 silua, sed non multa ('meadow and woodland in certain places, but not much'). The phrase per loca is also used with silua but without pastilis and with a consequent lack of ambiguity: YKS 1Y15 silua per loca ('woodland in [various] places'); YKS 9W48 silua minuta per loca ('underwood in [various] places'). Thus the woodland is scattered over the surface of the manor. Dimensions are often given in acres or in x furlongs or leagues by y furlongs or leagues, as here, but this merely indicates that any single square of pasturable woodland (as well as plain woodland) that Domesday surveys is an agglomeration of several pieces of woodland, often including that of outliers and jurisdictions. This must often have been the case even in the absence of per loca. At LIN 35,14, the scribe used silua pastilis and silua pastilis per loca in the same entry: Silua pastilis i leugam longa 7 x quarentinas lata. Extra hanc adhuc cc acrae siluae pastilis per loca ('Pasturable woodland 1 league long and 10 furlongs wide. Besides this, a further 200 acres of pasturable woodland in [various] places'). The obvious interpretation of this is that there is one large block of pasturable woodland (measured in leagues and furlongs) and various scattered pieces lumped together as 200 acres. In the previous entry (LIN 35,13) there is silua vii quarentinas longa 7 v quarentinas et dimidiam lata. Extra hanc 7 cc 7 quater xx acrae siluae pastilis per loca ('woodland 7 furlongs long and 5 ½ furlongs wide. Besides this, pasturable woodland in [various] places, 280 acres'). There, the first wood is not pasturable, but the same overall interpretation will apply.
		Support for the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is given in the phrasing used in two Lincolnshire entries (LIN 56,11;18) which are duplicated by two entries in 'Roteland' (RUT 2,7;13): the two 'Roteland' entries have silua pastilis per loca, the Lincolnshire entries simply silua pastilis. The account of these entries probably derives from two separate county inquests (see RUT {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}) and it is possible that those responsible for writing up the results of the 'Roteland' inquest were being more specific than those writing up the results of the Lincolnshire one. Alternatively, in the sources used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for circuit VI (possibly, but not necessarily, a circuit volume) the phrase silua pastilis per loca was routinely used for woodland (and perhaps meadow and pasture as well) to indicate that these resources were each dispersed on the ground but that their extents had been added together for the purposes of Domesday valuations. The Domesday scribe, possibly unaware of the significance and under pressure to shorten, may have eliminated many (but not all) occurrences of per loca.
		A single phrase in Yorkshire (YKS 5W8) may involve the meaning 'pasturable in places'. The Latin is silua per loca pastilis, per loca inutilis ('woodland pasturable in places, unusable in places'). Again, too much reliance should not be placed on word order, but what is significant in the YKS example is the repetition of per loca which is not otiose.
	2 SESTERS OF HONEY. See 1,1 sesters note.
1,46	THIS ENTRY was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday, extending into the outer margin of folio 281c, above the first of three members of Mansfield; all but the first of these were written by him below the last ruled horizontal line, but were not themselves additions, pace Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 31. This entry was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. It may not in fact be a Jurisdiction or an outlier of Arnold, despite the heading 'Jurisdiction of this manor' which was added at the end of this entry and at the same time as it. It is more likely that it was inserted here by mistake because of its connection with Wollaton, the outlier of Mansfield, above which it was written, and that it is in fact a duplicate: 6 bovates in Bramcote had already been recorded in William Peverel's fief (10,37) as a Jurisdiction of Wollaton (10,35). The addition of material duplicating what was already in the text was common and probably caused by the shortage of time, and perhaps inclination, to check right through a county's folios; see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}. The main scribe was probably checking material for Wollaton when he found 6 bovates in Bramcote, possibly without the explicit mention of the identity of the manor of which they were a Jurisdiction, so he inserted them here, above the first entry for Wollaton. He presumably thought that they were a Jurisdiction of Mansfield, hence his addition of the heading, in its usual place referring to this and subsequent entries (though the first was in fact an outlier). For another Jurisdiction of William Peverel's manor of Wollaton (10,37) possibly being duplicated in an added unrubricated entry, see 30,55 entry note. For the even later addition by scribe B of a further entry at the end of this column, see 1,50 entry note.
	BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 29,1.
	6 BOVATES. If this entry is not a duplicate, the total size of Bramcote is 3 carucates, the present six bovates being complemented by six at 10,37 and by twelve at 29,1. If, however, it is a duplicate, Bramcote would have contained 18 bovates, that is 1 ½ carucates.
1,47	WOLLATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 10,35.
1,48	[OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539). Lenton probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,19;24.
1,49	BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,41. 28,3.
1,50	THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in the foot margin of folio 281c. It was probably a member of Arnold, although he did not include this information as the main scribe of Great Domesday had done for the three previous entries (1,47-49), nor did he put an S' or B' in the margin beside it to indicate its status. The main scribe had already inserted brief details of another holding four lines above, though it may not have been a member of Arnold; see 1,46 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the details of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.
	BILBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 10,39.
1,51	ORSTON. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	A CHURCH AND 2 PRIESTS. The brace of priests and their possession of a plough and an ox may imply that this was a small minster church; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
		The church of Orston was granted, along with the Derbyshire churches of Chesterfield and Ashbourne (DBY 1,1;14) and the church of Mansfield (1,23) by William II in 1093 to the Bishop of Lincoln: Monasticon Anglicanum, viii. p. 1271 (the page number misprinted as 1237) no. 6; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 87 no. 337; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 214. This grant makes reference to one by William the Conqueror which is lost. Besides the churches themselves, the grant includes 'the chapels in the outliers of these four manors'. None of these chapels is mentioned in Derbyshire, but the second church at Mansfield may have been one of these chapels. There may have been an unrecorded chapel at Scarrington (1,52), called an outlier by Domesday, and possibly at Staunton-in-the-Vale (1,53) if that too was an outlier.
1,52	AN OUTLIER OF THIS MANOR. The Latin BEREW' is presumably singular (Berewica) and refers to Scarrington alone. Staunton-in-the-Vale (1,53), whose status is uncertain, was added to the manuscript after the main scribe of Great Domesday had written BEREW'.
	SCARRINGTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
1,53	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday partly in a space at the end of the previous entry for an outlier of Orston (1,52) and partly in the centre margin; the continuation was clearly indicated by the use of transposition signs, also not rubricated. He added it at the same time as several other unrubricated entries in the first Nottinghamshire quire (folios 280-288): 1,64. 10,64-66 and perhaps 2,3;10 and possibly 5,6. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		The main scribe did not indicate the relationship of this entry to Orston, but its position after an outlier of that manor and before a Jurisdiction of it seems to imply that it was also a dependency of Orston, possibly another outlier. The lack of a value suggests that it was not a manor like the holding of Walter of Aincourt there (11,2).
	STAUNTON[-IN-THE-VALE]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Staunton with Flawborough. Although its apparent head manor (Orston, 1,51) was in Bingham Wapentake, this seeming dependency probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 11,2.
	
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS ... MEADOW, 60 ACRES. This part of the entry was written
	in the centre margin. It is omitted in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; see 2,3 entry note.
1,54	THOROTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, which was sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 20,2.
	18 VILLAGERS AND 1 SMALLHOLDER. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of villagers from xvi to xviii by interlining ii above the original i. At the same time he interlined 7 i. bord' above h'ntes.
1,55	SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 7,6. 9,106.
		The place-name is derived from Old English scir-gerefan tun ('farm of the sheriff'), but nothing is known of any connection with a named sheriff; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 229
1,56	[CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,107. 11,24.
1,57	ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,22. 17,18. 20,6. 30,37.
1,58	'NEWBOLD'. This place, now lost, lay in Kinoulton Ancient Parish, on the north side of Kinoulton itself; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 237. Kinoulton (11,31. 30,38) lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086.
	EARL MORCAR. He was the son of Algar and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin. Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti (King Harold’s brother) in 1065. He submitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Morcar(us), Morcharus - represent Old Swedish Morkar: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 329-30. JRM preferred the form Morcar as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; also the earl's name is normally spelt that way now. The Alecto edition has Morcar.
	UNDERWOOD, 2 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	VALUE BEFORE 1066 £4. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected this value from £3 to £4 by inserting a fourth minim after his original iii; however, he did not then interline or (the last two letters of quattuor, '4') in clarification, as he often did (see 16,11 4d note and 20,7 bovates note).
1,59	[UPPER] BROUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. Shiring cut through the land-unit of 'Broughton' leaving Nether Broughton (also held by the king) in Leicestershire (LEC 1,2).
	EARL ALGAR. He was the son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052 in place of Harold during the exile of the Godwine family and from 1053-1057 on Harold’s appointment to the Earldom of Wessex in succession to his father. Outlawed in 1055 he formed an alliance with the Welsh King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (of Gwynedd and Powys), routed an English force and pillaged Hereford. Restored, he was Earl of Mercia 1057-1062, but was banished in 1058 and again regained his position with Gruffydd’s help. He died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, it is Algar rather than he who is often recorded in Domesday as the T.R.E. holder.
		The Domesday form, Algar(us), is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - Elgar, Aelgar, Alger(us), Aelger - could represent Old English Ælfgar, Æthelgar or Ealdgar or even Old Norse Alfgeirr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 144-46, under Al-gar, and also p. 142, under Al-. However, he included all the references to the earl under Old English Ælfgar (ibidem, pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spelling, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl Ælfgar.
	LAND FOR 7 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written T'ra ('Land') and then left the rest of the line blank for the later insertion of the number of ploughs in the estimate. Scribe B then added .vii. car'. in this space. It would seem that the details of the plough estimate were important as the main scribe often left room for their completion, as he did twice more in this county (9,112. 10,32), though they were never completed. In circuit I he left over 150 such spaces, ninety or so in Kent alone. Obviously this information was missing in his source, but he was inconsistent in his policy over it as the plough estimate is completely missing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday: see here, for example, 15,7 plough note and 9,120 plough note. Sometimes, as here, the information was found to complete the estimate. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
	1 MILL, 5s; MEADOW, 100 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative, as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.
1,60	THORPE[-IN-THE-GLEBE]. This was an Ancient Parish, often known as Thorpe, sometimes also as Thorpe Bochart. If it has been correctly identified, it appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes }. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 9,91.
		The name survives as that of a parish and as a collective for several farms (Brooklea Farm, Woodside Farm, Annabell's Farm). It is also found in Thorpe Lodge Farm (SK616265) and in Thorpe Plantation (SK620260). The site of the deserted medieval village of 'Thorpe-le-Glebe' lay at SK606256 and is marked on current large-scale Ordnance Survey maps. The church is represented by Church Site Farm (SK608255). On the deserted settlement, see Cameron and O'Brien, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Thorpe-in-the Glebe'.
1,61	FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,108-109. 11,25.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.
	A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. The possession of half a plough may suggest that this was a superior church, possibly a minster; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
	UNDERWOOD. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation, with a semi-colon before the underwood, suggests that it might have belonged to the church and priest (as the meadow might have, as the case of ac' is unclear), but Silua is nominative and clearly in a new sentence, as regularly elsewhere and as in the Alecto edition; see 1,1 fishery note. The punctuation has therefore been corrected for the present edition.
1,62	KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 2,7-8. 9,102.
		Domesday does not designate it as a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction. The absence of a value suggests that it was probably a Jurisdiction of Flintham (1,61).
1,63	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sneinton; see 1,63 Sneinton note.
	SNEINTON. The name contains the same personal name, Snota, as does Nottingham itself, but the Domesday form Notitone, shows the loss of intial S from which Nottingham (Domesday Snotingeham) itself suffered after 1086; see Place-Names of Nottingham, p. 174. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Nottingham St Mary. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. Its apparent inclusion as the last entry in a list of places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109 is presumably an error, since 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake did not touch Nottingham.
		Domesday does not designate Sneinton as a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction. It is some distance from Flintham (1,61), the last manor mentioned, and has no known connection with it. Its presence here is something of an anomaly: for most of the Terra Regis (1,1-62) wapentakes are entered in standard county order; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}. However, it is possible that this solitary estate, which probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake was initially missed, and was entered here. It is followed by three added entries (1,64-66). It is in fact a duplicate of a carucate of land already entered under the borough of Nottingham, but without an individual name (B19). However, it is clear from that entry that it was taxable land but did not contribute to the revenue of the borough. It is therefore likely to have been in a wapentake in 1086.
		For the identification of the Sneinton which featured in a medieval lawsuit, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 245.
	VALUE £3. The T.R.E. value was the same, according to the repeat of this entry in B19.
1,64	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (1,65-66), also unrubricated, were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief. This brief entry seems to have been added after them as the I of In had to be partly accommodated in the centre margin; the ink used for it is also slightly paler than for them, suggesting it was not written at the same time; for other unrubricated entries added with it, see 1,53 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake head, as was often the case with added entries, and for almost all of those added at a later stage. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from the probable location of 'Meering' (1,64); see 1,64 'Meering' note.
	'MEERING'. This was an extra-parochial place which became a Civil Parish in 1858. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. It survives on modern Ordnance Survey maps only as the name of a parish, but a settlement was marked at SK811654 on the Ordnance Survey first edition one-inch sheet 83 of 1824 (reprinted as sheet 29 in 1970). It was presumably abandoned because frequently flooded by a rise in the water-level of the River Trent; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 191; Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 200.
	WILLIAM [* SON OF SKIALDVARTH *] HAD. This identification was suggested by Stenton in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 215, because William son of Skialdvarth had held Sutton-on-Trent (2,4) on the opposite bank of the River Trent and because of the rarity of the name William among 1066 holders. In the first version of Domesday Explorer, the translation of the Latin h[a]b[uit] (or perhaps h[a]b[ebat], both past tenses) appeared mistakenly as 'has', which would be the translation of the present h[abe]t.
1,65	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief, at the same time as the next entry (1,66) but probably before the previous one (1,64); see 1,64 entry note. It is likely that he added the entry for Barton-in-Fabis on folio 287b (10,7) at the same time as them. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake head, as was often the case with added entries, and for almost all of those added at a later stage. It is possible that he found this entry and the next (1,66) when he was checking the material in Corringham Wapentake, Lincolnshire, which is where both Kirton[-in-Lindsey] and Laughton lay, of which Misson here and in 1,66 were Jurisdictions. Compare 23,1 Stockerston note and 23,2 entry note.
		This entry appears to be a duplicate of 30,44 which has the same taxable extent and the same number of villagers and ploughs, though lacks both a T.R.E. and 1086 holder. It is likewise described as a Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey; both entries, however, fail to record the wapentake (see 1,64 entry note). It is possible that when the main scribe found this Jurisdiction, he thought that he had missed it earlier and entered it in what he thought was the correct place, under the king's land. He failed to delete the entry at 30,44 which is oddly placed among the 'Lands of the King's Thanes'. For an unrubricated entry added in the section on the lands of the king's thanes that was a duplicate of an entry in his fief, see 30,53 entry note and, possibly, 30,56 Ordsall note. For another entry in Misson that was added by the main scribe, though before rubrication, see 9,21 entry note. For other added entries duplicating material already included, see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. The heading is supplied from the probable location of Misson; see 1,65 Misson note.
	MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish divided between Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottinghamshire. A part was still taxed in Lincolnshire in 1334: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 185, 227. The Nottinghamshire portion probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. This entry is apparently duplicated in 30,44 (1,65 entry note); for other parts of Misson, see 1,66. 9,21. 30,43.
		In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears wrongly as Mission here (as also at 9,21); it is correct in the Alecto edition.
	TOSTI <OF SAWTRY> HAD IT. The Domesday forms of his name - Tosti, Tostius and, once each, Thostin and Tostillus - represent Old Danish/Old Norse Tosti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 387. The Alecto edition has Tosti.
		This man may be an ordinary Tosti, not the earl, and have held under Earl Edwin, who was the T.R.E. holder of Kirton-in-Lindsey; see 1,65 Kirton note. Alternatively he might be Earl Tosti and it may be that Earl Edwin (of Mercia) succeeded Earl Tosti (of Northumbria), when the former was rejected by the Northumbrians who chose Morcar as their earl. Edwin will have held only briefly and the jurors in the different shires may have given different names to the T.R.E. holders. Thus Earl Algar, Earl Edwin's father, is sometimes said to hold T.R.E. though he was dead by 1066. It is possible that Nottinghamshire was briefly attached to Northumbria, though it was more naturally a member of the Mercian earldom; see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
		Apart from the earl, Harold's brother, the name Tosti is not particularly common, occurring on twenty holdings between Sussex and Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has the only concentration (LIN 4,17-21;69-71), and all these devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux, making it likely that they had been held by the individual who can be identified as Tosti, brother of Eric of Tealby, 'one of King Edward's barons' according to the (Macray, pp. 175, 199; see RUT 2,8 Eric note. Tosti held Sawtry in Huntingdonshire (HUN 19,1. D27) and may also have held this Jurisdiction of Kirton-in-Lindsey (JP).
	KIRTON[-IN-LINDSEY]. This royal manor is surveyed in LIN 1,38. The spellings of the Nottinghamshire Kirton (1,19;24), also part of a royal manor, rule out identification with the latter; see 1,19 Kirton note. Misson is listed among places in the 'Soke of Kirton' in the West Riding of Lincolnshire in 1316 (Feudal Aids, iii. p. 185).
1,66	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a large space left by him at the end of the king's fief, at the same time as the previous entry (1,65) but probably before the first added entry here (1,64); see 1,64 entry note. It is likely that he added the entry for Barton-in-Fabis on folio 287b (10,7) at the same time as these two. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. It is possible that he found this entry and the previous one (1,65) when he was checking the material in Corringham Wapentake, Lincolnshire, which is where both Kirton-in-Lindsey and Laughton lay, of which Misson here and in 1,65 were Jurisdictions. Compare 23,2 entry note. This entry is misplaced; it rightly belongs in the Lincolnshire folios with the other Jurisdictions of Laughton (LIN 57,8-9).
	THERE ALSO ^[MISSON]^. See 1,65 Misson note.
	IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF LAUGHTON. Strictly the Latin iacet ad (literally 'lies at') implies dependency whereas iacet in ('lies in') gives a location, although the main scribe of Great Domesday was not entirely consistent in his usage and in practice the two senses overlap, because the location of one place in another often implies dependency. The Phillimore printed translation is 'It lies in Laughton [lands]'. The Alecto edition has 'It belongs to Laughton'.
		Laughton is surveyed at LIN 57,7. The T.R.E. holder was Ulfgrim, though none is given here for Misson.
	GUY ^[OF CRAON]^. The identity is supplied from LIN 57 of which he is the fief-holder.
		The Domesday form of his first name, Wido, represents Old German Wido, Romance Guido, Gido: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 254. The modern English form Guy was preferred by JRM and is also used in the Alecto edition.
	ALFRED [* OF CHANCE *]. The Domesday forms of Alfred - Alured, Aluredus, Aluret, Alueradus, Aluerd, Aluert, Aluer, Eluret - represent Old English Ælfræd: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 175-76. However, he stated that sometimes the Old Breton Alfred, Alfret, Alfrit might be considered, as well as Old German Alverat etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both T.R.E. and 1086 holders. The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders, including here.
		In Lincolnshire Alfred is called 'Guy's man' (LIN 57,1;5-7). Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 140-41, seems to suggest that he was Alfred of Laughton, named from the estate he held from Guy of Craon (LIN 57,7) and apparently also Alfred of Chancé (whose son was called Alfred of Canci), but she does not provide evidence to link these two men called Alfred. Chancé is in the French département of Ille-et-Vilaine (arrondissement Rennes, canton Châteaugiron).
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining six lines of folio 281d.
2	THIS FIEF and the next two, for Earl Hugh and the Count of Mortain (NTT 3-4), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire. He must have written the first Nottinghamshire quire, and possibly much of the second, before he discovered this omission. He had begun the first quire (folios 280-288) with the details of the boroughs of Nottingham and Derby and the customs of the two shires, then started on the fiefs with the king's lands, continued with those of four ecclesiastical tenants (the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Bayeux, St Peter of Peterborough) and then of three lay tenants (Roger of Bully, William Peverel, Walter of Aincourt), the holdings of the last of these continuing into the second quire (folios 289-296). The fiefs of the three omitted lay tenants should have been entered after that of the last ecclesiastical tenant, that is, after folio 284b, as they were of greater importance than Roger of Bully etc. However, it was impossible to insert them at that point, nor could he add them elsewhere in the first quire because of the flow of the text from one page to the next. He solved the problem by inserting a half-sheet following the holdings of the king and inscribing the three omitted fiefs on its verso (folio 282cd). This solution sacrificed the strict hierarchical order of the chapters within the county, the only occurrence in Great Domesday of the holdings of lay tenants-in-chief preceding those of the church. If he had known the exact number of lines required for this omission, he could in fact have added them partly in the blank column that he had left after the archbishop's fief (folio 283c) and partly in the blank half-column he had left after the Bishop of Lincoln's fief (folio 284a), but it would have been a tight fit and not aesthetically pleasing and would have disrupted the hierarchical order even further. The Landholders' List on folio 280d shows these three fiefs numbered as II-IIII as they appear in the text. On his writing on the verso of this half-sheet, see {Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}. However, the main scribe did not have details of all Count Alan's holdings in this county as he had to write three entries in the outer margin of this inserted half-sheet (2,3;5;10).
	LAND OF COUNT ALAN. Count Alan Rufus of Brittany was a son of Count Eudo, regent of Brittany 1040-1047 who was brother of Duke Alan III of Brittany and son of an aunt of William the Conqueror. Alan Rufus’ mother was Agnes, from the Anjou. A younger brother was Alan Niger. After King William’s harrying of the north in 1069, Alan Rufus acquired vast lands which became the nucleus of the honour of Richmond (Yorkshire). He was really in charge of a vast marcher lordship facing the kingdoms of Strathclyde and Scotland. His fief was further increased after 1075 by the East Anglian lands forfeited by the rebel Earl Ralph de Gaël. Count Alan was an intensely loyal supporter of William I and of his son William Rufus and was important in the disgrace and exile of William of Saint-Calais, Bishop of Durham in 1089. He died in 1093, and was succeeded by his brother Alan Niger, then, after the latter's death in 1098 by another brother, Stephen. Alan founded St Mary’s, York, and a priory at Swavesy (in Cambridgeshire) as a cell of Saints Serge and Bacchus in Angers. He also made grants to the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds where he was interred. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 127.
		The Domesday form, Alan[us], represents Old Breton Alan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 142. The Alecto edition also has Alan.
	There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in five wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}:
		2,1-3 [Newark Wapentake]
		2,4-5 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		2,6 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		2,7-8 [Bingham Wapentake]
		2,9-10 [Oswaldbeck Wapentake].
2,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sibthorpe and Syerston (2,1-3).
	SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, originally that of a collegiate church, which was there in 1086: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,2. 10,2. 20,1.
	OSPAK <OF SIBTHORPE>. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Vnspac over the erasure of a slightly longer name.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Vnspac, Vnspati (genitive) - represent Old Swedish Ospak, Old Norse Ospakr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 340. The Alecto edition has Ospak for the two occurrences of this name in Nottinghamshire (see also 9,103, perhaps the same individual; see 9,103 Ospak note) and for the Ospak who was father of a Ralph in KEN 2,29, but Ospakr for the two occurrences in Norfolk (NFK 1,42. 9,150) and Ansketil fitzUnspac for the 1086 holder in NFK 66,99.
	FREDEGIS HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Fredgis, Fredregis, Fredghis - represent Old German Fredegis: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 254. The Alecto edition has Fredegis, except for the Norfolk example where it has Frederick for the form Fredregis and for the Lincolnshire one where it has Fredegaest.
		There are six other occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire: as a T.R.E. holder in 10,53-55 and in 16,8, and as a 1086 subtenant of William Peverel in 10,55;57. It is not clear whether the same individual held all these lands; on the probability of his being the father of Godric, see 9,94 Godric note. See also 10,55 Fredegis note. The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are six times in Northamptonshire and once in Norfolk as a T.R.E. holder, and once in Lincolnshire (as a 1086 holder).
	A FOURTH PART OF THE LAND BELONGS. That is, a quarter of the 2½ bovates. The possession of land by this church may mean that it was superior, possibly a (small) minster church; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. The statement is repeated under another holding at Sibthorpe (20,1) and presumably refers to the same quarter.
2,2	THERE ALSO ^[SIBTHORPE]^. See 2,1 Sibthorpe note. The IBIDÇ is lined through in red in the manuscript as expected for a manorial entry, and this is reproduced in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, though not in the Alecto facsimile. On other omissions of red-lining in place-names in the Alecto facsimile, see 9,12 Tuxford note, 9,51 Lound note, 9,98 there note, 13,7 Keyworth note and 17,8 there note; see also 5,3 Hickling note and 6,5 had note.
	OSBERN HAD. In the manuscript the reading is clearly hb with an abbreviation line through the ascenders of the two letters; Farley misprinted ht with a horizontal abbreviation line over the t. This mistake led to the translation of the verb as 'has' in the Phillimore printed edition, which was not altered in the first version of Domesday Explorer. For other of Farley's rare errors in this county, see 9,31 Drayton note.
		The Domesday forms of Osbern - Osbern(us), Osber - represent Old Norse Asbiorn (Old Danish Esbiorn) Normanized or Anglicized, or Old Low German Osbern: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 338-39. The Alecto edition has Osbern.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, though he had written the 1086 value at the end if it as an overrun. The space might have been for the later insertion of a wapentake head, as the next entry, Sutton-on-Trent, was in 'Lythe' Wapentake (see 2,4 'Lythe' note). For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
2,3	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c, level with the entry for Sutton[-on-Trent] in 'Lythe' Wapentake (2,4, head omitted), but it belongs with the two entries in Newark Wapentake (2,1-2). It may have been added at the same time as some other unrubricated entries; see 1,53 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. The inclusion of the M' (for Manerium, 'manor') beside this entry is unusual for an unrubricated addition; none of the other entries added after rubrication in Nottinghamshire (see the list in 1,19 entry note) has any letter denoting its status. However, it includes a formula in the value statement that is not found in circuit VI except in added entries, which may suggest that it was added much later; see 10,64 entry note and 2,3 value note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note. Other holdings of his were added; see 2,5;10. YKS 6E1. LIN 12,62;69 for those also added after rubrication, and LIN 12,45;83-84;97 for those added before rubrication.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; other entries in Nottinghamshire that are similarly omitted from this 'Complete Translation' include 2,5;10. 9,23;47-48. 10,7. 12,12. 30,10. This is presumably because they were written in the side or centre margins, though they are nonetheless integral parts of the text written by the main scribe.
	SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 21,2. 30,40.
	AELRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Ailric, Ailricus, Eilric, Alricus, Aeilric, Eilricus etc. - represent Old English Æthelric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial -d- or -g-, JRM did not accept them as representing this name. In several counties in the Phillimore printed edition they appear as Alric and in others as Aelfric. The Alecto edition has Æthelric.
	ROBERT [* OF MOUTIERS *] HOLDS. The Domesday forms of his first name - Robert, Rob[er]t[us], Rodbertus, Rotbert(us) - represent Old German Rodbert, Rotbert, Robert etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to modern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert.
		According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 377, this subtenant of Count Alan is Robert of Moutiers, who appears with his byname in 2,9 (see 2,9 Robert note). She also identifies Robert the count's man in YKS 6N147;151 and LIN 12,4 and plain Robert in 6N148;158 as Robert of Moutiers. However, she provides more folio references than there are occurrences of the name Robert (six for folio 313a, for YKS 6N158; two for folio 347a, for LIN 12,4), though she states, on p. 121, that 'Several references to the same folio may be given, but each will relate to a separate occurrence of the subject in the Domesday text'; see 15,10 Warner note and 17,16 Robert note. If all the references to Count Alan's subtenant Robert are to Robert of Moutiers, then the plain Robert in YKS 6N128 (folio 312b) should probably be included, though not mentioned by Keats-Rohan, ibidem.
	[VALUE] FORMERLY 40s; NOW 20s. This formula is not one found anywhere else in this county or elsewhere in circuit VI, except in entries added after rubrication (it also appears here in 12,23 and compare 5,6 formerly note, 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note). On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
2,4	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sutton-on-Trent and Carlton-on-Trent (2,4-5).
	SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,63;67.
	WILLIAM SON OF SKIALDVARTH. A William, probably the same man, held 'Meering' (1,64) on the opposite bank of the Trent; see 1,64 William note.
		On the name William, see B9 William note. His father's name, Sceluuard, represents the hypothetical Old Norse Skialdvarthr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 365. JRM did not pronounce on this name, but he did not retain the final r in other Old Norse names as it was not in the Domesday form. It appears in the Phillimore printed edition as Scelward and in the Alecto edition as Skialdvarthr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Book.
	HERVEY, COUNT ALAN'S MAN. The Domesday forms of Hervey - Herveus, Hervicus, Herveius, Hervicius - represent Old German Herewig, Herewicus, Romance Her(e)veus, Old French Hervieu, Hervi: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 150-51. JRM preferred the modern English name Hervey, but in the Phillimore printed edition of Kent it appears as Harvey and in Yorkshire as Herewig; these have now been standardized as Hervey. The Alecto edition also has Hervey.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Hervey, Count Alan's man, occurs in LIN 12,51.
2,5	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c below another added entry (2,3) but apparently not at the same time as it, as it was written in larger letters with a different pen and the ink is darker. It does not seem to have been written in the same campaign as any of the other added entries that were not rubricated, on which see 1,19 entry note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note, and for other holdings of his that were added, see 2,3 entry note.
		This estate is neither designated a manor nor an outlier nor a Jurisdicton; see 2,3 entry note. However, it lacks a value statement and was written almost adjacent to Sutton-on-Trent and may well have been a Jurisdiction of it.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to Carlton-on-Trent, see 1,21;24. 9,61. 12,10;23. 30,2.
	WILLIAM HOLDS IT. On this name, see B9 William note.
2,6	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ruddington; see 2,6 Ruddington note.
	RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 1109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,83. 17,15. 25,2.
	LEOFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuiet, Leuiet[us], Leueget, Leuiget - represent Old English Leofgeat: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 311. He remarked that in some cases where the sex of the tenants could not be ascertained, the forms might represent the feminine Old English name Leofgyth (see WIL 67,86 Leofgyth note). The Alecto edition has Leofgeat.
	COUNT A[LAN]. Normally it is the title (comes, episcopus etc.) of a holder that is interlined, but here the main scribe of Great Domesday obviously thought it necessary to clarify which comes by interlining A. for Alanus. He did the same in the next entry (2,7) and in the entry for Treswell (2,9).
2,7	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kneeton (2,7-8).
	KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,62. 2,8. 9,102.
	ALSI. On this name, see S5 Alsi note.
	½ CHURCH. The other part does not appear.
2,8	THERE ALSO ^[KNEETON]^. See 2,7 Kneeton note.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.
2,9	[OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Treswell and Leverton (2,9-10).
	TRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the dean and chapter of York. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,129.
	WULFMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlmar(us), Vlmer(us), Wlmer(us), Wlmar(us), Vlmaer(us), Wulmarus, Vlfmer, Wlmaer etc. - represent Old English Wulfmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 421-22. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday names. The Alecto edition has Wulfmær.
		The Wulfmer who had held the next holding (2,10) may be the same as this Wulfmer (Treswell and South Leverton are within two miles of each other). Roger of Bully's predecessor Wulfmer (9,12;15;33;37;69;125) might also be the same individual, in view of his being the predecessor of Count Alan's and Roger's joint holding in South Leverton. However, Wulfmer was a common name.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Another third part of a bovate in Treswell is recorded in 9,129.
	ROBERT OF MOUTIERS, COUNT ALAN'S MAN. If he was a Breton, his byname de Mosters is probably from Moutiers in the département of Ille-et-Vilaine (arrondissement Rennes, canton La Guerche-de-Bretagne) as suggested by Ellis, Yorkshire Tenants in Domesday Book, II, p. 323, though he pointed out that there are also three places called Moutiers in the French département of Calvados in Normandy (Moutiers-en-Auge, Les Moutiers-en-Cinglais and Moutiers-Hubert). Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 102, chose this last (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot) which is also the place of origin of the Paynel/ Paganel family; see Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 77. He may have been related to Lisois of Moutiers who lost his East Anglian estates for rebellion in 1075 and whose successor in those was Eudo the steward. His sons were Lisois and Geoffrey, but Robert's estates went, in unknown circumstances, to Ribald, the brother of Count Alan, but were later restored to Robert's heirs. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 377. His family continued to hold land here until the reign of Edward III; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 216.
		On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note. This is the only holding of Robert of Moutiers, as such, in Domesday Book, but see 2,3 Robert note.
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
2,10	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 282c, below two other added unrubricated entries and mostly level with the entry for Kneeton (2,7), though it rightly belongs with the last entry in the fief, (Treswell, 2,9) which Count Alan also shared with Roger of Bully (9,129) and which was in Oswaldbeck Wapentake like South Leverton. This entry may have been added at the same time as some other unrubricated entries; see 1,53 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. On the fief of Count Alan being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note, and for other holdings of his that were added, see 2,3 entry note.
		The unusual statement concerning the tenure in this entry might suggest that the estate had passed to another tenant, a possible reason for its initial omission (compare OXF 44,2 entry note), though its tenure by two tenant-in-chiefs might have caused this (compare WIL 49,1a entry note). However, the main scribe had already recorded Roger of Bully's holding in South Leverton (9,130) which was rated at 3 ½ bovates and half of a fifth part of 1 bovate, had land for 1 plough and a value of 10s (that is, exactly half the size, plough estimate and value of the present entry), but had full manorial details, including pasturable woodland and meadow (though he stated that Roger only had half of it), and a value, and there is no sign that Roger no longer held it. See 2,10 Alan note.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	[SOUTH] LEVERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 1,32. 5,4. 9,130.
		The present holding appears to have been at South Leverton; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 245 and p. 251 note 3. For North Leverton, see 5,4.
	GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Godric(us), Goddric, Gadric, Codricus - represent Old English Godric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.
	WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	COUNT ALAN AND ROGER OF BULLY. This is Count Alan's fief (NTT 2), but Roger of Bully holds a larger one in NTT 9. There is no marginal indication of the status of this land, but it is likely that either IIM' (denoting a double manor) is missing from the margin beside it, since two men (Godric and Wulfmer) had held it in 1066, or possibly that M' is missing if they had held it jointly. It is unusual, however, for two 1086 tenants-in-chief to have held land jointly in this way; more normally one would have held from the other, or their individual portions would be recorded in their respective fiefs; see, however 2,10 entry note. In fact, it appears that this allocation to two different fiefs has been half done by the main scribe of Great Domesday, because each of these two entries for land in South Leverton, the present one held by Count Alan and Roger of Bully and that held by Roger of Bully alone (9,130), contains details that belong in whole or part to the other:

LAND OF COUNT ALAN: [South] Leverton (2,10)	LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY: [South] Leverton (9,130)	
Godric and Wulfmer held T.R.E.
Count Alan and Roger of Bully have held 'up till now'
7 bovates and one-fifth of 1 bovate
Land for 2 ploughs
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
Value 20s
	----------------------------------------
Roger of Bully holds

3 ½ bovates and half of one-fifth of a bovate
Land for 1 plough
7 villagers who have 1 ½ ploughs
Half a church
Pasturable woodland 1 ½ furlongs by 1 furlong
Meadow 1 ½ furlongs by 1 furlong
Roger has half of this woodland and meadow
Value 10s	

	Behind this muddle probably lies the fact that Godric and Wulfmer had once held, or were assumed to have held, a joint estate of 7 and one-fifth bovates. Had they held separate estates, the land of one of them could have passed to Count Alan and of the other to Roger of Bully without the present confusion. It is possible that Count Alan and Roger of Bully had also held the estate jointly but had just (in 1086) divided it between them, or again, that Roger of Bully's part had just gone to Count Alan (hence the whole-estate size, plough estimate and valuation given in the present entry), and that the scribe had failed to delete the entry for half the estate in Roger of Bully's fief. The late insertion of this entry might support the latter suggestion, as might the possibility that Godric and Wulfmer had held separate estates. It seems more probable, however, that the scribe was attempting to divide a jointly-held estate into two respective fiefs or that he was misled by the way in which details of the estate or estates were presented in a precursor document. Certainly most of the details in Roger of Bully's chapter (9,130) refer to half of the estate, although the pasturable woodland and the meadow for the joint estate appear to be entered there with the statement that Roger holds half. Roger holds half a church and it is natural to assume that Count Alan held the other half, although it is not mentioned; see 9,130 church note.
		Although this added entry in Count Alan's fief is later than that in Roger of Bully's, it may represent an earlier state of affairs, since it gives the size, the plough estimate and the value of the whole estate. However, it is more in the form of a note since it omits the church, the population and the resources. Probably during a check, the scribe realized that Count Alan's part of South Leverton had not been included in Domesday and he went back to a preceding document which listed the undivided details of the joint estate. Since the form of the predecessor document cannot be known, it is uncertain whether, in the case of other joint holdings that went to different Norman tenants-in-chief, he always had to make this kind of division of material and on other occasions did it successfully or whether this was an unusual case in which the holders (had) held jointly, not separately. It is possible, in this case, that if a document similar to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis was used (in which all the holdings in a vill were entered together), the entry there ran: 'In this same vill [South Leverton] Godric and Wulfmer held 7 bovates and a fifth of 1 bovate jointly. Land for 2 ploughs. 14(?) villagers whp have 3(?) ploughs. A church. Pasturable woodland 1 ½ furlongs by 1 furlong. Meadow, the same. Value 20s. Count Alan and Roger of Bully now hold them'. If this is so, the last sentence would be ambiguous as to whether they held jointly or had separate estates in their respective fiefs. The more normal arrangement, and the one that should probably have been applied to these holdings in South Leverton, is shown by the case of Treswell. Count Alan held one manor there (2,9) and Roger of Bully another (9,129), Count Alan's part having been held by Wulfmer, Roger's by Godric. There is therefore a strong suggestion that the case of South Leverton was parallel: it had also been two manors in 1066 and Wulfmer's estate would be expected to have gone to Count Alan and Godric's one to Roger (though see 2,9 Wulfmer note). On the relevance of Treswell to the way in which South Leverton is presented, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 216.
		On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.
	HAVE HELD THIS LAND UNTIL NOW. The Phillimore printed translation reads 'Count Alan and Roger of Bully held this land until now'. However, the Latin usque nunc modifies the meaning of tenuerunt from 'held' to 'have held', that is from the 'aorist' sense of the Latin perfect tense to the 'pure perfect', sometimes called 'present perfect'. Although in other situations in Domesday where usque nunc is used (YKS 5E73; see YKS CE 4-5;7;12. LIN 57,14; see also SHR 3d,7), the person no longer holds it, that is not a necessary interpretation of the Latin. Indeed in LIN CK66 the man who has held the land 'until now' still holds it, though the main scribe of Great Domesday felt it necessary to put this in a separate statement. The inclusion of such a phrase is, however, unusual and is probably related to the fact that this is an added entry which amplifies that at 9,130, by noting that Count Alan also has an interest in South Leverton that had not so far beeen entered in Domesday; see 2,10 Alan note. Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1249, has the same translation as the printed Phillimore edition.
3	THIS FIEF, the previous one for Count Alan (NTT 2) and the next one for the Count of Mortain (NTT 4), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire; see NTT 2 fief note.
	LAND OF EARL HUGH. Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from c. 1071-1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom c. 1071; died 1085). Hugh came from Avranches in the French département of Manche. He was the son of Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, and a woman who was possibly a half-sister of King William. His lands became the honour or barony of Chester. Hugh's only son Richard perished with the White Ship in 1120 and the lands passed to a first cousin, Ranulph I Le Meschin, son of Ranulph the vicomte of Bayeux who was married to Hugh's sister Margaret. See Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 32-33; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 258.
		On the name Hugh, see 3 Hugh note.
	All the lands in this small fief lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
3,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of the estates that follow.
	SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. Harold is probably to be identified as Earl Harold, that is, Harold Godwinson. He was the second son of Earl Godwin and Countess Gytha. He was born c. 1020 and appointed Earl of East Anglia c. 1044. In 1051 he fled with his younger brother Leofwin when his father and brothers Swein, Tosti and Gyrth were banished. The family was restored to power in 1052 and on his father's death in 1053, Harold relinquished his earldom of East Anglia and succeeded to his father's earldom of Wessex. The Earldom of Hereford was merged with that of Wessex under Harold on the death of Earl Ralph of Hereford in 1057. Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Algar of Mercia. He succeeded Edward the Confessor as king of England on 6th January 1066 by decision of the royal council. On 25th September 1066 he defeated his brother Earl Tosti, who was in alliance with King Harold Hardrada of Norway, at Stamford Bridge, but was killed at the battle of Hastings on 14th October of that year. The invader, William, Duke of Normandy, claimed that King Edward had promised him the crown of England and that Harold himself had accepted him as future king during a visit to France. He is consistently called Earl Harold in Domesday. A Harold named as the earl was Earl Hugh's predecessor in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Oxfordshire, Rutland and Yorkshire; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 216-17.
		The Domesday forms of Harold - Harold, Haroldus, Heraldus, Herold, Heroldus, Horoldus, Herolt, Herould[us], Eroldus, Eral, Heral - represent Old Danish Harald, Old Norse Haraldr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 284-86. As the name Harold has survived and as King/Earl Harold is known by this name-form, JRM preferred it, as did Alecto.
		The name Harold is one of the most common in Domesday Book, occurring over 700 times; but it probably represents fewer than 20 individuals, of whom Earl Harold Godwinson is overwhelmingly the most significant, Harold son of Earl Ralph of Hereford being the only other individual of any consequence. In a large number of cases, unfortunately, the scribe has not given Harold his title. In Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, for instance, he is described as earl only once in each county (ESS B3k. NFK 3,2. SUF 68,1) though he undoubtedly held a large number of estates in all three, possibly all but two of those recorded in the three counties. However, there are surprisingly few cases where there is real cause for uncertainty about identifying the earl: the royal estates, the larger manors, the lordship over men, his territorial predominance in some areas, association with members of his family, and relationships between estates, serve to distinguish him in the majority of cases; but see BUK 17,22 Harold note. Williams, 'Land and Power', discusses Harold's estates and those of his men; and Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 164-91, lists them. Clarke tends to omit the dependencies where Harold is not explicitly named, or holdings named only in satellite texts (CON 4,2. KEN 2,5;41;43). He has also omitted the following: BUK 3a,5. 26,11. 30,1. CHS 8,41. ESS 1,23. HEF 1,56. 17,2. HRT 1,15. 5,5. HUN 13,1-3. NFK 8,33. 9,178; 233. 20,8;19;24;31. 21,16;22;33-34. 22,2-8. 26,3. NTT 3,1-3. OXF 58,30. SUF 1,119. 36,3;5-7;15. 38,21. 39,17. 67,12;17. 76,6;20;23. SUR 26,1. WIL 18,2. 41,1; and the entries for GLS 30,1 and 50,3 have been confused (JP).
	ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH *] {{SON OF WILLIAM}}. It was probably the main scribe of Great Domesday who underlined fili' Will'i for deletion and, because this line was unsatisfactorily done, it may have been he who struck the words through too. Robert son of William was the fief holder of NTT 28. The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deleted words at all.
		It seems likely that this tenant of Earl Hugh was Robert son of Hugh. It is not certain, however, that he was a son of Earl Hugh of Avranches for among several illegitimate children he fathered was another Robert who became Abbot of Bury St Edmunds. The present Robert became lord of Malpas in Cheshire; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 258, 385.
		On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation fails to indicate this deletion, so Robert fitz William still appears as Earl Hugh's subtenant. For other instances where it fails to show deletions in this county, see 1,16 bovates note.
	1 MILL, 20s; MEADOW, 15 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative, as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 meadow note.
3,2	NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,1. 9,78. 30,14;16.
		A notification by William I or William II to Archbishop Thomas of York, William Peverel and all his faithful men in Nottinghamshire informs them that he has granted to St Cuthbert of Durham the following lands:
		4½ carucates and two mills in Normanton-on-Soar
		10 bovates in [Sutton] Bonington (assuming that Bouinton' is an error for Boninton')
		The land of Aelfgar (Alfgari, genitive) Cida and his brother Ulfkil (Ulkilli, genitive) in Kingston-on-Soar and Barton-in-Fabis
		The land of Godric son of Fredegis (Fredegisli, genitive) in Gotham and Costock and the land of Oingar son of Alnoth of Nottingham.
	This grant is in Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 409 no. 116 (= Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 108 no. 438). None of these lands is held by the priory of St Cuthbert in Domesday, so the grant appears to date from the very end of the Conqueror's reign or from the reign of William Rufus.
		A forged and inflated version of this charter (Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 390-93 no. 109) places it firmly in 1083-1084. It omits the personal names, but it gives the reason for the grant as the need to replace the secular canons of St Cuthbert's with monks from Wearmouth and Jarrow and to provide for the latter's sustenance. There the grant of Normanton-on-Soar is of a single mill and of 2 ½ carucates. The land at Kingston-on-Soar is given as 4 carucates and at Gotham as 2 carucates.
		The total of the land allotted to Normanton-on-Soar by Domesday (at 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,14;16) is 2 ½ carucates and one and one sixth bovates which suggests that the charter of William I, though forged, has copied the correct amount from its source. No mills are mentioned in Domesday. The total for Normanton-on-Trent (6,14. 9,68-69) is 12½ bovates and for Normanton-on-the Wolds (9,84-85. 10,10) is 12 bovates, which rule them out of consideration. The total for the Bonington part of Sutton Bonington (3,3. 24,2. 30,15) is 9 bovates, close to the 10 bovates of the charters.
		The land of Algar (identified by the charter as Aelfgar Cida) that lay in Kingston-on-Soar amounted to 3 bovates and that of Ulfkil, identified by the charters as his brother, to 1½ bovates in the same place. Algar had also held 1¾ bovates at Barton-in-Fabis (30,23).
		Godric (identified by the charter as Godric son of Fredegis) had 3½ bovates and 1 acre at Gotham (30,24), while Godric with Algar had held an undivided 13 bovates at Costock and Rempstone (9,94). Fredegis had had 2 bovates at Costock (10,53).
		If Oingar represents the Old Danish name Othenkar (it is not among the forms listed by von Feilitzen: 9,1 Othenkar note), then it is sufficiently unusual as to suggest that all occurrences in Nottinghamshire refer to the same individual; see 9,1 Othenkar note. An Alnoth had held T.R.E. (5,11. 9,79), but it is not certain if he was father of Othenkar, who also held in 1066. Alnoth of Nottingham would thus have been a generation before. Normanton-on-Soar, Sutton Bonington, Kingston-on-Soar, Barton-in-Fabis, Gotham and Costock are sufficiently close to have formed a single estate for St Cuthbert's. The nearest holding of Othenkar to these was at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92), which might be the land intended if only one estate was meant.
		It is surprising that the king was able to grant to St Cuthbert's not only land of his thanes (NTT 30) but also parcels from other fiefs (NTT 3, 4, 9, 10, 24), although the real transaction might have involved exchanges of land and compensation.
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 3,1 Harold note.
	ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH*]. See 3,1 Robert note.
3,3	[SUTTON] BONINGTON. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 3,1 Harold note.
	ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH*], THE EARL'S MAN. See 3,1 Robert note.
3,4	2M. This indicates that Kingston-on-Soar was two manors before 1066, one in 1086; so frequently in Nottinghamshire Domesday (JRM). In most cases the same number of T.R.E. holders are recorded as the number above the M', but see 9,15 3M note and 10,55 2M note. In order to keep the size of the marginal M' the same, regardless of whether a number was included above it, Farley was forced to print any numbers almost on a level with the previous line. This is potentially misleading when there are numbers at the beginning of that line, as here (7 v. uill'); see also 6,5. 9,15;19-20;32;39;53;69;96;121. 10,2;20;34;55. 14,2. 20,7. The main scribe of Great Domesday almost always wrote these numbers so that the tops of them were level with the top if the I of In at the start of the entry.
		On the combining of several T.R.E. manors into one in 1086, see {Introduction: Manorial Organization} and {Introduction: Layout and Content}.
	KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,19;21-22.
	LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.
	RICHARD. On this name, see B16 Richard note.
	UNDER EARL HUGH. The use of the Latin preposition sub to describe the relationship between lord and tenant is unusual. There are eight occurrences of this in Domesday Nottinghamshire (3,4. 5,19. 7,4. 9,41. 10,31;53;55;57) and it is not clear if there is a particular nuance to it. The normal formula is that a subtenant 'holds from' (tenet de) a lord. Theoretically, sub could simply be an alternative, could describe land held under the supervision of a tenant-in chief that is not part of the latter's own fief, or could emphasize the superiority of the lord or the depression of the tenant.
		In the present instance, 'Now 1 Freeman has ½ plough under Earl Hugh' differs from the previous entry (3,3) 'Robert, the earl's man, has 3 Freemen and 5 villagers who have 2½ ploughs' in that the Freeman has no intermediate lord above him. The scribe thus took account of an unusual circumstance with an unusual phrase.
		However, an examination of all the instances in Nottinghamshire suggests that the phrase occurs only in connection with Englishmen. A possible exception is the unnamed cleric of 5,19 who might be a Norman, though he could be an English survivor and anyway, in that instance, the use could be strictly correct, as the archbishop is not strictly the fief-holder, but managing the lands on behalf of the cathedral church of York, so the cleric is not holding 'from him'. In the other cases, that of the present Freeman, and of Oudkell (7,4), Ulfkil (9,41), Aelric (10,31), Godwin (10,53), Fredegis and Wulfgeat (10,55), and Fredegis (10,57) these men had not generally held these estates before the Conquest, but men with these names had sometimes held other estates and these 1086 Englishmen may have been the heirs to the T.R.E. holders. Thus, these are men who were probably not enfeoffed by the tenants-in-chief and could not be described as 'their men'; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 230. As with other examples of the scribe's Latinity, however, it is unwise to push the meaning too hard. At 10,27 Godwin the priest, who may be the same as the T.R.E. holder of Adbolton (10,56), has 1 plough from (rather than under) William Peverel. Likewise at 10,24 Wulfnoth has 1 plough, though the manor of [Old] Lenton is not held by William Peverel but merely in his charge.
		It may be relevant, however, that the main scribe of Great Domesday had initially omitted this phrase and then interlined it, using a different pen and slightly paler ink compared to those used for the text below.
4	THIS FIEF and the previous two, for Count Alan and Earl Hugh (NTT 2-3), were omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he first wrote up Nottinghamshire; see NTT 2 fief note.
	LAND OF THE COUNT OF MORTAIN. Robert, Count of Mortain, was son of Herluin de Conteville and Herlève, mother of William the Conqueror. He was thus the half-brother of the Conqueror, also the full brother of Bishop Odo of Bayeux who granted him the comté of Mortain c. 1048. Robert fought at Hastings. He was put in charge of Pevensey Rape (Sussex) where he built a castle and his holdings in Cornwall dominated the county of which he was de facto earl. Altogether he held estates in 20 counties. He was twice married, first to Matilda daughter of Roger of Montgomery (Earl of Shrewsbury) and Mabel of Bellême, and secondly to Almodis. Robert's son William inherited his estates but rebelled in 1104 and the enormous fief was broken up. Some lands, however, retained the title of Mortain fees and the tenants of others became tenants-in-chief and their lands became separate honours or baronies.
	There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the eight holdings lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}:
		4,1-7 [Rushciffe Wapentake]
		4,8 [Broxtowe Wapentake].
4,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the first seven places in this fief.
	NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 9,78. 30,14;16.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	STORI <OF BOLINGBROKE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Stori, Storius, Estori - represent Old Norse Stori: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 376. The Alecto edition has Stori, except for SFK 54,1 and YKS 19W3 (Store). The Phillimore printed translation for YKS 19W3 has Thorir (YKS 19W1;3 Thorir note).
		It is likely that all the Count of Mortain's predecessors called Stori (4,1-3;5;7) refer to the same individual. No evidence has so far been found to connect the men called Stori who were the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers and of Walter of Aincourt in Derbyshire, or the predecessor of Ivo of Tallboys in Lincolnshire. The name Stori occurs elsewhere in Domesday Book.
		The name Stori occurs on 47 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing no more than four, possibly only two or three individuals. The bulk of the Lincolnshire holdings devolved the same tenant-in-chief, Ivo Tallboys, tightly-clustered around the two valuable manors of Bolingbroke and Belchford; and Stori's holding in the city of Lincoln connects Tallboys with Countess Judith, the successor to the only other Lincolnshire holding of a Stori, evidently the same man. Countess Judith's holding is almost exactly midway between the remaining Lincolnshire holdings and the two clusters of moderately substantial properties held by a Stori in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The Stori of Lincolnshire had urban interests and full jurisdictional rights; he is therefore likely to have been a lord of other men though such information is not, of course, recorded for the counties of circuit VI. What makes a linkage between the holdings in these three counties a little more probable is the modest holdings of the Stori of Bedfordshire, where he is described as a man of Earl Tosti and was himself a lord of men. Yet his Bedfordshire holdings were extremely modest for such status. Earl Waltheof and his wife Countess Judith succeeded Earl Tosti on many holdings, and perhaps in his earldom; they also succeeded Stori <of Bolingbroke> on two of his Lincolnshire holdings. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 343-44, who assigns only the Lincolnshire holdings to this Stori (JP).
	HEALFDENE <OF CROMWELL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Halden(us), Aldene, Alden(us), Haldein(us), Aldanus - represent Old Norse Halfdan, Old Danish Hal(f)dan, Anglo-Scandinavian Healfdene: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 283-84. JRM did not pronounce on this name-form and the names Haldane and Halfdan appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Healfdene. The Alecto edition has Healfdene, except for the 1086 holder in Norfolk (Godwine Halfdan).
		He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell: VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234; see 30,2 Healfdene note.
4,2	SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 24,2. 30,15;17-18.
	STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.
4,3	GOTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 30,24.
	STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND AND 3 ½ BOVATES TAXABLE, AND 5 ACRES. This assessment was the subject of correction by both scribes; there were probably two different sources for these additions, rather than that they were the result of incompetent checking of one source. The main scribe of Great Domesday added a third minim to the number of bovates, while scribe B added 7 .v. ac's; after g'ld'.; his use of a punctus with a long comma below it, resembling the modern semi-colon, is very unusual and inexplicable. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
	COUNT ROBERT. On the Count of Mortain, see NTT 4 Count note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.
	MEADOW, 80 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
4,4	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday into a space at the end of the entry for Gotham (4,3) of which it was a Jurisdiction. He had to squeeze it in and interline the sentence Nil ç ibi ('There is nothing there') above the original SOCA hui' M'; see 4,4 jurisdiction note. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. On the fief of the Count of Mortain being written on an inserted half-sheet, see NTT 2 fief note.
	LEAKE. East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,89. 24,1. 28,2. It has not proved possible to determine which Leake this is.
	THERE IS NOTHING THERE. The Latin nil est ibi may bear the same sense as wasta est ('it is waste', 'it is abandoned') or, read closely with the taxable extent, may refer particularly to the absence of ploughs.
	A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Gotham (4,3). The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this phrase immediately after that entry, but then apparently could not find the Jurisdiction; see 4,4 entry note. In the Alecto edition the phrase SOCA hui[us] M[anerii] is misplaced above the entry for Stanton-on-the-Wolds (4,5), although that is a manor.
4,5	STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,6. 9,86. 10,10. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it.
	STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.
	ALFRED[* THE BUTLER *], THE COUNT'S MAN. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 143-45, Alfred here is the Count of Mortain's butler Alfred, most of whose holdings lay in the south-west. On the name Alfred, see 1,66 Alfred note.
4,6	STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. See 4,5 Stanton note. The main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted this entry, writing the entry for Keyworth (here numbered 4,7) before he discovered it. He then used a pair of transposition signs in the margin to link it to the entry for this place in 4,5.
	FRANI. The Domesday forms of this name - Frane, Fran, Frano, Frani - represent the hypothetical Old Norse Frani: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 252. The Alecto edition has Frani.
	3 PARTS. The Latin iii. part' is ambiguous: it could be extended to mean 'three parts' or 'the third part' when in the accusative case. The main scribe of Great Domesday often clarified this by interlining tiā (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') above the iii and indicating whether part' was singular or plural, sometimes during the checking stage, but often it was scribe B who did this then; see 4,7 part note. The main scribe used the lightning-shaped abbreviation sign more often when part' abbreviated partes (but not invariably: see 9,59), and the meaning here is likely to have been '3 parts' as in one of the other parts of Stanton-on-the-Wolds (10,10) there is a 'fourth part of 1 bovate' to make a complete bovate with these three-quarters of a bovate, the assessment of the whole vill amounting to 8 bovates (1 carucate).
	NOW 3 VILLAGERS. On the appearance of modo ('now') here, which occurs some half-dozen times in this county with the population statement, and which was perhaps not edited out of a fuller preceding text containing the number of villagers etc. in 1066, see DBY 1,9 now note. Compare 1,1 villagers note.
4,7	KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,87-88. 10,10. 13,7.
	STORI. See 4,1 Stori note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' which here could be read as abbreviating either iii. partes ('3 parts') or iii. partem ('the third part'). Both scribes sometimes noticed this ambiguity and clarified it, but not in 4,6 (see 4,6 parts note). 9,62;102. 10,4;13, and compare 9,20;64. Here scribe B interlined tiā (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') and added an e after part' to produce partē (partem); see also 9,15 part note, 9,96 part note, 9,112 part note, 15,3 part note, and compare 9,124 parts note, 9,129 part note, 9,131 part note and 10,57 parts note. The present third part of 1 bovate probably links up with the 2 parts of 1 bovate in Keyworth in 9,88. There was another third of a bovate here in 10,10 and the assessment of the whole village amounted to 17⅓ bovates. The ⅔ bovate needed to make a round 18 bovates does not appear in the vicinity, the nearest being five miles away at Bassingfield (9,81) but that appears to complement the ⅓ bovate in 10,13.
	ALFRED[* THE BUTLER *], THE COUNT'S MAN. See 4,5 Alfred note.
4,8	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Newthorpe (4,8).
	NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,33;62-63.
		Newthorpe is not designated as either a manor or an outlier or a Jurisdiction. It does not lie near to Keyworth (4,7) but has resources and a value, so was most probably a manor.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.
5	LAND OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. The church was a secular college and cathedral dedicated to St Peter. There was a bishop here in 314, but the next known bishop was Paulinus consecrated in 625 by Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. Paulinus baptized Edwin, King of Northumbria, in a wooden church in York in 627. After Edwin’s death, paganism returned. In 664 the see of Lindisfarne was transferred to York. There were secular clerics here at an early date. The church was burnt down in 741 and the Danish invasion of 867 interrupted the work of the diocese. From 972-1016 the sees of York and Worcester were jointly held. Archbishop Oswald (972-992) is said to have introduced monks, but secular canons were placed there soon after and are mentioned in Domesday. The cathedral was burnt down in 1069 by the Norman garrison of the town, but Thomas of Bayeux appointed archbishop in 1070 rebuilt the church. After it was apparently destroyed by a Danish army in 1075, he commenced work on the Norman cathedral.
		The archbishops who spanned the period from 1066 to 1086 were:
	1061-1069 Aldred (Bishop of Worcester 1047-1062; Bishop of Hereford 1056-1060)
	1070-1100 Thomas of Bayeux (a royal chaplain, treasurer of Bayeux Cathedral and brother of Samson the chaplain who was later Bishop of Worcester)
	See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 419, 445; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 535.
		Before the Danish incursion and settlement of the late ninth century, the land that became Nottingham was probably in the Mercian diocese of Lichfield. Its transfer to that of York probably took place in the middle of the tenth century; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. The grant of Southwell (5,1) to the archbishop dates from that time, but the dates at which the remaining lands in this fief were acquired are unknown. It is also unclear whether any had previously been held by the Bishops of Lichfield.
		The chapter is disordered. Added entries (5,5-6;12) interrupt the sequence of wapentakes as do pieces of land that are not designated either as manors or outliers or Jurisdictions (5,2;12). The final entries (5,18-19) appear to have been added at some stage in the successive drafts of Domesday. Even if these are deducted, the chapter is not arrranged in the standard order of wapentakes. An obvious dislocation is caused by the promotion of the principal manor (Southwell) to first place. Despite this the basic sequence of Thurgarton Wapentake, Bingham Wapentake, 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, Thurgarton Wapentake and 'Lythe' Wapentake is still unusual. It would be rash to conclude (with Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 5-6) that the order in which the archbishop made the return of his fief has survived into the pages of Great Domesday, since it might have been expected that he would have presented a more coherent list. Many of these estates are parts of vills that have several holders; it is thus possible that some portions were missed when the material was being rearranged from a schedule based on vills to one based on fiefs. Moreover, this chapter probably represents the merging of two schedules: those lands held by the Archbishops of York and those held from them by St Mary's of Southwell. Archbishop Thomas occurs as the 1086 holder of 5,1;4-5;7;9;11-12;19 and St Mary's of Southwell is mentioned as the 1066 holder of 5,3;13. The Jurisdictions of Norwell (5,14-16, and perhaps 5,17), like Norwell itself (5,13) presumably belonged to Southwell church. However, land in Woodborough (5,18) appears to be a dependency of Southwell, the phrase 'it belongs to Southwell' implying 'to the manor of Southwell'. If this is so, it is probable that St Mary's of Southwell was the intermediate holder both in 1086 and in 1066.
		Roffe (‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 6) suggests a threefold division with St Mary's of Southwell holding Southwell and Cropwell Bishop (5,1;3), the archbishop having Laneham, Sutton-cum-Lound, Blidworth and Oxton together with the added lands (5,4-12); and St Mary of Southwell (again) holding Norwell (5,13). He suggests that the division is 'related to estate management'. As to this scheme, Domesday itself actually allocates Southwell (5,1) to the archbishop, while it is quite unclear what 'estate management' means.
		Essentially the Archbishop of York and the collegiate church of Southwell both needed sources of income and the lands are divided accordingly, even though the archbishop controlled Southwell. A similar division is found in other counties, for example in Middlesex where the lands of the Bishop of London (MDX 2) are divided between the Bishop and the canons of St Paul's cathedral and in Dorset where the lands of the Bishop of Salisbury, who had recently transferred his see there from Sherborne, are found divided between the bishopric and the monks of Sherborne (DOR 2-3).
	In detail, the order appears to be:
		5,1 Thurgarton Wapentake (the manor of Southwell promoted to prime position)
		[5,2 North Muskham, status uncertain, but in 'Lythe' Wapentake, is inserted]
		5,3 Bingham Wapentake
		5,4-8 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]. The sequence is interrupted by 5,5-6 which are added entries, the first being a manor in 'Lythe' Wapentake, the second of uncertain status but in Thurgarton Wapentake.
		5,9-11 [Thurgarton Wapentake].
		[5,12 Ranskill, status uncertain, but in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, is inserted].
		5,13-17 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		5,18-19 [Thurgarton Wapentake]. These two lands, status uncertain, were apparently added to the schedule at some stage and rightly belong in 5,1.
5,1	SOUTHWELL. This was an Ancient Parish, originating as the parochia of a collegiate church. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and was later in the joint wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		In a mid tenth-century grant (958 for 956), King Edwy granted to Archbishop Oscytel of York 20 mansae in Suthwellan free of all but the three common dues: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 111 no. 114 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 659). Oscytel had only recently been translated from Dorchester-on-Thames to the see of York and it seems probable that what became Nottinghamshire had not long been included in that diocese; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. An important secular college dedicated to St Mary was established at Southwell probably at that time and thither the remains of St Eadburh, an early eighth-century Abbess of Repton (Derbyshire) were taken c.1000. Archbishop Ealdred (1044-1069), the predecessor of Archbishop Thomas, established prebends; see VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 152; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 418, 439. The church had an exceptionally long, important and continuous history, becoming the seat of a bishop in 1884.
		The grant of Southwell was of a continuous tract of land. Although there are separate boundary clauses for Southwell, Normanton, Upton, Hockerwood and Fiskerton, they fit together to form a whole. On the other hand not all of the vills named in the grant were given in their entirety. Thus at Farnsfield, the gift was of two 'manslots; at Halam, of every sixth acre and three manslots; at Normanton, every third acre; at Fiskerton two-thirds of the estate and four manslots'. These divisions are partly reflected in the fact that others held part of some of these vills in 1086, though among them appear to have been some alienatons from the original grant; see 5,1 outliers note. For the bounds, see Lyth, 'Southwell Charter of 956 A.D.'; Lyth and Davies, 'Southwell Charter of A.D. 956'.
		Southwell was an area of special privilege and developed intothe archbishop's Liberty of Scrooby and Southwell. A step along the way is represented by a writ (1060x1065) of Edward the Confessor addressed to Earl Tosti and all his 'barons' in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire extending to Archbishop Ealdred the sake and soke and toll and team that he already had over his men in his own lands to those men who were in the king's jurisdiction: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 113 no. 118 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1160 = Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 119 pp. 418, 529). The Latin of the writ which has probably been translated from an Old English original that has not survived, is: Edwardus rex Tosti et omnibus baronibus suis in Eboracensisira et in Nottinghamsira salutem. Sciatis quod ego concessi Aldredo archiepiscopo ut ipse habeat sacam et socam et toll et team super suos homines infra meam sacam et socam ita plenarie et principaliter sicut ipse habet in sua propria loca, et nolo ut aliquis ei auferat quod ego ei concessi ('King Edward greets [Earl] Tosti and all his barons in Yorkshire and in Nottinghamshire. You should know that I have granted to Archbishop Ealdred that he have sac and soc and toll and team over his men within my sac and soc as fully and primarily as he has in his own places and I do not wish that anyone should take way what I have granted'). The mention by King Edward of his own sac and soc (full jurisdiction) is probably a slip of the scribal pen for soc alone, that is, 'land in my jurisdiction'. It seems to have been thought by Harmer (Anglo-Saxon Writs) and by Hart (Early Charters of Northern England), both cited above, that the intention was to give the Archbishop of York full jurisdiction over Southwell. However, the writ states that the archbishop already has full jurisdiction over his lands (sua propria loca) and the writ is extending this to those lands that lay under that of the king. Domesday says nothing of this, but it seems likely that the lands over which the archbishop already had the fullest rights were at least Southwell and its members (5,1). The additional lands 'in the king's jurisdiction' presumably were all the other lands held by the archbishop (and St Mary's of Southwell) in 1066 that lay in wapentakes over which the king was lord. As this information too is not included in Domesday, it is uncertain which lands were meant, but possibly all the rest were intended. At the very least, Sutton-cum-Lound and Scrooby (5,7), the northern part of the Liberty of Southwell, might be included. They lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake where the king had the manors of Dunham-on-Trent and Bothamsall with their many Jurisdictions (1,1-16); see {Introduction: Lordship of the Wapentake}.
		One bovate of land at Farnsfield (11,17) is said to lie in Southwell Hundred. These small hundreds make a rare appearance in Domesday, but seem to have been universal at least in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. They are often assumed to be of 12 carucates, in which case Southwell with the parts alienated from it might once have extended into three hundreds. However, the material does not exist for a convincing reconstrucion of the Nottinghamshire hundreds; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
		According to LEC 2,7 one carucate of land at Tilton-on-the-Hill was almsland of St Mary's, Southwell. It had been held by 'Gytha' in 1066, presumably by Countess Gytha mother of Earl (King) Harold.
	22½ CARUCATES OF LAND. This curious assessment represents 20 x 9-bovate units which Stenton (in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 209) showed were the highest common factor of several estates in Thurgarton Wapentake; see {Introduction: Carucation}. If this figure is made up in this way, it indicates either that the lands that had been alienated from Southwell (5,1 outliers note) were included in this total or that the reduced total of Southwell after their removal was still a multiple of nine bovates or that the nine-bovate unit was applied after the lands of Southwell had been reduced by alienations. There are reasons to think that carucation was late. Those estates that were said to have their jurisdiction in Southwell (11,15-17. 13,13. 17,14) amount to 2 carucates and 7½ bovates; if to these are added other parts of the same villages (1,22. 11,20-21. 30,11) that are not specifically associated by Domesday with the archbishop's estate of Southwell, the total becomes 6 carucates and 5½ bovates, which in terms of bovates (53½) is ½ bovate short of 54 (six nine-bovate units). It seems improbable that so large an assessment as 6 carucates 5½ bovates could still be borne by Southwell as part of its 22½ carucates, when the lands had been taken away, although Roffe appears to think that these alienations are duplications: Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 6.
	ARCHBISHOP THOMAS. See NTT 5 archbishop note.
		The Domesday form, Thomas, is the Latin nominative form, alternatively Thoma, (declinable as a first declension noun, genitive Thomae) of the Hebrew and Aramaic name meaning 'twin'. After the conquest this name of the apostle became popular in England, not just for priests, though it only appears in Domesday Book as the name of the Archbishop of York. He was brother of Samson Bishop of Worcester but it is not known whether he was his twin. The Alecto edition has Thomas.
	FISHERY. The Phillimore printed translation has 'fishpond', probably in an attempt to distinguish Latin piscina from piscaria. This piscina was probably on the River Trent, or possibly on its tributary the River Greet. The words piscaria and piscina appear interchangeable. Latin piscina is Classical, meaning a 'fish-pond', 'fish-tank', 'fishery' or 'swimming-pool'. This last meaning, potentially misleading, may have encouraged the use of piscaria. This is derived from an adjective piscarius meaning 'relating to fish' (itself from piscis, 'fish') and so piscaria itself means 'thing connected to fish', the exact sense, as with many Latin words, being supplied by the context. There was a fishery (piscaria), no doubt on the River Trent at Fiskerton (11,20), that had formerly been part of Southwell; see 5,1 outliers note and 11,20 Fiskerton note.
	FERRY. Less valuable than the Trent ferry at Fiskerton (11,20); probably over the River Greet (JRM). A ferry on the River Trent is also possible and it may be that JRM considered that the estate of Southwell did not extend to the Trent, being barred from it by the intrusion of Morton and Fiskerton. However, part or all of these had once been parts of Southwell and it is possible that the archbishop still retained the income of a minor ferry over the River Trent at Fiskerton or, more probably, that his ferry was at Hazelford Ferry (SK 7249) in Bleasby which was one of the outliers of Southwell; see 5,1 outliers note, 11,20 Fiskerton note and 11,20 ferry note.
		The Medieval Latin passagium (derived via Old French from postulated passaticum, itself from passare, a hypothetical verb derived from the noun passus, 'a pace') means 'a crossing', 'the right to cross', 'payment for crossing', and does not in itself mean 'a ferry', though here it implies the existence of one.
	6 MEN-AT-ARMS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from .v. to .vi. by adding an extra minim over the original final punctus and adding a new one.
	THREE CLERICS HAVE. These were no doubt some or all of the secular clerics residing at the minster of Southwell.
	2 BOVATES ... IN PREBEND. The Latin is in p[ae]benda. This first declension noun derives from the verb praebeo ('offer', 'supply') and is more directly related to its gerund praebendum meaning 'something to be supplied' or 'offered'. A prebend in the present sense is a package of dues and tithes from an estate to support a member of a cathedral or college, in this case, of Southwell. The 2 bovates appear to represent the endowment of the prebend of Normanton, one of Southwell's outliers; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 219. The mention of prebends is rare in Domesday; see KEN M1-2;4-8;10;13-14;18;20-22. SUS 9,11. 11,8;81. For prebendaries (Latin p[re]bendarius, 'someone in receipt of a prebend' or 'of an allowance') and prebendary canons (canonici p[re]bendarii), see BDF 56,9. ESS B6. YKS 2W2. STS 6,1. A solitary p[re]bendaria occurs at CAM 32,32, that is 'a woman in receipt of an allowance', not an ecclesiastic receiving a prebend, but an almswoman.
		The prebendal system gradually developed at Southwell and by 1291 there were 16 prebends there. An early grant was made by Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114-1140), confirmed by Henry I, of the churches of his manors of (North) Leverton (5,4) and of Beckingham (5,4) for a prebend: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 283 no. 1871.
	5 BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote bouatę (nominative plural) in error for bouatas (accusative plural, after h[abe]nt ('have'); he was probably influenced by bouatê in the previous line immediately above it.
	ARABLE LAND. The Latin is terra arabilis; an apparent alternative, aratura ('arable'), is found at ESS 1,3. Arable land is normally not named as such in Domesday and in Nottinghamshire, as elsewhere, it is included in the number of carucates or represented by the 'land for n ploughs' formula. This is presumably new land, possibly assarted or converted from another use (as in DOR 34,8), that could be brought under the plough, or that is ploughed but not assessed for tax. Latin arabilis means 'ploughable', rather than actually 'cultivated' or 'under the plough'.
		The area represented by this arable land (5 leagues by 3 leagues) is enormous, although the estate of Southwell with its 12 outliers was hardly small. For attempts to make sense of these figures, see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 434; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 217-18. However, neither begins from the actual area of land occupied by Southwell and its outliers, preferring to try to relate the arable land to the number of ploughlands and ploughs recorded.
	BEFORE 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday began the T of T.R.E. after the details of the arable land, but did not finish or erase it. No doubt he wanted to make it clear that the value was of the whole estate, not of any of the sub-holdings.
	12 OUTLIERS. These are listed in the charter of King Edwy; see 5,1 Southwell note. Six of them do not occur elsewhere in Domesday, but six do and in all of them at least one estate is said to be a Jurisdiction of Southwell:
		Normanton; see 17,14 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 30,11
		Upton (SK7354); see 7,5 Upton note
		Hockerwood (SK7155)
		Fiskerton; see 11,15 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 11,20-21
		Farnsfield; see 11,17 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell) and 1,22
		Kirklington; see 17,13 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell)
		Morton; see 11,16 and 13,13 (both Jurisdictions of Southwell)
		Gibsmere; see 13,13 (a Jurisdiction of Southwell)
		Bleasby (SK7149)
		Goverton (SK7050)
		Halloughton (SK6851)
		Halam (SK6754).
	The foundation charter (see 5,1 Southwell note) did not give the whole of Farnsfield, Halam, Normanton or Fiskerton. Halam does not reappear by name in Domesday, but there appear to be parts of Farnsfield, Normanton and Fiskerton that had never been part of Southwell. On the other hand those parts of these vills and of others that are said to be Jurisdictions of Southwell could well be alienations. Because there is no simple relationship between mansae (that is, hides) and carucates, it is not possible to determine if the 22½ -carucate assessment of Southwell takes account of the loss of parts, although an examination of the carucation itself suggests that the 22½ -carucate assessment of Southwell allows for the alienations; see 5,1 carucates note.
		Among the estates in this chapter is Woodborough (5,18-19), amounting to a bovate in total which is said to belong to Southwell. However, it is not close enough to Southwell to have been silently included in the original grant of land there.
	IN THE MANUSCRIPT there is a large oval 'cut' that incorporates the end of this entry and reaches down to the Bingham wapentake head above 5,3. As it is virtually identical in shape to the hole in the parchment of folio 284 it would seem that it was made by the person neatening the edges when applying the patch to that hole (the folios assembled into quires and probably bound); see 6,15 hole note. Where the edges of this 'cut' have now spread open and a vertical upwards tear has occurred from the bottom of the oval these were very neatly patched during the conservation work done on the manuscript in 1984-86. A patch of gold-beater's skin was applied on both sides of the folio which, being colourless, does not obscure any of the text (information supplied by John Abbott of National Archives who was responsible for this repair). Details of some of the Jurisdictions of Newark (6,4) were written inside this oval 'cut' on the verso of this folio.
5,2	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated. He had probably originally left a 3-line space after the long and rather disorganized entry for the multiple estate of Southwell. It would appear that he had then added two short entries on the first two scored lines, but then erased them very thoroughly; only the initial letter I (of In) can now be seen and there is no sign of red, if it had ever been applied. Finally he wrote this brief entry for North Muskham, not on any scored horizontal line, but at the top of the third originally blank line, so as to avoid the erasure on the two lines above. He also added after rubrication another holding in North Muskham (12,12), but not at the same time as this entry, which does not seem to have been done in the same campaign as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated (see 1,19 entry note for a list).
	NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 8,2. 12,11. 30,7), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note.
		Domesday does not specify, however, whether this is a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction, nor its relationship to Southwell (5,1). The fact that no value is given suggests that it was a dependency and the fact that this added entry was placed here suggests that it belongs to Southwell; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have discovered it when he was checking a territorially-arranged schedule in which all the parts of North Muskham were together. If it was a dependency, he would not normally have inserted a wapentake head, though it was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake.
		This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 8,2. 12,11-13. 30,7.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.
	1 ½ CARUCATES. In the manuscript the dim' (' ½ ') is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as din with no abbreviation line; on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
5,3	CROPWELL [BISHOP]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,30. 20,8.
		St Mary's of Southwell held this estate in 1066, but it is uncertain when it was acquired. It may have formed part of the original mid tenth-century endowment. Estates at Hickling and Kinoulton together with Lockington in the East Riding of Yorkshire were bequeathed to Ramsey Abbey by Arnketil and his wife Wulfrun at some time between 978 and 1016: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 112 no. 116 ( = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1493); see the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 66-67). Despite their wish that these lands should remain 'in the perpetual possession of the church', Ramsey did not hold them in 1066 nor in 1086. It is, however, uncertain which estates in Hickling (5,3. 11,30. 20,8) and Kinoulton (11,31. 30,38) in Nottinghamshire and in Lockington in Yorkshire (YKS 2E5. 5E32) represent this bequest. Common to the estates in Hickling (5,3) and Lockington (YKS 2E5) is the Archbishop of York and to Hickling and Kinoulton (11,30-31) is Walter of Aincourt.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly written as Hegelinge, but in the Alecto facsimile the last letter appears as a c; in the Ordnance Survey facsimile the reading is more clearly Hegelinge. According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Nottinghamshire (Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 54), this phenomenon was caused by 'the continuous-tone process of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. In Nottinghamshire similar misreadings of place-names there could occur in five other entries; see also 11,26 Granby note, 11,31 Kinoulton note, 17,17 Hawksworth note, 30,6 Woodborough note and 30,31 Strelley note. For other poor or misleading reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,4 bovates note, 5,2 carucates note, 6,5 had note, 9,7 Headon note, 9,13 Walesby note, 9,20 hole note, 9,53 had note, 9,84 Normanton note, 9,101 Thorsten note, 10,9 Bridgford note, 10,57 parts note, 27,2 Wiverton note, 27,3 Salterford note, 30,55 waste note, and for those instances where red-lining on place-names is not reproduced, see 2,2 there note.
	ST MARY'S OF SOUTHWELL. That is, the secular college; see 5,1 Southwell note. The mention is part of the attempt by the main scribe of Great Domesday to disentangle the estates held T.R.E. by St Mary's of Southwell from those held by the Archbishop of York; see NTT 5 archbishop note.
	THE CANONS. That is, the secular canons residing in the church of St Mary in Southwell (5,1). They are presumably the same as the clerici mentioned in that entry.
	15 VILLAGERS AND 4 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the numbers of these respectively from xii to xv (by joining the two minims) and ii to iiii (by interlining ii).
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly before he began the account of the multiple estate of Laneham, but more likely, in view of its being in a different wapentake to Cropwell, for the later inclusion of the wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
5,4	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Laneham and Askham (5,4). The majority of the outliers were in Oswaldbeck Wapentake.
	LANEHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. The Domesday name is represented by the settlements of Laneham (SK8076) and Church Laneham (SK8077).
		No T.R.E. holder is given for Laneham, which may have originated as part of the royal jurisdiction in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, p. 158.
		Some land belonging to Laneham lay in Lincolnshire: 'In Newton[-on-Trent] the Archbishop (of York) has 100 acres of meadow which belong to Laneham' (LIN 2,26).
		Laneham and Sutton-cum-Lound formed the northern part of the later archiepiscopal Liberty of Southwell and Scrooby; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 219.
	ASKHAM. This was a chapelry of East Drayton Ancient Parish and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of York until 1841. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	BECKINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 9,119.
		For the grant of the churches here and at [North] Leverton as part of a prebend, see 5,1 prebend note. Only one church is mentioned in Domesday and it may have been at Laneham itself.
	SAUNDBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 1,44.
	BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 9,118;125.
		The Domesday form Bolun could equally apply to Bolham (SK7082) which lay in the parish of East Retford; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 59. However, East Retford appears not to have existed in 1086, its area being included in Clarborough (1,41) which probably accounted silently for Bolham. Both Bole and Bolham appear to have been in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. A place called Bole was part of the honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully), thus accounting for one or both of 9,118 and 9,125 and the present estate appears to be the Bole, held by the Archbishop of York, that formed a prebend in York Cathedral; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 268 note 1.
	'[WEST] BURTON'. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. In the latter source it is called Burton' Super Trent. For another part, see 9,116.
		The name now survives only as that of a Civil Parish. The deserted medieval village of 'West Burton' lies at SK798855; West Burton power station is at SK788853; see Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 377.
	[SOUTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841 and can be identified as the present holding. North and South Wheatley are adjacent. They both probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	[NORTH] LEVERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. The settlement of North Leverton is now known as North Leverton with Habblesthorpe. They were adjacent (North Leverton at SK7882 and South Leverton at SK7881) and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 227-28. For other parts of 'Leverton', see 1,32. 2,10. 9,130.
		The present holding appears to have been at North Leverton which was long part of the archbishop's Jurisdiction of Laneham; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 251 note 3.
		For the grant of the churches here and at Beckingham as part of a prebend, see 5,1 prebend note. Only one church is mentioned in Domesday and it may have been at Laneham itself.
	9 CARUCATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number from viii to viiii and interlined uem (the last three letters of nouem, '9') in clarification, probably at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those of the surrounding text.
	IN THE LORDSHIP OF THE HALL. The mention of the hall presumably emphasises that these 10 bovates are on the estate where the hall is, that is in Laneham itself, the caput manerii ('head of the manor'). It is normal to give the amount of lordship land, but the added detail is unusual.
	THE REST IS JURISDICTION. The Latin is reliqua est soca, the reliqua referring to the feminine terra in the immediately-preceding phrase .x. bou[atae] de hac t[er]ra ('10 bovates of this land'). This must mean that the remaining 8 ½ carucates (9 carucates and 2 bovates less the 10 bovates of lordship land) is in the outliers, soca here being used as a collective term for the dependencies of the manor. All the land on the estate is thus given at the beginning of the entry, though the resources of the estate are given separately for the manor and the outliers. This is a compromise between complete engrossment and analytical description; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 219.
	ARCHBISHOP THOMAS HAS ... THERE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined Ibi, extending the I downwards to act as an insertion sign, probably at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those of the surrounding text. . On Thomas, see NTT 5 archbishop note, and on his name, see 5,1 Thomas note.
	A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. See 5,4 Beckingham note.
	2 FISHERIES. These were no doubt on the River Trent which flows just to the east of Church Laneham, one of the constituents of Domesday Lanun: 5,4 Laneham note.
	2 MEN-AT-ARMS HOLD THESE. Latin hos ('them') is masculine and refers to the Freemen, villagers and smallholders included in the addition to the entry which is marked by the gallows-sign, which begins 'Also another 33 Freemen... '.
	FROM THE ARCHBISHOP. The position of this phrase might suggest that '2 men-at-arms of the archbishop' was intended, the Latin preposition de meaning both 'from' and 'of' in Medieval Latin.
5,5	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in almost two lines across the foot of both columns of folio 283ab, on which only the fief of the Archbishop of York had been written. No transposition signs linking it to a particular position in the fief above were thought necessary, so it was numbered in the Phillimore edition as if it belonged after the last entry on folio 283a, Laneham (5,4). However, it would fit the sequence of wapentakes better if it had been numbered with the other places in 'Lythe' Wapentake (currently recorded in 5,13-17); compare 5,6 entry note. It was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. As happened with several entries added, both before and after rubrication, a further correction had to be made, presumably as a result of a further check; see 5,5 meadow note. A further check of his source produced the next entry, added after rubrication; see 5,6 entry note.
	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of South Muskham (5,5) in 1086.
	[SOUTH] MUSKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 30,46. It is identified as [South] Muskham because North Muskham has already been specifically included (5,2). Half a knight's fee was held in Suth Muscham from the Archbishop of York in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 95; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 28, 310.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds} and, on the identification of Carlton, 5,5 Carlton note.
	[LITTLE?] CARLTON. The association of this Carleton with South Muskham and the neat addition of the assessment of several holdings including two places called Carleton/Carletun (5,2 Muskham note) suggests that it was Little Carlton. This identification is implied in the Introduction to VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 211, but the place is identified as Carlton-on-Trent in the translation (p. 255) followed by the Phillimore printed edition. The difficulty with the identification of this Carleton with Little Carlton is that in the Book of Fees, p. 983, Nord Karleton' (that is, Carlton-on-Trent) is held from the Archbishop of York.
		Little Carlton was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of South Muskham: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 193. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106, where it is associated with North Muskham. For another part, see 12,14. On a possible 12-carucate hundred, see 5,2 Muskham note.
	MEADOW, 66 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from '60' to '66' by interlining .vi. above, and in the space after, the original lx. He used a finer pen to that used for the addition of this entry (5,5 entry note), suggesting that this was a later correction still.
	UNDERWOOD, 80 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
5,6	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a single line across the foot of both columns on folio 283ab, after another entry previously added; see 5,5 entry note. However, it was not written at the same time as that entry, which was rubricated and done with a different pen and ink, so must have been the result of a further check of his sources. It may have been written at the same time as some of the other unrubricated added entries in this county; see 1,53 entry note. However, it contains formulae for the plough, the status of the holding and for the value statement that are not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added unrubricated entries, which may suggest that it was added much later; 10,64 entry note. Although it was numbered by Phillimore as 5,6, it would fit the sequence of wapentakes better if it had been numbered with other places in 'Thurgarton' Wapentake (currently recorded in 5,9-11); compare 5,5 entry note. For other entries added by the main scribe that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Rolleston (5,6).
	ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 7,5. 11,18, and on the possibility that one of these had once belonged to the Archbishop of York, see 7,5 Upton note.
		As often with added entries, Domesday does not specify the status of this estate. Its geographical position suggests that it might once have been an integral part of the manor of Southwell.
	AELFRIC. The Domesday forms - Aluric(us), Alebric, Aeluric(us), Alfric(us), Alfriz, Aluuricus, Aelfric, Aluriz, Eluric(us), Alberic, Alebrix etc. - represent Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has Ælfric.
	AS A MANOR. This takes the place of the marginal M' and is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 10,66. 12,12. 16,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	PLOUGH, WHICH 5 VILLAGERS HAVE THERE. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (compare 13,12 ploughs note and 10,66 plough note), but it occurs in circuits written up after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY 20s; VALUE NOW 10s. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslated 'Value formerly 20s; now 10s' and this was repeated in the first edition of Domesday Explorer.
		This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (it appears in this county in the unrubricated added entries also at 10,65-66. 12,12. 13,12. 16,12. 20,8. 30,13), but is found regularly only in circuit II, probably the last one to be written up. See 2,3 value note and compare 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
5,7	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sutton-cum-Lound. However, it is not strictly necessary as this entry is a continuation of estates in 'Basselaw' Wapentake begun at 5,4, but interrupted by the insertion of 5,5-6; see NTT 5 Archbishop note.
	SUTTON[-CUM-LOUND]. This place, sometimes called Sutton-by-Retford, was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. Lound is separately included in this entry.
		Suttone was granted in 958 by King Edgar to [Arch]Bishop Oscytel [of York] who had received the important estate of Southwell from Edgar's brother, King Edwy, two years before. It probably originated as a part of the royal manor of Mansfield; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.This grant was of 10 cassati and the bounds of the estate included Scroppenthorpe (presumably standing for Scrooby, with substitution of -by for -thorp) and a place Thuresby, which might be Torworth (9,53) if -by has been replaced by -worth: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 112 no. 115 ( = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 679); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 96-97, 100. Thuresby is not there given as an early form of Torworth.
		With this charter there are two separate sets of boundary clauses, one for Suttune and one for Scroppenthorpe and Thuresby. On the bounds, see Davies, 'Anglo-Saxon Boundaries of Sutton and Scrooby'. The bounds of Sutton correspond more or less to those of the parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. Those of Scroppenthorpe and Thuresby are more problematic on the ground, and Davies' reconstruction is influenced by assuming that he must find 10 carucates to correspond to the 10 cassati of the charter. There is, however, no certain ratio of cassati to carucates. At its fullest extent the proposed bounds of Scroppenthorpe and Thuresby would include Scrooby (5,7), Torworth (9,53), Barnby Moor (9,54) and Bilby (9,45) suggesting substantial losses from the grant. The charter does not designate Scrooby as an outlier and none of the Jurisdictions is mentioned. The church of York may have made a manor from several pieces, or men had commended themselves to the church with their land.
	SCROOBY, AN OUTLIER. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound, then an Ancient Parish in its own right. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. Scrooby was acquired by the archbishop in 958 with Sutton; see 5,7 Sutton note. With Southwell, Laneham and Sutton-cum-Lound, Scrooby became part of the archbishops' Medieval Liberty of Southwell and Scrooby.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined B' for Berewica ('an outlier') above Scrobi and another one above Madressei; the Phillimore printed edition translated these as 'the outliers Scrroby and Lound', as if the B' had been written only once.
	{{MATTERSEY}} LOUND, AN OUTLIER. The main scribe of Great Domesday underlined Madressei for deletion and wrote Lund above it in substitution. Mattersey is a Jurisdiction of Bothamsall at 1,15 and a Jurisdiction of Rampton at 9,131. It is difficult to see how the error arose. However, Mattersey and Lound are adjacent on the ground and it may be that Lound (Old Norse lundr, 'grove' or 'wood') arose as a local name for a wooded part of Mattersey ('Maerthhere's well-watered land'); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 85-86. If so, the interlineation of Lound is not a correction but a more precise appellation.
		Lound was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,16. 9,51.
5,8	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The first estate (Eaton) appears to have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, the rest in Oswaldbeck Wapentake.
	EATON. This was an Ancient Parish, and a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 9,20.
	2 CARUCATES TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined ad g[e]ld[um] above the .ii., using a different pen to that used in the rest of the entry. He may have added it in the wrong place, as normally when he listed Jurisdictions of a multiple estate he gave the extent of each holding and then a total that was taxable. However, he had failed to give a total here, so perhaps thought it was sufficient to indicate above just one of the extents that it was taxable. For two additions by scribe B in this entry, see 5,8 Laneham note and 5,8 Clarborough note.
	TILN. This was a hamlet (sometimes spelt Tilne) of Hayton Ancient Parish. Hayton itself does not appear in Domesday. Tiln appears directly beneath a subheading for Oswaldbeck Wapentake at 1,31 and is associated with Clarborough (in Oswaldbeck Wapentake) at 1,41. It later lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227), but that wapentake combined places that were in both Oswaldbeck Wapentake and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, and Tiln, like Clarborough and Hayton, appears in that portion of the list that seems to contain only places that were formerly in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. In the present entry its location is equivocal. It is preceded by a place that lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and followed by one in Oswaldbeck Wapentake. However, even though, on the ground, Tiln juts awkwardly into 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, it seems more likely that it was in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086.
	WELHAM. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 1,42.
	"SIMENTON". No trace of this place has been found after 1086 and it most probably merged with Welham with which it is twice associated in Domesday (1,42. 5,8). If that is so, it lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. The form of the name in 1,42 is "Simentone".
	[LITTLE] GRINGLEY. This was a hamlet of Clarborough Ancient Parish. For the identification, see 1,4 Gringley note and, for another part, see 1,4.
	SCAFTWORTH 1 CARUCATE. Car[ucata] is normally abbreviated with a zig-zag upright in Nottinghamshire, car[uca] with a horizontal line; as here, the convention is not consistent (JRM).
		Scaftworth was a township of Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself, it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,117;124.
	WHICH BELONGS TO LANEHAM. That is, to the archbishop's manor (5,4). Scribe B interlined pertinens ad lanū. above the mill's render, extending the p downwards after redd' to act as an insertion sign (Farley printed this as a separate vertical, as he often did). Scribe B should really have interlined this phrase earlier in the line above the mill. He added the detail of Clarborough in the next line at the same time and possibly the brief entry for Fenton on folio 281c (1,33). The scratchy pen he used for these three is very like the pen used for a series of additions later in the county, but the ink is a different colour; see 9,5 Clifton note. On the several additions concerning Clarborough and Tiln, see 1,31 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
	[WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. East Retford (1,41 Clarborough note) was a borough in the Middle Ages: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,42;71.
	BELONGS TO SUTTON[-CUM-LOUND]. That is, to the archbishop's manor (5,7).
	IN CLARBOROUGH 6 ½ BOVATES. This was added by scribe B in a space left after the details of mills, though it really belongs earlier in this entry with the other Jurisdictions and their extents. He wrote it at the same time as the detail on the mill in Tiln and possibly a brief entry for Fenton; see 5,8 Laneham note. There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because the main scribe of Great Domesday added an entry for Tiln before rubrication (1,31 entry note) and one for Clarborough after it (30,54 entry note), while scribe B interlined 'and Tiln' in an entry for Clarborough (1,41 Tiln note) as well as these two details in 5,8. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including details of five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.
		Tiln was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 9,127-128. 30,39; 54.
	A FURTHER 45 ACRES. Latin adhuc here means 'in addition to this'. The main scribe of Great Domesday thus marked the transition between two areas of meadow measured in different ways or in two different places.
		The main scribe wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly to indicate the end of a multiple estate or possibly in case he found details of another member of it. However, as the next holding is in a different wapentake, he may have left it for the later insertion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
5,9	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Blidworth (5,9).
	BLIDWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as did its outlier Calverton (5,10). They were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	A MILL WHICH IS IN LOWDHAM. This is a rare localization. Blidworth is situated on high ground and its mill would have to have been sited in a valley. Lowdham is eight miles from Blidworth and four miles from Blidworth's outlier, Calverton (5,10). The Cocker Beck passes through Lowdham and the Dover Beck is close by. For Lowdham itself, see 9,75.
		The case of unū molin' is accusative (the subject being either the villagers or, more likely, Archbishop Thomas; see 1,1 fishery note). Although sometimes the word for 'mill' is regarded as neuter (molinum) in Medieval Latin, rather than the classical masculine (molinus), in this case unum molinum is accusative because it is succeeded by qui (the masculine nominative singular relative pronoun).
5,10	CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above another part at 16,3) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 16,3. 30,13.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Siluae past', apparently deliberately adding a diphthong squiggle to the a to make it either nominative plural (suggesting that in Calverton there was more than one area of pasturable woodland) or, more probably, genitive singular as part of a phrase siluae pastilis .viii. quarentinae in longitudine 7 iii. in latitudine ('8 furlongs of pasturable woodland in length and 3 in width'), but, as in B1, once he had begun the phrase, he continued with part of another, grammatically incompatible, formula, or his initial genitive implies that he was expecting to use a square measure, 'x acres of pasturable woodland'; see B1 underwood note.
5,11	OXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,76. 11,11.
	ALNOTH. The Domesday forms of this name - Alnod(us), Elnod(us), Aelnod(us), Alnot(us), Alnoth(us), Alnoht, Elnoc (an error for Elnot) etc. - could represent Old English Ælfnoth, Old English Æthelnoth, or the hypothetical Old English Ealdnoth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 149-50, under Al-noth, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, Alnoth, but some of the people he called Alnoth, followed in the present edition, appear in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 175, 185-86, 241, under Old English Ælfnoth, Old English Æthelnoth and Old English Ealdnoth, but their Domesday forms do not include the -f- that JRM required for a person to be called Alfnoth (his version of Old English Ælfnoth), the -d- or -g- that warranted its inclusion under Old English Æthelnoth, or the -t- necessary for its rendering as Aldnoth (his version of Old English Ealdnoth; but see NFK 1,109 Alnoth note). JMcND accepted this. The Alecto edition follows von Feilitzen.
	THE KING HAS 1 BOVATE OF THIS LAND. This was perhaps at Farnsfield (1,22), which is close, but see 1,22 Nottingham note.
	THE REST IS AN ADJUNCT OF BLIDWORTH. The Latin iacet ad is similar in meaning to adiacet ('is attached to') and means more than the 'lies in Blidworth [lands]' of the Phillimore printed translation, which better renders iacet in. The Alecto edition has 'belongs to'.
		The sentence casts doubt on the marginal M[anerium]. It is more likely that Oxton is an outlier of Blidworth (5,9) as is Calverton (5,10).
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday had left a line's space, possibly before detailing the multiple estate of Norwell, but as that manor was in a different wapentake to Oxton, he may have left it for the later inclusion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note. In the event the space proved useful for the later insertion of the holding in Ranskill (5,12 entry note).
5,12	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after the county had been rubricated. Its one and a half lines were squeezed into a one-line scored space that he had left after a group of places in Thurgarton Wapentake. No indication of its status is given, nor the wapentake in which it lay, but if Ranskill was a manor, it may been added in the wrong place, since it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and places in that wapentake had already been entered at 5,4 and 5,7; see 5,12 Ranskill note. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. On the appearance in it of est in the plough estimate, see 5,12 plough note. It might have been a late discovery because if it was waste in 1066 it might not have been initially surveyed.
	[* 'BASSETLAW WAPENTAKE' *]. The insertion of this heading depends on the later evidence for the location of Ranskill (5,12).
	RANSKILL. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Like Blyth itself (9,49), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		Domesday does not indicate the status (manor, outlier, Jurisdiction) of this piece of land. It is probably too remote from Oxton (5,11) to be connected with it. It appears likely that it was silently included in the grant of Sutton-cum-Lound and Scrooby to the Archbishop of York in 958, but had for some reason become detached from them either administratively, tenurially or in the documents that fed into Domesday; see 5,7 Sutton note.
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday included ē (est, 'is') in the plough estimate in this added entry, as he also did in the entry for Selston (10,65) that he added on folio 288b. These are the only occurrences of the verb in this formula in Domesday Nottinghamshire; in most of the counties in circuit VI there is no verb, except in added entries, though he included it in circuits written up later. On other formulae not used in circuit VI appearing in added entries and the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	IT WAS AND IS WASTE. This is the only occurrence in this county of a holding being described as waste previously as well as in 1086. On the possible significance of this, see 5,12 entry note.
	GODRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
5,13	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Norwell (5,13).
	NORWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	1 FISHERY. A river known as The Beck flows past Norwell, but the fishery was more probably on the River Trent.
5,14	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. Osmanthorpe seems to have lain in Thurgarton Wapentake, the remaining Jurisdictions (5,15-16) in 'Lythe' Wapentake, the same wapentake as Norwell itself.
	OSMANTHORPE. The manuscript has Osuuitorp for Osmutorp (JRM). If it is assumed that the name-form was Osmuntorp, it would seem that at some stage in the Domesday process this name was written Osýýýýýtorp, a series of five minims, probably with an abbreviation line (for an omitted n) over the last two. These minims were wrongly joined up by either the main scribe of Great Domesday or a previous scribe and the abbreviation line was omitted. VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 256 note 3, suggests that the scribe read 'Osmutorp' as 'Osunitorp', but the minims are clearly joined at the base as uu.
		Osmanthorpe was a hamlet of Edingley Ancient Parish. Edingley does not appear in Domesday but in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232 it is in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. Geographically it will have lain in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 161. The grid reference for Osmanthorpe (SK677568) is to Osmanthorpe manor.
5,15	WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire. The present Willoughby was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 12,15. 24,3. The grid reference is to Willoughby Farm (SK780625).
	3 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript above the first minim of iii there is a blackish ink mark which joins the the tail of the g of Wilgebi in the line above. Because the first part of this g's tail is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile the result resembles an interlined T; it is clearer in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, which unusually shows this ink mark.
	MEADOW, 16 ACRES. The case of ac' is not absolutely certain: it generally abbreviates acrae (nominative), but could abbreviate acras (accusative) in instances such as this where the meadow acres as well as the plough could be the object of 'have'. In a large number of other entries in this county the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac's (acras, accusative) for the meadow acres in such cases, as in the next entry (see 1,2 meadow note), and in 10,24 he wrote ac' for the acres of meadow, but ac's for the acres of underwood succeeding them, when both are the objects. It has therefore been decided in the present edition to preserve this ambiguity by putting a semi-colon after the ploughs, rather than the full-stop of the Phillimore printed translation; the Alecto edition has a comma there. This uncertainty also occurs in 7,1;3-4. 9,45;49;80-81;83;98;114-115;117. 10,2-3;7. 11,9. 13,7. 17,11;16. 18,7. 30,3;9;19;23;34;43;46.
5,16	CAUNTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 12,8.
5,17	HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,60. 11,8.
		Domesday does not indicate the status of this piece of land; though no value is given, it is close enough to Norwell to have been a Jurisdiction of it.
5,18	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Woodborough (5,18).
	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.
	IT BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That is, the holding belongs to the archbishop's manor (5,1). The Phillimore printed translation has '2 villagers and 1 smallholder have 1 plough; it belongs to Southwell', which is misleading, suggesting that 'it' is the plough. In fact the Ad Suduuelle p[er]tin[et] is a separate sentence, deliberately written with a space before it. Both this entry and the following one (5,19) should probably have been included in 5,10. No value is given for either, but they may be subsumed in that for Southwell itself, although Woodborough is unlikely to have formed part of the original grant of Southwell to the Archbishop of York; see 5,1 Southwell note. Neither of these final entries is postscriptal, but they could have emerged as the main scribe of Great Domesday was working on this chapter or been added in this place in his source.
5,19	THERE ALSO ^[WOODBOROUGH]^. See 5,18 Woodborough note.
	1 CLERIC. Presumably he is a secular cleric or a canon; see 5,3 canons note.
	UNDER THE ARCHBISHOP. The Latin preposition sub ('under') is correct, as the archbishop is not strictly the fief-holder, but managing the lands on behalf of the cathedral church of York, so the cleric is not holding 'from him'. On the use of sub, see 3,4 under note.
		The reason for this separate entry for Woodborough is presumably because the larger estate of 7 bovates (5,18) was part of the revenue of the collegiate church of Southwell, whereas this part was held 'under the Archbishop'. On this division of the chapter 5 lands, see NTT 5 Archbishop note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a whole column blank (folio 283c) before beginning the account of the Bishop of Lincoln's fief on folio 283d. He may have thought that he would need to add details of further holdings of the archbishop (which in fact was the case, though he used the foot margin of folio 283ab: 5,5 entry note, 5,6 entry note) or it was left for aesthetic reasons.
6	LAND OF THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. The church was a cathedral and a secular college dedicated to St Mary. A house for secular priests was established here c. 953; there was also a nunnery. Bishop Remigius (consecrated in 1067 as successor to Bishop Wulfwin) was authorized to move his see from Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire), in origin a West Saxon then a Mercian see, to Lincoln in 1072; see Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 587-89 no. 177. Remigius was a monk of Fécamp and apparently a relative of the Conqueror. He had furnished ships for Duke William's invasion of England and had accompanied him. Installed at Lincoln he began to replace the church of St Mary with a large cathedral. He died in 1092 and was succeeded by Robert Bloet (1094-1123). See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 415, 429; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 357, 527. Canons are mentioned in Domesday which also occasionally mentions the 'Bishop of Lincoln' anachronistically as a 1066 holder.
		It is not certain whether any of these lands in Nottinghamshire were only acquired after 1072 by the Bishop of Lincoln or whether any were held by his predecessors, the bishops of Dorchester-on-Thames. Domesday provides no evidence that the estates were ecclesiastical holdings in 1066. Three of the most important estates, Newark-on-Trent (6,1) and Fledborough and Stokeham (6,13;15) had been held by Countess (Lady) Godiva in 1066 and the first two were probably conferred by her before 1066 on Stow Abbey (Lincolnshire) whose endowment was amplified by her and her husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia; see 6,1 Newark note. There is nothing in Domesday to suggest that all these estates were not acquired by the new bishopric in the Conqueror's reign.
	The lands in this fief lay in only two wapentakes. These are entered in the standard order ({Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}), but this may be coincidental as it is probable that Newark-on-Trent, because of its importance, would anyway have been entered first:
		6,1-12 [Newark Wapentake]
		6,13-15 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.
6,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates listed in 6,1-12, all of which appear to have lain in this wapentake.
	NEWARK[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Newark-upon-Trent or simply as Newark. In 1086 it no doubt lay in the wapentake that it named as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
		The name Newark means the 'new work' (Old English niwe-(ge)weorc), apparently referring to a fortified site. It is 'new' in relation to 'Aldewerch' or 'Old-Wark', the site of the Romano-British settlement of Margidunum south-west of Newark-on-Trent along the Foss Way represented by Castle Hill in East Bridgford (SK6943); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, pp. 199, 222.
		Newark-on-Trent as well as Fledborough and Stokeham (6,13-14) and Well Wapentake in Lincolnshire had been held by Countess Godiva in 1066. Of these three estates, Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough were said to have been given to Stow Abbey (Lincolnshire) which was enriched between 1055 and 1057 by Godiva and her husband, Earl Leofric of Mercia. This is not improbable, even though Godiva is still said to hold Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough in 1066 and the confirmation (1055 x 1057) of their gift attributed to Pope Victor (II) is suspect: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 113 no. 117 ( = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1233). Certainly the possession of Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough by Stow Abbey is mentioned in two writs of William I that probably date from c. 1072 and which are likely to be authentic: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 831-834 nos. 276-77. The second of these confirms the gift by Leofric and Godiva, the first merely granting the lands 'as Godiva had them in the days of King Edward' and not referring to her gift of them. A monastery at Stow had been founded by Eadnoth, Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames (1006-1016). William's confirmation might be linked to Godiva's death (date unknown), to the establishment of the see of Lincoln (in 1072) or to a revival of the monastery to which he intended to add the church of Eynsham in Oxfordshire. The first of the Conqueror's writs also implies that Bishop Remigius of Lincoln had some responsibilty for Stow, which is presumably why its lands are listed among those of his bishopric (LIN 7,1). The union betwen Stow and Eynsham took some years to accomplish, and Stow appears to have languished. Apart from population and resources, only a church and a priest are mentioned there in Domesday but the holder is the Bishop of Lincoln, not the Abbey of Stow, which is not recorded as a fief-holder anywhere in Domesday Book. The Abbot of Eynsham became Abbot of Stow only in 1091 and by 1094-1095 the monastery at Eynsham had been re-established while that at Stow closed at about the same time; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 57, 77; Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 48-49; Bates, Bishop Remigius of Lincoln, pp. 29-32.
		In 1086, Newark Wapentake was already an area of special privilege, with the Bishop of Lincoln having all the customary dues of the king and the earl (see 6,1 dues note) as Countess Godiva had had before (S5). Newark developed into a special soke or Liberty; see Book of Fees, p. 1001. Possible conflict with the king over the right of free warren was resolved c. 1105 by a grant of Henry I to Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln (1093-1123) of 'the king's warren of Lincoln in so far as it lay in the bishop's soke of Newark and Stow'. He also gave the bishop the right of warren in the whole of his soke of Newark and Stow: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 48 no. 727.
		The bishops of Lincoln had a palace and a castle at Newark-on-Trent and it was their private borough. The castle was erected by Bishop Alexander (1123-1148). Two notifications of Henry I, dating from c. 1130, permit the bishop to divert the regia strata ('the royal high road'), also called the chiminum fossae ('the Foss Way') through Newark-on-Trent so as to construct a causeway for his fishpond: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 242 nos. 1660-1661. In another notification, of 1133, Henry I grants Bishop Alexander (1123-1148) permission to make a bridge over the River Trent at his castle of Newark-on-Trent but in such a way that he does not 'injure the king's city of Lincoln nor his borough of Nottingham': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 264 no. 1770. These grants also show the king's concern for maintaining access by road and river to his towns; see B20 Nottingham note. In 1133 the king also granted that a fair could be held in Newark-on-Trent castle, and allowed the bishop to assign one third of the service of his knights there. He also stated that if Newark was a half-wapentake (which it was), then only two men were to be summoned to the king's pleas and to the shire-courts. See Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 265, 268, 264, nos. 1773, 1791, 1772.
		On the early history of Newark-on-Trent, see Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. pp. 1-2, vi. part iii (= vol. viii in some bindings), pp. 1272-73; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 213; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 220-21; Rogers, 'Origins of Newark'.
	BALDERTON. This was a chapelry of Farndon Ancient Parish. Like Farndon itself (6,1), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 6,2.
	FARNDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	COUNTESS GODIVA. She was wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia and mother of Earl Algar. She survived into the Conqueror's reign but was dead by 1086. Some of her lands had not been re-granted by then and were still surveyed by Domesday as the lands of Countess Godiva, as for example in Leicestershire (LEC 11). On her name, see S5 Godiva note.
	BISHOP REMIGIUS. He was a monk of Fécamp, consecrated bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire) in 1067. He was authorized to move his seat to Lincoln in 1072; see NTT 6 bishop note.
		The Domesday form, Remigius (often abbreviated, to Remigi', Rem', Re', R. etc.), is that of the saint, the Archbishop of Rheims (died in 533), who baptized Clovis I, King of the Franks (481-511). Remigius itself is a Latin adjective used substantively, meaning 'a man from Rheims' or 'a member of the Remi', a Celtic tribe known to Julius Caesar, Remi (Rheims) also being the name of their civitas-capital. See Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Remy, the popular form of Remigius. In Domesday Book only Bishop Remigius of Lincoln and Herbert son of Remigius appear with this name. The Alecto edition has Remigius for the bishop and fitzRemy for Herbert.
	IN LORDSHIP. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined in d'nio, extending the i downwards to act as an insertion mark.
	56 BURGESSES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 77 qu'nquaginta sex burgenses, the second 7 being added because the first was not very clear with its horizontal bar caught up with the g of gld in the line above and its descender partially superimposed on the 7 in the line below. He should have erased the superfluous 7. The tails of both 7s extend downwards to act as insertion marks. However, as burgesses were more important than villagers he should have written the 7 after burgenses, but he had no space because of the descender of the p of ep's in the line above and the abbreviation sign over hntes in the line below.
		These burgesses are the sign that Newark-on-Trent was a small borough, a burgus rather than a uilla; see {Introduction: Boroughs).
	10 CHURCHES AND 8 PRIESTS. The ten churches no doubt included one at Newark-on-Trent itself and nine in its dependencies (two outliers and 16 Jurisdictions). There is an excess of churches over priests. It is possible that Newark-on-Trent had two or more priests at its church or more probable that the eight priests lived together in a college there and went from there to the other churches, jointly cultivating a single piece of land with their 5 ploughs.
	7 FREEMEN. The Latin is franci homines, equivalent to liberi homines. A freeman is also recorded in Langar (10,59). JRM translated francus homo as 'freeman' to distinguish it from 'free man' (liber homo) and 'Freeman' (sochemannus), but in the Phillimore printed translation here 'Freemen' appears in error, though 'freeman' is correct in 10,59. The Alecto edition has 'free man'. These are not Frenchmen, who appear in Domesday as Francigenae; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 243.
		Both here and in 10,59 their ploughs seem to be separate from those of the Freemen, villagers etc.; compare 9,95 Freemen note.
	MILL, 5s 4d. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote part of the '4d' over an erasure; he also turned an original 7 ('and') before the mill into an I for Ibi. He did not at the same time alter the accusative piscariam ('fishery') to the nominative piscaria.
	1 FISHERY. This was no doubt on the River Trent. On the Latin piscariam being accusative in error, see 6,1 mill note.
	ALL THE CUSTOMARY DUES OF THE KING AND THE EARL FROM THIS WAPENTAKE. The revenues from hundreds and wapentakes, as from boroughs, were usually the property of the king and the earl, or the king and the sheriff, in the proportion two-thirds to the king, one-third to the earl or sheriff. However, the profits of individual hundreds or wapentakes, in particular, might be held by the king alone or granted out to a layman or a church, sometimes as an appurtenance of a manor. In this case it appears that the Bishop of Lincoln was lord of Newark Wapentake, although the church did not hold all the estates therein. The bishop also had sake and soke and toll and team in Well Wapentake in Lincolnshire, but he or St Mary's of Stow did not have the earl's third penny; see LIN CW11; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 221.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1250. She translates: 'All customs of the King and the earl from the wapentake of Newark are attached to this manor'. However, Domesday does not name the wapentake, although it can be deduced as Newark Wapentake from this and other entries.
		The mention of 'the king and the earl' is backward-looking. In 1066, Nottinghamshire would have been in the Earldom of Mercia or of Northumbria (see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}), but there was no Earl of Nottingham in 1086, nor of Derbyshire with which Nottinghamshire then shared a sheriff.
		These customary dues will probably have included the right to levy tolls, which probably began where those of Nottingham ceased; the burgesses of Nottingham had the right to toll along the River Trent from Thrumpton to Newark-on-Trent; see Placita de Quo Waranto pp. 442, 660; Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 23; and B20 Nottingham note.
6,2	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The estates listed all appear to have lain in Newark Wapentake, the same wapentake as the head manor.
	BALDERTON. See 6,1 Balderton note.
6,3	KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 20,2. 22,1.
	SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of East Stoke Ancient Parish. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 21,2. 30,40.
	ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was also a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,5. 9,1. 20,4-5.
	[EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,6. 20,3. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).
		For Ilbert of Lacy's claim to the 'fourth part of East Stoke', see 20,4 part note.
	HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,7. 14,1-3.
	CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of East Stoke Ancient Parish. Like East Stoke itself it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,6-7. 7,3-4.
	BARNBY[-IN-THE-WILLOWS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 7,2.
		The interlinear marks below ii. bō and above ar are not, as Farley, tre; they are probably the remnant of an incomplete erasure (JRM). Farley in fact misplaced the tre as the 'marks' (perhaps ink smudges rather than the remains of an erasure) are above the middle of Barnebi.
	WINTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	IN THESE [JURISDICTIONS]. The Latin in eis ('in them') presumably refers to all the places (6,2-3) included under the heading 'Jurisdiction of this manor'.
6,4	[SOUTH] SCARLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
		North Scarle is in Lincolnshire (SK8466).
	GIRTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of South Scarle. Like South Scarle itself (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	SPALFORD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 9,4.
	THORNEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	WIGSLEY. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney itself (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote 7 Wigesleie over erasure, spacing the letters out rather more than usual as the original place-name had more letters in it. He used a different pen and ink for this correction and for the next place-name, Harby. The interlined assessments of both places were not corrected, however.
	HARBY. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 6,9. Harby is represented by Harby (SK8770) and North Harby (SK8872), a distinction made in modern times; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 205.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Herdrebi over erasure, perhaps the same erasure as was under the previous place (6,4 Wigsley note).
	COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 7,1. 11,4.
	FOR THE LARGE OVAL 'cut' in the parchment in this entry and the repair of parts of it, see 5,1 manuscript note.
6,5	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was also a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 9,1. 20,4-5.
	LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.
	PILWIN <OF ELSTON>. He was possibly the priest whose land at Elston Ilbert of Lacy was claiming in 1086; see 20,4 claims note. He was presumably the predecessor here of Arngrim (6,5 Arngrim note) as at Sibthorpe (20,1). These are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Book.
		The Domesday form of his name, Pileuuin, represents the hypothetical Old English Pilwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 344. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English -wine. The Alecto edition has Pilwine.
	HAD. In the Alecto facsimile the horizontal abbreviation line above the r of hbr (habuerunt, '(they) had') appears as red, though in fact in the manuscript it is in the same colour as the hbr and as the abbreviation line through the hb of this word; the red-lining of the place-name stops above the dot following ELVESTVN. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, despite the different method of applying the red-lining, it stops in the correct place. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	RAVENSWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - Rauensuard, Rauensuar, Rauesuard(us), Rauesuar, Rauesua, Rauesue, Reuensuard, Reuenesuard, Rauenesort etc. - represent Old Norse Hrafnsvartr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 293. JRM preferred Raven- for the first element and -sward for the second element, as they reflected most of the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed edition of Yorkshire the form Rafnsvartr was used, reflecting the form in Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, p. 213; this has now been standardized as Ravensward. The Alecto edition has Hrafnsvartr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	ARNGRIM <OF ELSTON>. Arngrim is presumably the same as the man who holds another part of Elston (20,5) from Ilbert of Lacy. On the present estate his predecessor was probably Pilwin (rather than Leofwin), who also preceded him at Sibthorpe which he also held from Ilbert of Lacy (20,1). These are the only three occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Arngrim occurs on 14 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing four or five individuals. The four Nottinghamshire holdings form a tight group, three of them held from the same tenant-in-chief. The fourth lay in the same vill - Elston - as one of these three and shared an Anglo-Saxon predecessor with the rare name of Pilwin with the other two. All four were therefore probably held by the same man in 1086 (JP).
		The Domesday forms of this name - Arnegri[m], Ergrim, Arnegrin, Ernegrin, Aergrim, Aregrim, Aregrin, Haregrim, Haregrin - represent Old Danish Arngrim, Old Norse Arngrimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 162-63. In the printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire the Old Norse form was used; this has now been standardized as Arngrim. The Alecto edition has Arngrim.
6,6	CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. Like East Stoke itself (6,3. 11,6. 20,3), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;7. 7,3-4.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see 2,8 Wulfric note.
6,7	THERE ALSO ^[CODDINGTON]^. See 6,6 Coddington note.
	BUGGI. The Domesday forms of this name - Bugo, Buge - represent Old Danish/Old Norse Buggi, though a possible alternative is Old English Buga: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 210-11. The form Buga appears in the printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire, while Bugg is used in that for Nottinghamshire; they have both been standardized as Buggi. The Alecto edition has Buggi.
		In view of the rarity of this name in Domesday Book, the only other occurrences being in 14,2 (Hawton), 30,8 (Colwick) and in YKS 5W12 (Hooton Levitt), it is possible that the same individual, a thane, was involved, although his lands passed to three different tenants-in-chief and he only retained the holding in Colwick (30,8). However, the appearance of Buggi twice in 14,2 might suggest two people, rather than two holdings in one place. Moreover, although the present holding at Coddington (SK8354) is relatively close to Hawton (SK7851), they are distant from Colwick (SK6140) and Hooton Levitt (SK5291) which are also not near each other.
	BOTHILD HOLDS IT. The Domesday form, Botild, represents the Old Danish feminine name Bothild, Old Norse Bothildr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 207. In the printed Phillimore edition of Lincolnshire the Old Norse form is used, and in Suffolk the form Botild; these have now been standardized as Bothild. The Alecto edition has Bothild.
		A Bothild occurs only here as a tenant of the Bishop of Lincoln, in Lincolnshire as a predecessor of Odo the crossbowman (LIN 48,14) and as claiming land in SFK 76,14; it is unlikely that the same individual was involved. On the present Bothild, see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 170; she differentiates the Suffolk woman.
6,8	CLIFTON. North Clifton was an Ancient Parish which contained the township of South Clifton. Both probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. In Feudal Aids there are two places called Clifton, one associated with Harby (6,4;9) and the other with Spalford (6,4. 9,4). It seems probable that the former is North Clifton and the latter South Clifton, which is nearer to Spalford. Certainly the Bishop of Lincoln held both. It is not possible to determine which Clifton is represented by the present entry and which by 6,10-12. For a holding of the Bishop of Lincoln at South Clifton, see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 100.
		For other parts of Clifton, see 6,10-12. 9,3;5. The estate surveyed at 6,11 is likely to have been in the same Clifton as that of 9,3 with which it shares part of a church.
	WULFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - Vluiet, Vlfiet, Vluuiet, Ouiet, Wluiet(us), Wluiat, Vluied, Vuiet, Oluiet - represent Old English Wulfgeat: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 419-20, though he suggested that derivation from the feminine Old English name Wulfgyth was formally possible for those people not identified as masculine. The Alecto edition has Wulfgeat.
		The bishop's predecessor in another part of Clifton (6,11) is likely to have been the same individual, especially as both holdings passed to a Ralph. (A Wulfgeat was also his predecessor in LEC 3,16, but in view of the distance from Clifton and the commonness of the name Wulfgeat, it is very unlikely that he was the same as his predecessor here.)
	6 ½ BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. Scribe B interlined 7 dimid' above ad g'ld', extending the 7 downwards after t'rê to form an insertion mark; as usual Farley printed this extension as a separate vertical. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
	RALPH HOLDS IT. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Ralph who was the bishop's subtenant in another part of Clifton (6,11), especially as a Wulfgeat had held in 1066 in both. A person called Ralph was also his tenant in Leicestershire (LEC 3,5-9;14) and Lincolnshire (LIN 7,30;53). Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 345, tentatively identifies the bishop's tenant in these counties as the same individual, but does not mention his tenant Ralph in Nottinghamshire. From a geographical view it is more likely that the NTT and LIN tenants were the same than the LIN and LEC ones.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Radulfus, Radulf, Radolf - represent Old German Radulf, from which Norman Radulf and Old French Raoul were derived: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from Radulf and Raoul (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the T.R.E. holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.
6,9	HARBY. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 6,4. Harby is represented by Harby (SK8770) and North Harby (SK8872), a distinction made in modern times; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 205.
	GODWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - Goduuinus, Goduin(us), Goduine, God(d)euuinus, Gotwinus, Couinus etc. - represent Old English Godwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English -wine, as the vast majority of Domesday forms lacked the final -e. The Alecto edition has Godwine.
6,10	CLIFTON. See 6,8 Clifton note.
	FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.
	SIGHWAT HOLDS IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Siuuate, Siuuat - represent Old Swedish Sighwat, Old Norse Sighvatr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 363. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Siwat (NTT, OXF) and Sighvatr (LIN) are used; they have now been standardized as Sighwat. The Alecto edition has Sighwat for the T.R.E. holders, Siwate here for the only 1086 tenant. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
6,11	THERE ALSO ^[CLIFTON]^. See 6,8 Clifton note.
	WULFGEAT. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Wulfgeat who was the bishop's predecessor in another part of Clifton (6,8), especially as both holdings passed to a Ralph. On his name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note.
	RALPH HOLDS IT. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Ralph who was the bishop's subtenant in another part of Clifton (6,8), especially as a Wulfgeat had held in 1066 in both. See 6,8 Ralph note.
	THE FOURTH PART OF 1 CHURCH. There is a further quarter-church at Clifton (9,3) but the remaining half does not appear in Domesday.
6,12	THERE ALSO ^[CLIFTON]^. See 6,8 Clifton note.
	AGHMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - Agemund, Agemund[us], Aghemund[us] - represent Old Swedish Aghmund: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 141. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Agemund and Agmundr are used; these have now been standardized as Aghmund. The Alecto edition has Aghmund. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	HE HAS 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. This does not imply that he ploughs with two oxen, but that he shares a plough with another estate. At Fledborough (6,13), adjacent but in 'Basssetlaw' Wapentake, Nigel the bishop's man has 2½ ploughs, and it may be that this is part of the sharing arrangement. The remaining two oxen needed to make up a plough-team of eight are held by the villagers here.
	2 VILLAGERS LIKEWISE [HAVE] 2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH AND MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin uill' could be extended to either uillani (nominative plural) or uillanos (accusative plural); compare 1,1 villagers note. The case of the acres of meadow is accusative plural (ac[ra]s); see 1,2 meadow note. If the meadow acres are accusative because uill' is also accusative, then Aghmund is the subject (he has 2 oxen, 2 villagers [having/with] 2 oxen and the meadow). However, if uill' is nominative, then a main verb ('have') is to be understood before their oxen and they had the meadow themselves. The latter suggestion has been adopted here, as in the Alecto edition.
	VALUE BEFORE 1066, 10s; NOW 6s. In the Phillimore printed translation the '10s' is omitted in error; it was corrected for the first version of Domesday Explorer.
6,13	FLEDBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. Domesday places it clearly in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, though it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		For the grant of Fledborough and Newark-on-Trent (6,1) to Stow Abbey (in Lincolnshire) by Countess (Lady ) Godiva and her husband, Earl Leofric of Mercia, see 6,1 Newark note.
	COUNTESS GODIVA. See 6,1 Godiva note, and on her name, see S5 Godiva note.
	1 CARUCATE. There is an erasure immediately before the i. car', probably of another minim; part of it remains to act as a new dot immediately before the i, though the original dot was not erased.
	NIGEL, THE BISHOP'S MAN. It is likely that the bishop's tenant Nigel here and in 6,15 refer to the same individual; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The Domesday form of his name, Nigell(us), is a Latinization (by an incorrect association with niger, 'black') of the Old Irish Niall, which was 'carried to Iceland by the Scandinavians as Njall, taken to Norway, then to France and brought to England by the Normans. It was also introduced direct into north-west England and Yorkshire by Norwegians from Ireland' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Neal). The Alecto edition also has Nigel.
	2½ PLOUGHS. For the other half, see 6,12 plough note.
6,14	NORMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire, two of which were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. This is the Normanton that is coupled with Ossington, Weston, Sutton-on-Trent and Grassthorpe in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106, and which probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. It was an Ancient Parish. For other parts, see 9,68-69.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs, at 8 oxen to the plough; see 1,6 ox note.
6,15	STOKEHAM. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Drayton. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		It is assumed that Stokeham came into the hands of the Bishop of Lincoln in the same way as Newark-on-Trent and Fledborough (6,1;13), that is, as a result of a gift by Countess Godiva to Stow Abbey. Stokeham is not, however, mentioned in any of the early charters; see 6,1 Newark note.
	COUNTESS GODIVA. See 6,1 Godiva note, and on her name, see S5 Godiva note.
	AND A THIRD PART AND A FIFTEENTH. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably forgot to put in abbreviation lines above the interlined cia (the last three letters of tercia, 'third'), above the e of parte ('part') and above the a of q[u]indecima ('fifteenth'): they are the objects of 'Countess Godiva had'. Or he could have written 7 ('and') in error for cum ('with'). For the scribe's other lapses in concentration in this entry, possibly caused by the poor state of the parchment here, see 6,15 have note and 6,15 underwood note.
		These odd fractions may have a partial counterpart in the 2 carucates, 3 bovates and the fifth part of 1 bovate at East Drayton (1,2) which is adjacent.
	NIGEL, THE BISHOP'S MAN. It is likely that the bishop's tenant Nigel here and in 6,13 refer to the same individual; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. On his name, see 6,13 Nigel note.
	NIGEL ... HAS 5 FREEMEN AND 4 SMALLHOLDERS; THEY HAVE 3 PLOUGHS AND ... . As written, this sentence has two main verbs ('has' and 'have'), linked by 'and', with the meaning that only the smallholders had the ploughs and meadow (on the underwood, see 6,15 underwood note). The Phillimore printed translation opts for this with a full-stop after the Freemen (though, in common with its practice elsewhere, a separate sentence for the meadow and underwood: 1,2 meadow note). However, in view of the Freemen sharing the ploughs in other entries, it is more likely that the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the main verb h[abe]nt ('have') for the present participle h[abe]ntes ('having') as in 6,13: he had already omitted abbreviation signs earlier in the entry (6,15 part note) and was to make a further error with the case of the underwood (6,15 underwood note). The Alecto edition has the same punctuation as now adopted here.
	UNDERWOOD. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote 7 Siluae minut', which is either nominative plural or genitive singular, both of which are inaccurate; assuming that the underwood is the object of either 'has' or 'have' (6,15 have note), he should have written siluam (accusative singular) or siluas (accusative plural). Moreover, he failed to put any punctuation after minut', which is necessary if he did not intend to include the amount of underwood. It is more likely that the presence of the large hole in the parchment here (6,15 hole note) meant that he had to stop writing and that when he resumed, he failed to see that he had omitted the dimension(s); if so, the siluae could be genitive singular if it was measured in terms of acres, rather than two linear dimensions (both forms are common in Domesday Nottinghamshire). For the scribe's other lapses in concentration in this entry, see 6,15 part note and 6,15 have note. The Alecto edition has '6 acres of meadow and scrubland', apparently taking the 6 acres to be a measurement of both the meadow and underwood. It seems safer to translate Siluae here as if the 7 preceding it was not there, as in Domesday Nottinghamshire the details of woodland/underwood are often put in a separate sentence (1,1 fishery note).
	THERE IS A HOLE in the parchment in this final entry in the bishop's fief; the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote around it. A patch was applied on the recto of this folio but not recently and slightly carelessly as part of the u of ual' in the T.R.E. value was removed when the edge was prepared to receive the patch; on other damage to the manuscript probably done then, see 5,1 manuscript note. Farley printed the text to indicate this hole, as he did for the text on the other side of it (9,20), though he did not always do this. Compare 11,33 Radcliffe note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column (folio 284a) blank, perhaps in case he needed to add the details of further holdings of the Bishop of Lincoln, or possibly for aesthetic reasons.
7	THIS FIEF was misnumbered VI by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he rubricated this county. It was not until he reached the fief of Geoffrey Alselin on folio 289b that he corrected the order by omitting the number XI. He made no attempt, however, to alter any of the incorrect chapter numbers, as he sometimes did in some other counties.
	LAND OF THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX. Bishop Odo of Bayeux was the full brother of Count Robert of Mortain and half-brother of William the Conqueror. He fought at the battle of Hastings and thereafter was appointed castellan of Dover and Earl of Kent. He was arrested in 1082 according to later writers because he had recruited knights from all over England and was planning an expedition to Rome to seize the papacy. In 1086 he was in prison in Rouen, his estates forfeited, though he is still said to be in present possession of them in some counties. He held these estates in a personal capacity, not as bishop. He was restored by William II, but forfeited his lands in 1088 for conspiracy. He died at Palermo in 1096 on the way to the Holy Land. See Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 616-617; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 309.
	There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in three wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}.
		7,1-4 [Newark Wapentake]
		7,5 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		7,6 [Bingham Wapentake].
7,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the first four estates listed in this chapter.
	COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,4. 11,4.
	LEOFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuric(us), Leuuric(us), Leofricus, Lefric(us), Leofuriz, Lefriz etc. - represent Old English Leofric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric.
		It is possible that the Leofric who was the bishop's predecessor in Coddington (7,4), about five miles from Cotham, was the same as this predecessor. A man with the same name was also his predecessor in Lincolnshire, Kent and Surrey, but no evidence has so far been found to link them, and Leofric was a very common name.
	WAZELIN <OF COTHAM>, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. The Domesday forms of his name - Wazelin[us], Waselinus - represent Old German Wazelin, Wascelin etc., Old French Gacelin, Gaselin: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 249. The Alecto edition has Wazelin. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Wazelin occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book, possibly representing four individuals. This modest property was probably the sole holding of Wazelin <of Cotham>, who had no discernible links with the remaining holdings, none of which were within easy reach (JP).
	½ PLOUGH. It is possible that this is to be associated with the 5 oxen at the nearby manor of Elston (9,1), to make a whole plough. If so, one or other figure is wrong by 1 ox.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
7,2	BARNBY[-IN-THE-WILLOWS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 6,3.
	WULFRIC. Although Wulfric was a very common name, it is probable that both of the bishop's predecessors with it were the same individual, the other occurrence being in the next entry (7,3) for the adjacent manor of Coddington. A man called Wulfric was also his predecessor in Kent and Northamptonshire, but no evidence has so far been found to link them. On this name, see 2,6 Wulfric note.
	LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. The Domesday forms of his name - Losoard[us], Losuard[us] - may represent a hybrid name, the Germanic second element -ward and perhaps a Celtic first element Los; see Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 179-80. The Alecto edition has Losoard for the Bishop of Bayeux' man in NTT and LIN and for LIN CN14, but Losuard for LIN C20 and CS13. The Phillimore printed edition has Losoard always and this has been retained here.
		It is likely that the bishop's subtenant here and in 7,3;5 and in LIN 4,8;41;61 were the same individual and that he is the claimant in LIN CS 13.
	IN [THE LANDS OF] WHICH LIES ½ BOVATE. The Latin is in qua jacet, the relative pronoun qua being feminine and referring to the church. The Phillimore printed edition has 'in whose lands lies ½ bovate', which is ambiguous; the Alecto edition has 'a church to which belongs ... '. The possession of land by this church suggests that it was a superior establishment, possibly a minster.
7,3	CODDINGTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. Like East Stoke itself (6,3. 11,6. 20,3), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;6-7. 7,4.
	WULFRIC. Although Wulfric was a very common name, it is probable that both of the bishop's predecessors with it were the same individual, the other occurrence being in the previous entry (7,2) for the adjacent manor of Barnby-in-the-Willows. A man called Wulfric was also his predecessor in Kent and Northamptonshire, but no evidence has so far been found to link them. On this name, see 2,6 Wulfric note.
	LAND FOR ... NOW 10[s]. All of the second and third lines of this entry were written over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday. It is probable that he had written here the details of the wrong estate, perhaps another holding in Coddington, as on other occasions when a large part of an entry was written over erasure.
	LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. See 7,2 Losoard note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
7,4	CODDINGTON. See 7,3 Coddington note.
	LEOFRIC. On his identity and his name, see 7,1 Leofric note.
	OUDKELL. The Domesday form of this man's name, who only occurs here, is Oudchel. In SFK 66,16 there is an R. ouethel. JMcND in his note to the Phillimore printed edition for Suffolk stated that the byname was from the Anglo-Scandinavian masculine personal name Authketill, Authkell and referred to Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, p. 39. JRM preferred to keep the first element as Oud-, reflecting the Domesday spelling, and the second element as -kell. The Alecto edition has Audkil for the NTT man and Oudkell for the SFK byname.
	UNDER THE BISHOP. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note.
	[VALUE ***]. Coddington is not stated to be a Jurisdiction or an outlier but has full manorial details and was rubricated by the main scribe of Great Domesday as a manor (its name in capitals and lined through), so it is likely that a value clause was omitted.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, probably for the later insertion of a wapentake head as Rolleston in the next entry (7,5) was in Thurgarton Wapentake, whereas the first four entries in this fief were in Newark Wapentake. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
7,5	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the probable location of Rolleston (7,5).
	ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,6. 11,18.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	LOSOARD, THE BISHOP OF BAYEUX'S MAN. See 7,2 Losoard note.
	TO THIS MANOR ... FREEMEN ... COLLINGHAM. For another instance in Domesday Nottinghamshire of Freemen elsewhere belonging to a manor, and this information being included after the value statement (normally the last item to be entered), see 18,1 and compare 13,1. See also {Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}.
	UPTON AND COLLINGHAM. Upton was identified in the Phillimore printed edition as the Upton that was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and which appears elsewhere in Domesday (1,7. 9,8;27). However, that Upton is 14 miles from Rolleston. A better identification is with the Upton (SK7354), an Ancient Parish which is just over a mile from Rolleston. Like Rolleston and Southwell it lay in Thurgarton Wapentake; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 179. Another part of Rolleston, which was an unnamed outlier of Southwell (5,1), was held by the Archbishop of York, and it is possible that behind this entry lies an alienation of population from the archbishopric; see 5,1 Southwell note.
		Collingham (also in 8,1. 14,8) is over 6 miles distant from both Upton and Rolleston, but there seems to be no alternative to the identification; see 8,1 Collingham note.
	IN THE OUTER MARGIN of folio 284b next to the fourth/fifth lines of this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote iii. c' 7 ii. ('3 carucates(?) and 2'); there may have been a b' (for 'bovates') after the ii. and that it was cut off when the parchment was trimmed during binding (all except the first twelve or so prick-marks to guide the ruling of the horizontal scores were cut off then). Both he and scribe B wrote similar figures in the margins, especially in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, but the meaning of them is not clear. This is the only occurrence in Nottinghamshire. See Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 128-29 and Figs. 14-15 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 201), and Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 193-95 and Figs. 15.14 and 15.15 ). It is just possible that the main scribe intended to insert the holding of the Freemen in Upton and Collingham who belonged to this manor and that this was a memorandum, never acted on. Alternatively, it could have been a correction to the holding of the Freemen in 8,1 who had 2 carucates and 3 bovates, and that he wrote it next to the wrong entry; if so, no attempt was made at correction.
7,6	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from the later location of Screveton (7,6).
	SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,55. 9,106.
	TOTI <OF SCREVETON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Toti and, once, Toti[us] - represent Old Danish Toti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 387. The Alecto edition has Toti. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Toti occurs on eight holdings, probably representing six individuals. The modest holding of this Toti is unlikely to be connected with any other Totis, all of whose properties devolved upon other tenants-in-chief and all of whom were remote (JP).
	HUGH, [YOUNGER] KINSMAN OF HERBERT [AND] THE BISHOP'S MAN. In both Classical Latin and Medieval Latin nepos can mean 'nephew', 'grandson', 'cousin' or simply 'descendent' or 'kinsman': Oxford Latin Dictionary; Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources. Essentially it refers to a kinsman who belongs to a younger generation than that of the individual concerned. The Phillimore printed translation has 'nephew', but with a note by JRM ('or possibly grandson'). The Alecto edition has 'kinsman' and that has been followed here until the relationship between Hugh and Herbert (neither of whom have so far been identified) has been established.
		Hugh was the bishop's man, not Herbert: the Latin ho[mo] is nominative, agreeing with Hugo. The Phillimore printed translation does not make this clear, hence the decision to include [and] here, as in the Alecto edition. On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left three lines blank.
8	THIS FIEF was misnumbered VII by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.
	LAND OF ST PETER'S OF PETERBOROUGH. An early monastery, founded at “Medeshamstede” c. 655, allegedly by a monk Saxulf, was destroyed by the Danes in 870, but rebuilt and re-founded as a Benedictine abbey c. 966, dedicated to St Peter, by Aethelwold Bishop of Winchester (963-984) supported by King Edgar (959-973).
	Three abbots spanned the period from 1066 to 1086:
		1052-1066 Abbot Leofric. He was nephew of Earl Leofric of Mercia and had previously been a monk of the abbey.
		1066-1069 Abbot Brand. He had previously been prior of the abbey. He acknowledged Edgar Aetheling as king in 1066, but was later reconciled to William I.
		1070-1098 Abbot Turold. He was a monk of Fécamp Abbey in Normandy, then Abbot of Malmesbury from c. 1066 until 1070. He is sometimes referred to as a nepos ('nephew') of William the Conqueror.
		See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 56, 73; Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, p. 60; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 507.
	There are no wapentake heads in this short chapter, but analysis reveals that the lands lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}.
		8,1 [Newark Wapentake]
		8,2 ['Lythe' Wapentake].
8,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. The heading is inserted on the basis of later evidence for the wapentake in which Collingham (8,1) lay.
	COLLINGHAM. North Collingham (SK8361) and South Collingham (SK8261) were adjacent Ancient Parishes. Both lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (a portion is below a wapentake head at 8,1), as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 14,8. According to Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104, the Abbot of Peterborough held both places called Collingham.
		According to a spurious charter (Early Charters of Northern England, p. 111 no. 1 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 68) Collingham and Muskham (8,2) were given to the monastery at Medeshamstede (later refounded as Peterborough Abbey) in 664 by Wulfhere, King of the Mercians. This charter is a self-interested forgery which lists lands that Peterborough Abbey had either held or claimed and which had come into its hands, if at all, at very diverse dates. According to Hugh Candidus in his Chronicle (Mellows, p. 70), Collingham was given to the abbey by Thorkil Hoche at the same time as he gave it a moneyer in Stamford (Lincolnshire) and land there ex ista parte aquae (presumably meaning south of the River Welland) which became known as Stamford Baron. Thorkil Hoche is apparently to be identified with the Turkyl Hoze of the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey and the Thurkyl hoga who witnessed a charter of King Cnut in 1024 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 961): Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 245 no. 351.
		Muskham (Muscham ex alia parte Trente, that is, 'Muskham on the other side of the River Trent') was the gift of the monk Brand (who later became abbot, 1066-1069) and his brothers Eskil, Saeric and Siward.
		The Abbey of Peterborough held North and South Collingham until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 281. For an entry relating to Collingham in the monastery's Liber Niger, see 8,1 carucates note..
	4 CARUCATES OF LAND AND ½ BOVATE. The Descriptio Maneriorum in Peterborough's Liber Niger gives the amount as four carucates and four-fifths of a bovate: Peterborough Chronicle, p. 159; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 210. This descriptio was an account of the manors of Peterborough Abbey made c. 1125x1128; only very occasionally do its assessments agree with those in Domesday, but this is close enough.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the iiii. car' t're over an erasure; parts of the original remain, though it cannot be deciphered.
	2 CHURCHES. These probably lay at North Collingham and South Collingham: VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 222.
8,2	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (8,2).
	NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually, Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North', as at 5,2. 12,11. 30,7; see 1,13 Ordsall note. The identification is confirmed by the fact that the Abbot of St Peter's holds North Muscham in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 95; see Book of Fees, p. 990.
		This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 12,11-13. 30,7.
		Some of the earlier history of the estate is given in LIN CW16: 'The shire witnesses that, at King Edward's death and later, Eskil had these three manors, Scotton, Scotter, and Raventhorpe, in his own free possession (in propria libertate), from King Edward; likewise he had Muskham in Nottinghamshire'. He gave Muskham to Peterborough, where his brother Brand was abbot (JRM). The version of Hugh Candidus (Chronicle, p. 71) is slightly different: Brand [monachus et postea] abbas [Burgi] et Askilus et Siricus et Siuorthus fratres dederunt has terras deo et sancto Petro et fratribus in Burch; scilicet Musham ex alia parte Trente et Scotere ... ('Brand [a monk and later] abbot [of Peterborough] and Eskil and Saeric and Siward his brothers gave these lands to God and to St Peter and the brethren in Peterborough, namely Muskham on the other side of the [River] Trent and Scotter ... '). Hugh Candidus gives no date, but Brand was abbot from 1066-1069 and was only a monk when Muskham was given. Moreover, the T.R.E. holder is said by Domesday to be the abbey. This information gives the lie to that contained in the forged charter of King Wulfhere of Mercia (Early Charters of Northern England, p. 111 no. 1 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 68) according to which the monastery of Medeshamstede (later refounded as Peterborough Abbey) acquired Muskham in 664; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 222-23; and 8,1 Collingham note.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}and, on the identification of Carlton, see5,5 Carlton note.
	2 MILLS, 20s; 1 DERELICT [MILL]. Molinum ('mill') is understood after the Latin 7 i. wastu[m]. The Phillimore printed edition envisages another resource and translates '1 wasteland'.
	HALF A FISHERY. The other half does not appear either in Nottinghamshire or in Lincolnshire. Both halves were no doubt on the River Trent.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank two lines.
9	THIS FIEF was misnumbered VIII by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have written from the E of ROGERII in TERRA ROGERII DE BUSLI over an erasure, though the parchment may just have been especially rough here.
	LAND OF ROGER OF BULLY. He probably originated from Bully in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufchâtel. His lands ultimately became the honour of Tickhill, named from his castle there (in Yorkshire). Both the honour and the castle are sometimes referred to as those of Blyth. Roger and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory (Nottinghamshire) shortly after 1086. After Roger’s death his lands were seized by Robert of Bellême, son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Roger and Robert may have been related. Robert lost his lands in 1102 for rebellion and the honour was in royal hands until King Stephen gave it to Henry, Count of Eu, son of William (the Domesday holder) and Beatrice, Roger of Bully's daughter. In the fourteenth century Roger's lands were held of the honour of Lancaster. See VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 223-28; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 401-402.
		On the castle of Tickhill, see VCH Yorkshire, ii. pp. 39-40; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. p. 527. On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.
		A significant number of estates were shared by Roger of Bully with the king. Although Roger had the most important fief in Nottinghamshire, he had no known position of authority in the shire. These estates had presumably been granted from royal land, possibly by King William to Roger himself, in which case their various 1066 holders had presumably been held from the king. These estates are listed below:

Estate of Roger of Bully	References to Royal estates at the same named place	
9,6 East Markham
9,7;26 Headon
9,8;27 Upton
9,13 Kirton
9,13 Walesby
9,19;23 Ordsall

9,21 Misson
9,24-25 Ranby
9,32 Elkesley
9,33 Babworth
9,34 'North' Morton
9,37 Perlethorpe
9,40 Warsop
9,41 Clumber
9,42;71 "Odestorp"
9,50 Carlton-in-Lindrick
9,51 Lound
9,54 Barnby Moor
9,61 Carlton-on-Trent
9,91 Thorpe-in-the-Glebe
9,102 Kneeton
9,106 Screverton
9,107 Car Colston
9,108-109 Flintham
9,112-113 Fenton
9,114 Sturton-le-Steeple
9,115 North Wheatley
9,120 Walkeringham
9,121;123 Misterton
9,122 Gringley-on-the-Hill
9,126 Clayworth
9,127-128 Clarborough
9,130 South Leverton
9,132 Mattersey	1,3 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1)
1,6 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1)
1,7 (part of Dunham-on-Trent, 1,1)
1,19;24 (part of Grimston 1,17; part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,20 (part of Grimston, 1,17)
1,5 (part of Dunham-on-Trent 1,1); 1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,65 (part of Kirton-in-Lindsey, LIN 1,38) 
1,13-14 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,10 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,11 (see Morton, part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,24;26;30 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,24-25 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,24 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,12 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,24;30 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,16 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,16 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)
1,21;24 (part of Grimston 1,17; part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,60 (part of Upper Broughton, 1,59)
1,62 (part of Flintham?, 1,61)
1,55 (part of Orston, 1,51)
1,56 (part of Orston, 1,51)
part of the caput of the royal manor (1,61)
1,33 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,35 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,36 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,37 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,38 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,43? (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,40 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,41(part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,32 (part of Mansfield, 1,23)
1,15 (part of Bothamsall, 1,9)

	

	These lands of Roger's appear to have been derived from all the principal royal estates except Arnold, though only in the case of Flintham (1,61) did he hold part of a caput. Because his estates had a multitude of English owners before 1066, the grants were not made from the royal estates directly to Roger himself. These men were probably 'king's thanes' to whom or to whose ancestors some king had granted these lands. It is noteworthy that other parts of some of these places are held by other of the king's thanes (chapter 30), suggesting that those estates had the same origin; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization).
		The rationale for constructing Roger's fief from this rather than that estate held by an Englishman may well have been strategic, for though he held lands throughout Nottinghamshire, he had a particular concentration of estates on the Nottinghamshire-Yorkshire border, near Blyth and Tickhill. This conglomeration of estates on an important border and around the major lines of communication northwards was probably not fortuitous; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 223; Roffe; 'Norman Tenants-in-Chief'; Crook, 'Nottinghamhire and the Crown', p. 26.
	The manors in this large fief are entered in blocks according to the wapentakes in which they lay, and the wapentakes themselves are entered in the standard sequence; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}. All the necessary wapentake heads were supplied by the scribe. Some Jurisdictions are not in the same wapentake as their parent manors, but this is not uncommon and does not upset the sequence which is:
		9,1-5 Newark Wapentake
		9,6-58 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake
		9,59-71 'Lythe' Wapentake
		9,72-76 Thurgarton Wapentake
		9,77-89 Rushcliffe Wapentake.
		9,90-94 Broxtowe Wapentake.
		9,95-111 Bingham Wapentake
		9,112-131 Oswaldbeck Wapentake.
		(The final entry (9,132) is in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but is both a Jurisdiction and
		might have been added.)
9,1	ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in East Stoke Ancient Parish at an early date: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;5. 20,4-5.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Odincar, Odincarle, Odincarl, Oudenecar - represent Old Danish Othenkar(l): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 342. The Phillimore printed edition has Odincar here and elsewhere, together with Othencarl in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as Othenkar. The Alecto edition has Othenkar.
		In view of the rarity of this name and the fact that all the occurrences in Domesday Nottinghamshire are as predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,1;76;92;96;100;106;108), it is likely that they represent the same individual. On the possibility that he was the son of Alnoth; see 3,2 Normanton note and 9,92 Othenkar note.
	NORMAN THE PRIEST. He is otherwise unknown. However, a Norman of Lincoln holds a church in the borough of Derby (DBY B7) and could conceivably be the same man.
		The Domesday form of his name, Norman, is Norman French. It is used in the present edition only for the 1086 holders, whereas in the Phillimore printed translations for several counties Norman was used for T.R.E. holders as well, though the forms for them (Norman, Normannus) almost certainly represent Old English Northmann (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 331-32). The Alecto edition has Norman for 1086 holders, Northmann for T.R.E. ones.
	5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 3 oxen, needed to make a team of eight, no doubt belonged to some other estate. There is a deficiency of ½ plough (4 oxen) at the nearby manor of Cotham (7,1).
9,2	SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 14,8. 20,2.
	FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233 For other parts, see 11,1;3;5.
	ALSI. On this name, see S5 Alsi note. Five of Roger of Bully's predecessors were named Alsi (9,2;43;77;90;95), but as this name-form was very common and might represent one of three Old English names it would be unwise to suggest that they represented the same individual, though the Alsi in 9,43 is likely to have been the son of Karski (9,43 Alsi note). Moreover, the only holdings that are at all near each other are Wysall (9,90: SK6027)) and Tollerton (9,95: SK6134). Even these are in different wapentakes and separated from each other by Rushcliffe Wapentake.
	ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Robert the bursar (dispensator) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.
	IN THE OUTER MARGIN level with the first and second lines of this entry (not next to the last line of the previous entry as Farley printed it) is an r (for require, 'enquire'). There is nothing obviously missing or inaccurate in this entry, but, as with the nine other instances of this (including the one at 30,3), his source may have ben unclear and he guessed the reading, but decided to check it and it turned out to be correct. On these marginal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91).
9,3	CLIFTON. North Clifton was an Ancient Parish which contained the township of South Clifton. Both probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. In Feudal Aids one Clifton is associated with Harby (6,4;9) and the other with Spalford (6,4. 9,4). For other parts of Clifton, see 6,8;10-12. 9,5.
		This Clifton can be distinguised from the Clifton that lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake by its apparent presence here in Newark Wapentake. There is no doubt that Roger of Bully held at North Clifton, for it is held (as Northe Clifton and Hordeby) in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 100, in Newark Wapentake from the honour of Tickhill. However, there was also an estate in Suthe Clifton whose overlord is not given in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 100, and this might imply that Roger held in both places called Clifton, as the only other estates in either were held by the Bishop of Lincoln (6,8;10-12). Roger holds another estate in a 'Clifton' at 9,5. The present estate is likely to have been in the same Clifton as that of 6,11 with which it shares a church.
	ODHGRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - Oudgrim, Outgrim - represent Old Swedish Ødhgrim, Old Norse Authgrimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 70. The printed Phillimore edition has Oudgrim here, but Authgrimr in LIN 4,72; these have now been standardized as Odhgrim. The Alecto edition has Ødhgrim. These are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday, but the places are too far apart for it to be likely that the same individual was involved.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. This Roger is identified as Roger's man in 9,3;44;62;69;90;107-108;120;122;129, and it is possible that he is Roger of Louvetot. Certainly this man's great nephew, William of Louvetot, founded Worksop Priory before 1120 and granted to it all the churches that were in the lordship that he held of the honour of Blyth (= Tickhill); that is, the churches of Gringley-on the-Hill (9,122). Misterton (9,121), Walkeringham (9,120), Normanton-on-Trent (9,69), Car Colston (9,107), Willoughby-on-the Wolds (9,92), Wysall (9,90) and half of the church of Treswell (9,129): VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 226. The church of Treswell was no doubt shared with Count Alan (2,9), though no church is mentioned here in Domesday nor in several of the other places. All except Misterton and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds were held by Roger, Roger (of Bully)'s man in 1086. In the case of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, no subtenant is recorded, but in the case of Misterton the form of words is simply 'Roger has... '. It seems probable that this Roger too in fact is Roger, Roger's man, and it casts some doubt on the identity of the other plain Rogers listed in this fief (9,12;28;39-40;43;60;65;72-74;76-77;79-80;82;84;88;94-97;100;102-104;115) who might otherwise be assumed to be Roger of Bully. Only at 9,131 is the Roger explicitly said to be Roger of Bully. Even the fact that some of these Rogers' holdings are in lordship does not prove that they were all held by Roger of Bully, as Roger's man Roger, identified here as 'of Louvetot' is specifically said in 9,90;107 to have ploughs 'in lordship'. That Roger's man Roger is Roger of Louvetot was argued by Stenton in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 226, and it remains likely, though the circumstances in which William de Louvetot came to be holding this portion of the honour of Tickhill in the early twelfth century are not entirely clear; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, pp. cxvi-cxvii). The family came from Louvetot in the French département of Seine-Maritime (arrondissement Rouen, canton Caudebec-en-Caux); see Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 55; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 411.
		On Worksop Priory, see 9,43 Worksop note.
	THE FOURTH PART OF A CHURCH. There is another quarter-church at Clifton (6,11), but the remaining half does not appear in Domesday.
		On the accusative case for the Latin partç (and also for the ac[ra]s of the meadow acres), see 1,1 fishery note.
9,4	A JURISDICTION. Spalford was no doubt a Jurisdiction of Clifton (9,3).
	SPALFORD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of North Clifton. Like North and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 6,4.
9,5	BROADHOLME. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 21,3.
	OR CLIFTON. Scribe B interlined VEL CLIFTVNE above BRODEHOLM. This is the only alternative place-name provided by him, though the main scribe of Great Domesday recorded them several times, all in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (also in circuit VI), and not always as a correction. At the same time as this interlineation scribe B added details of a holding in Newton (9,97), another one in 10,52 and perhaps the villagers' ploughs in 10,16; the scratchy pen used for these is also very like the pen used for the addition of a Jurisdiction and of a detail of a mill in 5,8, but the colour of the ink for these is different to that used here. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
		Clifton is no doubt North Clifton, the Ancient Parish, or South Clifton, its township; see 9,3 Clifton note. It is not clear why the alternative name was interlined. There may have been conflict in the sources used by the main scribe, and it is possible that Broadholme had once belonged to Clifton, and was still recorded under that name in some of the documents on which the Domesday Survey was based. Broadholme thus particularizes what was formerly part of Clifton.
	ALWY. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluui, Aluuius, Eluui, Aeluui(us) - could represent Old English Ælfwig, Old English Æthelwig or Old English Ealdwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 157-58, under Al-wig, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wy for Old English -wig as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwy in the present edition appear under Alfwy in the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Alwig for those appearing under Al-wig. Some of those called Alwy in the present edition appear under Old English Æthelwig in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 189-90, followed by Alecto, but the Domesday forms (Ailwius, Ailuuin(us), Ailuin(us), Aelwi[us], Aeluuin[us], Aluui, Aluui[us], Aluuin(us) etc.) lack the medial -d- or -g- that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. On the confusion between the second elements -wig and -wine, see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, § 148.
		There are four occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, all predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,5;12;22;70), but as the name-form Alwy was very common and could represent one of three Old English names, it would be unwise to suggest they represented the same individual.
9,6	[EAST] MARKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as 'Great Markham'. It was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		The honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully) certainly held land in Estmarcham; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 26, 305, and East Markham is probably the identity of Domesday's plain Marcham here since West Markham (9,28-30) is separately identified by Domesday as Westmarcham.
	EDWY <OF MARKHAM>. The Domesday forms of this name - Eduui, Edui[us], Aeduui, Eduuius, Eluui - represent Old English Eadwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 238. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- and the second element -wy for Old English -wig, as they were closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadwig.
		There are only two occurrences of an Edwy in Domesday Nottinghamshire (the other is at Boughton, 9,16), both predecessors of Roger of Bully and their holdings are 4 ½ miles apart, so it is possible that they represent the same individual, despite the commonness of the name-form and the two estates not being contiguous.
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - Goisfridus, Gosfridus, Gaufridus, Gaufridus, Gaosfridus - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as Galfridus or Gaufridus and Goisfridus and Gosfridus' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Jeffray etc.). Goisfridus and Gosfridus represent Old German Gosfrid, Romance Josfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 125-26. Gaufridus apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as Gaufrid, Gautfred, Waldfrid, Walfrid: ibidem, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German God(e)frid (on whom, see ibidem, pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME Geffrey, from Old French Geuffroi, Jeufroi or Old French Jefroi (Reaney, ibidem). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', Index of Persons, p. ix.
		According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 232, Geoffrey (Goisfrid[us]) here and in 9,33;36;116;118-119 might be the same as Roger's steward who (as Godefridus dapifer) witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The occasional confusion between the names Geoffrey and Godfrey was commented upon by Forssner (see above), but there seems to be no proof whether Roger's subtenant was Geoffrey or Godfrey.
	FOR THE TRANSPOSITION SIGN next to the last line of this entry, see 9,7 entry note.
9,7	THIS ENTRY and the next two (9,8-9) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday across the foot of both columns on folio 284cd below the last ruled horizontal line. A rubricated transposition sign links them with a similar sign (unrubricated) in the outer margin next to the last line of the manor of [East] Markham on folio 284c (9,6). These three entries were probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire; see 1,31 entry note. For the entry for Misson added immediately below the third of these entries, which may have been written at the same time as them, see 9,21 entry note.
	HEADON. Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,6. 9,26.
		In the manuscript hedune is clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, but in the Alecto facsimile the reproduction is very poor, perhaps because the ink did not take particularly well and some of the place-name was written in the outer tramlines of this column. On other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	A JURISDICTION OF [EAST] MARKHAM. The Latin might appear to use the preposition in ('in') because the phrase is elliptical: '(Its) jurisdiction (lies in) [East] Markham', with soca having an abstract sense. However, soca in ... seems to be exactly parallel to berewica in ... as both are used to describe dependencies of a manor. Since Berewica can only have a concrete sense, in is there being used idiomatically (see 1,17 outlier note). The same appears to be true of soca, that is, it has a concrete sense of 'jurisdiction-land', 'sokeland' and in is also used idiomatically, the natural translation therefore being 'a Jurisdiction of ... ' and implying some longer phrase such as soca jacens in hoc manerio (' Jurisdiction-land' or 'sokeland lying in' (that is, 'pertaining to') 'this manor'). Soca huius manerii ('Jurisdiction' or 'Sokeland of this manor') is common in Domesday (see, for example 9,13), but with a place-name some preposition is needed since the place-name-itself cannot be given a genitival case ending. An alternative to Latin in ('in') is the use of de ('of') as in 9,81: soca de Hulmo ('a Jurisdiction of Holme [Pierrepont]') which would require est (' it is') to make it into a clause. On these grounds, throughout the translation 'a Jurisdiction of ... ' has been used for soca in ... .
9,8	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday before the county was rubricated; see 9,7 entry note.
	UPTON. Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,7. 9,27.
9,9	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday before the county was rubricated; see 9,7 entry note.
	GAMSTON. This is one of two different places called Gamston. The present one was a chapelry of Blyth Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 (a part is below a wapentake head at 16,1) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 16,1-2.
	1 GARDEN. See 1,44 garden note.
	WHICH BELONG TO [EAST] MARKHAM. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,6).
	WHICH BELONGS TO EATON. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).
9,10	THERE ALSO ^[[EAST] MARKHAM]^. In the manuscript this entry immediately follows that for [East] Markham (9,6), so it is clear to what the Ibidç ('there also') refers. However, the numbering of the Phillimore printed edition, which takes account of the three entries added across the foot of folio 284cd and linked to 9,6 by transposition signs (9,7 entry note) and which is retained here in that order, might suggest that the 'there also' refers to the entry at 9,9 (Gamston). The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation has this entry immediately after the one for East Markham because it prints the three added entries after the one for West Markham (9,28), though it omits the transposition signs as usual.
		For East Markham, 9,6 Markham note.
	FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.
	TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Quièvrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and p. xxv); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with Turold of Quièvrecourt because of his family's connection with Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50; see 9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, although those of 9,46;70 might be Fulco's brother (see 9,46 Turold note and 9,70 men note). These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 430, under Turold de Cheuerchort (Quiévrecourt for Quièvrecourt) has four folio references for the five tenants of Roger of Bully called Turold: folio 285d (= 9,70), folio 285c (= 9,59), folio 285b (= 9,46 or 9,50), folio 284c (= 9,10). She notes that there is a possible confusion with Turold de Lisores, whom she lists next (ibidem, pp. 430-31) and has a reference for folio 285b (= 9,46 or 9,50).
		The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - Turold(us), Turald[us], Torold[us] - are a Latinization of the Old Norse Thorvald, which gave rise to the French names T(h)ouroude, Troude etc: Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Turold, Thorald and Thoraldr appear; these have now been standardized as Turold. The Alecto edition has Turold here.
9,11	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	THERE ALSO ^[[EAST] MARKHAM]^. In the manuscript this entry follows that for 9,10, which itself succeeds that for East Markham (9,6); on the possible problem caused by the Phillimore numbering of the added entries 9,7-9 and the order in the present edition, see 9,10 there note. On [East] Markham, see 9,6 Markham note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	ULFKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlchil, Vlchel, Vlchetel, Vlchet, Ulketel, Vlketel(l)us, Ulfchetel, Ulfketel, Vlchete, Olketel, Ofchetel etc. - represent Old Norse Ulfkell, Old Danish Ulfkil: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 399-400. As the Phillimore printed translations include Ulfkell, Ulfketel, Wulfketel and Ulfketill, it has been decided for the present edition to use the Old Danish form for them all, although the presence of -chetel and -ketel in a number of Domesday forms may suggest that the name Ulfketil or Ulfketel was also current then; see 30,2 Ulfkil note. The Alecto edition has Ulfkil here.
		Roger of Bully had seven predecessors with this name in Nottinghamshire (9,11;32;40-41;51;66;128) and four in Yorkshire (YKS 10W8;12-13;27), but no documentary evidence has so far been to connect them and it was a common name.
		It is possible that Ulfkil continued to hold land in East Markham, though the phrasing Ibi Vlchel 7 iiii. soch[emanni] 7 ii. bord[arii] h[abe]nt .i. car[ucam] 7 dim[idiam], with no reference to Ulfkil as Roger's subtenant or his 'having' the Freemen and smallholders, is unhelpful. It might indicate, however, that Ulfkil had been demoted to 'villager' status, merely sharing the 1 ½ ploughs with the other population.
9,12	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	TUXFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		In the Alecto facsimile there is no red-lining on TVXFARNE, though it is clear in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On similar omissions of the rubrication on place-names, see 2,2 there note, and, on other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,13	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Tuxford (9,12).
	KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 12,2. 17,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.
	WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 12,4. 16,10.
		In the Alecto facsimile the es of this place-name Walesbi is only partly reproduced, though they are clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other poor reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
9,14	EGMANTON. This Jurisdiction of Tuxford (9,12) was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,15.
9,15	3M. Normally the number written above the marginal M' was the same as the number of T.R.E. holders recorded; see 3,4 2M note. However, only Thorkil and Wulfmer are mentioned here, suggesting that one of them had two manors in Egmanton that were combined into one by Roger of Bully.
	EGMANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,14.
	THORKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Turchil, Torchil, Turchill(us), Turchetel, Torchetel, Turketel, Torchill[us], Torchel, Thurchill[us] - represent Old Danish Thorkil, Old Norse Thorkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 394-95. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Thorkell, Thorketel and Thorketill (the last following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 309-11); these have now been standardized as Thorkil, although the presence in Domesday of a few -chetel and -ketel endings suggests that there might have been two forms of this name current then. The Alecto edition has Thorkil here.
		Roger of Bully had four predecessors with this name (9,15;57;59-60), but no documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them and it was a common name.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	THE THIRD PART. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written .iii. partç which could be read as abbreviating either .iii. partes ('3 parts') or .iii. partem ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining tiâ (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') above the iii.; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
9,16	BOUGHTON. This was a chapelry of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but in later times parts of the Ancient Parish were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. These included Boughton (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228), and it seems probable that Boughton was also in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see 17,9 Kneesall note. For another part, see 17,1.
	EDWY <OF MARKHAM>. It is possible that he was the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in East Markham; on this and on the name Edwy, see 9,6 Edwy note.
9,17	OLLERTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 17,3.
	ALWOLD. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluuold(us), Alwaldus, Aeluuold(us), Aluuol, Alnold (a scribal error for Aluold), Aluoldus, Aluolt, Aluol, Aluort, Eluuold, Eluolt) could represent Old English Ælfweald or Old English Æthelweald: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 154-55, under Al-weald, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English -weald as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwold in the present edition appear under Alfwold in the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Alweald.
		The only other occurrence of an Alwold in Domesday Nottinghamshire is as one of Roger of Bully's predecessors in Skegby (9,66), but it was a very common name-form which could represent one of two Old English names and no documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them.
9,18	COTTAM?. This is not Cotham in Newark Wapentake, as VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 260, followed by Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 212, and Domesday Gazetteer, since all the other 50 places in this chapter are placed in their right wapentakes. Cottam in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake was Cotum in 1280, Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 29 (JRM). However, despite JRM's report, and the spelling Cotham that appears in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 260, the map between pp. 246 and 247 in the same volume by its positioning of Cotham shows that in fact Cottam in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake was intended: Cotune appears on that map south of Leverton and underlined in green to indicate that it was an estate of Roger of Bully.
		The situation is a little more complicated than JRM's note suggests. Cottam was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of South Leverton. South Leverton probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086. However, according to the identifications of Glasscock (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 227-28), Cottam was then divided, one portion being taxed with South Leverton and the other with Ragnall (1,1; it lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086). By 1334 Oswaldbeck and 'Bassetlaw' Wapentakes had merged, but the Lay Subsidy largely groups manors according to their former wapentakes and it is clear that parts of Cottam lay in both. Possibly part of Cottam was silently included by Domesday in South Leverton; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; and 1,32 Leverton note. Ragnall, on the other hand, was, in 1086, part of the royal manor of Dunham-on-Trent (1,1) and clearly lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Geographically, Cottam lay in the area of Oswaldbeck Wapentake. It is conceivable, however, that in 1086, a part of Cottam was a detachment of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. It was mapped as such in the Alecto edition. However, there is no evident reason why this should be so in 1086, as the place is described in Domesday as a manor and there is no stated link with Ragnall or with any other place.
		There is no question that the Domesday Cotune is the same as the Cotum juxta Dunham held by the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109, for he was then in charge of the honour of Tickhill (descent from Roger of Bully). Cottam is not exactly close to Dunham-on-Trent. It is four miles distant, but that may not be important if the intention was to distinguish this place from the Cotham in Newark Wapentake 21 miles away. Nonetheless, it seems impossible to envisage a boundary for Cottam that could make part of it continuous with 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, and it is hazardous to postulate a detachment when the problem may be one of identification: there is a suspicion that the present holding is a lost place in Dunham-on-Trent. However, it is possible that Cottam originated as a part of Dunham-on-Trent and that when wapentakes were laid out, the link was so strong, that it was included with Dunham-on-Trent in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, as a detached place, a rarity in the Danelaw counties.
	HARDWULF <OF COTTAM?>. The Domesday forms of this name - Hardulf, Hardul - represent Old English Heardwulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 288. JRM preferred the first element Hard- for the Old English Heard-, as it reflected the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Heardwulf.
		The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are in YKS 29W42 (where it appears as Heardwulf in the printed Phillimore edition) and in DEV 3,79. No documentary evidence has been so far found to connect them.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. In view of the rarity of the name, this Fulco and all the others in Roger of Bully's fief (9,18;20;41;55;64;70;126-127), which account for all the occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, are almost certainly Fulco of Lisors. Fulco is identified as such in DBY 16,1 (the land of Roger of Bully) as a witness of Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth, as well as a donor of lands; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and pp. xxiv-xxv); and 9,49 Blyth note.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Fulco, Fulcho - represent Old German Fulco, Folco: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 98. Some of the people named Fulco in the present edition appear as Fulk in some of the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Fulk here.
		Fulco's place of origin could either be Lisores in French département of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot) or Lisors in the département of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Lyons-la-Forêt). He was an important tenant of Roger of Bully. His wife was called Albreda and they had a son, Robert; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 201.
9,19	4M. See 3,4 2M note.
	ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,5;12-13. 9,23. 30,56.
	OSWARD <OF ORDSALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Osuuard(us), Osuuart, Osuard[us] - represent Old English Osweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 340-41. JRM preferred the second element -ward for the Old English -weard, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Osweard, except for the 1086 holder in NFK 8,44, where the form is Osward.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	THORSTEN. The Domesday forms of this name - Turstan, Turstan[us], Turstin(us), Tursten, Turstane, Turtin - represent Old Danish Thorsten, Old Norse Thorsteinn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 396. In the printed Phillimore edition this T.R.E. holder appears as Thurstan and (for YKS) as Thorsteinn; these have now been standardized as Thorsten. The Alecto edition has Thorsten here.
		It is tempting to think that all Roger of Bully's predecessors with this name (9,19;37;76;101) were the same individual, but the presence of two occurrences within the present entry may suggest that there were at least two men whose lands passed to Roger. These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	ORDRIC <OF ORDSALL>. The Domesday forms - Ordric, Ordricus - represent Old English Ordric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 336-37. In the printed Phillimore edition of Northamptonshire the form Orderic appears; this has now been standardized as Ordric. The Alecto edition also has Ordric. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	^[ANOTHER]^ THORSTEN. The two occurrences of this name in this entry suggest that there were two different people called Thorsten, each with a manor, that was combined with others by Roger of Bully. It is just possible, however, that Thorsten had had two separate small manors in Ordsall.
		On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.
9,20	10M. See 3,4 2M note.
	EATON. This was an Ancient Parish, and, until 1841, a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1), derived from the Archbishop of York's holding (5,8). It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 5,8.
	EACH HAD HIS HALL. This emphasises that there were 10 manors, in case it might be concluded that some of the ten men held jointly. The existence of a hall from which the estate was managed and at which dues and services were rendered appears to be an important element in defining a manerium which itself contains the idea of 'dwelling', 'residing'; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 224; Stenton, Types of Manorial Structure, pp. 31-32, 57-59.
	SIXTH PART. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to interline tā (= tam, the last three letters of sextam, 'sixth'), though he may have thought that partç (partem, accusative singular; habuerunt, 'they had', implied) was sufficient to show that it was the sixth part of 1 bovate, not 6 parts, although the horizontal abbreviation was occasionally used by him to indicate an omitted letter other than m. He was frequently lax in clarifying whether the number was an ordinal or a cardinal one; sometimes he corrected himself, but often scribe B corrected him; see 4,7 part note.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.
	2 MILLS, 20s; MEADOW, 60 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative, as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.
	THERE IS A HOLE in the parchment in this entry; the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote around it. Farley printed the text to indicate this hole, as he did for the text on the other side of it (6,15), though he did not always do this. For the patch that was later applied, see 6,16 hole note. Compare 11,33 Radcliffe note.
		In the Alecto facsimile the writing around this hole, especially on the right of it, is blurred, though it is clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	FOR THE TRANSPOSITION SIGN next to the last line of this entry, see 9,21 entry note.
9,21	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the foot of folio 284c immediately below three entries that he had added across the foot of both columns on folio 284cd (see 9,7 entry note). It was written slightly askew, but was probably done at the same time as them, the darker colour of the ink used for it being due to the smoothness of the parchment here. For other rubricated entries added by him, see 1,31 entry note. A rubricated transposition sign beside this entry corresponds to an unrubricated sign in the centre margin next to the last line of the manor of Eaton written on folio 284d (9,20). The scribe used a different design for this pair of transpositions signs to the one used for the set linking the three entries added above it, as was his practice to avoid confusion; compare 9,81 entry note. He probably discovered this entry, the status of which is unknown, when he found the entry for Gamston (9,9), added just above it, because it contained a garden that belonged to Eaton. The main scribe also added details of two other holdings in Misson, though after rubrication had taken place; see 1,65 entry note.
	MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish divided between Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottinghamshire. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. For other parts of Misson, see 1,65 (duplicated in 30,44). 1,66. 30,43.
		In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears wrongly as Mission here (as also at 1,65); it is correct in the Alecto edition.
	IT BELONGS TO EATON. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,20). The exact relationship is not stated.
9,22	GROVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.
	OSMUND. The Domesday forms of this name - Osmund(us), Hosmund[us], Hosmunt - represent Old English Osmund: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 340, though he mentioned that a possible base is also Old Norse Asmundr, Old Danish Asmund. The Alecto edition also has Osmund.
	ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,2 Robert note.
9,23	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the centre margin of folio 284cd, slightly closer to the right-hand column next to the manor of Grove (9,22), of which it may have been a member. This entry does not seem to have been done at the same time as any of the other added entries that were never rubricated, of which a list is given in 1,19 entry note. For another addition of a holding in Ordsall, see 30,56.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,5;12-13. 9,19. 30,56.
		It is not unreasonable to assume that the main scribe inserted this portion of Ordsall at this point to indicate that it belonged to Grove (9,22), since it is placed next to Grove and above a Jurisdiction of it (Ranby, 9,24). Ordsall and Grove are adjacent on the ground, but no relationship is explicitly stated in the text.
9,24	RANBY. This was a hamlet of Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,13-14. 9,25.
	OF GROVE OF GROVE ["SIC"]. Grove is Roger of Bully's manor (9,22).
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote in Graue on the second line of this entry and then a bit later partially interlined it at the end of the first line, probably when he wrote on the line below that another part of Ranby (9,25) was a Jurisdiction of Eaton (rather than, as expected, of Grove) and thought he should clarify the position of this part.
9,25	RANBY. See 9,24 Ranby note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this brief entry in the space left after details of another holding in Ranby, separating it from them with a gallows sign. There is no indication that the present entry was added, pace Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 32: the pen, ink colour and writing are identical to those of the preceding text.
	A JURISDICTION OF EATON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).
9,26	HEADON. Headon was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. The name is now represented by the settlements of Headon and Nether Headon (both at SK7477). Headon probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,6. 9,7.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note. Roger of Bully had nine predecessors with the name Godric in Nottinghamshire (9,26;28;40;59;82;89;94;105;129), one in Derbyshire (DBY 16,2) and four in Yorkshire (YKS 10W7;10;16;37). Only for the Godric here in 9,94 is there any documentary evidence as to his identity (see 9,94 Godric note); no other such evidence has so far been found to connect the other predecessors and Godric was a very common name.
	EACH HAD A HALL. This emphasises that there were seven manors here in 1066, though the marginal M' does not record this; see 9,20 hall note.
	[THEY HAD]. This is implied from the accusative in the Latin for 'the third part'.
	WILLIAM [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. Here and at 9,111 (the only two occurrences of a William as a tenant of Roger of Bully) he is possibly to be identified with William the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 495, though she gives a folio reference only for the entry at 9,111.
		On the name William, see B9 William note.
9,27	UPTON. Upton was part of the Ancient Parish of Headon-cum-Upton. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,7. 9,8.
		This part was presumably a Jurisdiction of Headon (9,26).
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, for a quarter of a plough; see 1,6 ox note.
9,28	WEST MARKHAM. Or Little Markham, now Markham Clinton; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 56, and the Ordnance Survey maps (JRM). Unusually Domesday distinguishes this Markham as West Markham; compare 1,13 Ordsall note.
		West Markham was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228, where it is listed as Parva Marckham. For other parts, see 9,29-30.
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	CLARON <OF MARKHAM> HOLDS IT. The name Claron occurs only twice in Domesday Book, both times as a tenant of Roger of Bully in Nottinghamshire (9,28;32). He is probably to be identified with the Claron who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. A man who was probably his son, Arnold son of Claron, witnessed the grant of land in Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50) by Ralph of Quièvrecourt to Worksop Priory; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 225; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 173-74.
		In both instances (9,28;32) the Domesday form is Claron. According to Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 54-55, it may be linked to the name Clare(m)bald - which is a hybrid of Latin clarus ('bright', 'illustrious') and Old German -bald. A more likely origin is in the Latin word clarus itself, in the sense of 'illustrious' and which was originally used as a byname. The form Claron could have been derived from the accusative case (clarum), the common case-origin of most French words, or the termination might be by analogy with names such as Hugon (from Hugonem); compare the development of the Old French word claron ('clarion'). See Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Clair. The Alecto edition has Claron.
9,29	WEST MARKHAM. See 9,28 Markham note.
	A JURISDICTION OF TUXFORD. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,12). This portion of West Markham and the one that follows were presumably placed here, rather than next to the manors of which they were Jurisdictions, because they were all originally included under West Markham in a schedule arranged by vills.
	6 FREEMEN. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslates vi soch[emanni] as '6 Frenchmen'. The same error occurs in its edition of Lincolnshire at 32,21. Both mistakes were perpetuated in the first version of Domesday Explorer.
9,30	THERE ALSO ^[WEST MARKHAM]^. See 9,28 Markham note.
	A JURISDICTION OF GROVE. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,22).
	A JURISDICTION OF EATON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,20).
	A JURISDICTION OF [WEST] DRAYTON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,31).
9,31	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[WEST] DRAYTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Markham. Like East Markham itself (1,3. 9,6;10-11) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 16,11. Roger of Bully's holding was at Parva Drayton' (West Drayton: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 48) in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 304, and at West Drayton, held in 1316 by the Earl of Lancaster (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109).
		Farley misprinted DTRAITONE for this place-name; it is clearly DRAITONE in the manuscript. For other place-name errors of his in this county, see 22,1 Kilvington note and 14,8 Shelton note, for a verb mistranscribed, see 2,2 Osbern note and for figure errors, see 12,1 carucates note and 13,6 carucates note; compare 6,3 Barnby note, 9,70 bovates note and 17,17 Hawksworth note.
	SWEIN [* SON OF SVAVI *]. A person called Swein was Roger of Bully's predecessor in DBY 16,3 and on several of his holdings in Yorkshire (where he is called Sveinn in the Phillimore printed translation ). In LIN C9 Swein son of Svavi had held a messuage in Lincoln which passed to Roger of Bully, so it is possible that his predecessor here and elsewhere was Svavi's son, though Swein was a very common name and no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them. On these names, see S5 Swein note.
	WULFSTAN <OF DRAYTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlstan(us), Vlestan(us), Vltan(us), Vlfstan, Wlstan(us), Vltainus, Vstanus etc. - represent Old English Wulfstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 425. The Alecto edition also has Wulfstan. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, both predecessors of Roger of Bully (see also 9,55); a Wulfstan was also his predecessor in YKS 10W27, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect any of them, the Nottinghamshire holdings were not close and Wulfstan was a common name.
	AND 2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. Scribe B interlined 7 .ii. partes .i. bou'. (with as - the last two letters of duas, '2' - interlined above the .ii.) above the .iiii. bou' t'rê written by the main scribe of Great Domesday. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as the third part of 1 bovate in [West] Drayton is recorded in 16,11.
9,32	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,10. 30,41.
	"LOCRE". It is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday form Locre, which only occurs once; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 321, suggested Old Norse Lokkr, but it seems safer to leave it in its Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Locre.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
	CLARON <OF MARKHAM>. On this name, see 9,28 Claron note.
9,33	BABWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 1,12.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.
9,34	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	'NORTH' MORTON. The Domesday form Nordermortune means 'northern' or 'northerly' Morton, and is presumably the same place as Nortmortun (30,42). Other related names are Mortune (1,11) and altera Mortune (1,11). Morton was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. See 1,11 Morton note and 1,13 Ordsall note.
	ASFRITH. The Domesday forms of this name - Asford, Asfort, Asuert - represent Old Danish Asfrith, Old Norse Asfrothr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 165. In the Phillimore printed edition the forms Asferth and Asfrothr appear; these have now been standardized as Asfrith. The Alecto edition has Asfrith. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	LEOFKETEL <OF MORTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Lefchil, Lufchel - represent the hypothetical Anglo-Scandinavian name Leofketel: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 313. In the Phillimore printed edition of Nottinghamshire the form Leofkell appears, while in that for Yorkshire the form is Leofketill (following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, p. 186); these have now been standardized as Leofketel. The Alecto edition has Leofketel.
		There are the only two occurrences of this name in Domesday: here and in YKS 5W21 (as a predecessor of the Count of Mortain), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them.
9,35	"CALDECOTES". This is not, as VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 261, and Domesday Gazetteer, Old Coates, Oldcoates or Oldcotes, whose spellings derive from 'owl', not 'cold' (Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 99), but probably a lost place (JRM).
		The form given by JRM in the Phillimore printed edition 'Cold Coates' is a hypothetical updating: the place is not evidenced after 1086. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like the surrounding entries. A possible identification, assuming a loss of prefix, would be with Coates (in the Ancient Parish of North Leverton in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake): Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 34.
		However, Fulco of Lisors gave land in Oulecotes or Olecotes to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He had presumably acquired this land after 1086. Moreover, Ulecotes is a Tickhill fee in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 304. Oldcotes lies at SK5888 in Styrrup township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Styrrup itself was also held by Roger of Bully (9,57-58) and it could be that Oldcotes was an unnamed part of one of those estates rather than being the representative of Cotune. However, neither portion of Styrrup was held from Roger by Fulco.
	KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. As the name Karski (on which see S5 Karski note) only appears five times in Domesday Book (here and in 9,53 and as the father of Alsi in S5, and twice in Derbyshire: DBY 1,33. 6,4), it is probable that they were the same individual.
9,36	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	CUCKNEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Norton Cuckney. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 22,2.
		The Liber de Welbeck (Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 872) concerning Norton (in Cuckney, SK5771) records how a certain Fleming called Joceus de Flemmaugh came to England with William the Conqueror and was given land forming a third of a knight's fee at Norton in Cuckney. In Cuckney at that time was a dreng called Gamalbere who held 2 carucates in return for shoeing the king's horse when he came to Mansfield and for other services due on two carucates whenever military service in Wales was required. Gamalbere survived until the reign of Henry I, and after his death the king gave the two carucates to Richard son of Joceus. There is no reason for this story to have been invented, but, although it covers the reign of William I its only point of contact with Domesday is that there were 2 carucates at Cuckney in 1066 and 1086 (22,2), though Domesday also records one carucate in the present entry. There are no drengs listed in Nottinghamshire, although this category of population may be hidden under another name, but they are frequent in the territory between the Ribble and the Mersey (CHS R2-3). However, both parts of Cuckney have 1066 and 1086 holders who are not Gamalbere or Joceus. This may be an omission from Domesday or Joceus and Gamalbere might represent a layer of under-tenancy that is not routinely recorded in Domesday, or the land concerned might not be that recorded under Cuckney in Domesday, but an unnamed part of Mansfield (1,23-44), although it is difficult to see why so large a holding would not be named as a dependency. One straw to clutch is that a Gamal and a Swein were joint holders of Gamston (16,1) and it is just possible that Gamal(bere) was a also a joint holder with Swein on the two carucates of 22,2, but was omitted from Domesday. Gamston was in the same wapentake ('Bassetlaw' Wapentake) as Cuckney, but not adjacent to it. It is nonetheless possible that the Cuckney of 9,36 was actually at Norton and that this was Joceus' land. On all this, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 243.
		Some support for the above story comes from the Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 300, where it is said that Cuckney was held by a service that involved shoeing the king's horse: Dicunt quod Willelmus de Faucumbers tenuit in capite de domino Rege unum feodum militis in villa de CUKENAY per servicium quod ferrabit palefridum domini Regis cum venerit apud MAN'EFELD si fuerit deferatus et ... ('They [the jurors] say that William de Faucumbers held in chief from the lord king a knight's fee in the vill of Cuckney by the service that he will shoe the palfrey of the lord king when he comes to Mansfield, if it has lost a shoe and ... ').
		Richard son of Joceus founded Welbeck Abbey (SK5674) in 1153 for Premonstratensian canons; see VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 129; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 185, 192. It was no doubt built on the land of Norton in Cuckney.
	ALRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Alric(us), Elric(us), Aelric(us), Alrich, Alrist (a scribal error) - could represent Old English Æthelric or Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 150-51, under Al-ric, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition. However, occasionally some of the people here rendered Alric appear in certain Phillimore printed translations as Aelfric or Aethelric, but their name-forms do not include the -u- or -f- required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the -d- or -g- required by him for inclusion under Aethelric.
	WULFSI. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlsi, Wlsi, Wlsinus, Vlsius, Vlsy - represent Old English Wulfsige: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 424-25. JRM preferred the second element -si for Old English -sige, as it reflected more closely the forms found in Domesday. Wulfsige, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Wulfsi. The Alecto edition has Wulfsige.
		Roger of Bully had six predecessors with the name Wulfsi (9,36;39;44;46;60;65), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name; only the holdings in 9,44;46 are close.
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.
9,37	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	PERLETHORPE. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to Perlethorpe, see 1,24;26;30, and for the name, see 1,24 Perlethorpe note.
	THORSTEN. On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	RICHARD [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Richard the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 367, who gives a folio reference corresponding to the present entry. A Richard, tenant of Roger, occurs in Leicestershire (LEC 18,4-5), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name, on which, see B16 Richard note.
	MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND [***] FURLONGS. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for the number of furlongs to be inserted, but work probably stopped on Domesday Book before the information was found.
9,38	GLEADTHORPE. This was a settlement in Warsop Ancient Parish. Like Warsop itself (1,24-25. 9,40. 30,53), it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 102. It is now represented by Gleadthorpe Grange (SK592700).
	4 BOVATES OF LAND [***] TAXABLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written .iii. bou' t'rę and then probably a fraction of 1 bovate before his ad g'ld': an 7 can still be seen and then a large space before .i. bou'. Scribe B added a fourth minim, with a new punctus after it, to the end of the .iii. and erased the fraction of 1 bovate. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
9,39	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[OLD] CLIPSTONE. Clipstone was a township of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233, it is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown although there appears to have been no royal connection in 1086. The affix 'Old' probably dates from the creation of New Clipstone in 1930; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 358; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 73.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	OSBERN. Roger of Bully was preceded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, the estates were not close and it was a common name, on which, see 2,2 Osbern note.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,45 woodland note.
9,40	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to Warsop, see 1,24-25. 30,53. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	LEOFGEAT. On this name, see 2,6 Leofgeat note.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
	HALF A MILL-SITE. The other half does not appear in Domesday. It was possibly omitted from one of the other entries for Warsop.
9,41	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	CLUMBER. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 1,24.
	AETHELWOLD. The Domesday forms of this name - Adelold(us), Adeluuol, Athelwolth, Adeluuald[us], Adelwold[us], Adelold, Edeluuald[us] - represent Old English Æthelweald: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 188. JRM preferred the second element - wold for the Old English -weald, as it reflected the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Aethelweald, except for those men holding in 1086 and for KEN 5,67;84-85;167;198, where it has Adelold.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
	PART, 2 BOVATES ... IS WASTE. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote pars ç wasta ('part is waste') and then decided to interline the exact amount (2 bovates), the ii. bo[vatae] being in apposition to the pars. Thus the Phillimore printed translation ('Part of 2 bovates ... is waste') is inaccurate. When the scribe continued in alia [parte], ('in the other [part]'), using alia ('another') as often for altera ('the other'), he was referring to the remaining 3 bovates.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *]. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.
	UNDER ROGER. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin .i. mol' is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,42	"ODESTORP". On the form of this place-name, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. In the present context, as in 1,12, "Odestorp" is surrounded by places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, but the evidence from its other occurrences (9,71. 30,12) is equivocal. Nonetheless, on balance it seems likely that it was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	[WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 304, Westretteford is a Tickhill fee and in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108, the same place is held by the king and the Earl of Lancaster. The latter is holder of the Tickhill barony and his portion represents the present holding. The king held nothing in either Retford in 1086, but he may have acquired an interest in West Retford consequent on his creating the borough of East Retford, probably on the land of Clarborough (1,41); see 1,41 Clarborough note. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,71.
	LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough; see 1,6 ox note.
	A JURISDICTION OF CLUMBER. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,41).
9,43	WORKSOP. This was the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. In the latter it is Worksop cum membris.
		A priory for Augustinian canons was founded here after 1119 by William of Louvetot, nephew of Roger (of Louvetot) who may account for some or all of the occurrences of Roger, Roger's man, in this fief; see 9,3 Roger note. The priory was given the church of Worksop and land there and all the lordship churches that William held of the honour of Blyth (= Tickhill), that is the churches of Gringley-on-the-Hill (9,122), Misterton (9,121), Walkeringham (9,120), Nomanton-on-Trent (9,69), Car Colston (9,107), Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92) and Wysall (9,90) and half of the church of Treswell (9,129); see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 118; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 226, ii. p. 125; Worksop Cartulary; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 145, 180. The church of Treswell was no doubt shared with Count Alan (2,9).
	ALSI [* SON OF KARSKI *]. He is identifiable from S5 where Alsi son of Karski is said to have had various rights over Worksop. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note, and on his father, see 9,35 Karski note.
	MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,44	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	'ROOLTON'. This lost place, site unknown, lay in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 108. It will thus have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	ARNKETIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Archil, Archel, Archetel, Archillus - represent Old Danish Arnketil, Old Norse Arnkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arkell, Arketel and Arnketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 14-16); these have now been standardized as Arnketil. The presence in Domesday Book of so many occurrences of the forms Archil and Archel may, however, suggest that these men were known by the Old Norse name. The Alecto edition has Arnketil here.
		Another man with this name was Roger's predecessor in Sturton-le-Steeple (9,114), and in two manors in Yorkshire (YKS 10W8;39), so it is possible that they were the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name in Domesday Book. An Arnketil held Clarborough (30,54: SK7383) which is within three miles of Sturton-le-Steeple (9,114: SK7883), but both these places are ten miles or more from Worksop where 'Roolton' lay.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.
	THERE ALSO. That is, in 'Roolton'. This Jurisdiction of 'Roolton', which also lay in 'Roolton', should have been numbered as a separate entry in the Phillimore printed edition, as the similar Jurisdiction in Styrrup at 9,58 was separated from the manor there.
9,45	BILBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. The grid reference (SK6383) is to Bilby Farm.
		For the possibility that this was included in the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.
	GRIMKEL. The Domesday forms of this name - Grinchel, Grinchil, Gri(m)chel, Gri(m)chil, Gri[m]chetel, Gri[m]ketel, Grinchet - represent Old Danish Grimkel, Old Norse Grimkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 275. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Grimkel, Grimkell, Grimketel and Grimketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 107-108); these have now been standardized as Grimkel. However, the existence of forms in Domesday ending -chetel and -ketel may suggest that in 1086 there existed a name-form Grimketil as well as Grimkel. The Alecto edition has Grimkel here.
		Roger of Bully's predecessor in Clayworth (9,126) was also called Grimkel, possibly the same man, as the holdings are about seven miles apart.
	INGRAM <OF BILBY>, ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Ingram and Ingrannus - represent Old German Ing(e)ram, or perhaps Ingelram with loss of l : Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 73-74. In the Phillimore printed translation the name Ingran appears. The Alecto edition has Ingram. There are only three occurrences of this name in Domesday. The Ingram here is probably the same as Roger of Bully's subtenant in DBY 16,6-7.
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,46	HODSOCK. This was a lordship in Blyth Ancient Parish which extended into Yorkshire. A Civil Parish of Hodsock, entirely in Nottinghamshire, was created in 1866; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 361. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. The Phillimore printed edition indexes two Hodsocks (at SK 5886 and SK 6185). These references appear to refer to the same estate. Like many Domesday holdings, Hodsock is represented by a scatter of names which are all within the boundary of the original estate: Hodsock itself is at SK612851. There is a Hodsock Grange (SK587867), a Hodsock Woodhouse (SK594862), a Hodsock Park (SK598871), a Hodsock Cottage (SK605869), a Hodsock Lodge Farm (SK600863), a Hodsock Priory (SK611853) and a Hodsock Priory Farm (SK613853).
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Quièvrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with Turold of Quièvrecourt because of his family's connection with Carlton-in-Lindrick (9,50; see 9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain. However, since Fulco of Lisors gave Hodsock to Blyth Priory (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-215) it is possible that he acquired it from the Turold who was his brother; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, p. xxv); and 9,70 men note. For further discussion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.
9,47	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next one (9,48) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 285b, next to the entry for Blyth (9,49) which was a Jurisdiction of Hodsock (9,46). The Phillimore printed edition numbered them and indexed them as if these holdings were in Hodsock. This may well be correct, though they were certainly not Jurisdictions of it (9,49 jurisdiction note). The main scribe seems to have made an attempt to link at least the first of these two additions to Hodsock by adding a hook to the top of what was already an exceptionally tall capital I of In; this was something he did also with other added entries; see 11,13 entry note, 23,2 entry note and compare WOR 8,25 entry note. The parchment in the margin above these additions is rather discoloured and has a small lump in it, perhaps the reason why he did not write them level with the start of the Hodsock entry, but elsewhere in Great Domesday he was not deterred by such slight imperfections. The Ibid' of the second added entry, however, need not have referred to the same place as the first one and no later evidence of these holdings has so far been found. The use of transposition signs would have been very helpful. Compare 9,10 there note. The scribes of the Abbreviatio (folio 203v) and the Breviate (folios 145v-146r) wrote these entries in the order Hodsock, its Jurisdiction in Blyth, the Jurisdictions of Mansfield and Bothamsall (that is, 9,46;49;47-48), so they obviously thought that the Ibidem referred to Blyth in both cases.
		For other entries added by the main scribe that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		In the Alecto edition these entries appear in the margin level with the entry for Blyth (9,49). Neither of them appear in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
		In some drafts of the Domesday material, all parts of the village of Hodsock were probably together in a schedule that was territorially arranged. The scribes of the putative circuit volume or the main scribe of Great Domesday would have had to draw off material fief by fief. It is probable that the main Domesday scribe missed these Jurisdictions of two royal manors when he was compiling the Terra Regis, and missed them or ignored them when he was working first on the fief of Roger of Bully. However, a check of his material probably showed him that they had not yet been entered. He therefore wrote them in the margin here. However, he may have inserted them in the wrong fief, being drawn to that of Roger of Bully because these Jurisdictions lay in Hodsock which occurs nowhere else. There is, however, nothing else to connect them with Roger of Bully's fief, and they probably belong rightly in the Terra Regis.
	THERE ALSO ^[* HODSOCK? *]^. For the difficulty in deciding whether the Ibid[em] refers to Hodsock (9,46), see 9,47 entry note.
	A JURISDICTION OF THE KING'S MANOR OF MANSFIELD. That is, of his manor of Mansfield (1,23).
9,48	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 285b after the previous one (9,47) and at the same time as it; see 9,47 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	THERE ALSO ^[* HODSOCK? *]^. See 9,47 entry note.
	A JURISDICTION OF THE KING'S MANOR OF BOTHAMSALL. That is, of his manor of Bothamsall (1,9).
	IT PAYS TAX. The Latin is 7 g[e]ld[at]. The Phillimore printed translation has 'taxable' as if the Latin were ad geldum, and the Alecto edition has 'and [it is] to the geld' (its usual translation of ad geldum). It is possible that lack of space in the margin led the main scribe of Great Domesday to omit est ad before g'ld' (which would then have abbreviated geldum), but 7 geldat makes perfect sense.
9,49	A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Hodsock (9,46), the description of which immediately precedes this entry in the manuscript. The Phillimore printed edition mistakenly put this heading above the two entries added in the margin (9,47-48), though they specifically state that they are Jurisdictions of Mansfield and Bothamsall respectively. The layout of the present edition, as also of the printed Phillimore one, with this Jurisdiction of Hodsock separated from that manor by the two entries (which are probably, but not certainly in Hodsock: 9,47 entry note) does not make this clear.
	BLYTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. The Ancient Parish had chapelries at Austerfield and Bawtry in Yorkshire, an anomaly only removed with the creation of separate Civil Parishes in 1866 which left Blyth entirely in Nottinghamshire; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 356. It is not certain how far this reflects the situation in 1086.
		In 1088 Roger of Bully and his wife Muriel founded Blyth Priory. The Blyth Priory Cartulary includes its foundation charter (no. 325 pp. 207-209), which gives a detailed list of consuetudines ('customs') exactly contemporary with Domesday. Roger granted ecclesiam de Blida et totam villam integre cum omnibus appendiciis suis et consuetudinibus, sicuti homines eiusdem ville michi faciebant, scilicet arare, karare, falcare, bladum meum secare, fenum meum facere, marchetum dare, stangnum (sic) molendini facere ('the church of Blyth and the whole village entirely, with all its dependencies and the customary dues, as the men of this village used to perform for me, namely ploughing, carting, mowing, reaping my corn, making my hay, paying marriage-dues, making the mill pond'). The grant included tolls, ferry and market and omnes dignitates quas habebam in eadem villa, scilicet soc et sac, tol et them, et infangethief, ferrum et fossam, et furcas, cum aliis libertatibus, uti tunc temporis tenebam de rege ('all the privileges which I had in this village, namely full jurisdiction, market rights, thief-taking, iron and ditch, and gallows, with the other freedoms that I then had from the king'). 'Hanging Field' in the adjoining parish of Styrrup (Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 304) might have been the gallows site. The 'privileges' of sentencing men to ordeal by iron and ditch (i.e. water) and to be hanged were not accorded to all landholders (JRM).
		According to the foundation charter, '40 shillings of English money' were to be paid annually to the church of Holy Trinity in Rouen. Roger of Bully had already sold the tithes of Bully itself to Holy Trinity, Rouen, in 1060 or in 1064 (Timson, Blyth Priory Cartulary, p. xiv = Round, Calendar of Documents: France, p. 23 no. 83) and, in 1086 or 1087, he issued a charter in its favour containing many of the lands and tithes that were in his foundation charter of Blyth Priory. It appears that these were given to Holy Trinity, Rouen, in preparation for the foundation of Blyth. On Blyth Priory, see Monasticon Anglicanum, iv. pp. 623-33; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 225-26, ii. pp. 83-84; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 52, 60; Timson, Blyth Priory Cartulary, pp. xiv-xxxii.
		The lands granted were the church and vill of Blyth (9,46), toll and passage for the monks from Radeford (perhaps the crossing of the River Ryton in Worksop) in Nottinghamshire to 'Thornewad' (probably the crossing of the River Thorne in Yorkshire, West Riding) and from 'Frodestan' (unidentified) to the River Idle, also Elton (9,100), Beighton (DBY 16,3) and what he had in Barnby Moor (9,54). This last is less likely to be Barnby-on-Don (Yorkshire, West Riding). On Radeford ('Radford' in Worksop), see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 107, and on the toll, see Timson, Blyth Priory Cartulary, p. ciii. It is not at all certain that it is the same toll that Domesday records as attached to Gunthorpe (9,74) in 1086; see 9,74 toll note. On the relation of this toll to that of Nottingham, see B20 Nottingham note. In addition Roger gave various sorts of tithe in [North] Wheatley (9,115), Marnham (9,64-65), Appleby (LIN 17,2), Laughton-en-le-Morthen (YKS 10W1), Clifford (GLS 1,37), Bingham (9,97-98), Saltby (LEC 18,3), Garthorpe (part of Saltby, LEC 18,3), Bescaby (part of Saltby, LEC 18,3), [East] Bridgford (9,100-101), Lowdham (NTT 9,75), Gunthorpe (9,74), Clipstone (9,39) and Croxton (either in Lincolnshire or in Leicestershire). Assington (SUF 34,3) was mentioned in the grant to Holy Trinity, Rouen, and seems to have been omitted.
		The witnesses to the foundation charter were Gilbert the priest, Richard the priest, William the priest, Fulco of Lisors, Turold his brother, Arnold of Bully, Godfrey the steward, Turold of Quièvrecourt, Claron, Ralph Novi Fori, Payne gladicus, Robert the bursar and W(alter) of Aincourt. With the exception of Walter and possibly Godfrey (9,6 Geoffrey note), these were all probably Roger of Bully's tenants and can be tentatively identified with some of the plain names that occur in Domesday. Some of these made gifts of their own. Fulco of Lisors gave land in Harworth (9,55), Billingley (YKS 10W25), Costock (9,94), "Caldecotes" (9,35), Styrrup (9,57-58), Martin (9,56), Blyth (9,49) and Hodsock (9,46). Turold of Quièvrecourt (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Neufchâtel-en-Bray) was probably the holder of Carlton-in Lindrick (9,50) which his family held for some generations. Ralph of Quièvrecourt, probably his son, founded Wallingwells Priory, probably in the reign of King Stephen, in his park at Carlton-in Lindrick; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 89. Ralph Novi Fori, from Neufmarché (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, canton Gournai-en-Brai) had a brother Payne and a nephew William who both gave land to Blyth Priory. On this, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 225.
		The monks' toll and passage were confirmed by King Henry I (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no 293 p. 188) and by King Henry II (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 326 p. 210). The toll would have helped the monks provide the hospitality for travellers on the highroad, that is, on the Great North Road, what is now the A1 trunk road.
		Fulco of Lisors gave land in Blyth to the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-215) though he is not recorded as holding there in 1086.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,50	6M. See 3,4 2M note.
	CARLTON[-IN-LINDRICK]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to this place, see 1,24;30.
	EACH HAD A HALL. This emphasises that there were six manors here in 1066 as recorded by the marginal VIM'; see 9,20 hall note.
	TUROLD [* OF QUIEVRECOURT *], ROGER'S MAN. Two men called Turold held from Roger of Bully. One was the brother of Fulco of Lisors; see 9,46 Turold note. The present Turold is almost certainly to be identified with Turold of Quièvrecourt (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement and canton Neufchâtel-en-Bray) who was a witness to Roger of Bully's charter founding his Priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and pp. xxv-xxvi), and 9,49 Blyth note. This is because the Quièvrecourts, his successors, held Carlton-in Lindrick for some generations. On his origin, see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 430; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 21.
9,51	LOUND. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-cum-Lound. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,16. 5,7.
		In the manuscript this place-name was lined through in red, as expected, though the ink is faint on the ND of LVND. There is no red-lining in the Alecto facsimile; see 2,2 there note for other instances of this, and, on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, where the rubrication was applied as a separate exercise, it appears clearly on all of the place-name.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
9,52	SERLBY. This was a hamlet of Harworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note. Roger of Bully was also preceded by an Aelfric in High Marnham (9,64), but the two holdings are 12 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Aelfric was a very common name.
	GILBERT [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Gilbert the priest who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 214, and 9,49 Blyth note. This is the only occurrence of a Gilbert as a tenant of Roger of Bully.
		The Domesday form of his name, Gislebertus (often abbreviated as Gisleb't'), represents Old German Gisilbert, Gislebert, Gillebert, Gilbert, Old French Gislebert, Gil(l)ebert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition also has Gilbert.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	VALUE ... [20]s. In the manuscript the second letter after the x falls on the inner of the two tramlines delimiting the writing space of this column and it is hard to tell what it is. It resembles a c rather than an x, but Farley read xx and '90s' would be a very high value for 1 ½ bovates: all but one of the holdings of this size in Nottinghamshire had values of less than 8s in 1086.
9,53	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	TORWORTH. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. The township extended into Yorkshire, but was turned into a Nottinghamshire Civil Parish in 1866, losing its Yorkshire portion; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 369. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		For the possibility that this is the Thuresby of the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.
	BRICTSI <OF TORWORTH>. The Domesday forms of this name - Brixi, Bricsi, Bricsi[us], Brixi[us], Brixe - represent Old English Beorhtsige: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 198. JRM preferred the first element Brict- for Old English Beorht- and the second element -si for Old English -sige, as they reflected more closely the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Beorhtsige. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,35 Karski note.
	HAD. In the manuscript there is an ink blot over the r of h'br' (habuerunt, '(they) had') and the Br of Brixi, but the writing is clear. In the Alecto facsimile there appears to be an i after h'br'; on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile there is no sign of the ink blot and the reading is as in the manuscript.
	"I" [***] AZO. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote I and then left space for about three letters before writing Azo. One would expect Ibi here, as in the previous entry, but it is unclear why he did not complete the word, or erase the I.
	AZO THE PRIEST. The Domesday forms of this 1086 tenant - Azo, Asso - represent Old German Azo, Azzo, Atso, Adso, Old French Ace, Asse: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 39-40. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Azo and Azor; these have now been standardized as Azo. The Alecto edition has Azo. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
9,54	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	BARNBY [MOOR]. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		'What he had in Barnebeia' was confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. This formula indicates that he did not hold the whole vill in 1086; for another part, see 1,16. The identification is more probable than Barnby Dun, sometimes known as Barnby-on-Don, which is in Yorkshire (YKS 10W30).
		For the possibility that this estate was silently included in the grant to the Archbishop of York of Sutton and Scrooby in 958, see 5,7 Sutton note.
	THORFRIDH <OF BARNBY>. The Domesday forms of this name - Turuert, Turuerd, Turuer, Turuet, Toruet, Toruert, Toruerd, Toruort, Turued, Tureuert - represent OSwedish Thorfridh and the hypothetical Old Norse name Thorfrothr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorferth and Thorfrothr; these have now been standardized as Thorfridh. The Alecto edition has Thorfridh.
		The Thorfridh who was Roger of Bully's predecessor in Bole (9,118) may be the same person; the estates were about ten miles apart.
	SWARTI. The Domesday form of this T.R.E. holder, who only appears here in Domesday, is Sorte. It is the Old Danish byname Swarti, Old Norse Svarti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 379. The Alecto edition has Swarti.
9,55	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	HARWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	WADA <OF HARWORTH>. The Domesday forms of this name - Wada, Wade - represent Old English Wada: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 407, who included also the form Wado which occurs in SOM and DEV. However, the forms in the corresponding entries in Exon for these suggest otherwise; see DEV 15,49 Wado note. The Alecto edition follows von Feilitzen and has Wada for all these forms.
		There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being as a predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent in Ollerton (17,3), but the estates are not close to each other and there is no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders, although the name Wada is uncommon in Domesday Book.
		The name Wada occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book and may represent four, five or six individuals. Although there are no tenurial associations or other links to any other Wada, the name is so rare this Wada could be the same individual as either he of Brampton (DBY 8,2) or of Ollerton (17,3) (JP).
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. There are six predecessors of Roger of Bully with this name (9,55;73;102-104;107), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name. The holdings at 9,103-104 were only about three miles apart and that at 9,73 was about seven miles from the former.
	WULFSTAN <OF HARWORTH>. On this name, see 9,31 Wulfstan note. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, both predecessors of Roger of Bully (see also 9,31); a Wulfstan was also his predecessor in YKS 10W27. However, the estates are not close to each other, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Wulfstan was a common name.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note. Fulco of Lisors gave land in Harworth to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note.
9,56	MARTIN. This was a settlement in Harworth Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 80. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. The grid reference is to Martin Hall Cottages (SK636941) which are where Martin itself is located on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 82 of 1830; reprinted as sheet 28 in 1970). Martin Grange is at SK643942.
		Fulco of Lisors gave land in Martin to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note.
9,57	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	STYRRUP. This was a township of Blyth Ancient Parish. Like Blyth itself (9,49) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		Fulco of Lisors gave land in Styrrup, to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He presumably acquired it after 1086.
		In the manuscript there are three ink blots on and round the A of the place-name ESTIRAPE, partially obscuring this letter; they are clearly visible on the Alecto facsimile, but not on the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
	LEOFING. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuing(us), Leuinc(us), Liuing(us), Louincus etc. - represent Old English Leofing, Lyfing: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 312. The Alecto edition has Lyfing here.
		There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being a predecessor of Ilbert of Lacy (20,6), but the estates are not close to each other, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Leofing was a common name.
	THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.
	LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note. A man called Leofric was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Fenton (9,112), but that is about 13 miles from Syrrup, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Leofric was a common name.
	BERNARD, ROGER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name, Bernard[us], represents Old German Berenard, Bernard, Old French Bernart: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 46. The Alecto edition also has Bernard.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	WITH ½ CARUCATE OF THIS LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this detail; compare the similar interlineation in 9,65.
9,58	THERE ALSO ^[STYRRUP]^. See 9,57 Styrrup note.
9,59	KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,19. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45.
	THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 11,19 and 15,3 and 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45, but Kelham's total is still an unsatisfactory 25 and two-thirds bovates.
	TUROLD, ROGER'S MAN. Two different Turolds, Turold of Quièvrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with Turold of Quièvrecourt (9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, although those of 9,46;70 might be Fulco's brother (see 9,46 Turold note and 9,70 men note). For further discussion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.
	16 FURLONGS LONG AND 74 VIRGATES WIDE. On this linear virgate, see 1,34 virgates note.
9,60	HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,17. 11,8.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.
	4 FURLONGS AND 4 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.
9,61	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,24. 2,5. 12,10;23. 30,2.
		The position of this entry for Carlton-on-Trent in the text suggests a connection with Hockerton, of which it was possibly a Jurisdiction. However, the text provides no other evidence that this is so, and it may be that the only connection between Hockerton and this part of Carlton-on-Trent is that they were both put in Roger's fief from a schedule of places in 'Lythe' Wapentake. Other parts of Carlton-on-Trent are Jurisdictions of Grimston (1,17), of Mansfield (1,23), apparently of Sutton-on-Trent (2,5), of Laxton (12,1), and of Shelford (12,19). Many of these places are as far from Carlton-on-Trent as Hockerton, or further, and it may be that in origin these links are to a particular resource, perhaps meadow beside the salty and tidal River Trent.
9,62	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	GRASSTHORPE. This was a township of Marnham Ancient Parish. Like High Marnham and Low Marnham themselves (9,64-65) it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - Dunning, Dunninc, Donning, Dunniht, Donninc - represent Old English Dunning: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 228. The Alecto edition has Dunning.
		A man called Dunning was one of Roger of Bully's predecessors in Ecclesfield in Yorkshire (YKS 10W16), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, nor the thane Dunning who had held 'Eastern' Chilwell in Nottinghamshire (30,52), which is about 25 miles from Grassthorpe.
	GRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - Grim, Grimus, Grimmus - represent Old Danish Grim, Old Norse Grimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 276. The printed Phillimore edition for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have the Old Norse form; this has now been standardized as Grim. The Alecto edition has Grim.
		Roger of Bully had three predecessors called Grim (9,62;70;112). Grassthorpe (SK7967) is adjacent to Weston (9,70: SK7767) and Fenton (9,112: SK 7983) is about ten miles away, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders. The only other holding of a man called Grim in this county is at Watnall (10,45: SK 5045), but that is over 25 miles from Grassthorpe and Weston.
	THE FOURTH PART. The Latin iiii. part' should probably be extended to iiii. partem ('fourth part'), despite the omission of tam (the last three letters of quartam, 'fourth') interlined above the iiii, as also in the assessment of the adjacent estate at Marnham (9,64). The alternative, iiii partes ('4 parts'), is less likely. On the ambiguity of this phrase and its clarification by both the main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B, see 4,7 part note.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.
9,63	SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 2,4. 9,67.
		This place was presumably a Jurisdiction of Grassthorpe (9,61).
9,64	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	MARNHAM. High Marnham and Low Marnham were settlements in Marnham Ancient Parish. Marnham probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		Domesday distinguishes 'Marnham' from 'another Marnham' (9,65), but it seems impossible to say which 1086 estate corresponds to the two modern settlements, although VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 263, has them as High Marnham and Low Marnham respectively; see 9,65 another note. Roger of Bully certainly held two places called Marnham because in 1302-1303 (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 94) North Marnham and Suth Marnham (corresponding respectively to High Marnham and Low Marnham) were both held from the honour of Tickhill.
	AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note. Roger of Bully was also preceded by an Aelfric in Serlby (9,52), but that is 12 miles from Marnham, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Aelfric was a very common name.
	DENE <OF MARNHAM>. The Domesday forms of this name - Dane, Dene, Dena - represent Old English Dene: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 223. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Dena and Dene; these have now been standardized as Dene. The Alecto edition has Dene. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	THE FOURTH PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin iiii. part', see 9,62 part note.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.
		The manuscript has Fulo for Fulco (JRM).
9,65	IN ANOTHER MARNHAM. High Marnham and Low Marnham were settlements in Marnham Ancient Parish. Marnham probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		The Latin alia ('another') tends to be used as a scribal device in lists, where it draws attention to a second estate of the same name. It does not, in itself, suggest the existence of two separate vills, or settlements or villages. It simply means that there were two separate estates in the vill of Marnham in 1086, both with the same name. They are distinguished as they had separate T.R.E. holders, and they probably represent a stage in the dissolution of a single estate called Marnham. The main scribe of Great Domesday would have meant the same if he had simply put ibidem ('there also') or in eadem villa ('in the same village'). It is therefore unnecessary and perhaps anachronistic for the purposes of translation to distinguish one estate from the other since the exact identification of the estates is not known and it is uncertain which is which, if in fact both existed in 1086 and there was a direct relationship between the 1086 estates and the later villages. The first distinction between them was in 1227 when Suth Marnham is recorded: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 190. There is a fishery recorded on the present estate, but both High Marnham and Low Marnham have the River Trent as their eastern boundary. On this use of 'another', see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note. They were probably from this Marnham which Roger held in lordship in 1086 rather than from that of 9,64 subinfeudated to Fulco [* of Lisors *].
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	WITH 40 ACRES OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined this detail; compare the similar interlineation in 9,57.
	1 MILL, 4s; 1 FISHERY; MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The Latin piscariā and ac[ra]s are accusative as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.
9,66	SKEGBY. This is one of two different places called Skegby in Domesday Nottinghamshire (for the other one, see 1,23). It was a settlement in Marnham Ancient Parish. Like Marnham itself (9,64-65), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	ALWOLD. On this name, see 9,17 Alwold note.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
9,67	JURISDICTION. The Latin Soca is probably short for Soca huius manerii ('jurisdiction of this manor') as in 9,46. It couples Sutton-on-Trent and Normanton-on-Trent (9,67-68) with the manor of Skegby (9,66).
	SUTTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 2,4. 9,63.
9,68	NORMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire, two of which were later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. This is the Normanton that is coupled with Ossington (15,1), Weston (9,70), Sutton-on-Trent (9,63;67) and Grassthorpe (9,62) in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106, and which probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. It was an Ancient Parish. For other parts, see 6,14. 9,69.
9,69	5M. See 3,4 2M note.
	NORMANTON[-ON-TRENT]. See 9,68 Normanton note.
	IUSTEN <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Justan, Justen, Justan[us], Justin[us] - represent Old Danish Iusten, Old Norse Iosteinn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 301. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Justan, Justin and Josteinn; these have now been standardized as Iusten. The Alecto edition has Iusten.
		There are only a handful of occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, so it is likely that the two predecessors of Roger of Bully were the same individual (9,69;101), though East Bridgford (9,101) is about 16 miles from Normanton-on-Trent.
	{{ASLAK}}. DURAND <OF NORMANTON>. Scribe B interlined Durand. above Aseloc, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, and then underlined that name for deletion. Aseloc already appears on the next line as the name of another of the five thanes. For Scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate that the name is deleted; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
		The Domesday form of this replacement name, Durand(us), represents Old German Durand: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 229. The Alecto edition has Durand. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is that of the tenant-in-chief Durand Malet (NTT 26).
	ALWARD <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluuard(us), Eluuard(us), Aeluuard(us), Aluuart, Aluard[us], Awart - could represent Old English Ælfweard or Old English Æthelweard, or even Old Danish Halwarth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 155-57, under Al-weard, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -ward for Old English -weard, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alward, Alfward, occasionally Aethelweard, and in Yorkshire Alweard; these have now been standardized as Alward. The Alecto edition has Alweard for those appearing under Al-weard. Some of those called Alward in the present edition appear under Old English Ælfweard in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 181, but only because the forms in the Liber Exoniensis suggest this, or because of other evidence. Some also appear under Old English Æthelweard in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 188-89, as they do in the Alecto edition, but their Domesday forms lack the medial -d- or -g- that JRM thought necessary for inclusion under that form. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	ASLAK <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Aslac, Aseloc, Aslacus, Haslec, Anslec - represent Old Danish Aslak, Old Norse Aslakr, though the form Aseloc here, if not an error for Aselac, might represent Old Danish Aslogh: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 168. The printed Phillimore edition for Lincolnshire has the Old Norse form; this has now been standardized as Aslak. The Alecto edition has Aslak. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	EACH HAD HIS HALL. This emphasises that there were five manors here in 1066, already recorded by the marginal VM'; see 9,20 hall note.
	THE FIFTH PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin v. part', see 9,62 part note and 4,7 part note. Here, in view of there being five holders in 1066, it is very unlikely that it abbreviates v. partes ('5 parts'). The combined lands would have totalled 6 bovates.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Normanton-on-Trent to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note.
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,70	6M. See 3,4 2M note.
	WESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	ALMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Almar(us), Almer(us), Elmer(us), Elmar(us), Aelmar(us), Aelmer(us), Aelmaer(us), Almaer(us), Elmaer(us) - could represent either Old English Ælfmær or Old English Æthelmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 147-48, under Al-mær, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær as more of the Domesday forms had -mer than -maer. The Alecto edition has Almaer for those listed in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 147-48, under Al-mær. However, a number of names rendered in the present edition as Almer (generally because under Al-mær in von Feilitzen) appear in the Phillimore printed translations as Aelmer, whereas JRM apparently intended to reserve that name for those Domesday forms beginning Aeil-, Ail-, Eil-, Ai-, which represent Old English Æthelmær. Some also appear under Old English Æthelmær in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 184-85, but their forms lack the -d- or -g- that JRM regarded as a prerequisite for inclusion under Aethelmer.
		There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire (the other is in 10,46, a distant holding), but no evidence has so far been found to connect them and Almer was a very common name-form which could represent two Old English names.
	ALWY. On this name, see 9,5 Alwy note.
	OSBERN. Roger of Bully was preceded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but they are all about 13 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Osbern was a common name, on which see 2,2 Osbern note.
	GRIM. On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.
	EDRIC <OF WESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Edric(us), Aedricus, Edericus, Eadricus, Headricus etc. - represent Old English Eadric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead-, as the vast majority of Domesday forms have Ed-. In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Eadric, except for SFK 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error).
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		This tiny holding was probably the only possession of this man. There was only one other Edric within 100 miles and his modest property had no apparent connections with Weston (JP).
	STENULF <OF SUTTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Steinulf, Stainulf(us), Stenulf(us) and Stemulf (an error for Steinulf) - represent Old Norse Steinolfr, Old Swedish Stenulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 373-74. JRM preferred the Old Swedish form as it is closer to the Domesday forms. In some Phillimore printed translations, however, the forms Steinulf and Steinulfr appear; they have here been standardized as Stenulf. The Alecto edition has Stenulf.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Stenulf was Roger of Bully's predecessor in Rowthorne in Derbyshire (DBY 16,8) and, according to JP (DBY 5,1 Stenulf note), he may be the same as the Stenulf who was Roger of Poitou's predecessor in that county, one of whose holdings was Sutton Scarsdale.
	EACH HAD HIS HALL. This emphasises that there were six manors here in 1066, already recorded by the marginal VIM'; see 9,20 hall note.
	{{AND EACH 1 BOVATE OF LAND}}. BETWEEN THEM [THEY HAD] 6 ½ BOVATES. Scribe B interlined Int' om's .vi. bouatas. above the phrase 7 un'q'sq' .i. bō t're, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday (and similar to the one in 9,69). He then underlined for deletion that phrase, probably because he did not know which of the 6 thanes had or shared the half-bovate. JRM thought that the 7 dim' on the next line should also have been deleted, but if the total assessment was 6 bovates and there were 6 thanes, then there would have been no need to delete the previous phrase or interline the replacement. Farley misprinted bouatis, the dative or ablative plural case, which is meaningless in this sentence, and he printed a lower-case i for In and a separate vertical: scribe B had extended the I downwards to form an insertion mark. For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of these words; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *] AND TUROLD, ROGER'S MEN. Fulco is probably Fulco of Lisors, as in other occurrences in this chapter; on this and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note, and on his possible identification with Robert the bursar (dispensator) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth, see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,2 Robert note and 9,49 Blyth note. Two different Turolds, Turold of Quièvrecourt and Turold brother of Fulco of Lisors, also witnessed this charter; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209, and p. xxv). The Turold of 9,50 can be identified with Turold of Quièvrecourt (9,50 Turold note), but the identity of the other Turolds (9,10;46;59;70) is uncertain, although the mention of Fulco here makes it probable that this Turold was his brother, as was probably the Turold in 9,46 (9,46 Turold note). For further discussion of this, including on the name Turold, see 9,10 Turold note.
9,71	ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, of Weston (9,70). Both places seem to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.
	"ODESTORP". On the form of this name, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. This place does not appear to be attested after 1086; the name-form used in the Phillimore printed edition ('Odsthorpe') is misleading in this respect. Its wapentake is uncertain but it most probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. For other parts, see 1,12. 9,42. 30,12.
	[WEST] RETFORD. East and West Retford were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as they did later. For West Retford, see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. East Retford was a borough in the Middle Ages: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 5,8. 9,42.
	THE FOURTH PART OF 1 MILL. More of this mill (a half) is probably to be found at another part of "Odestorp" (30,12) which suggests that the site was there rather than at West Retford. The final quarter is not to be found in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
9,72	GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,16-17.
	DUNSTAN <OF ETWALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Dunstan, Dunestan - represent Old English Dunstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 228-29. The Alecto edition has Dunstan. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		Dunstan is an uncommon name, occurring on 17 holdings and probably representing between four and five individuals. There are only three Dunstans between Somerset and Yorkshire. They lay on either side of the border between Derbyshire (DBY 9,2: Etwall). 11,4: Hallam) and Nottinghamshire, each about 15 miles from its neighbour. Although there are no tenurial or other links between them, their relative proximity and isolation from other Dunstans makes it possible that the three holdings had belonged to one individual (JP).
	THE THIRD PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin iii. part', see 9,62 part note and 4,7 part note.
	MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,73	EPPERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,72) as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 14,5.
	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,74	GUNTHORPE. This was a township of Lowdham Ancient Parish. Like Lowdham itself, it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	MORCAR. It is not certain whether this is Morcar, Earl of Northumbria; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 223-24. On the name Morcar and the earl, see 1,58 Morcar note.
		Earl Morcar was the brother of Earl Edwin, son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess Godiva. Although the name Morcar occurs over 150 times in Domesday Book, it probably represents only eight individuals, which makes the task of identifying the earl where his title has been omitted easier than it is for his brother (Earl Edwin). As no other Morcar is recorded as a lord of men, the Morcar of BUK 12,31 is likely to have been the earl even though the holding is close to those of Morcar <of Clifton>. The Morcar holdings in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire all devolved upon Roger of Bully which makes it probable that they had been held by one individual, almost certainly the earl in view of the value (£15) of the handsome manor of Gunthorpe (9,74), one of the half-dozen most valuable manors in the county, and barely 10 miles from the earl's manor of 'Newbold' (1,58). In Yorkshire, there can scarcely be any doubt that the Morcar who had held the royal manors, or those (whose values suggest most had been royal) which devolved upon Drogo of la Beuvrière, or the Bishop of Durham. Probably, though less certainly, the large manors acquired by Count Alan of Brittany had also been held by the earl. Apart from the holdings held by Morcar <of Smeaton>, the remaining Yorkshire properties were all connected to one or more of these holdings attributed to the earl. In Lincolnshire as in Yorkshire, Earl Morcar was evidently the predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière (LIN 30), several of whose manors cluster around Skillington (2,37) and Sempringham (27,57) to which they had been connected in the past, making it likely that the Morcar on those holdings and others in the same fiefs was the earl: Anglo-Saxon Wills, edited by Dorothy Whitelock, no. 39, pp. 95-97, 207-12. The remaining Lincolnshire holdings (LIN 56,9-10) were close to his manors of Bassingham (LIN 30,27) and Carlton (LIN 1,26), and substantial enough to please an earl. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 215-217, whose list omits the dependencies of manors and BUK 12,31. 23,2. CHS 2,21. YKS 6W2;5-6. 6N162. (6E1) (JP).
	A TOLL AND A BOAT. Gunthorpe is on the River Trent, opposite East Bridgford, already called Brugeford in Domesday, where the bridge may have marked the limit of navigation for sea-going vessels (JRM).
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'tolls' in error; it also has 'ship'. Latin nauis does not distinguish 'boat' from 'ship'. It is conceivable, however, that the nauis here is a ferry, or a fishing-boat, rather than a 'sea-going vessel'. The Alecto edition has '[ferry] boat'.
		It is not certain if the toll and the boat are connected. The toll may have been imposed on the ferry or for travelling along the river or for using the bridge from East Bridgford. However, it is possibly a wider right to toll over this corner of Nottinghamshire, in which case it might be that given by Roger to his foundation of Blyth Priory; see 9,49 Blyth note; Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 21.
	2 FISHERIES. These were evidently on the River Trent.
	EXACTIONS. These were paid to the lord. Tailla in Domesday, unlike the later tallagium, is normally confined to larger manors with sochemanni ['Freemen'], especially in north-east Mercia. The word is regularly explained as exactio; see the texts cited in Du Cange, Glossarium, under tallia 8 (JRM). This is the only occurrence of the word in Nottinghamshire, though it is frequent in Lincolnshire; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 242. The Alecto edition has 'tallage' for tailla.
9,75	BURTON [JOYCE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 12,18.
	LOWDHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	A JURISDICTION OF GUNTHORPE. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,74).
9,76	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	OXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,11. 11,11.
	THORSTEN. On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identification and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but has been assumed to be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,77	STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 28,1.
	ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.
	½ MILL. There is no sign of the rest of the mill in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
9,78	NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 30,14;16.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday see 3,2 Normanton note.
		The identification of this Normanton is confirmed by Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109, where Normanton super Sor in Rushcliffe Wapentake is held by T[homas] Earl of Lancaster.
	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Stanford-on-Soar (9,77).
9,79	THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,4. 23,2.
	LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.
	ALNOTH. On this name, see 5,11 Alnoth note.
9,80	HOLME [PIERREPONT]. This was an Ancient Parish. The position of this estate in Domesday suggests that it was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, though it later lay in Bingham Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
	THORTH. The Domesday forms of this name - Toret, Tored(us), Tord, Tort, Toreth, Thoret, Thored - represent Old Danish Thorth, Old Norse Thorthr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 396-97. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thored and Thorthr; these have now been standardized as Thorth. The Alecto edition has Thorth.
		A Thorth was a predecessor of Ralph of Limésy in Hawton (14,1), but that place is distant from Holme Pierrepoint and no evidence has so far been found to connect the two men.
	1 MILL ... MEADOW, 80 ACRES. 1 MILL. The cases of the Latin .i. molin' and ac' are unclear, but might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,81	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 286b; rubricated transposition signs link it to the manor of Holme Pierrepont written in the adjacent column (9,81). He used a different design for them, to distinguish them from the other set on this page (for the addition of Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe], 9,91); compare 9,21 entry note. This entry was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire, but certainly as the entry for Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe]; see 1,31 entry note. However, it must have been written after that entry or the scribe would have put it at the foot of folio 286a closer to where it belonged.
	BASSINGFIELD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) was probably in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,77) though it was later in Bingham Wapentake; see 9,80 Holme note. Bassingfield both here and at 10,13 could have been in either wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. As a Jurisdiction of Holme Pierrepont, it was not necessarily in the same wapentake as its parent manor, though this seems probable. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
	2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. For the other third of this bovate, see 10,13.
	A JURISDICTION OF HOLME PIERREPONT. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,80). On the use of Latin de ('of'), see 9,7 jurisdiction note.
	MEADOW, 15 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,82	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	PLUMTREE. This was an Ancient Parish. In later times it was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 366. However, Plumtree is placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230, and the order of Domesday suggests that it was similarly in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.
	WULFHEAH <OF PLUMTREE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlfac, Vlfah, Vlfeg, Vlfech, Vlfag, Wlfah(us), Vlfeih, Vlfegh - represent Old English Wulfheah: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 420-21. The Alecto edition has Wulfheah. On the form Vnfac in 9,84 probably being a scribal error for Vlfac, see 9,84 Wulfheah note.
		Roger of Bully had three predecessors named Wulfheah here (9,82;84;112; these are the only occurrences in Domesday Nottinghamshire) and five in Yorkshire (10W11-14;16). It is possible that the Wulfheahs in Nottinghamshire were the same individual: Normanton-on-the-Wolds (9,84) is adjacent to Plumtree here, though Fenton (9,112) is about 13 miles away. There is nothing, however, to suggest that he is the same as any of the Wulfheahs in Yorkshire.
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	HAD. h'b' for normal plural h'b'r' (JRM).
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may deliberately have left the space for four or five letters after Godric, though it is hard to see what was missing here, or he may just have wanted to avoid writing too close to the overrun from the previous entry.
	WITH. Either a word is missing, or de is superfluous (JRM). The Alecto edition has 'had on [sic]'.
	12 BOVATES OF LAND. On this assessment's link with Normanton-on-the-Wolds, see 9,84 Normanton note.
9,83	ALSO A JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Ruddington is a Jurisdiction of Plumtree (9,82).
	RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 1109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 17,15. 25,2.
	MEADOW, 33 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,84	NORMANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 366. In 1086, however, Plumtree appears to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Normanton-on-the-Wolds is similarly in the same run of Domesday places in Rushcliffe Wapentake and was listed in that wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,85. 10,10.
		There are several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and two of them (Normanton-on-the-Wolds and Normanton-on-Soar) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake. Apart from other details the identification of the present Normanton is reinforced by its assessment. The 6 bovates here plus the 4 ½ bovates at 9,85 and the 1 ½ bovates of 10,10 make 1½ carucates which together with the 12 bovates of Plumtree (9,82) make a three-carucate unit; see {Introduction: Carucation}.
		In the manuscript an ink-blot above the marginal M' has a darker rim; in the Alecto facsimile it appears as M' with an o above it. The Ordnance Survey facsimile does not reproduce this blot at all. On other unusual reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	WULFHEAH <OF PLUMTREE>. The Domesday form Vnfac is understood as Old Swedish Ofegh in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 334. A misspelling of Vlfac (9,82), comparable with Vnlof for Vlnot (10,24) is more probable (JRM). The Alecto edition has Ufagr, which is the Old Danish runic form. See 9,82 Wulfheah note. See also Fellows Jensen, 'Domesday Tenants in Lincolnshire', Nomina (1985), p. 35. Wulfheah is more likely because he was Roger's predecessor in the adjacent manor of Plumtree (9,82) and also in 9,112 (see 9,82 Wulfheah note) and an outlier of Normanton (9,85) 'lay in' Plumtree.
9,85	THERE ALSO ^[NORMANTON[-ON-THE WOLDS]]^. See 9,84 Normanton note.
	IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] PLUMTREE. That is, in Roger of Bully's manor (9,82). There seems to be no real distinction between this and the statement in 9,86 that Stanton-on-the-Wolds 'belongs to Plumtree'. The Alecto edition has 'It belongs to'.	
9,86	THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday probably decided to write the details of two dependencies of Plumtree (9,86-87) after including another one that lay in Normanton-on-the-Wolds, the manor he had just described (9,84), though he should really have put them next to the manor of Plumtree (9,82) and its Jurisdiction in Ruddington (9.83).
	STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,5-6. 10,10. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it.
	5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 3 oxen needed to make a team of eight were probably from the adjacent estate at Widmerpool (30,48).
	IT BELONGS TO PLUMTREE. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,82).
9,87	KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,7. 9,88. 10,10. 13,7.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the first letter of Cauorde over the erasure of probably two letters.
	IT BELONGS TO PLUMTREE. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,82).
9,88	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	KEYWORTH. See 9,87 Keyworth note.
	HAROLD <OF KEYWORTH>. On this name, see 3,1 Harold note.
		No Harold other than the earl held anywhere near Keyworth in 1066, and the status of this holding makes it improbable that this is Earl Harold. This was probably the sole holding of this Harold (JP).
	RICHARD. On the name Richard, see B16 Richard note.
	FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.
	2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as the third part of 1 bovate in Keyworth is recorded in 4,7.
	4 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of Freemen from .i. to .iiii., perhaps at an early stage as the pen and colour of ink are the same as for the adjacent text.
9,89	LEAKE. East Leake (SK5526) and West Leake (SK5226) were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 24,1. 28,2.
		Roger of Bully's holding can probably be identified as East Leake because it is held as Esterleyk in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109, by T[homas], Earl of Lancaster. However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the lands of both Roger of Bully and of Henry of Ferrers were in the hands of the honour of Lancaster in the fourteenth century. Henry of Ferrers held both a manor and an outlier called Leake (24,1), possibly separate places. West Leake was certainly a Ferrers holding as it was later part of the honour of Tutbury. East Leake is later found divided into several portions which probably represent the situation in 1086, where the Count of Mortain, Roger of Bully, Henry of Ferrers and Robert son of William had an interest in Leake; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; and 24,1 Leake note
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	ARNULF, ROGER'S MAN. He only occurs in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a tenant of Roger of Bully. Nothing is known about him unless he is the same man (though the names are different ones; see below) as Ernoldus de Buulli ('of Bully', perhaps a relative) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 192 (who calls him Roger's brother); and 9,49 Blyth note.
		The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - Ernulf(us), Arnulf[us], Hernulf(us) - represent the very common Old German name Arnulf, Arnolf etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 35-36. The forms Arnoulf, Arnulf(e) are recorded in Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Arnou. The printed Phillimore edition has Ernulf here, while YKS 9W54 has Earnwulf; these have now been standardized as Arnulf. The Alecto edition has Ernulf.
		The form Ernoldus of the Blyth Priory Cartulary (see above) represents Old German Arnald, Arnold etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 33-35.
		The name Ernwulf occurs on nine holdings in Domesday Book, each probably belonging to a different individual. None of the holdings are substantial, all are distant from each other, and none shared English predecessors or Norman tenants-in-chief. Five of the holdings were pre-Conquest tenures, four post-Conquest. The tenant of Leake has been identified as the brother of the tenant-in-chief of the holding, Roger of Bully: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 192. This modest holding was the extent of Roger's generosity: no other Ernwulf (or Arnulf) held from him elsewhere in Domesday (JP).
		The foundation charter of Blyth Priory (the Blyth Priory Cartulary: Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209) does not state that Ernoldus de Buulli was Roger's brother, but in the time of Henry III Robert de Vipont in claiming the castle and vill of Tickhill stated that he was; see Timson, Blyth Priory Cartulary, pp. xiv-xv.
	MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative after 'Arnulf ... has'.
9,90	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	IN BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE. The manors in the five places named [in 9,90-94], with the exception of part of Willoughby[-on-the-Wolds] (16,5 Willoughby note), are entered under Broxtowe [Wapentake] in four separate chapters, although separated from it geographically by Rushcliffe [Wapentake]. Since the total assessment of these Broxtowe [Wapentake] lands is a quarter of a bovate short of 12 carucates, they may have originally formed a small hundred; see S1 hundreds note (JRM); see also VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 265 note 1. There it is also pointed out that in the manors in this detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, the number of ploughlands is equal to the number of carucates, which is a characteristic of the main body of Broxtowe Wapentake, whereas in other wapentakes the average ratio of ploughlands to carucates is more than 2 to1. This bald statement disguises a considerable complexity. For example, not all the estates in Broxtowe Wapentake have the same number of carucates and ploughlands, whereas such equivalence is found sporadically in other wapentakes, though not in Rushcliffe Wapentake which separates the two portions of Broxtowe Wapentake. This is more fully discussed in {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
		The hazards of attempting to reconstruct 'small hundreds' (assumed to be of 12-carucates) are also described in {Introduction: Small Hundreds}. This detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake was, however, in the extreme south of the county, against the county boundary and the names of the places within it are known. Assuming that all occurrences of the places have been correctly identified (and that the Willoughby of 24,3 is not Willoughby-on-the-Wolds; see 24,3 Willoughby note), the only other uncertainty is whether any of the places were divided between wapentakes. If it can be assumed that those estates where the ratio of ploughlands to carucates is unequal lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, then two parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (10,10. 16,5) lay there. Those estates where the carucates and ploughlands are the same are at Costock (9,94. 10,11;53. 15,5), Rempstone (9,94. 10,54. 15,6), Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (1,60), Wysall (9,90) and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92. 16,12. 30,35). These are more likely to have lain in the detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake. Estates that lack an estimate of plough-teams are at Thorpe-in-the Glebe (9,91) and at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93. 30,26).

Bovates and Ploughlands Equivalent	Bovates and Ploughlands Unequal	Insufficient Information	
Costock (10,11) 1 b.
Costock (10,53) 2 b.
Costock (15,5) 14 b.
Costock, Rempstone (9,94) 13 b.
Rempstone (10,54) 6 b.
Rempstone (15,6) 6 b.
Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (1,60) 10 b.
Wysall (9,90) 24 b.
Willoughby* (9,92) 6 b.
Willoughby* (16,12) 5 b.
Willoughby* (30,35) 3 b.	Willoughby* (10,10) 2 ½ b.
Willoughby* (16,5) 6 ½ b. + ⅔ b.
	Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91) 7 b.
Willoughby* (9,93) ¼ b.
Willoughby* (30,26) 2 ½ b.	
For simplicity carucates have been converted to bovates at 8 bovates to the carucate.
* Willoughby-on-the-Wolds

	Geographically speaking, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe is trapped against the county boundary by the other estates evidenced as lying in this detachment of Broxtowe Wapentake. It could not have had a portion in Rushcliffe Wapentake unless that was itself a detachment. If one includes in the detachment of Broxtowe Wapentake all the estates where carucates and ploughlands are equal plus the lands where there is no indication of the ratio of carucates to ploughlands, there is a grand total of 99¾ bovates. However, by deducting two of the estates where there is no indication as to whether the carucates and ploughlands are equal or unequal, ¼ bovate and 2½ bovates at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93. 30,26), and in the case of 30,26, there are other possible grounds for thinking that it lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 30,26 Willoughby note), then the total is 97 bovates, that is 1 bovate in excess of 12 carucates at 8 bovates to the carucate. There is a danger here that sums will dictate interpretation. Thus the ideal total of 96 bovates could be obtained by assuming that the 1 bovate of Costock (10,11) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, but that would mean undermining or abandoning the notion that estates where ploughlands and carucates are equal lay in Broxtowe Wapentake. The ¼ bovate at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93) lies among a group of places that are under a Broxtowe wapentake head (9,90-94), but the entry is added and may have been put near an occurrence of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds without attention being paid to the wapentake in which it lay. It could therefore have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake. Ostensibly, the same argument could apply to another added entry in the same group, for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91). However, it is suggested above that it would have been geographically impossible for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake. If the detachment contained 97 bovates (= 12 carucates and 1 bovate), the rest of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, assumed to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake (9,93. 10,10. 16,5. 30,26), amounted to 11 ¾ bovates plus two-thirds of a bovate. The respective figures are tantalisingly close to 96 and 12.
		It should be emphasised, however, that the above reconstruction of the detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake is highly speculative and relies only on a difference of assessment (the equivalence or unequality of carucates and ploughlands) and on the allocation of 'floating' estates to one wapentake or the other purely in order to reach a satisfactory total. Neither of these amounts to solid evidence and this discussion has only been included to examine what JRM appears to have concluded.
	WYSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It is listed under a Broxtowe wapentake head in Domesday and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall), parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	"ESTAN" <OF WYSALL>. The Domesday form, Estan(us), could represent Old English Æthelstan or Old English Eadstan, according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 182. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Estan, Aestan and Alstan; in view of the uncertainty it has been thought better in the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Aestan for both this spelling and for Aestan[us], except for NFK 4,22, where it has Estan. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		Apart from the Bishop of Hereford, the name Estan occurs on 15 holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing seven or eight individuals. These three holdings devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief who is unlikely to had had two predecessors with the uncommon name of Estan (JP).
	ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.
	GLADWIN <OF WYSALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Gladuin(us), Gladuine, Gleduin[us] - represent the hypothetical Old English Glædwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 261-62. JRM preferred the form Gladwin as it reflected the Domesday forms more closely. The form Gladwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Gladwin. The Alecto edition has Glædwine.
		The name Gladwin occurs only eight times in Domesday Book, and it is possible that Roger of Bully's predecessor here was the same person as William Peverel's predecessors (10,16;65, the only other occurrences in this county) and as one of the T.R.E. holders of Sandiacre in DBY 17,15. However, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, nor them to any of the other T.R.E. holders (STS 13,7. BUK 12,18. LIN 4,76) or to the single 1086 tenant (LEC 14,24).
		More than half of the Gladwins occur within a 15-mile radius of Stapleford, Nottinghamshire. William Peverel's predecessor at Stapleford, less than a mile away, was probably the same individual as was his predecessor at Selston (10,16;65). The holding of the other Gladwin in Nottinghamshire (9,90), which devolved upon Roger of Bully, lay at a similar distance from Stapleford as Selston, and were of comparable size and status. This, plus the comparative rarity of the name, suggests they were held by the same man. It should be noted, however, that Robin Fleming's thesis on the bulk grant of some Nottinghamshire wapentakes to Peverel and Bully (see 6,7 Edric note) points to the opposite conclusion though Robin Fleming herself, in a confusing passage (Kings and Nobles, p. 148), identifies the Nottinghamshire Gladwins as one individual (JP).
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Wysall to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. The church is mentioned in Domesday.
9,91	THIS ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the foot of folio 286b below the last ruled horizontal line. Rubricated transposition signs link it to the manor of Wysall, of which it was a Jurisdiction, that he had written earlier in this column (9,90). It was probably written in the same campaign as the other rubricated added entries in Nottinghamshire, but almost certainly at the same time as the entry for Bassingfield (9,81); see 1,31 entry note. For an entry added immediately below it, but after the county had been rubricated, see 9,93 entry note.
	IN THE KING'S THORPE. That is, Thorpe[-in-the-Glebe], held by King William (1,60), but not by King Edward in 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably interlined Regis above Torp because of the commonness of this place-name (it occurs eight times in Domesday Nottinghamshire). The king also held land in Perlethorpe (1,24;26;30), but it lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.
		Thorpe-in-the-Glebe was an Ancient Parish, often known as Thorpe, sometimes also as Thorpe Bochart. It is listed under a Broxtowe wapentake head in Domesday and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 1,60 and for the deserted medieval village here, see 1,60 Thorpe note.
	WHICH BELONG TO WYSALL. That is, to Roger of Bully's manor (9,90). The next word Soca ('A Jurisdiction') defines the relationship.
9,92	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 9,90), and to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,93. 10,10. 16,5;12. 30,26;35. Of these it is possible that three parts (10,10. 16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.
		Domesday gives no subtenant but it is possible that Roger, Roger's man, who may be Roger of Louvetot, was in fact holding or acquired a subtenancy here later, because his nephew (William of Louvetot) gave the church at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. He is possibly the Oingar son of Alnoth of Nottingham by whom an unidentified piece of land was given to St Cuthbert's of Durham soon after Domesday. The location of the other lands named in the grant suggests that Willoughby-in-the-Wolds might have been the estate intended; see 3,2 Normanton note. On his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note.
9,93	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 286a after his addition of a rubricated entry for Thorpe-in-the-Glebe (9,91) which was a Jurisdiction of Wysall. This entry, however, does not belong to Wysall too, but possibly to the manor of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92), although the scribe failed to include transposition signs; see 9,93 Willoughby note. It was added at the same time as a holding in Tithby (11,13), also in the foot margin and whose status is similarly not recorded, and as three place-name corrections (see 11,11 Oxton note, 17,17 Hawksworth note and 28,2 Leake note) and as an addition in 28,2 (28,2 Stanford note).
		It seems that this particular part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,90 Broxtowe note), while the part at 9,92 was in Broxtowe Wapentake. The scribe may simply have placed it here because it was part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, ignoring any difference of wapentakes.
	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. See 9,92 Willoughby note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday did not indicate the status of this piece of land. It could be a Jurisdiction of the manor of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92), or it could be an abandoned piece of land, with no holder, only included here because it was part of Willoughby. See 9,93 entry note.
9,94	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The estates here (9,94. 10,11;53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,11;53. 15,5.
		For the probable grant of some of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
		Fulco of Lisors also gave land in Costock to Blyth Priory, the foundation of his overlord, Roger of Bully, in the late eleventh or early twelfth century: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 333 pp. 214-15); see 9,49 Blyth note. He had presumably acquired it after 1086.
	REMPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,54. 15,6.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Repestone above COTINGESTOCHE. It is not clear which T.R.E. holder held which manor or whether both held both jointly.
	GODRIC [* SON OF FREDEGIS *]. For the probable identity of this Godric, derived from a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. See also 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	ALGAR. On this name, see 1,59 Algar note.
	LAND FOR 13 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus two oxen; see 1,6 ox note.
	1 CARUCATE OF THIS LAND IS WASTE. The total size is given as 13 bovates, so just under two-thirds of the estate (8 bovates) is waste.
9,95	TOLLERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	ALSI. On his name, see S5 Alsi note; see also 9,2 Alsi note.
	8 FREEMEN WITH 3 ½ PLOUGHS. In Domesday Nottinghamshire the Freemen appear to share the ploughs with the villagers, smallholders etc. ({Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}), but here and in 30,5;43 their ploughs are listed separately; compare 6,1 freemen note.
	2 MILLS. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but might be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,96	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two other parts (15,7. 30,36) lay directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.
	FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' which could be read as abbreviating either iii. partes ('3 parts') or iii. partem ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining tiā (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') above the iii. and adding an e after part' to produce partem; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. Another third part of a bovate in Lamcote is recorded in 30,36, but there is no sign of the final third of a bovate.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
9,97	BINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It evidently lay in the wapentake to which it gave its name in 1086 as later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	[* EARL *] TOSTI. It is not certain whether this is Tosti, Earl of Northumbria; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 224, and B2 Tosti note.
		Although the name Tosti occurs almost 100 times in Domesday Book it is not a common name. Once holdings plausibly be attributed to the earl and Tosti <of Sawtry> (see LIN 4,17 Tosti note) have been excluded, only five holdings remain, probably held by four individuals, all of them of minor landholders. In the absence of other significant landholders of his name, the task of identifying the earl where he is not accorded his title is simplified. There can be little doubt, for instance, that the Tosti who held the huge royal manor of Falsgrave (YKS 1Y3) was the earl, as also the royal manor of Hemingbrough (YKS 1Y3). The scale, status, and absence of other suitable candidates also make it likely that he had held the substantial manors at Polhampton (HAM 31,1), Buckworth (HUN 10,1), Bingham (9,97) and, less certainly, the anonymous holding from Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Northamptonshire (NTH 41,2). The Tosti who held Halmonds Frome from Queen Edith is also likely to have been the earl; and since no tenant-in-chief will have had two predecessors with the same uncommon name, he will have been the Tosti who held Putley, if the Thostin of that holding is, in fact, a Tosti (HEF 10,4;29). The Tosti of IoW7,22 is shown to be the earl by the link with his manor of Freshwater (IoW1,5), and there can be no doubt that the Tosti who 'went from England' of NFK 10,83 was the earl also. Finally, the Tosti who held a minuscule property at Worthing (SUS 13,37) was probably also the earl since his father and brother held in the same vill and the holding 'lay in' the large manor of Sompting, held from the Crown by a Leofwin who was surely the earl, his brother. See Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 191-94, who omits HAM S2 and NTH 41,2 from his list (JP).
	IN NEWTON 3 BOVATES TAXABLE. Scribe B added this sentence in a space left at the end of the entry. It is not clear whether this is a separate entry, deserving a number (compare 10,52), and whether, separately numbered or not, it is a dependency of Bingham, to which it is adjacent. For other work done in the same campaign as this addition, see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including the details of five members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.
		If he had been checking a territorially-arranged document that was the source, perhaps one stage removed, of Domesday Nottinghamshire (which might account for the standard order of vills within different fiefs: {Introduction: Order of Vills}), he should have entered this detail on Newton at some point between 9,75 (Burton Joyce) and 9,99 (Shelford), as the order of these vills in chapter 12 is Burton Joyce, Newton, Shelford (12,18-20). He may have added it where he did because the only other space available, at the end of 9,95, has a series of ink blots there, assuming they were there then. Of course, his source may not have been this putative territorially-arranged text.
		Newton was a settlement in Shelford Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 242. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 12,20.
9,98	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	THERE ALSO ^[BINGHAM]^. See 9,97 Bingham note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday lined the IBIDÇ through in red, albeit rather faintly; this is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; see also 2,2 there note and 5,3 Hickling note. Because the rubrication was applied separately by hand in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it appears here as clearer than in the manuscript.
	HOGA. The Domesday form of this name, Hoga, which only occurs here in Domesday, represents the Old English byname Hoga, meaning 'careful', 'prudent': von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 291. The Alecto edition has Hoga.
	HELGHI <OF BINGHAM>. The Domesday forms of this name - Helghi, Helghin[us], Helge, Helga - represent Old Danish Helghi, Old Norse Helgi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 288. The printed Phillimore edition has the form Helgi, but this has now been changed to the form Helghi. The Alecto edition has Helghi.
		This name only occurs here and in 9,111, and three times in Sussex as predecessors of the Count of Mortain and Earl Roger (SUS 10,65. 11,46;116). Despite the rarity of it in Domesday, it is unlikely that the Sussex T.R.E. holders are the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor here and in 9,111 (Owthorpe, about 4 ½ miles away from Bingham, though not adjacent to it); no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them.
	MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,99	SHELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 12,19.
	A JURISDICTION OF BINGHAM. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,98).
9,100	[EAST] BRIDGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. West Bridgford was in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088; the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.
9,101	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	THERE ALSO ^[[EAST] BRIDGFORD]^. See 9,100 Bridgford note.
	THORSTEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined the r of Turstan, extending it downwards to act as an insertion mark. This correction was probably done while he was writing the entry or soon afterwards as the pen and ink are the same as for the surrounding text. In the Alecto facsimile, however, this r looks much paler for some reason; on other problems of reproduction there, see 5,3 Hickling note.
		On this name, see 9,19 Thorsten note.
	ROSSKELL <OF BRIDGFORD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Roschil, Roschel, Ruschil, Roschet - represent Old Norse Hrosskell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 294. JRM preferred not to include the initial H of the Old Norse name, as it is not present in any of the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition of Yorkshire has the form Rossketill, following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 225-26; this has now been standardized as Rosskell. The Alecto edition has Hrosskell.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. The only other occurrences are in Yorkshire (as predecessors of the king, Count Alan, Ilbert of Lacy and William of Percy), but no documentary or other evidence has so far been found to connect them.
	IUSTEN <OF NORMANTON>. On this name, see 9,69 Iusten note. There are only a handful of occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, so it is likely that the two predecessors of Roger of Bully (9,69;101) were the same individual, though Normanton-on-Trent (9,69) is about 16 miles from East Bridgford.
	THE LAND IS NOT CULTIVATED. Presumably this is little different from terra wasta ('waste', 'derelict land') which can similarly have a value.
9,102	KNEETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,62. 2,7-8.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.
	THIRD PART. On the ambiguity of the Latin iii. part', which could also abbreviate iii. partes ('3 parts'), see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note. It has here been taken to abbreviate iii partem, as in the Alecto edition.
9,103	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	SAXONDALE. This was a township of Shelford Ancient Parish. Like Shelford itself (9,99. 12,19) it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. The Domesday name is represented by Saxondale (SK6839) and Upper Saxondale (SK6739).
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.
	OSPAK <OF SIBTHORPE>. In view of the rarity of this name in Domesday Book, it is possible that he is the same as the Ospak who was Count Alan's predecessor in Sibthorpe (2,1) which is just over six miles from Saxondale but in a different wapentake; on this and on this name, see 2,1 Ospak note.
9,104	CLIPSTON. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 366. However, Plumtree is apparently in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Domesday (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Clipston is here in a run of places in Bingham Wapentake and was in the same wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.
9,105	'WARBY'. This is a lost place in Plumtree Ancient Parish, presumably in that portion of the parish that was in Bingham Wapentake, judging by the order of Domesday at this point; see 9,82 Plumtree note. The name survived in Warby Gate (1790), the form of which suggests that Domesday Wareberg, Warberga, which is Old English weard-beorg ('watch-hill'), had by then been assimilated to place-names with the Scandinavian termination -by ('farm', 'homestead'). See Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 240. There is no trace of 'Warby' on Ordnance Survey maps. Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 379, locates it at SK621333. For another part, see 16,8.
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
9,106	SCREVETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,55. 7,6, and for the meaning of the name, see 1,55 Screveton note.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identity and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.
9,107	[CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,56. 11,24.
		This Colston can be distinguished from Colston Bassett that also lay in Bingham Wapentake, by the later descent of the manor: it is Ker Colston held by the heirs of Oliver de Lovetot in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 101.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note, and compare 9,55 Wulfgeat note.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Car Colston to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.
9,108	FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,61. 9,109. 11,25.
	OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. On his possible identification and the form of his name, see 9,1 Othenkar note and 3,2 Normanton note.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification, see 9,3 Roger note.
9,109	THERE ALSO ^[FLINTHAM]^. See 9,108 Flintham note.
	A JURISDICTION OF KNEETON. That is, of Roger of Bully's manor (9,102).
	ERNWIN THE PRIEST. The Domesday forms of this name - Ernuin, Ernuin[us], Erneuin[us] - represent Old English Earnwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 244. JRM preferred the first element Ern- for Old English Earn- and the second element -win for Old English -wine, because they reflected the Domesday spellings. The form Earnwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Ernwin. The Alecto edition has Earnwine.
		On the possible scribal confusion between the names Ernwin and Ernwy, see 16,5 Ernwy note and 30,11 Ernwy note.
9,110	ELTON. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Elton-on-the-Hill. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
		This village was confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully in 1088: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	MORCAR. It is not certain whether this is Morcar, Earl of Northumbria; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 224. See also JP's note in 9,74 Morcar note. On this name, see 1,58 Morcar note.
	RALPH [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *], ROGER'S MAN. Ralph is possibly Ralph Novi Fori, that is, from Neuf-Marché (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Gournai-en-Bray) who was a witness to Roger of Bully's foundation charter for Blyth Priory; see Timson, Blyth Priory Cartulary, p. xxvi; and 9,49 Blyth note. See also Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 72; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 336. This is the only occurrence of a Ralph as a tenant of Roger of Bully. On the name Ralph, see 6,8 Ralph note.
9,111	OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 12,21. 26,1.
	HELGHI <OF BINGHAM>. He is probably the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in Bingham (9,98, about 4 ½ miles away, though not adjacent to Owthorpe); on this and on his name, see 9,98 Helghi note.
	WILLIAM [* THE PRIEST *], ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity, see 9,26 William note. On the name William, see B9 William note.
9,112	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Sturton-le-Steeple. It lay in 'Oswaldbeck' Wapentake in 1086. It was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,33. 9,113.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate this place-name, possibly because having lined-through in vermilion the Oswaldbeck wapentake head immediately above the entry, he skipped past the entry itself. For his other failures in rubrication in this county, see 1,10 manor note.
	WULFHEAH <OF PLUMTREE>. On this name, see 9,82 Wulfheah note.
	LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note. A man called Leofric was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Styrrup (9,57), but that is about 13 miles from Syrrup, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Leofric was a common name.
	GRIM. On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' which could be read as abbreviating either iii. partes ('3 parts') or iii. partem ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining ciā (the last letters of terciam, 'third') above the iii. and adding an e to part' to produce partem; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. The other 2 parts of the bovate in Fenton are recorded in the next entry (9,113). For scribe B's addition of land in Fenton, see 1,33 entry note.
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote T'ra (Terra), put no punctus after it and left space for one or two letters before writing Wasta .... The entry has no plough estimate in it, so it would seem that, despite the smallness of the gap, he meant the estimate to be added later, presumably interlining it or writing it in the outer margin. The account of Eastwood (10,32) has identical wording, though there the T'ra is the last word in the line, so the margin would have been the obvious place for the missing details. On such spaces left for the completion of the plough estimate, see 1,59 land note. The Phillimore printed edition did not translate the T'ra at all here, though it did in the identical entry at 10,32. The Alecto edition has 'The land is waste ... ', ignoring the space after T'ra and the capital W for Wasta, though in 10,32 it acknowledged the gap after T'ra.
	IT IS WASTE, EXCEPT FOR 1 SMALLHOLDER. On this unusual phrase, see 1,12 waste note.
9,113	THERE ALSO ^[FENTON]^. See 9,112 Fenton note.
	SPEARHAFOC <OF FENTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Sperhauoc, Sparhauoc, Sp[er]hauoc, Sperauoc, Sp[er]auoc - represent Old English Spearhafoc: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 369. It means 'sparrow-hawk' and as Sparrowhawk is still used as a surname, JRM decided to translate this Old English name. However, it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Old English name, as the Alecto edition does.
		It is probable that all three references to Spearhafoc as a predecessor of Roger of Bully (9,113-114;116) are to the same man; the holdings are within half a mile of each other and are contiguous. The only other occurrences of this name are in Suffolk.
	2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. These 'parts' were almost certainly thirds as in the preceding entry for Fenton (9,112) there is the third part of 1 bovate.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION, WITHOUT A HALL. This seems to imply that this part of Fenton was not a manor (see 9,20 hall note), but could become one. Clearly the case was exceptional, since the lord had full jurisdiction but no hall in which to exercise that jurisdiction. A related exception, concerning justice rather than jurisdiction, occurs in Cheshire, where of Acton (CHS 8,16) Domeday says: Hoc manerium habet suum placitum in aula domini sui ('This manor has its assembly in the lord's hall') which is referred to earlier in the entry as a court (curia). Placitum is 'a plea', but in the context means 'an assembly where pleas are heard'. The lord would not normally hold his court anywhere but in his principal manor in the shire; see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 91; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 224-25.
		On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.
9,114	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	STURTON[-LE-STEEPLE]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Sturton-le-Clay. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 since it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 1,35.
	SPEARHAFOC <OF FENTON>. On his probable identity and his name, see 9,113 Spearhafoc note.
	ARNKETIL. On this name, see 9,44 Arnketil note.
	7 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. Oxen can only work in pairs, but the missing ox is not recorded on any adjacent estate; compare 11,31 oxen note.
	MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
	2 SILVER MARKS. That is, £1 6s 8d.
9,115	5M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[NORTH] WHEATLEY. North Wheatley and South Wheatley were separate Ancient Parishes. South Wheatley (5,4) was a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Southwell (5,1) until 1841. Part of North Wheatley (1,36. 9,115) subsequently passed to Westminster Abbey and was its peculiar until the Dissolution of the monasteries. Both places are adjacent. They probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		Certain tithes here were confirmed on Blyth Priory by its founder, Roger of Bully, in 1088: the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); see 9,49 Blyth note.
	VILLAGERS. Scribe B wrote uill' over the erasure of a word by the main scribe of Great Domesday; it is not clear what was originally there, but it was probably another category of population. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
	MEADOW, 5 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,116	'[WEST] BURTON'. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. In the latter source it is called Burton' Super Trent. For another part, see 5,4.
		The name now survives only as that of a Civil Parish. The deserted medieval village of 'West Burton' lies at SK798855, West Burton power station is at SK788853; see Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 377.
	SPEARHAFOC <OF FENTON>. On his probable identity and his name, see 9,113 Spearhafoc note.
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.
	1 FISHERY, 200 EELS. The Latin is i. piscaria cc [ducen]tar[um] anguill[arum], the main scribe of Great Domesday interlining tar' to indicate the genitive plural. The genitive could be 'defining', that is, 'a fishery consisting of 200 eels'. Alternatively the 200 eels might be a measure of its capacity ('for 200 eels'), as the count of those present would vary, if it could be done at all. On the other hand the exact number of sheep on an estate is given in the Liber Exoniensis and in Little Domesday. However, a render of 200 eels from the fishery is the most likely meaning, the main scribe of Great Domesday using the plain genitive case instead of the more usual preposition de ('of', 'at') or part of the verb reddere ('to render', 'to pay'); see WOR 2,68. 19,6. 20,5 etc. As eels were counted in sticks of 25, the 200 here would be 8 sticks, a common render from a mill[-pond] in Domesday. The Alecto edition has '1 fishery [rendering] 200 eels'. 'West Burton' was beside a loop of the former course of the River Trent. The river now flows more directly northwards. The old channel is known as Burton Round.
9,117	ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Everton and Harwell were Jurisdictions of 'West Burton' (9,116).
	EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, both Jurisdictions, see 5,8. 9,124.
	HARWELL. This was in the township of Everton-cum-Harwell in Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself (5,8. 9,117;124) it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, also linked with Everton and a Jurisdiction, see 9,124.
	3 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. In another entry for a Jurisdiction in Harwell and Everton (9,124) 3 parts of a bovate are also recorded. If these 'parts' were quarters, the total assessment of these two Jurisdictions would have been 6 ½ bovates. However, 1 carucate and the third part of a bovate are recorded for a further Jurisdiction in Everton (5,8). It might be tempting, therefore, to think that the '3 parts' in both entries for Harwell and Everton was a scribal error for 'the third part', making the total assessment for this vill1 carucate and 6 bovates (or 2 carucates and 6 bovates if the adjacent holding at Scaftworth, 5,8, is included). However, unlike in other entries, the main scribe of Great Domesday clearly wrote iii. partes here while scribe B corrected his ambiguous iii. part' in 9,124 to iii. partes (9,124 parts note), so it would seem that '3 parts' was the correct reading. '
	MEADOW, 1 ½ ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
9,118	BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,4. 9,125, and for the identification, see 5,4 Bole note.
	THORFRIDH <OF BARNBY>. The Thorfridh who was Roger of Bully's predecessor in Barnby Moor (9,54) may be the same person; the estates are about ten miles apart. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.
	WHOSE JURISDICTION IS IN SAUNDBY. Saundby was divided between the king and the Archbishop of York (1,44. 5,4).
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.
9,119	BECKINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 5,4.
	OSBERN. Roger of Bully was preceded on three estates by a man called Osbern (9,39;70;119), but they are all about 13 miles apart, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the T.R.E. holders and Osbern was a common name, on which see 2,2 Osbern note.
	GEOFFREY, ROGER'S MAN. On his possible identity and his name, see 9,6 Geoffrey note.
	MEADOW, 15 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative after 'Geoffrey ... has'. The Phillimore printed translation has a full stop after Geoffrey's plough in error. The Alecto edition has a comma and then 'and'. Compare 1,2 meadow note.
9,120	WALKERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 1,37.
	AETHELSTAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Adestan(us), Athestanus, Achestan[us] - represent Old English Æthelstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 188. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Aethelstan and Athelstan, the latter probably influenced by the accepted form of the king's name; these have now been standardized as Aethelstan. However, von Feilitzen included under Aethelstan some references whose Domesday forms JRM did not accept as representing this name, as they lacked the medial -d- or -g-. The Alecto edition has Aethelstan.
		The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is in 18,6, as a predecessor of Gilbert Tison, but no evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a fairly common name.
	NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for this manor at Walkeringham and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). However, this information is given for the Jurisdiction there at 1,37. The main scribe of Great Domesday included plough estimates in the majority of the entries in this county, so these omissions were probably accidental, either on his part or because the information was missing in his source. There are similar omissions in one of the entries for Kelham (15,3), and in two for Lamcote (15,7. 30,36).
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Walkeringham to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday.
9,121	5M. See 3,4 2M note.
	MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,38. 9,123.
	ROGER HAS. Plain Roger here contrasts with Roger, Roger's man, in the surrounding entries (9,120;122) and it might be thought that this Roger is Roger of Bully himself. However, William of Louvetot gave the church of Misterton to Worksop Priory and it is possible that the present Roger is his great uncle, Roger of Louvetot, and that the main scribe of Great Domesday should have written Roger, Roger's man, here as well; see 9,3 Roger note. The church is mentioned in this entry.
9,122	7M. See 3,4 2M note.
	GRINGLEY[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107. For discussion of the identification, see 1,4 Gringley note, and for a possible other part, see 1,43.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the church of Gringley-on-the-Hill to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. A church is mentioned in this entry.
9,123	ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Misterton (9,123) and Harwell and Everton (9,124), were Jurisdictions of Gringley-on-the-Hill (9,122).
	MISTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,38. 9,121.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
9,124	HARWELL. This was in the township of Everton-cum-Harwell in Everton Ancient Parish. Like Everton itself (5,8. 9,117;124) it probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, also linked with Everton and a Jurisdiction, see 9,117.
	EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, both Jurisdictions, see 5,8. 9,117.
	3 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' which could be read as abbreviating either iii. partes ('3 parts') or iii. partem ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining es (the last two letters of tres, '3') and adding e after the part and turning the original lightning-shaped abbreviation sign by his colleague into a superscript s; compare 10,57 parts note. On the ambiguity of iii. part', see 4,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. In another entry for a Jurisdiction in Harwell and Everton (9,117) 3 parts of a bovate are also recorded (clearly written as iii. partes, perhaps the source of scribe B's correction). See 9,117 parts note.
9,125	BOLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 5,4. 9,118, and for the identification, see 5,4 Bole note.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	THE FOURTH PART OF A CHURCH. Bole (SK7987) is close to South Leverton (9,130: SK7881) where there was half a church, but it seems probable that the other half of the South Leverton church should have been entered under Count Alan's holding there (2,10); see 9,130 church note.
	2 MILLS, 32s. The Latin molin' almost certainly abbreviates the accusative molinos, as the part-church and the acres of meadow are accusative and the object of 'Roger has'. See 5,9 mill note.
9,126	CLAYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For another part, see 1,40.
	GRIMKEL. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note.
	LAND FOR 4 OXEN. That is, for half a plough; see 1,6 ox note.
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.
	MEADOW 2 ½ FURLONGS LONG. The Phillimore printed translation omits the 'long' in error, as did the first version of Domesday Explorer.
	PERCHES. See B20 perches note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative p[er]ticas in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
9,127	CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,128. 30,39;54.
	REGNVALD. The Domesday forms of this name - Ragenald, Rainald, Rainald[us], Ragenal, Ragenalt - represent Old Danish Regnvald, Old Norse Ragnaldr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 346-47. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Reginald and Ragnaldr; these have now been standardized as Regnvald. The Alecto edition has Regnvald.
		There are three occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire (9,127. 14,2. 17,2), but no tenurial or other evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a fairly common name. A man called Regnvald was also Roger of Bully's predecessor in Yorkshire (YKS 10W14).
	FULCO [* OF LISORS *], ROGER'S MAN. On this identification and on the name Fulco, see 9,18 Fulco note.
	MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
9,128	THERE ALSO ^[CLARBOROUGH]^. See 9,127 Clarborough note. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not rubricate the IBIDÇ, perhaps because he was unsure of the status of the holding: it had no marginal M', B' or S' to indicate whether it was a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction, but it had a value, and although he wrote a rustic I for In (as he generally did for dependencies) he wrote IBIDÇ in capitals as for a manor. On other failures of rubrication in this county, see 1,10 manor note.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. This seems parallel to a holding in Fenton (9,113) where 'Spearhafoc <of Fenton> held with full jurisdiction, without a hall'; see 9,113 jurisdiction note.
		On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, for a quarter of a plough; see 1,6 ox note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin is i. acra p'ti. The acra could be either nominative singular (as translated in the Phillimore printed edition) or ablative singular after cum (as in the Alecto edition). If the latter, the meadow would have belonged to the smallholders, rather than being part of the general manorial resources, as was the pasturable woodland, which was given a new sentence. Compare 10,6 acre note.
9,129	TRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish and regarded as a peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the dean and chapter of York because of the archbishop's holding there (2,9). It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		Tresswell and Leverton (9,130), were adjoining places, both equally divided with Count Alan (2,9) (JRM).
	GODRIC. See 9,26 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	THE THIRD PART ... OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' with tiā (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') interlined above the iii. Scribe B further clarified the reading as 'the third part' by inserting an e in darker ink after part', although it was not really necessary because of the interlineation. On the ambiguity of iii. part' without the interlineation and scribe B's clarification of it, see 4,7 part note. Another third part of a bovate in Treswell is recorded in 2,9; see also 9,129 bovate note.
	THE FIFTEENTH PART OF 1 BOVATE . This is a very unusual fraction and there is no record of the other four-fifteenths, assuming that the third parts of a bovate here and in 2,9 represent a total of ten-fifteenths.
	ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *], ROGER'S MAN. William of Louvetot, the great nephew of Roger, gave the half of the church of Treswell to Worksop Priory; see 9,3 Roger note. No church is mentioned in Domesday, but it was presumably shared with Count Alan (2,9).
9,130	[SOUTH] LEVERTON. Both North Leverton and South Leverton were Ancient Parishes. They were adjacent and probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 for they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 227-28. For other parts, see 1,32. 2,10. 5,4. The present holding appears to have been at South Leverton; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 251 note 3. For North Leverton, see 5,4.
		The status of this part of Leverton is not given. The presence of a value suggests that it was not a Jurisdiction, but the absence of a T.R.E. holder might imply that it was not a manor. It could thus be an outlier of Treswell (9,129). The other part of Leverton (2,10) held by Count Alan, and also following an entry for Treswell (2,9), similarly lacks an indication of status; see 2,10 Alan note.
		In fact these two entries for South Leverton need to be read together, since it appears that what was perhaps a double manor in 1066 or a single manor jointly held, and which may have continued into William's reign as a manor jointly held by Count Alan and Roger of Bully, has been imperfectly divided between their respective fiefs; see 2,10 Alan note.
	3 ½ BOVATES AND A HALF OF THE FIFTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The size of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 7 bovates and the fifth part of a bovate. See 9,130 value note and 9,130 land note.
	HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday, but it seems probable that it was omitted from Count Alan's estate here (2,10), because the scribe failed to divide the resources that he and Roger of Bully held in South Leverton properly between their estates; see 2,10 Leverton note.
	ROGER HAS HALF OF THIS WOODLAND AND MEADOW. The other half, like that of the church, was probably part of Count Alan's holding in Leverton (2,10); see 2,10 Alan note. A less likely possibility is that the woodland and meadow were shared half and half by Roger and the villagers.
	VALUE 10s. The value of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 20s; see 9,130 bovates note and 9,130 land note .
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This plough estimate is misplaced at the end of the entry, probably briefly omitted by the main scribe of Great Domesday, rather than added, as the pen and ink used for it are the same as those for the rest of the entry.
		The plough estimate of the added entry for South Leverton at 2,10 is exactly double this at 2 ploughs; see 9,130 bovates note and 9,130 value note .
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, though the reason for this is not clear, as Treswell is not definitely a multiple estate and Rampton, the next entry (9,131), is in the same wapentake as the preceding places, so the space is unlikely to have been left for the later insertion of a wapentake head. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
9,131	7M. See 3,4 2M note.
	RAMPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	THE FIFTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iiii. part' with tâ (the last letters of quartam, 'fourth') interlined above it. Scribe B erased the last two minims of the iiii and joined the first two together to form a v and then added an e to part' to clarify further that it abbreviated partem. Compare 4,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. There is no further reference to parts of a bovate in Rampton.
	3½ FISHERIES. These were no doubt on the River Trent. The other half does not appear in Domesday.
9,132	THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday after one for Rampton, of which it seems to have been a Jurisdiction, in a blank space after it. Although there is not the usual rubrication on the initial I of In, it may have been written at the same time as the manor of Rampton and the entries above it or very soon afterwards. The pen and ink used are very like those of the preceding text, and occasionally the scribe did fail to rubricate the I, especially when Jurisdictions were involved which did not have their place-names through-lined in vermilion. Moreover, the inclusion of the marginal S[oca] is very rare in entries added after rubrication.
	MATTERSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 1,15.
		Mattersey is said to be a Jurisdiction and its position in the text suggests that it is connected with Rampton (9,131). However, if it was a late entry, it may merely be a piece of jurisdiction-land belonging to Roger of Bully of which the head manor has been omitted or is entered elsewhere in this chapter.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the column (19 lines), perhaps in case he needed to add details of further holdings of Roger of Bully or for aesthetic reasons.
10	THIS FIEF was misnumbered IX by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.
	LAND OF WILLIAM PEVEREL. William Peverel came to England early, possibly with the Conqueror in 1066, and was given charge of the castle that the king erected in Nottingham in 1068 on his way to suppress the first northern revolt. William held land in Normandy, possibly near Barfleur in the French département of Manche. The similarity of their names suggests that he may have been related to Ranulf Peverel, the Domesday holder. William Peverel had a castle at Castleton in the Peak District which became the centre of the barony or honour of the Peak. He founded the priory of St James in Northampton and Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire as a cell of Cluny Abbey. He had a daughter Adeliza who married Richard de Redvers. On William's death in 1114, his son, William II, succeeded him, but his lands were seized 1153-1154 by Henry of Anjou (King Henry II). William was accused of poisoning and he retired to a monastery. Some of his lands were given to Robert of Ferrers, Earl of Derby, who was married to Margaret the daughter of William II of Peverel, but other lands, still forming the honour of Peverel, were retained by the crown. Richard I granted the castle and honour of the Peak to his brother John. On the lands that formed the honour of Peverel, see Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, i. pp. 146-259. See also VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 136; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 494.
		William Peverel had a special importance in the south of Nottinghamshire. He held no estates in Oswaldbeck Wapentake and only one (10,64) in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. On the other hand he held much of Broxtowe Wapentake. He had a particular concentration of estates to the west of the borough of Nottingham and sat astride the major roads leading west and south from it. It appears that this was not fortuitous, but that the lands of a number of minor T.R.E. holders were given to William Peverel, if they lay in the south, or to Roger of Bully, if they lay in the north. The intention was seemingly not to give them complete control of particular areas, but to give them predominance there; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228; Roffe, 'Norman Tenants-in-Chief'; Crook, 'Nottinghamhire and the Crown', p. 26.
		On the name William, see B9 William note. Peverel (Domesday Peurel for William, Peurellus, Piperellus for Ranulf) is from Old French Peurel, Latin piperellus, diminutive of piper ('pepper'). The diminutive suffix -ellus could mean 'small' or be affectionate 'sweet little'. If peppercorn is meant, the reference could be to William's rotundity or his dark hair or features; see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 326. Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Peverall suggests that the reference might also be to a character trait: ' a small man with a fiery, peppery temper'. A peppercorn is also wrinkled, so William might have been a rather small, rotund and shrivelled individual.
		There are an unusual number of Englishmen in this fief who appear to have held estates both in 1066 and 1086 and whose holdings have to some extent been redrawn; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30.
	There are no wapentake heads in this chapter, but later evidence of the wapentake in which the estates lay suggest that the bulk of this fief (10,2-61) is entered in the regular order of wapentakes found in the county. However, at the beginning, the main scribe of Great Domesday entered a place in Thurgarton Wapentake, then apparently discovered one in Newark Wapentake (usually the first wapentake to be entered), before he wrote another estate in Thurgarton Wapentake (10,3). Thus the regular order begins at 10,2 and continues until the end of 10,61. At the end of the chapter he seems to have discovered two holdings (10,62-63) in Broxtowe Wapentake (lands in which he had already entered), then three estates (10,64-66) were added post-scriptally:
		10,1 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
	_____________________________
		10,2 [Newark Wapentake]
		10,3 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		10,4-14 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		10,15-54 [Broxtowe Wapentake]
		10,55-61 [Bingham Wapentake]
	_____________________________
		10,62-63 [Broxtowe Wapentake]
	_____________________________
		10,64-66 (Added Entries: 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, Broxtowe Wapentake)
10,1	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Colwick (10,1). As much of this fief is in the standard order of wapentakes, it seems that the main scribe of Great Domesday may have briefly missed the single estate that lay in Newark Wapentake (10,2) and begun with Thurgarton Wapentake (fourth in order) having found nothing for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake or 'Lythe' Wapentake, which usually come second and third. During checking later he found a holding in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, however, and entered it after rubrication had taken place (10,64 entry note).
	COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,17. 30,8.
		In the Middle Ages, there were two estates here, Colwick and 'East Colwick' sometimes called 'Nether Colwick' and 'Over Colwick'. Judging by the parallel lists of estates and of tenants in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105, it seems probable that 'Over Colwick' was the estate held by Geoffrey Alselin in 1086 (12,17), whereas the Peverel holding was Est Colwik' in Book of Fees, p. 1001. This will have been the same as 'Nether Colwick', being in that part of Colwick that is close to the River Trent. The presence of a church on the 1086 estate suggests that the centre of 'East Colwick' could have been near Colwick Rectory, marked on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map sheet 71 of 1836 (reprint sheet 35 of 1970) at SK611400.
	GODRIC. William Peverel had five predecessors called Godric (10,1;27;59;61;66), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name; compare 9,26 Godric note. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	2 SLAVES. In common with the other counties in circuit VI, slaves were very rarely, if ever, recorded in Domesday. There is no mention of them in Domesday Lincolnshire, Yorkshire or Huntingdonshire and there are only 20 in Derbyshire and 26 here in Nottinghamshire, including 2 female slaves, who are recorded rarely in Domesday Book; see also 10,16;39. 11,10. 12,1;16;18. 30,46. The reason for their omission is unknown. They certainly existed: for example, the Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate records them for four of the five estates that Ely Abbey held in Huntingdonshire (see HUN 4 Ely note). In the present county they are generally listed with the Freemen, villagers and smallholders and before their ploughs, but in this entry they appear between the priest and church and the resources and in 12,1 they are after the rest of the population and before the resources.
	1 MILL. For its location, see Gill, 'Colwick Hall and Church' p. 39.
	HALF A FISHERY. The other 'half' may have been at Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55) which lies on the other bank of the River Trent, where there was the site of half a fishery and the third part of a fishery.
	"WALANN" HOLDS IT. This is the only occurrence in Domesday Book of the name-form Walann[us] and it is not clear what name it represents. There is no mention of it in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. It may be corrupt: if at some stage in the Domesday process an abbreviation line through the l were omitted, the form could be Walerannus, one of the Domesday forms of Old German Walahram, Walaram, Walerannus, Old French Galerant: Forssner (ibidem, p. 241). William Peverel has no other subtenants with a name-form resembling this, however. The Phillimore printed translation has Waland, but this is unlikely because of the presence of nn' in the Domesday form. The Old German Waland occurs only once in Domesday of a 1066 holder in the form Waland (WOR 8,14). The Alecto edition has Walan here, but it seems better to reserve judgement and keep to the Domesday form.
10,2	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Sibthorpe (10,2). Places lying in Newark Wapentake would normally be entered first in a Nottinghamshire fief. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday missed this estate at first, but then entered it as soon as he found it, thus interleaving it between two places in Thurgarton Wapentake (10,1;3).
	SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, based on a collegiate church that lay in another estate here: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,1-2. 20,1.
	LEOFWIN. On this name, see S5 Leofwin note.
	THORBIORN <OF SIBTHORPE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Turbern(us), Turber, Torber, Torbern, Torbern[us], Thurb[er]n[us] - represent Old Danish Thorbiorn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorbern and Thorbjorn; these have now been standardized as Thorbiorn. The Alecto edition has Thorbiorn.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	LAND FOR 13 OXEN. That is, for a plough and five oxen; see 1,6 ox note.
	ROBERT, WILLIAM'S MAN. At least two different Roberts held from William Peverel: Robert of Hérils and Robert of Pavilly. The only other occurrence of a Robert holding from William Peverel in Nottinghamshire is at 10,16, where the identity with Robert of Hérils is established. The identity of the present Robert is uncertain. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.
	5 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from ii by superimposing a large v on top of the two minims. He made an identical correction to the number of smallholders in Old Basford (10,22). On a third large v in a correction, see 30,1 Freemen note.
	MILL ... MEADOW, 17 ACRES. The cases of the Latin i. molin' and of ac' are unclear; they might be accusative after 'Robert ... has'; see 5,15 meadow note.
10,3	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gonalston (10,3). The fief began with a place in Thurgarton Wapentake, but was followed by one in Newark Wapentake; see 10,1 Thurgarton note.
	GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 14,6. 30,49.
		In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Erebertus gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Gonalston. In 1086 Gonalston was held in lordship and there is no subtenant given. However, Erebertus is probably Herbert Peverel (Round, Calendar of Documents, France, p. 506 no. 1383), called Herbertus miles meus ('Herbert my soldier' or 'my knight') by William Peverel in the Lenton Cartulary. He was probably a relative; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 229.
	MILTON. This presumed outlier of Gonalston was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of West Markham, sometimes known as Markham Clinton; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 56. Like West Markham itself (9,28-30) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
	YOUNG WULFSI. There were three predecessors of William Peverel with this specific name (10,3;16;35); these are the only occurrences of it in Domesday Nottinghamshire. They were probably the same individual. It is possible that the men called Wulfsi who were his predecessors in 10,29-30 were also Young Wulfsi, though Wulfsi was a common name. Compare also 10,39 Wulfsi note. On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note. Cilt means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child' in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has Cild.
	2 TRIBUTARIES. Censores, censitores, censarii, chiefly in north-east Mercia, Yorkshire, Essex and Dorset, paid tribute in money, not work; see S3 death-duty note (JRM). This is their only appearance in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	2 MILLS ... MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The cases of the Latin ii. molin' and of ac' are unclear; they might be accusative; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,15 meadow note.
10,4	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Thrumpton and Clifton (10,4-5).
	THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,79. 23,2.
	STAPLEWIN <OF MAPPERLEY>. The Domesday forms of this name - Stapleuine, Stapleuuinus, Stapleuin - represent the hypothetical Old English Stapolwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 372-73. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English -wine, and would have kept to the Domesday form for the first element. The Alecto edition has Stapolwine. In 10,16 Staplewin had held land in Stapleford and von Feilitzen (ibidem) suggested that the first element of this personal name derived from that place-name.
		As this name only occurs in Domesday here and in 10,16 and in DBY 1,35 in an estate in Mapperley administered by William Peverel, it is likely that they represent the same individual.
	3 PARTS. On the ambiguity of the Latin iii. part', see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note. It has here been taken to abbreviate iii. partes, as in 4,6, though, unlike for that entry, the other assessments of Thrumpton do not provide any help in determining the meaning.
10,5	CLIFTON. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,6. 13,3. 30,25.
		This Clifton can be distinguished from the other Domesday 'Clifton', representing North Clifton and South Clifton (6,8;10-12. 9,3;5) in Newark Wapentake, by wapentake and tenure: in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 91, Clifton cum membris ('Clifton with members') in Rushcliffe Wapentake is held from the honour of Peverel; see Book of Fees, p. 287.
	COUNTESS [* GYTHA *] GODA. In most of his Northamptonshire holdings, William Peverel succeeded (Countess) Gytha (Gitde); at Adstock in Buckinghamshire (BUK 16,8) his predecessor was 'Gytha (Gethe) wife of Earl Ralph [of Hereford, nephew of King Edward]'. [At Haversham and Stoke Goldington (BUK 16,9-10) she is called 'Countess Gytha'.] At Woolley in Berkshire (BRK 24,1) William succeeded Earl Ralph himself. His Nottinghamshire predecessor, Countess 'Goda', is therefore a misspelling of 'Gytha'. She is evidently also the Goda [Gode] who held Edwalton (23,1), since Edwalton belonged to Stockerston (LEC 13,15), also formerly held by Earl Ralph. She named her son Harold, and is easily confused with her namesake, Countess Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin and mother of King Harold (JRM). In two other estates in Buckinghamshire Countess Gytha preceded William Peverel (16,9-10). It is likely that the Goda, whose man had held Rushden (Bedfordshire) beforeWilliam Peverel, was also a mistake for Countess Gytha. Compare RUT 1,5 Goda note. See also VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228.
		On the name Goda, see S5 Goda note.
		She may have been the daughter of Osgod "Clapa" and widow of Tovi the proud: Williams, 'The King's Nephew', pp. 327-43; see also p. 333 note 36. In all these cases, the particular reasons for the identifications are also supported by the fact that Countess Goda is not known to have held land anywhere north Twyford in Buckinghamshire. When the two countesses are accounted for, there are only four other occurrences of the name Gytha in Domesday Book, any of which could refer to Countess Gytha of Hereford though only those at Tilton in Leicestershire and Walton in Warwickshire lay within the territory in which she and her family held land. Tilton lay just 10 miles from her husband's manor of Stockerston (LEC 10,15) and a cluster of his other holdings, and Walton a similar distance from her son's manor of Burton Dassett (WAR 38,2), itself a few miles from his father's manor at Mollington (NTH 35,26); in view of the rarity of the name, it is perhaps more likely than not that both properties had been held by Countess Gytha. The remaining holdings of a Gytha, in Lincolnshire (LIN 53,6) and Yorkshire (5E35-36), are perhaps more likely to have belonged to other individuals given that her family had no known associations with either county. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 225-26, whose list omits dependencies and BDF 22,2. LEC 2,7. NTH 35,22. NTT 10,5. 23,1. RUT 1,5-6 and WAR 16,10 (JP).
10,6	THIS ENTRY for a holding in Clifton was lined through for deletion after it had been rubricated. It is not clear whether this was done by the main scribe of Great Domesday (perhaps when he added the entry for Barton-in-Fabis in the margin, 10,7) or whether scribe B did it when he added land in Adbolton further down this column (10,12). It was almost certainly deleted because it was discovered to be a duplicate of an entry on folio 292d (30,25), where Ulfkil held in chief, rather than as a subtenant of William Peverel. It was presumably written here at first in error because all parts of Clifton were together in a territorially-arranged schedule. Clifton should have been split up and distributed among the various fiefs in the creation of the putative circuit volume, but this portion may have not been moved then and was only noticed later by the scribe of Great Domesday. For another deleted entry that was a duplicate, see 10,23 entry note.
		For Clifton, see 10,5 Clifton note.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of this entry; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note. William Peverel had three predecessors called Ulfkil (10,6;32;34), possibly the same individual, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name. On his being the Ulfkil of 30,25, see 10,6 entry note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin ac' could abbreviate either the accusative singular acram, after 'Ulfkil ... has' (see 1,9 meadow note and 5,15 meadow note) or the ablative singular acra after cu[m], meaning that the meadow was linked to the villager and his oxen. Compare 9,128 acre note. This ambiguity also occurs in 30,25;34;43.
10,7	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 287b, next to a holding in Wilford (10,8), which was a Jurisdiction of Clifton (detailed two entries previously). As most of the rest of the column is occupied by further Jurisdictions of Clifton, it is very likely that the present entry was also one. It was probably added at the same time as two unrubricated entries in the king's fief (1,65-66).
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 13,1-2. 30,23.
		Although the main scribe did not indicate the status of this piece of land, it is very likely to have been another Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5): 10,7 entry note. The absence of a value statement for it also suggests that it was a member of a manor.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
10,8	WILFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday inadvertently began rubricating this place-name, though it was not his practice to do so with members of manors: there is a very fine red line on Wile of Wilesforde.
	A JURISDICTION. The position of this entry immediately below the manor of Clifton (ignoring the deleted entry: 10,6 entry note) almost certainly indicates that it was a Jurisdiction of Clifton.
	HALF A FISHERY. This half at Wilford (SK5637) is probably complemented by the half at Radford (10,15), which is not far away (SK5540) and whose lands probably extended to the River Trent.
10,9	[WEST] BRIDGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. East Bridgford lay in Bingham Wapentake.
		For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.
		In Feudal Aids, iv. p. 102, Gervase de Clifton holds Clifton, Wilford cum membris, Briggeford ad Pontem and Stanton from the honour of Peverel. These are respectively Clifton (10,5), Wilford (10,8), West Bridgford (10,9) and Stanton-on-the-Wolds (10,10). 'Bridgford at the Bridge' is West Bridgford: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 231.
		In the Alecto facsimile the first e of Brigeforde is barely visible, as if it had been poorly erased. It is clear in the manuscript (although the ink did not take properly on a small part of the letter), as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	A JURISDICTION. Like the previous entry for Wilford this holding was almost certainly a Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5).
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
10,10	NORMANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was a township of Plumtree Ancient Parish. In later times, Plumtree Ancient Parish was divided between the wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Bingham. In Bingham Wapentake were the townships of Plumtree itself and Clipston; in Rushciffe Wapentake was Normanton-on-the-Wolds: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 366. In 1086, however, Plumtree appears to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (see 9,82 Plumtree note). Normanton-on-the-Wolds is similarly in the same run of places in Rushcliffe Wapentake at 9,84 and was listed in that wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. The present portion is a Jurisdiction of Clifton, so is not necessarily in the same wapentake (Rushcliffe Wapentake), though it is listed among Jurisdictions which were in that wapentake.
	1½ BOVATES. On this assessment's link with that of Plumtree and of other estates in Normanton-on-the-Wolds, see 9,84 Normanton note.
	KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,7. 9,87-88. 13,7.
	WILLOUGHBY[ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. Parts appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday at 9,90. 16,12 and 30,35. This place is one of the five (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-3. 16,5;12. 30,26;35. Of these it is possible that two (16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes; see 16,5 Willoughby note. The present part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, as a Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5), could also, like Clifton, have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake. Here in the text it lies between Keyworth and Stanton-on-the-Wolds, both of which appear to be in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086. As Jurisdictions tend to be entered in distinct groups if they are in different wapentakes, it is possible that this part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds also lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.
	2 ½ BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .ii. bo' 7 dim' above In Willebi, using a darker ink to that used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for the rest of the text here. The main scribe had interlined the extents of the other Jurisdictions in this entry, but had omitted this one and presumably could not add it when he interlined In Stantun above the lordship plough three lines below. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
	STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,5-6. 9,86. At 28,2 Stanton-on-the-Wolds has been deleted and Leake substituted for it.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined In Stantun; see 10,10 bovates note.
	JURISDICTION OF CLIFTON. That is, of William Peverel's manor (10,5).
	IN STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. For the interlineation of this phrase, see 10,10 bovates note. The 2 acres of meadow were probably also in this village.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative, after 'William has in lordship'. The Phillimore printed translation does not indicate this, putting the meadow in a separate sentence; the Alecto edition has a comma before the meadow. For another example of the meadow being part of the lordship, see 30,36. See also 1,9 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.
10,11	COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake. These Costock manors are embedded in the text in groups of places that lay in Broxtowe Wapentake. However, because the present part of Costock is a Jurisdiction (of Clifton), it is not possible to determine in which wapentake it lay. Clifton itself (10,5) lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, as did the several Jurisdictions in 10,10. Adbolton (added at 10,12) may have been in Bingham Wapentake. The fact that the carucates and ploughlands are equivalent in this part of Costock might, however, suggest that it lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake with other places that in 1086 formed the detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
		The marginal S[oca] states that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).
	LAND FOR 1 OX. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or 5 plough-teams plus two oxen; see 1,6 ox note.
		As the plough estimate normally precedes the details of population and resources ({Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}), the main scribe of Great Domesday probably briefly omitted it or it was misplaced in his source.
10,12	THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry (10,11) at the same time as other additions; see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including five members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note. It is possible that it duplicates part of an entry already included by the main scribe later in William Peverel's fief (10,56) where there are 6 bovates in a manor of Adbolton.
	ADBOLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The other reference to Adbolton is to a manor (10,56), which appears to have lain in BinghamWapentake in 1086 (heading inserted at 10,55); on its perhaps being a duplicate of the present holding, see 10,12 entry note. Adbolton was in Bingham Wapentake later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. The present added entry is not designated as a manor, outlier or Jurisdiction, in which case it could have been in Bingham Wapentake, though its position suggests that it was another Jurisdiction of Clifton (10,5). If it was a manor, it would appear to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake (heading at 10,4), or was in Bingham Wapentake and had been inserted in the wrong place (places in that wapentake were entered near the end of this chapter; see NTT 10 William note).
		Adbolton is one of a group of estates that lay at the junction of Bingham Wapentake and Rushcliffe Wapentake where the evidence for the wapentakes in which they lay in 1086 is equivocal or geographically unlikely. This group consists of Adbolton, Holme Pierrepont, Gamston and Bassingfield. Ostensibly Adbolton lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086, but east of it and separating it from the body of Bingham Wapentake was Holme Pierrepont (9,80), a manor and an Ancient Parish, placed by Domesday in a run of estates in Rushcliffe Wapentake (heading at 9,77). Both Adbolton and Holme Pierrepont were in Bingham Wapentake after 1086. To the east of Holme Pierrepont lay Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55. 11,33), an Ancient Parish and apparently in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as later, also Lamcote (9,96. 15,7. 30,36) of which the last two parts were directly below a Bingham wapentake head. Lamcote was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. South of Adbolton and Holme Pierrepont lay West Bridgford (10,9), an Ancient Parish, apparently in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it was later; also Gamston (10,14) which was a township of the Ancient Parish of West Bridgford and an outlier of Clifton (10,5) and either in Bingham Wapentake or Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, and later in Bingham Wapentake; finally Bassingfield (9,81. 10,13), a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont, and in 1086 a Jurisdiction of both Holme Pierrepont and Clifton. Bassingfield could, in 1086, have been either in Bingham Wapentake or Rushcliffe Wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake.
		The obstruction to a simple division between wapentakes is Adbolton. It appears isolated from Bingham Wapentake. It could have been an outlying portion of that wapentake in 1086, perhaps because of some older linkage between estates that is invisible in Domesday, although such detached portions are unusual in the Danelaw counties. It is possible, however, that the marginal M(anerium) at 10,56 is in error and that it was really an outlier or Jurisdiction of Radcliffe-on-Trent (10,55), in which case it could have been, like other such dependencies, in a different wapentake. A further possibility is that the whole entry (10,56) is misplaced and that the entry at 10,12 (it is no more than a note) for an estate of the same size (6 bovates) is meant to indicate its proper place as a dependency of Clifton (10,5), in which case it was not necessarily in Bingham Wapentake. There seems, conversely, no reason to doubt that Holme Pierrepont (9,80) was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 despite its being in Bingham Wapentake later; it is not only said to be a manor, but has a Jurisdiction of its own (Bassingfield, 9,81). Geographically speaking, it seems that if Holme Pierrepont was in Rushcliffe Wapentake, then Bassingfield was as well. No doubt Gamston was also there because of its connection with West Bridgford. This would imply that the lands which formed the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont were divided between wapentakes in 1086. Such a division is not unusual: the Ancient Parish of West Bridgford was so divided later as was that of Plumtree in 1086 and later; see 9,82 Plumtree note.
		The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake, but JRM regarded it as divided between wapentakes, the other portion lying in Bingham Wapentake (note to 10,55).
10,13	BASSINGFIELD. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,81) was probably in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 9,77) though it was later in Bingham Wapentake; see 9,80 Holme note. Bassingfield both here and at 9,81 could have been in either wapentake, though it was later in Bingham Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For the difficulty` of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The Latin iii. part' almost certainly here abbreviates iii. partem, rather than iii. partes ('3 parts', which is how it is translated in both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition), despite there being no ciâ (the last letters of terciam, 'third') interlined above the iii, because in the other holding at Bassingfield (9,81) '2 parts of 1 bovate' are recorded. On the ambiguity of the Latin iii. part', see 4,6 parts note and, for its clarification, see 4,7 part note.
10,14	GAMSTON. This was one of two places called Gamston in Nottinghamshire. It was a township of the Ancient Parish of West Bridgford and like West Bridgford itself (10,9), it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, though it was later in Bingham. Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note. The Phillimore printed edition places it in Rushcliffe Wapentake
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this land is a Jurisdiction, presumably of Clifton (10,5).
10,15	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the large number of places that follow (10,15-54).
	RADFORD. This was the Ancient Parish of Radford St Peter. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were the vill of Radford; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100. In the list of gifts, Radford is followed by Morthon, no doubt to be identified with 'Morton' (10,17) and Kichton. This last is Keighton (SK 5438), associated with Radford in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229, and probably an unnamed part of it in 1086.
	AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.
	HALF A FISHERY. This appears to be connected to the half a fishery at Wilford (10,8). Wilford lies at SK5637, on the River Trent. The settlement of Radford (SK5540) is not by the river but its lands probably extrended to its banks.
	WULFNOTH <OF RADFORD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlnod, Vlnod[us], Vlnoth, Vlnoth[us], Vlnoht, Vlnot[us], Wlnod, Wlnod[us], Vuenot, Oruenot, Vnlot (an error for Vlnot) - represent Old English Wulfnoth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 422. The Alecto edition has Wulfnoth.
		There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being in the adjacent holding at Old Lenton (10,24; see 10,24 Wulfnoth note on the Domesday form), so it is likely that these two predecessors of William Peverel represent the same individual.
	AS THANELAND. Land reserved by a lord, commonly a church, for the maintenance of a thane, armed and mounted; usually inalienable, and not automatically heritable (JRM).
		The use of the Latin preposition in (in Tainlande) is idiomatic: he holds it 'in the form of thaneland'.
10,16	4M. See 3,4 2M note.
	STAPLEFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	YOUNG WULFSI. On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.
	STAPLEWIN <OF MAPPERLEY>. On his probably being the same individual as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,4 and as the predecessor of an estate in Mapperley (Derbyshire) managed by William, see 10,4 Staplewin note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	GLADWIN <OF WYSALL>. It is probable that he is the same as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,65, and less likely, but possible (in view of the comparative rarity of this name in Domesday Book), that the Gladwin who had held Wysall before Roger of Bully (9,90) was also this man. On the form of this name, see 9,90 Gladwin note.
	ROBERT [* OF HERILS *] HOLDS FROM HIM. In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Geoffrey de Heriz gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Stapleford. This probably implies that the 1086 holder was Robert de Heriz, who has also been identified in Derbyshire; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 229. Robert de Heriz himself gave two-thirds of the tithes of Hesburna (unidentified) and Ossecropht (Oxcroft in Bolsover, Derbyshire) to Lenton Priory. His place of origin was Hérils, said to lie in the French commune of Maison, in the canton of Trévières, in the département of Calvados; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 376-77.
		The interlineation of this sentence by the main scribe of Great Domesday was probably done while he was writing the entry, but if not, he was apparently unable to add the villagers' ploughs at the same time; see 10,16 ploughs note.
	WITH 6 PLOUGHS. Scribe B interlined cū .vi. car' above, but after the villagers, almost certainly because the tail of the g of g'ld' in the line above prevented him from writing it immediately above them: the slaves would most probably not have had ploughs, though see 10,1 slaves note. For other additions perhaps made at the same time as this, see 9,5 Clifton note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
	2 SLAVES. The Latin seruos is accusative plural, the object of 'William has ... Robert holds', as presumably are the 6 villagers (Latin uill'; see 1,1 villagers note). On slaves, see 10,1 slaves note.
10,17	'MORTON'. It was 'near Nottingham but now lost' according to VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 270 note 1. It is not found on any Ordnance Survey map, nor is there an apparent trace among the street-names of Nottingham. It was given the Grid Reference SK5638 in the Phillimore printed edition and is called Morton in Lenton, and located 'possibly at Dunkirk Farm (SK 547373)' in Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 378; see Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 200. It is not certain if the proposed location is based on good evidence. No 'Morton' in Broxtowe Wapentake appears in the Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, though the order of Domesday suggests that Mortvne lay there; this implies that the editors have found no post-Domesday evidence or are unable to allocate the place to a parish. This place was given to Lenton Priory by William Peverel and it is possible that an assumed proximity to Old Lenton itself, and the presence in Lenton parish of Moorbridge Cottages and a 'Morefeld' (both containing the first element of Mortune: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 149) have led to a guess that has become a fact. If this is is, it may be that the place is entirely lost and should be left as "Mortune".
		At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, was the vill of Morthon; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100.
	BOVI <OF ARLESCOTE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Boui, Bou - represent Old Danish Bovi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 204-205. The Alecto edition has Bovi. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Bovi occurs on eight holdings, six of them in central England. Those in Leicestershire and Warwickshire, which devolved upon the Count of Meulun, are grouped around the two Northamptonshire holdings (one of which had been retained by the king in order to build a castle at Rockingham). Given this pattern and the rarity of the name, it is likely that they had been held by one individual before the Conquest. The sixth holding, in Nottinghamshire, is no more distant from this group than the holdings of the Count of Meulun are from each other, so this too may have belonged to the same individual (JP).
		Arlescote is one of the two estates in Warwickshire that Bovi held T.R.E. (WAR 16,56).
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
10,18	NEWBOUND. Neubold, in the middle of fifty consecutive entries for Broxtowe Wapentake, is unlikely to be Newbold in Bingham (1,58), as Domesday Gazetteer and Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, (p. 237). It is probably Newbound, by Teversal, in Broxtowe Wapentake, called 'Newbold' until the eighteenth century: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 136 (JRM). The older identification probably depended on assuming that Morcar, the T.R.E. holder of the present esatate, was the same man as Earl Morcar who held Newbold (1,58).
		Newbound was a settlement in Teversall Ancient Parish. Like Teversall itself (13,8) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later. The grid reference is to Newbound Farm (SK490631).
	MORCAR. This individual has not been identified. He was not necessarily Earl Morcar. On this name, see 1,58 Morcar note.
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
10,19	[OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,48. 10,24, and for Lenton Priory, see 10,24 William's note. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539).
	A JURISDICTION OF NEWBOUND. That is, of William Peverel's manor (10,18).
	4 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number from iii to iiii and added a new dot after it, probably at an early stage as the pen and ink are the same as those for the surrounding text.
	1 MILL. The case of the Latin i. molin' is unclear, but might be accusative like the ploughs of the Freemen and smallholders; compare 5,15 meadow note.
10,20	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	LINBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is classed as Ancient Demesne, though there is no trace of a royal connection in Domesday. It presumably came to the king on the confiscation of the honour of Peverel.
10,21	PAPPLEWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 30,29.
		At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were 'what he had in Papplewick', this formula indicating that he did not hold the whole vill; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100.
	5 BOVATES OF LAND ARE ATTACHED TO THIS MANOR. The Latin In Papeluuic .v. bouatae terrae adiacent huic Manerio is awkward. It appears to mean that there are in Papplewick 5 bovates which are attached to, that is, 'belong to' Linby (10,20). The normal Latin would be Huic manerio adiacent. v. bouvatae in Papeluuic ('To this manor [Linby] are attached 5 bovates in Papplewick'). The two places are adjacent. Presumably the main scribe of Great Domesday had already written In Papeluuic before deciding exactly what to write, and had to force the following Latin. Similar phrasing occurs at 10,41: In Brochelestou adiacent v acrę ('In Broxtowe 5 acres are attached'), meaning that there are in Broxtowe 5 acres that are attached to (that is, 'belong to') Nuthall (10,40). Again, the two places are near to one another. In both cases JRM, editor of the Phillimore printed edition, seems to have been misled into allocating separate section numbers.
10,22	[OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other references to this place, see 10,23;51-52. 30,28;34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note. William Peverel had four predecessors in Nottinghamshire called Alwin (10,22;34;48;64), and several in Buckinghamshire, called either King Edward's thane or Queen Edith's thane, and two in Oxfordshire, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name-form that could represent up to four Old English names.
	SAXFRITH <OF BASFORD>, WILLIAM'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Sasford, Saxford, Saxford[us] - represent Old English Seaxfrith: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 357. JRM preferred the first element Sax- for the Old English Seax-. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saxfrid, Sasfrid and, in Yorkshire in error, Saexfrith; these have now been standardized as Saxfrith. The Alecto edition has Seaxfrith for the T.R.E. holders, but Sasfrid for the 1086 ones.
		William's tenant and man Saxfrith in 10,51 (also in Old Basford and the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire) was almost certainly the same individual. It is likely that William's other tenants with this name (NTH 35,9-11. LEC 25,5) are also the same man, in view of the comparatively few occurrences of this name in Domesday Book (there are only a dozen other occurrences). See 10,51 Payne note. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 417, Saxfrith was the father of Philip of Essebi.
	5 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number from ii by superimposing a large v mostly on top of the two minims and added a new dot after it. He made an identical correction to the number of villagers in Sibthorpe (10,2). On a third large v in a correction, see 30,1 Freemen note.
10,23	THIS ENTRY was struck through for deletion, probably by scribe B at the same time as he added virtually identical information on the next folio (10,52): the ink used for that entry is the same darker colour as that used for the deletion line here. The only difference between the two accounts is the omission in 10,52 of the phrase 'it is now in William's charge', which is similar to the one in 10,24. There are two possibilities. Either the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the present entry after the wrong manor of Old Basford or scribe B found an entry for 1 bovate held by Skuli in Old Basford, thought that it had been omitted and so added it, then discovered his mistake and deleted the first entry; see 10,52 entry note. In view of the duplication of material caused when other entries were added (see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}) - because lack of time precluded checking through the original text every time one or other of the two scribes found an apparent omitted entry - the second possibility is more likely. There is a further apparent duplicate of this information in another entry for Old Basford (30,28) where the main scribe later interlined 'and Skuli [had] 1 bovate - it is waste', though there that holding and another one by Aelfric are designated as manors. For another deleted entry that was a duplicate, see 10,6 entry note.
		Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 9, attributes the correction to the scribe's desire to include Old Basford in its correct hundred, with its different ratio of ploughs to carucates, arguing that lands where ploughlands and carucates were equal were in a different hundred to that where the ploughlands exceeded the carucates. He says: ' In William Peverel's breve the land of Skuli is entered in the first section but was marked for deletion, only to be enrolled some twenty-seven entries later in the second hundred in which Old Basford lay'. This rather assumes that the deletion of the first occurrence of Old Basford preceded the inscription of it a second time. Roffe was not aware that scribe B was responsible for the added entry and the deletion. On the complexity of the relation of ploughlands to carucates and on the hundredal implications, if any, see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of this entry at all; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
	SKULI <OF BASFORD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Escul, Escule, Scula, Scule, Sclula, Escula - represent Old Danish Skuli: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 366. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Skuli and (here in Nottinghamshire, in error) Aswulf; these have now been standardized as Skuli. The Alecto edition has Skuli.
		The three references to Skuli in Domesday Nottinghamshire (10,23;52. 30,28) are to the same person; on the likelihood that they are duplicate entries, see 10,23 entry note.
	IN WILLIAM'S CHARGE. See 10,24 William's note.
10,24	[OLD] LENTON. Lenton was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,48. 10,19. The name Old Lenton has arisen in distinction to the adjacent and recent estate called New Lenton (SK5539).
	WULFNOTH <OF RADFORD>. Vnlof, explained as 'Olaf' in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 335; but in the next line called isd[em] Vlnod ('the same Wulfnoth'). Wulfnoth is also spelt Vlnof in Dorset (Liber Exoniensis, folio 60a), and in Kent the same person is given as Vnlot and Vlnot (KEN 5,158;167), see 9,84 Wulfheah note (JRM).
		On the name Wulfnoth, see 10,15 Wulfnoth note. The Alecto edition has 'Olaf ... the same Olaf'. However, in view of the closeness of the only two holdings in which Wulfnoth appears in this county (the other being Radford, 10,15), his being William Peverel's predecessor there too, the number of Englishmen who retained their land in this fief (NTT 10 William note), and the rarity of the Old Norse/Old Danish name Olafr/Olaf, it is very likely that Vnlof is a simple scribal error for Vlnod, as also probably in LIN C14 (Vnlof presbiter: a Wulfnoth (Vlnod') the priest occurs in C14 who must be the same man). See VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30; Fellows Jensen, ‘Domesday Tenants in Lincolnshire’, pp. 34-35. Instances like this indicate how difficult it is to link a Domesday form with a particular Saxon, Danish, Norman, Fleming or Breton name.
	NOW IN WILLIAM'S CHARGE. The Latin is in custodia Will[elm]i, custodia meaning 'guarding' or 'keeping'. The sense is that this is not part of William's own fief, but that he is looking after it for someone else. It is difficult to see why it was not included in NTT 30, the land of the king's thanes. It may be that Wulfnoth (probably the holder of 1 bovate of thaneland in 10,15: 10,15 Wulfnoth note), who was permitted to retain his 1066 estate, held it under the supervision of William Peverel, or William may have been acting as the king's agent or bailiff, farming the estate on the king's behalf; see Round, Geoffrey of Mandeville, appendix I pp. 297-98; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 228. For other instances in Nottinghamshire, see 10,23;32. In Derbyshire, William is also in charge of (custodit) several estates for the king; see DBY 1,29;32;35-32.
		It seems that William subsequently acquired this estate and gave it to Lenton Priory which he founded at some time before 1108 and gave to the monks of Cluny. That priory was explicitly said to have been founded on his lordship land (Book of Fees, p. 149) and it is not certain if the gift included the Jurisdiction of Newbound (10,19) that was also in [Old] Lenton. The gift of [Old]Lenton specifically excluded 4 mills. Other estates in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere were given by his tenants; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100. This grant was confirmed in 1121 by Henry I and he added a number of gifts and liberties, including a eight-day fair at the feast of St Martin: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no.1282.
	1 MILL, 10s; MEADOW, 10 ACRES; UNDERWOOD, 10 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s for the underwood is accusative, so it is likely that molin' and ac' are also accusative; see 1,1 fishery note, 5,9 mill note and 5,15 meadow note.
10,25	TOTON. This was a township of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	HEALFDENE. On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note. It is likely that William Peverel's predecessor in Nuthall (10,40) was the same person as his predecessor here; the estates are just over six miles apart.
		He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.
	WARNER <OF SHIRLAND>, WILLIAM'S MAN. In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, Robert son of Warner gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Thonethona [Toton]. He was probably the son of the Domesday tenant Warner.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Warneri[us], Warnerus, Garner[us], Warnari[us] - represent Old German Warinhari, Warinher etc., Old French Garnier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 247-48. The Alecto edition also has Warner.
		Warner, William's man, is also a subtenant of William Peverel in 10,35 and a Warner was his subtenant in DBY 7,5-6, probably all the same person. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 461, has six references to folio 276b (Derbyshire) when there are only two references to Warner there, perhaps because six places are named (including Shirland), though see 2,3 Robert note on her referencing policy and compare 11,3 Mauger note, 17,16 Robert note and DBY 10,4 Robert note. See also 15,10 Warner note.
	HALF A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. The Latin is ibi dim[idia] aecl[esi]a 7 p[res]b[ite]r. The dimidia ('half') could presumably govern the priest as well, being shorthand for ibi dimidia aecclesia et dimidius presbyter, since half-villagers occur in Domesday. This priest is, however, probably a whole one: the other half of the church is probably at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4) where no priest is mentioned; although there is an unmatched half church also at Barton-in-Fabis (13,1); see 13,1 church note.
	A SMALL WILLOW-BED. The Latin is paruu[m] salictu[m]; salictum is a collective noun from salix ('a willow') and meaning a 'willow-plantation', 'a wood of willows'. Willow wood was used among other things for the making of baskets, fences and wattles.
		These willows were probably adjacent to the 4 acres of willow-bed at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4): Toton had a Jurisdiction in Chilwell (10,26). Both will have lain on the fringes of the River Trent. These are the only occurrences of willow-beds in Domesday Book.
10,26	A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, Chilwell is a Jurisdiction of Toton (10,25). For the possibility that this entry is duplicated in the added entry at 13,5, see 13,5 entry note.
	CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to Chilwell, see 13,1;4-5, and for 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,1;4. 30,52.
		In a confirmation of King Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Norman de Montfaltrel gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Chilwella, presumably this estate, as well as in two other places, one in Derbyshire and one in Northamptonshire. No Domesday tenant is named, but this Norman may have been on the estate, or he may have acquired it after 1086.
	{{5}} 3 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .iii. above the .v. written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, which he then underlined for deletion. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. The Phillimore printed edition has '8 bovates', but the underlining shows that the .iii. was not to be added to the .v.; compare 10,33 bovates note. The first version of Domesday Explorer had '5 8 bovates'. On the possible significance of this correction, see 13,5 entry note.
10,27	STRELLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,28. 30,31.
	GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	GODWIN THE PRIEST. William's predecessor in Adbolton (10,56) was Godwin the priest and he is almost certainly the same as this man: these are the only occurrences of this person in this county and many Englishmen in William's fief retained their land (NTT 10 William note); see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 223, implies that both are William's tenants. She states that descent was to the Stredlegh family (named from Strelley) but does not say if Godwin was its progenitor. A plain Godwin was a subtenant of William at Costock (10,53). He may have been the same man, but the name was a very common one
		On the name Godwin, see 6,9 Godwin note.
10,28	THERE ALSO ^[STRELLEY]^. See 10,27 Strelley note.
	BRUN <OF STRELLEY>. The Domesday form of this name, Brun(us), represents Old English Brun, though in some cases it might represent Old Norse Brunn, Old Danish/Old Swedish Brun: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 209. JRM may have preferred the modern name Brown (the translation of the Old English word and the form used in the Phillimore printed translation), but the Domesday form corresponds to the Old English name and so it has been altered to that in the present edition. The Alecto edition has Brun.
		William Peverel's predecessor in Brinsley (10,31), about 5 miles from Strelley, was probably the same man.
	AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH> HOLDS. The Domesday form of Ambrose, Ambrosius, is the Latinization of the Greek adjective meaning 'immortal', 'divine', derived from the word for ambrosia, the food of the gods; Ambrose was a celebrated fourth-century church father and the Bishop of Milan. The Alecto edition has Ambrose.
		All the men called Ambrose in Domesday Book were tenants of William Peverel and so were almost certainly the same person: here and in 10,39, where he is described as William's man, and in BDF 22,1 (Tilsworth), BUK 16,8 and NTH 35,12-13;26. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 150, he was succeeded in the early twelfth century by two sisters, perhaps his daughters.
10,29	GREASLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 10,30.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.
10,30	THERE ALSO ^[GREASLEY]^. See 10,29 Greasley note.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.
	AELRIC <OF GREASLEY> HOLDS. On this name, see 2,3 Aelric note. It is likely that he was the same as William's subtenant in Brinsley (10,31), and might be the same as one of his predecessors in Bilborough (10,39), as a number of Englishmen retained some of their holdings in William Peverel's fief (NTT 10 William note), though he is not included in the list given in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30. The Aelric who was William's predecessor in Hargrave (NTH 35,15) might be the same person too. Brinsley and Greasley are only 2 ½ miles from each other and the estates centred on them could have been contiguous. Greasley and Bilborough are less than 4 miles from each other and Brinsley is less than 6 miles from Bilborough.
10,31	BRINSLEY. This was a settlement in Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	BRUN <OF STRELLEY>. On his name and probable identification, see 10,28 Brun note.
	AELRIC <OF GREASLEY> HAS. See 10,30 Alric note.
	UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note.
	VILLAGER WHO HAVE [HAS]. The Latin i. vill' habentes is either an error for habens; or else a figure, or an entry of bordarii, has been omitted (JRM).
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
10,32	EASTWOOD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
		The Domesday form is Estewic and later forms such as Estweit (1165 Pipe Roll) suggest derivation from Old English east and Old Norrse thveit ('east clearing'). The termination 'wood' appears much later as an alternative (Eastwait alias Eastwood, 1608); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 144.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 10,6 Ulfkil note.
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. On the space left by the main scribe of Great Domesday for the later completion of the plough estimate, see 9,112 land note and 1,59 land note.
	WILLLIAM HAS CHARGE [OF IT]. It is possible that Ulfkil had retained his land after 1066, but had now died, though the land had not been re-granted, or that William Peverel had been superimposed on Ulfkil; see 10,24 William's note.
10,33	NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,8. 10,62-63.
		At some time before 1108 William Peverel founded Lenton Priory on his Nottinghamshire land (10,24) and gave it 'to god and the church of Cluny'. Among his gifts, confirmed by Henry I, were 'what he had in Newthorpe', this formula indicating that he did not hold the whole vill; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 113 no. II, calendared in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 162 no. 1282; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 91; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 97, 100.
	GRIMKEL <OF NEWTHORPE>. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note. William Peverel was preceded on five holdings by a Grimkel (10,33;43;47;62), and a Grimkel was his tenant in 10,46. They were probably the same person, as the holdings in 10,33;62 were in Newthorpe and those in 10,43;46 were in Watnall. It looks as if he had lost his manors in Newthorpe, Kimberley (10,47) and Watnall (10,43), but had been made one of William's two subtenants in a Jurisdiction in Watnall (10,46). On the number of Englishmen holding land from William Peverel in this county, see NTT 10 William note.
	7 BOVATES. Scribe B interlined .ii. above the .v. written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, but as he did not underline that for deletion (as he did the original number of bovates in 10,26) he probably intended the number to be .vii. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note.
		It is interesting that in the other manor in Newthorpe in this fief (10,62), also held by Grimkel in 1066, waste and with land for ½ plough, 5 bovates are recorded; a further 2 bovates there are recorded at 10,63, which are also waste, though these are said to be an outlier of Kimberley (10,47) and there is land for 2 oxen. For the possibility that the entry at 10,62 is a duplicate of the present one, and that scribe B made a mistake by interlining the ii., see 10,62 Broxtowe note.
10,34	3M. See 3,4 2M note.
	BEESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	ALFHEAH <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Elfag, Aelfech, Aelfag, Alfah, Alfeg, Alfahc(us), Elfeg, Alfac, Alfag, Alfa, Aelfec, Aelfeth, Alfeih, Alfec, Alfega, Elfac - represent Old English Ælfheah: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 174. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for Old English Ælf- as it reflected more closely the spellings in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Ælfheah. For a misidentification of the form Alfa in 30,29, see 30,29 Alfheah note.
		William Peverel was also preceded by an Alfheah in Old Basford (10,51) and he had a predecessor of that name in South Normanton (DBY 7,4), probably the same man, as might be the Alfheah who had held Papplewick (30,29): Beeston, Old Basford and Papplewick are within 3-7 miles of each other and South Normanton is about 9 miles away.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 10,6 Ulfkil note.
	LAND FOR 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from iii to iiii, adding a new dot at the end. Probably at the same time he corrected the number of villagers and their ploughs. His source may have been unclear here (see 10,34 [***] note) or he had inadvertently taken the original figures from the details of another holding.
	17 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected an original xiiii to xvii by superimposing in a darker ink a large v over the first two minims; see 10,34 land note.
	9 PLOUGHS. In the same darker ink as he had used for his correction to the number of villagers the main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of ploughs from viii to viii, adding a new dot at the end; see 10,34 land note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space between Ibi and xx (with ti, the last two letters of viginti, '20', interlined above it). The reading in his source may have been unclear and he wanted to check it; if so, it was correct and so no alteration was necessary. See 10,34 land note.
10,35	WOLLATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 1,47.
	YOUNG WULFSI. On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note; see also 10,3 Wulfsi note.
	1 ½ CARUCATES. The Latin car' abbreviates carucata ('carucate'), not caruca ('plough') as it is translated in the Phillimore edtition and in the first version of Domesday Explorer. The presence of ad g[e]ld[um] ('taxable') proves that 'plough' is not meant, though the main scribe of Great Domesday usually added terrae after car' because of the possible ambiguity. The Alecto edition has '1 ½ carucates'.
	WARNER<OF SHIRLAND>, WILLIAM'S MAN. See 10,25 Warner note.
10,36	COSSALL. This was a chapelry of Wollaton Ancient Parish and, like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 13,12.
	AN OUTLIER. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).
10,37	BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 29,1. For the possibility that the entry added by the main scribe of Great Domesday among members of the royal manor of Mansfield (1,46) was a duplicate of the present entry, see 1,46 entry note.
	A JURISDICTION. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).
	6 BOVATES. See 1,46 bovates note.
10,38	'SUTTON [PASSEYS]'. This lost place lay in Wollaton Ancient Parish. The information given in Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 154, and in Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 377, and in Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 201, should now be rejected in favour of Cameron, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Sutton Passeys'. Cameron gives a detailed history and topography of the estate and suggests that its centre lay at SK544400.
		Like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35) 'Sutton Passeys' probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. The affix 'Passeys' comes from a later holder: John Passeys held Sutton' Passeys in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 314.
		For the probability that this entry was duplicated in an entry added after rubrication, see 30,55 entry note.
	A JURISDICTION. Presumably of Wollaton (10,35).
10,39	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	BILBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 1,50.
	AELRIC <OF GREASLEY>. On this name, see 2,3 Aelric note. On his possible identification, see 10,30 Aelric note.
	WULFSI [SON OF ?] SWEIN. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Vlsi. Suen. vii. bou' over erasure. He may have omitted filius before Suen (the suggestion of the printed Phillimore translation) or an 7 before it, making the T.R.E. holders Aelric, Wulfsi and Swein, though the marginal II M'. would then be an error for III M', unless two of the three men held jointly. His source may have been unclear. The Alecto edition has 'Wulfsige [and] Swein'.
		On the name Wulfsi, see 9,36 Wulfsi note, and compare 10,3 Wulfsi note.
	LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is for 7, not quite a full plough-team; see 1,6 ox note.
	AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH>, WILLIAM'S MAN. See 10,28 Ambrose note.
	4 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.
10,40	NUTHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 30,32.
	HEALFDENE. On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note. It is likely that William Peverel's predecessor in Toton (10,25) was the same person as his predecessor here; the estates are just over six miles apart.
		He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene and the other holding in Nuthall (30,32) was not held by Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.
10,41	BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 1,49. 28,3.
	5 ACRES ARE ATTACHED. The Latin appears to mean that there are in Broxtowe 5 acres that are attached to (that is, 'belong to') Nuthall; the two places are near to one another. For the awkwardness of the Latin here, see 10,21 attached note.
10,42	WATNALL. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. Watnall is represented by Watnall Cantelupe (SK5045) and Watnall Chaworth (SK5046). For other parts, see 10,43-46.
		The five entries for Watnall in this fief (10,42-46) amount to 2 carucates, of which 6 bovates are Jurisdictions (10,42;45-46). There is some disorder in the arrangement of the material which suggests that the main scribe of Great Domesday had some difficulty in separating these five estates from a schedule in which they were engrossed in an entry for the vill of Watnall. The first entry for Watnall (10,42) seems occasioned by the fact that it was a Jurisdiction of Nuthall (10,40) but this presumably led on to the inscription of the entries for Watnall which followed. The entry for the manor at 10,43 lacks population and a value, while that for the other manor (10,44) lacks all details apart from the T.R.E. holder and the taxable extent. There follows an estate (10,45) that is both in Watnall and a Jurisdiction of one of the manors of Watnall, presumably of the last to be entered (10,44). Finally comes another Jurisdiction in Watnall (10,46) this time of Bulwell. In the Phillimore printed edition this last Jurisdiction appears to have a plough estimate, ploughs, population, woodland pasture, a value and a statement that 'Jocelyn and Grimkel hold it', as these details are continuous with the statement 'Jurisdiction of Bulwell'. In the manuscript, however, these details begin on a separate line and they almost certainly do not relate to the Jurisdiction, but to the manor at 10,44. But there is a further possibility that these details also supply those missing from the other manor (10,43). It may be that T.R.E. there was one manor in Watnall, held by Grimkel and Siward, but that it was being treated as two in 1086 because one was a lordship manor of William Peverel and the other was held by Grimkel (presumably the same man) and Jocelyn as subtenants. If so, the scribe introduced two confusions: firstly by inserting the two Jurisdictions (10,45-46) in the middle of the details of the manor that he had begun at 10,44, and secondly in failing to divide the details of the single T.R.E. manor that had become two in 1086. It is even possible that the woodland pasture of 10,43 is duplicated by that at 10,46 (with a figure error of 2 for 3 or 3 for 2 in the width), and that a single quantity of woodland pasture (5 furlongs by 2 or 3 furlongs) should be divided between the two manors. For a parallel instance, see Hawton (14,1-3) where there are two manorial entries, a Jurisdiction and the value of the whole apparently given at the end; see 14,3 value note.
		Roffe (‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 11) attributes this unusual treatment to the fact that Bulwell and two parts of Watnall lay in three separate hundreds, but this seems improbable; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably, of Nuthall (10,40).
10,43	WATNALL. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. No value is given for this entry and no population. They may have been omitted, or the value at least may be included in the value statement at 10,46; see 10,42 Watnall note.
	GRIMKEL <OF NEWTHORPE>. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.
10,44	WATNALL. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. This entry lacks all details apart from the T.R.E. holder and the taxable extent. They may have been omitted, or the value at least may be included in the value statement at 10,46; see 10,42 Watnall note.
	SIWARD. On this name, see S5 Siward note.
10,45	THERE ALSO ^[WATNALL]^. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. This entry and and the first two sentences of 10,46, comprising the two Jurisdictions in Watnall, appear to interrupt the details of the manor begun at 10,44. The rest of 10,46, beginning with 'Land for 1 plough', is a continuation of the details of the manor of Watnall (10,44); see 10,42 Watnall note
	GRIM. On this name, see 9,62 Grim note.
	A JURISDICTION OF WATNALL. That is, this part of Watnall is a Jurisdiction of one of the manors of Watnall (10,43-44), probably of the last mentioned (10,44).
10,46	THERE ALSO ^[WATNALL]^. On this place, see 10,42 Watnall note. The first two sentences of this entry, like the whole of the previous one, appear to interrupt the details of the manor begun at 10,44. The rest of 10,46, beginning with 'Land for 1 plough', is a continuation of the details of the manor of Watnall (10,44); see 10,42 Watnall note.
	ALMER. On this name, see 9,70 Almer note. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire (the other is in 9,70), but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name-form representing two Old English names.
	A JURISDICTION OF BULWELL. That is, of William Peverel's manor there (10,66; on its addition, see 10,66 Bulwell note).
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH ... HOLD IT. These details do not belong to the present Jurisdiction, but appear to be a continuation of those for the manor of Watnall at 10,44 and possibly of those for the one at 10,43; see 10,42 Watnall note and compare 14,3 lands note.
	JOCELYN. The Domesday forms of this name - Gozelin[us], Godzelinus, Goscelinus - represent Old German Gautselin, Gauzlin, Goz(e)lin, Old French Goscelin, Gosselin, Jocelin, Joscelin, Joselin etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 128-29. Jocelyn, which also derives from these names (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition has Joscelin.
		In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Goscelin gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Watnall. He was probably William's tenant Jocelyn.
		In 1129 Watnall was held by Ralph son of Ingelran. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 237, suggests that he might have acquired it through marriage to a daughter and heiress of Jocelyn.
		The only other occurrence of the name Jocelyn in Domesday Nottinghamshire is as a tenant of Ralph of Buron (15,9).
	GRIMKEL <OF NEWTHORPE>. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.
10,47	KIMBERLEY. This was a chapelry of Greasley Ancient Parish. Like Greasley itself (10,29-30) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note. He might be the same person as William Peverel's predecessor in Barnstone (10,61), but it is about 16 miles from Kimberley, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Azur was a common name.
	GRIMKEL <OF NEWTHORPE>. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.
10,48	THERE ALSO ^[KIMBERLEY]^, IN AWSWORTH. Scribe B interlined In EldEVRDE above the IBIDE' written by the main scribe of Great Domesday. As he did not delete the latter, he probably intended the In Eldevrde to give a more specific name to what was part of the estate of Kimberley. The two are adjacent (at SK4944 and SK4844). The scribes of the Abbreviatio (folio 204v) and of the Breviate (folio 147r), however, assumed that this was a replacement name. Compare DBY 6,70 there note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note.
		Awsworth was a chapelry of Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 30,33. There is no reason to think that that is a duplicate of the present entry, pace Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 32, as the holders in 1066 and 1086 are different and there is no mention of the manor in 10,33 being waste.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.
	WILLIAM HAS CHARGE [OF IT]. See 10,24 William's note.
10,49	HUCKNALL. Hucknall Torkard was an Ancient Parish. Domesday Hochenale is represented by the adjacent settlements of Hucknall (SK5349) and Hucknall Torkard (SK5348). Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 (the entry for Hucknall at 15,4 is beneath a wapentake head) as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
		There is another Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, which was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-in-Ashfield. This Hucknall first occurs as Hodweit in 1199 and the addition Hokenhale, Hockenall is first found in the fourteenth century; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 119. This Hucknall (Hucknall-under-Huthwaite) is not related to the Domesday estate of Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard, but was presumably part of Sutton-in-Ashfield (1,23, part of Mansfield) in 1086.
10,50	MARGINAL S. The Phillimore printed translation has a marginal M, for Manerium ('manor') in error.
	HEMPSHILL. This was a settlement in Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 150.
	ITS JURISDICTION LIES IN BULWELL AND WATNALL. That is, in William Peverel's manors (10,66 and 10,43-44 respectively). On the addition of the entry for Bulwell, see 10,66 Bulwell note. It is unusual for jurisdiction to be split in this way, though a part of Watnall (10,46) was a Jurisdiction of Bulwell and another part of Watnall (10,45) was a Jurisdiction of Watnall itself. It is possible that Watnall and Bulwell themselves had been a unit and that when they split the units's jurisdiction was split also.
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'The jurisdiction... '. However, the Latin reads H' SOCA. The H' could be expanded to Haec (feminine nominative singular agreeing with soca) and would give a concrete sense to soca ('this Jurisdiction'). The use of iacet in with soca is unusual, but paralleled at 30,55: soca iacet in Ollauestone ('the jurisdiction lies in Wollaton') where soca appears to have an abstract sense and the genitive singular huius ('the jurisdiction of it') is implied. In the present entry the H' could stand for Huius and so the meaning would be abstract ('The jurisdiction of this land lies in ... '), being similar in meaning to 9,118: de quibus est soca in Sandebi ('whose jurisdiction is in Saundby') and 11,15: de qua soca pertinet ad Sudwelle ('Its jurisdiction belongs to Southwell'). The phrase iacet in ('lies in') is often equivalent to pertinet ('belongs to').
10,51	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;52. 30,28;34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.
		In a confirmation of Edward II to Lenton Priory, which includes what purports to be William Peverel's original charter (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 111 no. I; see 10,24 William's note), but which includes gifts that were perhaps made subsequently, a certain Saped gave two-thirds of the lordship tithes in Basford. Saped could be a mangled form of the name of the 1086 holder, Saxfrith. Robert son of Payne also gave the same in Basford; he is presumably the son of the 1086 holder Payne.
	ALFHEAH <OF NORMANTON>. On this name and probable identification, see 10,34 Alfheah note.
	ALGOT <OF BASFORD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Algod, Alcot, Algolt, Aelgotus, Algot(us) - represent Old Danish Algot: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 146, though he stated that derivation from Old German Adalgot etc. was theoreticially possible. The last three forms are of 1086 tenants. The Alecto edition has Algot for both T.R.E. and 1086 holders.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. The only other T.R.E. holder called Algot was a monk in WOR 8,6 and unlikely to have been the same individual as the Algot here..
	LAND FOR AS MANY PLOUGHS AND OXEN. That is, for two ploughs and three oxen; see 1,6 ox note.
	PAYNE <OF TETCHWICK>. The Domesday forms of this name - Pagan(us), Pagen - represent the medieval Latin word paganus, Old French paien, 'a heathen; rustic; child whose baptism has been put off': von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 343. The name occurs quite frequently in Domesday Book, mostly as that of a 1086 tenant, and it is unlikely that it had retained its original meaning. JRM decided to render it as the modern name Payne. The Alecto edition has Payne, Pain and, once, Paganus, irrespective of whether the person held in 1066 or 1086.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 321, he was the same person as William Peverel's subtenant in BUK 16,3 (Tetchwick). LEC 25,3 and NTH 35,8. Certainly it is likely that the Payne of LEC 25,3 and NTH 35,8 were the same as the Payne in this entry, as Saxfrith, Payne's co-tenant here, was also William's subtenant in LEC 25,5 and NTH 35,9-11.
	AND SAXFRITH <OF BASFORD>, WILLIAM'S MEN, HAVE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Sasfrid' above Pagen. Probably at the same time he corrected hôes Will'i h'nt over the erasure of an original (hō) Will'i h't ('William's man, has').
		On the probable identity of Saxfrith and his name, see 10,22 Saxfrith note.
	3 MILLS, 25s 4d; MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative, as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.
	UNDERWOOD. The Latin silua minuta is nominative, unlike the meadow acres, probably deliberately as the main scribe of Great Domesday regularly put the woodland (pasturable woodland and underwood) in a new sentence; see 1,1 fishery note. The Phillimore printed translation as usual includes it with the other resources and the Alecto edition has a comma before it.
10,52	THIS ENTRY was added by scribe B in a space left at the end of the previous entry (10,51) at the same time as several other additions; see 9,5 Clifton note. He may have been responsible for the deletion, by striking through, of the rubricated entry on the previous folio (10,23) which read 'There also [that is, in Old Basford] Skuli had 1 bovate of land taxable; it is now in William's charge': the deletion line is in the same darker ink as the present addition. On the possible reasons for this and for Roffe's view, see 10,23 entry note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including five other members of manors, see 1,12 bovates note.
		There is a further apparent duplicate of this information in another entry for Old Basford (30,28) where the main scribe interlined 'and Skuli [had] 1 bovate - it is waste', though there that holding and another one by Aelfric are designated as manors.
	THERE ALSO ^[[OLD] BASFORD]^. See 10,51 Basford note.
	SKULI. On this name, see 10,23 Skuli note.
10,53	COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. Costock later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,11. 15,5.
		For the probable grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. He was probably the father of Godric who had held another part of Costock (9,94) and who was probably holding it himself when it was granted soon after 1086 to St Cuthbert's of Durham; see 3,2 Normanton note. See also 10,55 Fredegis note.
		On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note.
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.
	GODWIN. It is not certain, in view of the commonness of this name, whether this is the same subtenant of Wiliam as Godwin the priest; see 10,27 Godwin note. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note
	2 VILLAGERS [HAVE] 1 PLOUGH AND MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The ac[ra]s is accusative plural and so must be the object of a verb such as habent ('have') which was omitted in error by the main scribe of Great Domesday here, but included for the virtually identical next entry (10,54). The Phillimore printed translation has '[who have]', but a main verb is needed in this sentence.
10,54	REMPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 15,6.
	FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note; see also 10,53 Fredegis note and 10,55 Fredegis note.
	LAND FOR 6 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.
10,55	2M. Only one T.R.E. holder, Fredegis, is recorded for Radcliffe-on-Trent, but the IIM' in the margin indicate that in 1066 there were two manors there; see 3,4 2M note. As William Peverel had two subtenants, Fredegis (almost certainly the same man as the T.R.E. holder) and Wulfgeat, it is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday or the scribe of a predecessor text omitted a second T.R.E. holder, possibly Wulfgeat. The alternative, unless the II is an error, would be that Fredegis held two estates in Radcliffe-on-Trent.
	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates that follow (10,55-61).
		JRM's note read: 'Radcliffe is listed in Bingham (11,33), Holme Pierrepont (9,80) in Rushcliffe; Adbolton (10,12;56) therefore seems equally divided between the wapentakes as was Willoughby; 16,5 Willoughby note.' On the division of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,90 Broxtowe note and 16,5 Willoughby note. For a discussion of Adbolton, see 10,12 Adbolton note.
	RADCLIFFE[-ON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,33. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.
	FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note. Unusually, Fredegis appears to have held Radcliffe-on-Trent both in 1066 and 1086. A man of this name had also held Costock (10,53) and Rempstone (10,54) in 1066 and a Fredegis held Tithby (10,57) in 1086; on the probability that he was the father of Godric, see 10,53 Fredegis note. This may represent some attempt at reduction and re-allocation of a holding; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30.
	WULFGEAT <OF RADCLIFFE>. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. It is possible that he is the same as William Peverel's predecessor in Manton (10,64) and that, like Fredegis, he continued to hold in 1086, albeit not his original land. The only other occurrence of a Wulfgeat holding in 1066 and also in 1086 in this county is in 30,1, the land of the king's thanes, and he may be the same person as William's predecessor and subtenant. On the re-allocation of lands of Englishmen, see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30, though Stenton did not include in his list the Wulfgeat who had held Manton.
	UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note.
	MEADOW, 18 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	THE SITE OF HALF A FISHERY AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 FISHERY. The Latin is sed[em] piscar[iae] dimidiae 7 t[er]cia[m] part[em] uni[us] piscar[iae], showing that the third part of the fishery exists and is not merely a site. There was half a fishery at Colwick (10,1) on the other side of the River Trent. On the accusative cases, see 1,1 fishery note.
10,56	ADBOLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It apparently lay in BinghamWapentake in 1086 (here it is in a sequence of places in that wapentake) as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, possibly a duplicate, see 10,12. This possible duplication was not realized in the Phillimore printed edition which places that part of Adbolton in Rushcliffe Wapentake. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.
	GODWIN THE PRIEST. This Godwin the priest may be the same as the 1086 holder of Strelley; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 229-30; and 10,27 Godwin note. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	MEADOW, 7 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
10,57	TITHBY. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Tithby with Cropwell Butler. Tithby probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,13.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. William Peverel had three predecessors called Wulfric (10,57-58;65), possibly the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name.
	THREE PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had probably written t'ciā partē ('third part') and scribe B erased the 'ciā and the abbreviation sign above the e of parte, then wrote res after the remaining t (he had accidentally erased the foot of the t, so had to overwrite it) and added an s to parte to make 'parts'. Compare 9,124 parts note and 4,7 part note. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, see 1,12 bovates note. No other parts of a bovate for Tithby are recorded.
		In the Alecto facsimile the tres appears as tref, that is, with a bar through the long s, though the Ordnance Survey facsimile reads tres. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *] HOLDS IT. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note; see also 10,53 Fredegis note and 10,55 Fredegis note.
	UNDER WILLIAM. On the use of Latin sub, see 3,4 under note.
10,58	WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,60. 11,29;32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 10,57 Wulfric note.
10,59	LANGAR. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,28.
	GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	2 MILLS, 5s; MEADOW, 50 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative, as may be molin'; see 1,1 fishery note and 5,9 mill note.
	1 FREEMAN. The Latin is francus homo; see 6,1 freemen note.
10,60	WIVERTON. Administratively, the area known as Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58. 11,29;32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).
	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Langar (10,59). The manor of Wiverton occurs in the entry before that (10,58).
	3 ½ BOVATES. The iii was written partly over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday: he seems to have originally written iii, then erased the first two minim before adding ithem back again and interlining es (the last two letters of tres, '3') in clarification.
10,61	BARNSTONE. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,27.
	GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note; see also 10,47 Azur note.
	HAD A HALL EACH. This emphasizes that there were two separate manors here in 1066, though the marginal M' does not record this; see 9,20 hall note.
	EACH HAD. The possession of identical amounts by Godric and Azur suggests that they might be brothers with an equal share in their inheritance.
10,62	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is supplied from evidence of the location of Newthorpe (10,62). Places in Broxtowe Wapentake have already been entered (10,15-54), but material for these two entries (10,62-63) must have been found after the bulk of estates in Broxtowe Wapentake had been inscribed. However, they are not later additions to the text, unlike entries 10,64-66.
		It is possible that this entry is a duplicate of 10,33, also a manor which had likewise been held by Grimkel, had land for ½ plough and was waste in 1086, and which before the interlineation of .ii. by scribe B (10,33 bovates note) was also assessed at 5 bovates. The main scribe of Great Domesday may thus have discovered this entry with its associated holding of 2 bovates (10,63) which were an outlier of Kimberley (10,47) and thought he had not included either the manor or the 2 bovates there. Scribe B might then have 'corrected' the 5 bovates in 10,33, not realizing that the extra 2 bovates in Newthorpe were an outlier, not a manor.
	NEWTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Greasley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,8. 10,33;63. For the possibility that the entry at 10,33 is a duplicate of the present one, see 10,62 Broxtowe note.
	GRIMKEL<OF NEWTHORPE>. On this name, see 9,45 Grimkel note; see also 10,33 Grimkel note.
10,63	THERE ALSO ^[NEWTHORPE]^. See 10,62 Newthorpe note and 10,62 Broxtowe note.
	AN OUTLIER OF KIMBERLEY. That is, Newthorpe is an outlier of William Peverel's manor of Kimberley (10,47).
	BOTH WASTE. This refers to the two parts of Newthorpe (10,62-63).
10,64	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (10,65-66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on folio 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. However, these entries may have been added even later as they contain formulae (such as 'as n manor(s)', 'is' in the plough estimate, '1 plough there', and in the value statements) that are not found elsewhere in this county or in circuit VI, except in added entries, but in circuits written subsequently; they also lack the marginal M' (IIM' in the case of 10,64 and IIIM' in the case of 10,65), as often happened with added entries. These are features of some other added entries, especially those that were never rubricated, and suggests that the main scribe returned to work on a county long after it and others in its circuit had been completed. In Nottinghamshire such entries with these 'unusual' formulae are 2,3. 5,6;12. 10,64-66. 12,12;23. 13,12-13. 16,12. 20,8. 30,13.
		The main scribe failed to indicate that the first manor was in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and that the second and third were in Broxtowe Wapentake, though this is a failing in all but a few of the entries he added after rubrication (LEC 1,12 entry note).
	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Manton (10,64). It would be expected that a place or places in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake would have been entered after those in Newark Wapentake, at the beginning of the fief, which is largely in the standard wapentake order for this county. However, at the very beginning of the fief, the wapentakes are confused and it would also have been easy for the scribe to have missed this single estate in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.
	MANTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert. Like Worksop itself (9,43) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and is probably counted among its unnamed members in later documents; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 107.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note; see also 10,22 Alwin note.
	WULFGEAT <OF RADCLIFFE>. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note; see also 10,55 Wulfgeat note.
	AS 2 MANORS. This phrase takes the place of an expected marginal IIM'; see 10,64 entry note. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (as here also in 20,8 and 30,55), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	THE VALUE WAS AND IS. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (it also appears in this county in 13,13), but is regularly found in the other circuits, especially circuit II, probably the last one to be written up. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note. Compare 5,6 formerly note and 2,3 value note.
10,65	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the previous one (10,64) and the next one (10,66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on folio 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. Some of the formulae found in them are not found elsewhere in circuit VI; see 10,64 entry note and 5,6 formerly note.
	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This and the following place (Bulwell, 10,66) were presumably found as the result of a check. Places in Broxtowe Wapentake had already been entered (10,15-54;62).
	SELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	WULFMER. On other possible holdings of Wulfmer in Nottinghamshire and on his name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note.
	GLADWIN <OF WYSALL>. He is probably the same as William Peverel's predecessor in 10,16, and might be the same as Roger of Bully's predecessor in Wysall (9,90) in view of the comparative rarity of this name in Domesday Book. On the form of this name, see 9,90 Gladwin note.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 10,57 Wulfric note.
	AS 3 MANORS. This takes the place of an expected marginal IIIM'; see 10,64 entry note. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries, but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday included ç (est, 'is') in the plough estimate in this added entry, as he also did in the entry for Ranskill (5,12) that he added on folio 283b. These are the only occurrences of the verb in this formula in Domesday Nottinghamshire; see 5,12 plough note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY 8s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
10,66	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the two previous ones (10,64-65) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a large space left by him at the end of William Peverel's fief on folio 288b. He did not keep exactly to the scored lines, managing to get eight lines of writing onto seven ruled lines. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. Some of the formulae found in them are not found elsewhere in circuit VI; see 10,64 entry note and 5,6 formerly note. See 10,66 Bulwell note.
	BULWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. Geographically it must have lain in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 234, it is listed as Ancient Demesne, though there is no royal connection evidenced in 1086; it probably came into the king's hands by the escheat of the honour of Peverel.
		Bulwell had already been referred to twice earlier in William Peverel's fief as having the jurisdiction over land in Watnall and Hempshill (10,46;50), but the manor itself had not been described; this addition rectifies the omission (compare DBY 6,101 entry note).
	GODRIC. See 10,1 Godric note, and on this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	AS A MANOR. This takes the place of the marginal M' and is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 5,6. 12,12. 16,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	1 PLOUGH THERE. This formula is only found here in Nottinghamshire, but compare the similar formula in two other added unrubricated entries (13,12. 16,12) and 5,6 plough note and 30,10 ploughs note. It does not occur anywhere else in circuit VI, though it is common in circuits written up later. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY 12s; VALUE NOW 5s. On this formula, not found in circuit VI, except in added unrubricated entries, see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FOR A MISPLACED ENTRY after the entry for Bulwell in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation, see 11,25 Flintham note.
11	THIS FIEF was misnumbered X by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see NTT 7 fief note.
	LAND OF WALTER OF AINCOURT. He probably came from Ancourt, in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Offranville (Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 2), rather than from Aincourt, formerly in the French département of Seine-et-Oise, arrondissement Mantes, canton Magny, now in that of Val-d'Oise, arrondissement Pontoise, canton Magny-en-Vexin (see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 66). He was ancestor of the family of Deyncourt. His successor was his son Ralph who founded Thurgarton Priory in Nottinghamshire. See Sanders, English Baronies, p. 15; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 448. On the name Walter, see S5 Walter note.
	The lands in this fief are entered in wapentakal groups in standard county order. However, wapentake heads have to be supplied throughout the chapter.
		11,1-7 [Newark Wapentake]
		11,8-9 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		11,10-21 [Thurgarton Wapentake] Entry 11,12 is interrupted by an addition (11,13) in Bingham Wapentake.
		11,22-33 [Bingham Wapentake].
11,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors which follow (11,1-7).
	FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233 For other parts, see 9,2. 11,3;5.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.
11,2	STAUNTON[-IN-THE-VALE]. Staunton was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Staunton with Flawborough. It is called Staunton-in-the-Vale (of Belvoir) to distinguish it from Staunton-on-the-Wolds; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 217. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 1,53.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Tori, Thori, Turi(us), Thuri, Thure - represent Old Norse /Old Danish Thorir: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 393. JRM preferred Thori as the Domesday forms lack a final r. However, in the Phillimore printed translations for YKS and LIN the form Thorir appears and for SFK the form Thuri: these have now been standardized as Thori. The Alecto edition has Thorir.
		This name only occurs in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a predecessor of Walter of Aincourt (11,2;4;6;8-9;11;18;20;22;24-25); a Thori was also his predecessor in some of his estates in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Northamptonshire. No documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them, but it is likely that they were the same man.
11,3	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. The three lands which follow were all in the same wapentake (Newark Wapentake) as Staunton[-in-the-Vale] (11,2).
	ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in NewarkWapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 20,2. 22,1.
	FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 11,1;5.
	'DALLINGTON'. This lost place lay in Flawborough Ancient Parish and apparently formed the lower part of Flawborough itself at approximately SK778429; see Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, iii. p. 116; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 214; Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 200.
	MAUGER HOLDS IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Malger(us), Malgerius - represent Old French Maugier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 184. However, Dauzat (Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Mauger) suggested a Germanic origin: Amal-gari, with loss of the initial letter. The Alecto edition has Mauger.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Walter of Aincourt has no other tenants called Mauger. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 294, citing Foulds, Thurgarton Cartulary, pp. xliii, xlvii-xlviii, he was probably the ancestor of Geoffrey of Staunton (named from Staunton-in-the-Vale manor, 11,2) and Thomas of Rolleston. She has three references to folio 288c, but there is only one mention of Mauger there, though the jurisdiction of Staunton lay in three places; on her referencing policy, see 2,3 Robert note and compare 15,10 Warner note and 17,16 Robert note.
11,4	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	COTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,4. 7,1.
		For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note. Walter of Aincourt was preceded four times by a Swein (11,4;12;14;33), as also in DBY 8,4, and once by a Young Swein (11,10, who was also his predecessor in DBY 8,1;3;5-6); it is hard to prove, in the absence of documentary evidence, whether any or all of them referred to the same person, as Swein was a very common name.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted this church to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded; see 11,12 Thurgarton note.
11,5	A JURISDICTION. This makes this part of Flawborough a Jurisdiction of Cotham (11,4).
	FLAWBOROUGH. This was a chapelry of Staunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233 For other parts, see 9,2. 11,1;3.
	MEADOW, 24 ACRES. This information is given twice. It is possible that the first occurrence is in error, the only meadow in Flawborough being held by the 5 Freemen. However, Domesday Geography of Northern England, p. 260, hesitantly treats this holding as having 48 acres of meadow.
11,6	[EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 20,3. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	OSBERT <OF STOKE> HOLDS IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Osb[er]t(us), Oseb[er]t[us] - represent either Old English Osbeorht or Old German Osbert: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 388. The Old German form is more likely for the 1086 holders, who are more frequent than the T.R.E. ones. The Alecto edition has Osbert mostly, though Osbeorht for YKS C36. Sometimes there was scribal confusion between the forms Osbertus and Osbernus (Osbern). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Walter of Aincourt has no other tenants with this name.
11,7	HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 14,1-3.
		The marginal S[oca] suggests that Hawton was a Jurisdiction of East Stoke (11,6).
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, possibly in case he found another Jurisdiction of East Stoke or, even less likely, to mark the end of the account of that estate and its dependency, but as the next entry was in 'Lythe' Wapentake (whereas all the entries up to there were in Newark Wapentake) he may have left it for the later insertion of the wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
11,8	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Hockerton and Knapthorne (11,8-9).
	HOCKERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,17. 9,60.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	MEADOW, 16 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
11,9	KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 12,7;22. 30,3.
		For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
11,10	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the places that follow (11,11-12;14-21). On the added entry at 11,13, see 11,13 entry note.
	BULCOTE. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Burton Joyce. Like Burton Joyce itself (9,75. 12,18) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	YOUNG SWEIN. On the name Swein, see S5 Swein note. Cilt means a young man of noble birth, translated by plain 'young' or 'child' in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has Cild. Some or all of Walter of Aincourt's predecessors called simply Swein may be the same as Young Swein; see 11,4 Swein note.
	2 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.
11,11	OXTON. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written OXETVNE, but then after he had rubricated it he drew a wavy line under all of it except the initial O and then interlined STVNE in correction: Oxton was spelt Ostone in 5,11 and 9,76. This correction was done using a paler ink than he had used for the original place-name and at the same time he added the entry for Tithby in the foot margin (11,13 entry note) and made other corrections and additions; see 9,93 entry note. In the Alecto facsimile the deletion line is not visible under the X of the original place-name and it is not visible at all in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
		This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,11. 9,76.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative, after '1 smallholder who has'. The Phillimore printed translation does not indicate this, but puts the meadow in a separate sentence; the Alecto edition has a comma before it. See 1,2 meadow note.
11,12	THURGARTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it must have lain in 1086. It was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, on the advice of Archbishop Thurstan of York (1119-1140) granted to the church of St Peter of Thurgarton at some time after 1119 but probably before 1133 the churches of his lordship lands at Granby (11,26) and Cotham (11,4), as well as a mill on the River Greet and four bovates of land: the Thurgarton Cartulary (Foulds, p. 567 no. 988). This seems to have been the first step that led to the founding of the Augustinian priory of Thurgarton. There are signs, however, that the conventual life actually began at Fiskerton. It was Ralph of Aincourt (Deyncourt) who between 1140 and 1149 really founded the priory. In the so-called second foundation charter (the Thurgarton Cartulary: Foulds, pp. 3-4 no. 1) he gave Thurgarton (11,12), Fiskerton (presumably the manor,11,20, rather than the Jurisdictions and possible alienations of 11,15;21, or perhaps all), the park next to Thurgarton and all the churches of his lands named as at Granby (11,26), Cotham (11,4), Swayfield (LIN 7,41?, possibly a post-1086 acquisition), Potter Hanworth (LIN 31,17), Scopwick (LIN 31,14), Kirkby Green (LIN 31,14), Branston (LIN 31,11), Blankney (LIN 31,16), Elmton (DBY 8,5) and Upper Langwith (presumably part of Elmton (DBY 8,5) or of Stony Houghton (DBY 8,6)). A number of these churches are not recorded in Domesday, but the list does not include all the churches that Domesday does mention on Walter's lands. See Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 191; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 144, 176; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 230, ii. p. 120; Foulds, Thurgarton Cartulary, pp. xviii-xxi.
	'HORSEPOOL'. This is a lost place in Thurgarton Ancient Parish. It apparently lay at SK706478, but is not found on Ordnance Survey maps; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 273 note 2; Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 178; Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 200. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.
11,13	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 288c below the last ruled horizontal line, interrupting the entry for Thurgarton (11,12). He did not include any transposition signs for this brief entry for Tithby, but seems to have tried to link it with the text above by deliberately extending upwards the I of In (already exceptionally tall) and giving it a hook; see 9,47 entry note and 23,2 entry note and compare WOR 8,25 entry note. As places in this county were generally arranged by wapentake and as those in Bingham Wapentake (in which Tithby lay) had been entered on 288d, the reason for his adding this entry with those in Thurgarton Wapentake is likely to have been its association with the previous entry. However, the link with the manor of Thurgarton is not specified. As regularly with dependent land, and anyway with entries added after rubrication, he did not include a head for Bingham Wapentake above it. He wrote this entry at the same time as the unrubricated entry for Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,93), also in the foot margin and whose status is similarly missing, and as several other corrections and additions; see 9,93 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this entry appears in the middle of the entry for Thurgarton (11,12) before its population, which is misleading.
	TITHBY. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as Tithby with Cropwell Butler. Tithby probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 10,57.
11,14	HOVERINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.
11,15	FISKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,20-21.
		Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted 'Fiskerton' to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded. It is most likely that he granted the manor (11,20), rather than the Jurisdictions and possible alienations (11,15;21); see 11,12 Thurgarton note.
	ITS JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That is, to the collegiate church of Southwell, held under the Archbishop of York (5,1) of which two-thirds of Fiskerton had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 Southwell note and 5,1 outliers note. The jurisdictional tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church and this is borne out by the absence of a T.R.E. holder, which suggests that the Southwell church had held it under the archbishop in 1066. There were several estates in this fief that had apparently been drawn out of the lands of Southwell church (11,15-17;21). Of the others Morton (11,16) appears to have originally been given in its entirety with Southwell. Farnsfield (11,17) may also have been alienated, while the king's portion (1,22) had perhaps been the part that never formed part of the grant. A further part of Fiskerton (11,21) looks like an alienation.
11,16	MORTON. This was one of several places called Morton in Nottinghamshire. It was a chapelry of Southwell Ancient Parish and was abolished for civil purposes in 1884 to help create the Civil Parish of Fiskerton-cum-Morton and abolished ecclesiastically in 1886 to help form the Ecclesiastical Parish of Rolleston-with-Morton. Like Southwell itself (5,1) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 13,13.
	WHOSE JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. See 11,15 Southwell note.
11,17	FARNSFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another reference to Farnsfield, see 1,22.
	IN THE JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. See 11,15 Southwell note.
	THE OTHER [IN THE JURISDICTION] OF THE KING. That is, of the royal holding at Farnsfield (1,22), the entry for which states that in Farnsfield the king has 1 bovate of land taxable near Nottingham. The royal estate at Farnsfield may not have been granted to the Archbishop of York with the other part; see 5,1 outliers note.
	HUNDRED OF SOUTHWELL. This and the hundreds of Blidworth and Plumtree (18,7. 24,1) may be survivals of small hundreds (S1 hundreds note) (JRM). At least a part of Farnsfield had been an outlier of the manor of Southwell (5,1) and from this entry it would apppear that both parts (1,22. 5,1) were in its hundred; see 5,1 Southwell note and {Introduction: Small Hundreds}. For Roffe (‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 8), this hundred is mentioned exceptionally because royal land did not 'participate in the system'. He appears to see the sense as being 'the other bovate is the king's, but despite the fact that royal land is not assigned to hundreds, this piece is, to the hundred of Southwell'. However, it is possible that the contrast is not between this piece of royal land and other royal land outside the hundredal system, but with the other bovate of Farnsfield which is in the soke of Southwell. Thus the emphasis is 'one bovate is a Jurisdiction of Southwell, but the other is not; it is a Jurisdiction of the king. However, both are in the hundred of Southwell, which, apart from this royal bovate, otherwise consists entirely of land held by the Archbishop of York'. There is no reason to think that these 'small hundreds' took account of tenure; they are more a product of carucation: see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}. There is probably no suggestion of irregularity here, since not all of Farnsfield was given to the Archbishop of York with Southwell, and the king's holding may represent the portion that remained ouside the grant; see 5,1 Southwell note.
		For VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 218-19, the manor of Southwell and the hundred of Southwell were the same. However, although these hundreds are sometimes casually called 12-carucate hundreds, the information does not exist to reconstruct them in Nottinghamshire. In the case of Leicestershire where there is good later evidence, they were larger.
11,18	ROLLESTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,6. 7,5.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
11,19	A JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Rolleston (11,18). Kelham was in a different wapentake ('Lythe' Wapentake) to Rolleston (Thurgarton Wapentake).
	KELHAM. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote all but the C of Calun over an erasure, presumably of a longer place-name as it is well-spaced.
		This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 15,3. 18,4. 30,45.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 9,59 and 15,3 and there are 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45.
	50 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used as a linear measure as in other parts of Kelham; see 1,34 virgates note.
11,20	FISKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,15;21.
		It is possible that this estate had formerly been part of the archiepiscopal manor of Southwell (5,1), although Fiskerton was not given in its entirety to the archbishop in 956 and it seems probable that this manor is the part which at that time was retained by the king.. See 5,1 Southwell note and 5,1 outliers note.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	1 FISHERY; 1 FERRY. These resources are also found at Southwell (5,1). Since part of Fiskerton was part of Southwell, it is possible that the fisheries and ferries were near to each other. Both no doubt were on the River Trent; see 5,1 ferry note. There is still a ferry at Fiskerton (at SK7451).
11,21	FISKERTON. This was a township of Rolleston Ancient Parish. Like Rolleston itself it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,15;20.
		Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted 'Fiskerton' to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded. It is most likely that he granted the manor (11,20), rather than the Jurisdictions and possible alienations (11,15;21); see 11,12 Thurgarton note.
	THE ARCHBISHOP ^[OF YORK]^ HAS ITS JURISDICTION. It is likely that this estate had formerly been part of the archiepiscopal manor of Southwell (5,1) and been alienated from it after 1066 like 11,15-17 whose format it shares; see 5,1 outliers note and 11,15 Southwell note.
11,22	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates listed in 11,22-33.
	ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 17,18. 20,6. 30,37.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	WALKELIN <OF ASLOCKTON>, WALTER'S MAN. The Domesday forms - Walcelin, Walkelinus, Walchelinus - represent a Norman French diminutive form of Old German Walho or Walico: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 239. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Walkelin and Walchelin; these have now been standardized as Walkelin. The Alecto edition has Walkelin.
		Walter of Aincourt's subtenant Walkelin in 11,24 is almost certainly the same man; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. On his possible successors, see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 445.
	1 ½ PLOUGHS. See 20,6 oxen note.
	MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
11,23	HAWKSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 17,17.
	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably, of Aslockton (11,22).
11,24	[CAR] COLSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,56. 9,107.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	2 ½ BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of whole bovates from .i. by adding a second minim over the first punctus and then adding a new one.
	WALKELIN <OF ASLOCKTON>. He is probably the same as Walter's man in 11,22; On this name, see 11,22 Walkelin note.
11,25	FLINTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,61. 9,108-109.
		For some infathomable reason most of this entry appears in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation after that for Bulwell (10,66, the last entry in William Peverel's fief) with the rest (the dimensions of the underwood and the value) after the entry for Car Colston (10,24). This is very misleading. It appears in its correct place in the Alecto county edition.
	THORI <OF STAUNTON>. On his possible identity and his name, see 11,2 Thori note.
	REGINALD <OF FLINTHAM>, WALTER'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this subtenant - Rainaldus, Renoldus, Raynold[us], Reinaldus - represent Old German Raginald, Reginald, Rainald etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 208. Although the majority form, Rainaldus, suggests that in 1086 the person was called by the Old French Rainald, JRM preferred the name Reginald, as it has survived into modern times. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Reginald, Rainald and Reynold; these have now been standardized as Reginald. The Alecto edition has Reginald, except for the present entry, where it has Reynold.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but Walter of Aincourt's man Reginald also occurs in LIN 31,3;5 and is almost certainly the same person.
	MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined ii above the original ii in correction, making them bolder.
11,26	GRANBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 27,1.
		This was the most valuable of Walter of Aincourt's manors and he seems to have held the whole vill; see 27,2 Colston note. In the so-called Shire Customs (S5) he is listed as having full jurisdiction and market-rights over this manor and Morton (11,16). After 1086, Walter granted the tithes of Cotham, Knapthorpe, Thurgarton, Granby and Hickling (11,4;9;12;26;30) and of Blankney (LIN 31,16) and Potter Hanworth (LIN 31,17) as well as the church of Belton (LIN 31,1) to St Mary's Abbey of York: Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 549; Foulds, Thurgarton Cartulary, p. xx; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 230. Granby descended in his family, being held as Granby et Sotton or Graneby et Sutton, that is Granby and Sutton [SK7637], by Edmund Deyncurt or de Eynecourt in 1284-85 and 1302-2 (Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 91, 101).
		In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as GRANESI, not the clearly-written GRANEBI of the manuscript. On the problems apparently caused in that facsimile by the red ink applied over letters, see 5,3 Hickling note. It appears more clearly as GRANEBI in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, perhaps because the rubrication was carried out as a separate exercise.
	HEMMING <OF GRANBY>. The Domesday forms of his name - Haminc, Haming, Haming[us], Haiminc - represent Old Danish Hem(m)ing, Old Norse Hem(m)ingr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 288-89. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Hemming, Heming and Hemingr; these have now been standardized as Hemming. The Alecto edition has Hemming.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but he is almost certainly the same as Walter of Aincourt's predecessor in Lincolnshire (LIN 31,11;16), who enjoyed full jurisdiction and market rights there in 1066 (LIN T5).
	TAXABLE. There is a space between ad and gld', probably because the main scribe of Great Domesday could not write on the raised edge of what seems to be scar-tissue in the parchment here; he left smaller spaces before the iiii of the lordship ploughs and after the car'. in the villagers' ploughs in the next two lines. He avoided this area when he later added the entry for Cossall (13,12) on the verso. Similar imperfections in the parchment of this folio appear in the entry for Langar (11,28).
	A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. Walter's son, Ralph of Aincourt, granted this church to the Abbey of Thurgarton which he founded; see 11,12 Thurgarton note.
11,27	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, of Granby (11,27).
	BARNSTONE. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 10,61.
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. The Latin is ii boues arantes. This last word is a participle and is scarcely likely to be used as an otiose adjective ('2 ploughing oxen') as in the Phillimore printed translation. The sense is that the men have two ploughs and a quarter of a plough which is in use. The other six oxen required to make a team (1,6 ox note) are no doubt those given under Langar (11,28) which is adjacent to Barnstone. The phrase, however, seems to add nothing substantial to the commoner phrase 'x ploughs and y oxen', and appears to be equivalent to the sentence habet .ii. boues in caruca ('he has 2 oxen in a plough') as at 30,37 and to the phrase arantes .ii. bobus ('who plough with 2 oxen') at 21,1.
11,28	LANGAR. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Langar-cum-Barnstone. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 10,59.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).
	6 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.
	HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the dimid' over the parchment imperfection described in 11,26 tacable note.
	MEADOW, 13 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, here in error; see 1,1 fishery note.
11,29	WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,32. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note. The two oxen ploughing here are presumably to be associated with the two oxen, not specifically said to be ploughing, at Wiverton (10,60). The odd half-plough remaining may be at Tithby (10,57), but, to be certain, a complete study of all the ploughs in the wapentake would be needed.
11,30	HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,3. 20,8, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).
		For a grant of tithes from here by Walter of Aincourt to St Mary's of York, see 11,26 Granby note.
11,31	KINOULTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 30,38 and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note.
		The present village of Kinoulton (at SK662304) is not the earlier site which is the deserted 'Old Kinoulton' at SK676306.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Granby (11,26).
		In the manuscript this place-name is written clearly as Chineltune, but in the Alecto facsimile and, to a lesser extent, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it appears as Chinebtune. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	7 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note and compare 9,114 oxen note. There were three oxen ploughing at another part of Kinoulton (30,38) and 2 oxen at Hickling and Cropwell Bishop (5,3), making 1½ ploughs, but a complete plough is elusive.
11,32	CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake head above another part at 16,6) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 16,6. 20,7.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this and Wiverton were Jurisdictions, presumably of Granby (11,26).
		This Cropwell is clearly different to Cropwell Bishop (5,3) though close to it. In Feudal Aids, iv. p. 91, Crophill Botiller was held with Kinoulton (11,31) by Edmund, the king's brother.
	WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,29. 27,2. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).
11,33	RADCLIFFE[-ON-TRENT]. In the manuscript there is a tear or cut in the parchment of folio 289 that has been patched on the recto, round which the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the last line of the previous entry (11,32) and the first three lines of this entry, splitting this place-name after RA. The other side of this defect can be seen within the entry for a Jurisdiction of Hawton (14,3). Farley indicated this in both entries, except that he left no space in RADECLIVE itself. Compare 6,15 hole note.
		This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 10,55. For the difficulty of allocating this and adjacent estates to the correct 1086 wapentake, see 10,12 Adbolton note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 11,4 Swein note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the remaining 19 lines of the column blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Walter of Aincourt, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
12	LAND OF GEOFFREY ALSELIN. His principal estate was at Laxton (12,1). By the thirteenth century his lands formed the barony of Shelford (named from the Domesday estate, NTT 12,19) divided between the families of Everingham and Bardolf; the portion of the barony held by the Everingham family was sometimes known as the barony of Everingham. This division appears to date from the reign of King Henry I when the lands were split between Ralph Hanselin, presumably his son, and Robert de Caux (or Calz) (probably from La Chaux in the French département of Orne, arrondissement Alençon, canton Carrouges); see Sanders, English Baronies, p. 76. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 224, Ralph de Caux was the son of Geoffrey's brother. Some of Geoffrey's successors, who took the surname Halselin(us) or Hanselin(us) occasionally appear in documents as de Halselin, de Hanselin, but this is presumably because the name looks like that of a place; it seems that Alselin, Alselinus is not a toponym, but a patronymic: Old German and Old French Alselin (Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 213). See VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 231.
		On the name Geoffrey, see B13 Geoffrey note. In the Phillimore printed edition Geoffrey is called Geoffrey of Alselin in DBY 9 chapter heading and in LEC 28,1, despite the form being plain Alselin in both instances with no de before it.
	The estates in this fief are entered in wapentakal groups in standard county order, apart from the final two entries which were later additions. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied.
		12,1-10 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		12,11-15 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		12,16-18 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		12,19-21 [Bingham Wapentake]
		(Entries 12,22-23 - in 'Lythe' Wapentake - are later additions.)
12,1	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Laxton (12,1).
	LAXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
		This large multiple estate consisted of a head manor (Laxton) and nine Jurisdictions (12,2-10). The first group of these (12,2-6) lay, like Laxton itself, in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; the other group (12,7-10) were in 'Lythe' Wapentake. Six of these dependencies (Beesthorpe, Carlton-on-Trent, Eakring, Kirton, Ompton and Willoughby) were shared with Mansfield (1,24) which suggests that Laxton had once been a part of that great royal estate.
		Laxton was Geoffrey Alselin's chief manor in Nottinghamshire and later became head of the barony of Everingham; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 231. It is Laxton cum Morhous (Moorhouse in Laxton, SK7566) in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107. It is not certain whether Geoffrey Alselin established Laxton as the head of his entire fief, for he held valuable estates at Hallaton in Leicestershire, where there are traces of a Norman castle and in Lincolnshire. At his death, Shelford in Nottinghamshire (12,19) appears to have been the chief estate of those that remained in the Alselin line. See Stenton, First Century of English Feudalism, p. 200 note 1; Cameron, 'Laxton before 1635'; Challis, 'Case Study at Laxton, Nottinghamshire'.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. Toki was Geoffrey Alselin's only predecessor in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and his chief predecessor in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. On the identification of these men and others with the same name Toki with the son of Auti, and on the forms of the names Toki and Auti in Domesday Book, see S5 Toki note.
		This man had had a church in Derby (DBY B5) and 2 ½ churches as well as 30 messuages and a hall in Lincoln (LIN C4).
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND. Farley printed .iii. car' in error. There is a small hole in the manuscript after the .ii, as noted by JRM, but what he thought 'might be the bottom of a third stroke below it' is merely the punctus after the ii, written after the hole, which was not as JRM suggested 'caused in the course of a deliberate alteration from iii to ii'. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote .ii. car' and did not alter it. For an identical mistake by Farley, see 13,6 carucates note, and for other errors of his, see 9,31 Drayton note. Interestingly, the scribes of both the Abbreviatio (folio 205r) and the Breviate (folio 147v) made the same mistake as Farley here.
	WALTER, GEOFFREY ALSELIN'S MAN. On the name Walter, see S5 Walter note.
	5 MALE SLAVES, 1 FEMALE SLAVE. The Latin is v. seru' . 7 i. ancill'. Seruus (masculine) is usually translated in this edition simply as 'slave' with 'male' implied. Here 'male' has been inserted for clarity, because of the mention of an ancilla ('female slave'). See also 12,18: '1 male and 1 female slave'. As the next detail, the meadow acres, are in the accusative case, it would seem that the slaves were also, and the object of either 'Walter ... has' or '22 villagers and 7 smallholders who have'; see 1,1 fishery note. On slaves in this county, see 10,1 slaves note.
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
12,2	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. This heading appears to govern the entries 12,2-10, except that 12,3 is not marked as a Jurisdiction, presumably because it consisted only of a garden.
	KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 9,13. 17,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.
12,3	WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire in 1086. It was a settlement in Walesby Ancient Parish, and seems to have been displaced by it in importance. Like Walesby, it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 1,20;24.
		There is no marginal S[oca], presumably because a garden did not qualify as a Jurisdiction.
	1 GARDEN. See 1,44 garden note.
	WHICH BELONGS TO LAXTON. That is, to the head manor (12,1).
12,4	WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 9,13. 16,10.
12,5	EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,24. 17,7-8.
12,6	OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall itself (17,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages Kneesall was divided between 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 15,2. 17,10.
12,7	KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,22. 30,3.
12,8	CAUNTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 5,16.
12,9	BEESTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8). For other references, see 1,21;24.
12,10	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,23. 30,2.
		In Book of Fees, p. 1000, Northkarleton is an Everingham fee, and in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 95, North Carlton is held with Willoughby (12,15) in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. 'North Carlton' is Carlton-on-Trent: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 182.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, probably to mark the end of the account of the multiple estate of Laxton (12,1-10) before beginning that of North Muskham (12,11-14). However, as North Muskham is in a different wapentake, it is possible that the space was for the later inclusion of a wapentake head. For a list of other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
12,11	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (12,11).
	NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 5,2. 8,2. 30,7), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,2. 12,12-13. 30,7.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.
		North Muscham together with Calneton (Little Carlton, 12,15) was an Everingham fee in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 95; see Book of Fees, p. 982.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.
12,12	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 289b, level with another manor in North Muskham (12,11). The formula for the value statement and the phrase 'as a manor' in this entry are not ones used anywhere in circuit VI, nor is the position of the T.R.E. holder, except in added entries, suggesting that this entry, like them, was added after this circuit had been written up; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For another unrubricated addition of land in North Muskham, see 5,2, and for other holdings of Geoffrey Alselin that were initially omitted, see 12,22-23 and LIN 64,11-14.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	THERE ALSO ^[NORTH MUSKHAM]^. See 12,11 Muskham note.
	FORMERLY 100s; VALUE NOW £4. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. See also 10,64 entry note.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *] HELD IT AS A MANOR. On Toki son of Auti, see 12,1 Toki note. The phrase pro Manerio ('as a manor') takes the place of the marginal M' for Manerium ('manor'). This formula is one not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (as also here in 5,6. 10,66. 16,12 and 30,10), though it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. Moreover, in Nottinghamshire the T.R.E. holder is normally listed after the place-name and carucage and before the plough estimate ({Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}), not at the end of the entry as in some other circuits; see also here in 30,10, another entry added after rubrication. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
12,13	THERE ALSO ^[NORTH MUSKHAM]^. See 12,11 Muskham note.
	A JURISDICTION. This entry relates directly to the first of the two manors of North Muskham (12,11) before the addition of 12,12.
12,14	[LITTLE] CARLTON. The association of this Carletun with North Muskham suggests that it was Little Carlton (as identified by VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 211, in the 'Introduction') rather than Carlton-on-Trent as identified there in the translation (p. 276) and by the Phillimore printed edition. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of South Muskham: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 193, although it is not there identified as a Domesday place, the first reference cited being c.1180. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106, where it is associated with North Muskham. For another part, see 5,5.
		This place is presumably a Jurisdiction of the first manor of North Muskham (12,11) as it was entered before the addition of the manor at 12,12.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
	2 FREEMEN WHO HAVE NOTHING. They cannot have been destitute. The 'nothing' particularly applies to the absence of part or all of a plough-team; see 4,4 nothing note.
12,15	WILLOUGHBY. This is one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire. The present Willoughby was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086. For other parts, see 5,15. 24,3. The grid reference is to Willoughby Farm (SK780625).
		In Feudal Aids, iv. p. 95, Willoughby is held with Carlton-on-Trent (12,10) in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.
	½ MILL. The other half does not appear in Domesday.
12,16	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Stoke Bardolph and Burton Joyce (12,16;18).
	STOKE [BARDOLPH]. This was a township of Gedling Ancient Parish. Like Gedling itself (9,72. 12,16-17) it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above another part at 9,72) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,72. 12,17.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.
	6 SLAVES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 vi. serui above the xxi. bord', but did not indicate its position in the line below. It is unlikely that the slaves shared in the ploughs of the villagers and smallholders. On slaves in this county, see 10,1 slaves note.
	1 FISHERY. It no doubt lay on the River Trent which Stoke Bardolph abuts.
12,17	MARGINAL S'. Carlton, Gedling and Colwick were presumably Jurisdictions of the manor of Stoke Bardolph and Gedling (12,16).
	CARLTON. This was a hamlet in Gedling Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Carlton-by-Nottingham or Carlton-in-the-Willows. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	GEDLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (there is a Thurgarton wapentake heading above another part at 9,72) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,72. 12,16.
	COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,1. 30,8.
		It is likely that Geoffrey Alselin's estate was at 'Over Colwick'; see 10,1 Colwick note.
12,18	BURTON [JOYCE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 9,75.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 swein note.
	1 MALE AND 1 FEMALE SLAVE. See 10,1 slaves note and 12,1 slaves note.
	3 PLOUGHS. The Phillimore printed edition mistranslated the .iii. car' as '2 ploughs'. This error was perpetuated in the first version of Domesday Explorer.
12,19	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Shelford (12,19).
	SHELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 9,99.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.
	1 FISHERY. This was no doubt on the River Trent which loops around Shelford.
12,20	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. This heading links Newton to Shelford (12,19), but it is not certain that it comprehends Owthorpe (12,21).
	NEWTON. This was a settlement in Shelford Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 242. It probably lay in BinghamWapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 9,97.
12,21	OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,111. 26,1.
		There is no marginal designation of this estate as either manor or outlier or Jurisdiction. It might be a Jurisdiction of Shelford (12,19). However, the naming of a T.R.E. holder suggests that this had been a manor.
	TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. See 12,1 Toki note.
	NOTHING IS RECORDED THERE. The Latin is nil ibi habet[ur]. The passive voice of the verb habeo ('I have') has a number of meanings not possessed by the active voice, among them 'to be considered', 'to be judged', 'to be estimated, 'to be thought to be'. In the present context, the meaning could be restrictive ('nothing is assessed there' referring to the absence of a plough estimate) or it could be more general ('nothing is reckoned to be there') that is, this part of Owthorpe has no resources, or, following the Phillimore printed translation, 'nothing is recorded'. The Alecto edition has 'Nothing is reckoned there'. 'Recording', in the sense of 'writing down','making a record of' is not the primary sense of the passive of the verb habeo, although it is clearly inherent in the meaning of BDF 12,1: canonici habent brevem regis in quo habetur quod ipse hoc manerium dedit aecclesiae Sancti Pauli ('the canons have the king's writ in which it is recorded that he gave this manor himself to St Paul's Church'). For other instances where either the sense 'reckoned' or the meaning 'recorded' would be suitable, see CAM 5,12. 25,10. DOR 12,13. GLS 1,43;56. HAM 69,48. HEF 10,72. WIL 1,5. 25,9.
12,22	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next one (12,23) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in most of the space left by him at the end of Geoffrey Alselin's fief. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed three lines of writing onto two ruled lines in order to retain a full line's space before the next fief. He failed to include the head for 'Lythe' Wapentake, as almost always with entries added after rubrication; neither of them were related to the previous entry for land in Owthorpe (12,21), which was in Bingham Wapentake. These two entries were probably done in a large campaign of addition after rubrication that included all but the first entry (12,12) in the second Nottinghamshire quire (folios 289-296): 12,22-23. 13,5;12-14. 16,12. 20,8. 23,2. 30,10;13;42;53-56. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	[* 'LYTHE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Knapthorpe (12,22).
	KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,7. 30,3.
	IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] NORWELL. That is, in Norwell (5,13), an estate held by the church of Southwell under the Archbishop of York. It seems likely that this was an alienation.
12,23	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the previous one (12,22) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in most of the space left by him at the end of Geoffrey Alselin's fief; see 12,22 entry note. He added another holding in Carlton-on-Trent (2,5). For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,10. 30,2.
		It is just possible that this piece of land was also an alienation, that is, of part of the Archbishop of York's manor of South Muskham and Carlton-on-Trent (5,5). Alternatively, it might be a duplicate of the 2 bovates in 1,21 (a Jurisdiction of Grimston) or of the 2 bovates in 1,24 (a Jurisdiction of Mansfield).
	[VALUE] FORMERLY 8s; NOW 3s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 2,3 value note and compare 5,6 formerly note, 10,64 value note and 30,54 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
13	LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT. He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French département of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Dapifer. The four had saved the life of Duke William in 1047 and were rewarded when William acquired the throne of England. Ralph was lord of Crich (Derbyshire) which became a barony under his successors, the first being his son Odo. Ralph was also probably the father of Matilda who was the second wife of Edward of Salisbury. The barony was divided c. 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 54; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 37; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 340. On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note, and, on the name Hubert, see B12 Hubert note.
	The lands in the body of this chapter lie in two wapentakes and these are entered in standard county order. Three entries were added at the end (13,12-14). All the wapentake headings need to be supplied:
		13,1-7 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		13,8-12 [Broxtowe Wapentake]
		(13,12-14 are added entries for places lying in in Broxtowe, Thurgarton and Rushcliffe Wapentakes).
13,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Barton-in-Fabis, Bunny and Keyworth (13,1-2;6-7).
	BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,7. 13,2. 30,23.
		Barton-in-Fabis itself lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake, as did its outlier in Clifton (13,3). However, its dependencies in Chilwell (13,1;4) lay in Broxtowe Wapentake.
	LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. Leofric preceded Ralph son of Hubert in several Nottinghamshire estates (13,1;8;10) as well as in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. He was probably the brother of Leofnoth who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see 13,6 Leofnoth note and DBY 10,16 brother note. On the name Leofric, see 7,1 Leofric note.
	WITH THE TWO [ESTATES CALLED] CHILWELL. Chilwell was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. 'Eastern' Chilwell, only evidenced in Domesday Book, was probably adjacent to Chilwell. Both probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as Chilwell did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,4-5, and for 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,4. 30,52. The specific reference here is to the two estates called Chilwell (13,4) that were a Jurisdiction of Barton-in-Fabis.
		These two estates called Chilwell were not distinguished from each other, later or now; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 142 (JRM).
	FREEMEN. Compare 7,5 Freemen note.
	HALF A CHURCH. The other half does not seem to appear in Domesday. However, there was a half-church at Toton (10,25: SK5034) and another half at Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4: SK5135). All three are close to Barton-in-Fabis (SK5232) and it is possible that two of these figures should in fact be quarters.
13,2	THERE ALSO ^[BARTON-IN-FABIS]^. See 13,1 Barton note.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.
13,3	CLIFTON. This was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,5-6. 30,25.
	BELONG TO BARTON-IN-FABIS. That is, probably to the first (larger) manor there (13,1), like the Chilwells in the next entry (13,4).
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'which belong', but the Latin is clearly pertinent in full with no abbreviation sign above the nt ligature, though there is a black ink blot above them.
13,4	CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,1;5.
	'EASTERN' CHILWELL. This place, only evidenced in Domesday Book, was probably adjacent to Chilwell (10,26. 13,1;4-5) which was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. For an attempt to locate it, heavy with theory but lacking historical or archaeological evidence, see Cossons, 'East Chilwell and Keighton'. For a further part of 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 30,52.
	A JURISDICTION OF BARTON-IN-FABIS. That is, of the first manor there (13,1), where the 'two [estates called] Chilwell' are mentioned.
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.
	HALF A CHURCH. The other half was probably at Toton (10,25), although there is an unmatched half a church also at Barton-in-Fabis (13,1); see 13,1 church note.
	WILLOW-BED, 4 ACRES. This was probably adjacent to the 'small willow-bed' at Toton (10,25); see 10,25 willow-bed note.
13,5	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY for 5 bovates in Chilwell was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of an entry for land in Chilwell and 'Eastern' Chilwell (13,4), which was a Jurisdiction of Barton-in-Fabis (13,1). It was written at the same time as a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. The interlineation In Toluestone ('In Toton') may have been added slightly later in this campaign and is vital to the meaning, because, without it, the addition would imply that the 5 bovates in Chilwell were also sokeland of Barton-in-Fabis, rather than a dependency of Toton (10,25). Scribe B corrected 5 bovates to 3 bovates in another entry for Chilwell that was a Jurisdiction of Toton (10,26 bovates note), so it is possible that there was confusion over this land and that this was the reason for its initial omission. Or the present entry could be a duplicate of 10,26, despite the difference in the number of bovates after correction, as was the case with a number of added entries; see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}. As the manor of Toton was held by William Peverel it is possible that this part of Chilwell rightly belongs in his fief rather than in that of Ralph son of Hubert, and this strengthens the case for the present entry being a duplicate. It is possible that in checking material relating to Chilwell in a territorially-arranged schedule (similar to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis) where all parts of the vill were listed together, the main scribe thought he had missed these 5 bovates and tacked them onto Chilwell in Domesday but in the wrong fief. This would have been even more likely if scribe B had already corrected the number of bovates in 10,26.
	CHILWELL. This was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 10,26. 13,1;4-5.
	A JURISDICTION OF TOTON. The Latin read .v. bou[atae] de soca ad g[e]ld[um] ('5 bovates of jurisdiction[-land] taxable' before the main scribe of Great Domesday interlined In Toluestone ('In Toton'). He should have deleted the de when he made the addition because it no longer made grammatical sense. The Phillimore printed translation has '5 bovates of the Jurisdiction taxable, in Toton', which is misleading. The Alecto edition has '5 bovates of sokeland to the geld [belonging] to Toton'. However, the in is being used here in its usual sense in the phrase Soca in X ('A Jurisdiction of X'; see 1,17 outlier note.
13,6	BUNNY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Leofnoth preceded Ralph son of Hubert in several Nottinghamshire estates (13,6;9;11-12) as well as in Derbyshire. He was probably the brother of Leofric who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see 13,1 Leofric note and DBY 10,16 brother note. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuenot, Leuenod, Leueno - represent Old English Leofnoth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND. In the manuscript it is clearly .ii. car'; Farley printed .iii. car' in error. For an identical mistake by him, see 12,1 carucates note, and for his other errors, see 9,31 Drayton note.
13,7	KEYWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,7. 9,87-88. 10,10.
		This place-name is lined through in red in the manuscript, as expected, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. There is no sign of this rubrication, however, in the Alecto facsimile; for other omissions of this sort there, see 2,2 there note, and, on other problems of reproduction, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	FRANI. On this name, see 4,6 Frani note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
13,8	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Teversal, Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Wansley and Annesley (13,8-11).
	TEVERSAL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	LEOFRIC. See 13,1 Leofric note.
	GEOFFREY. A Geoffrey was also a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert in DBY 10,6 and there he may be identified as Geoffrey Ridel (DBY 10,6 Geoffrey note). However, there is no documentary evidence that the present Geoffrey is the same person and Geoffrey was a very common name, on which see B 13 Geoffrey note.
13,9	KIRKBY[-IN-ASHFIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 30,27.
	LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. For the interpretation of the Latin silua per loca pastilis, see 1,45 woodland note.
13,10	WANSLEY. This was a settlement in Selston Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 131. Like Selston itself (10,65), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086. The grid reference for Wansley is to Wansley Hall (SK460512).
	LEOFRIC. See 13,1 Leofric note.
	HALF A CHURCH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined dim' above eccl'a. There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.
13,11	ANNESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	RICHARD HOLDS IT. This is the only occurrence of a Richard holding from Ralph son of Hubert. His successor here and possible descendant was Ralph I Brito of Annesley; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 368. On the name Richard, see B16 Richard note.
13,12	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next two (13,13-14) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of the space originally left by him at the end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief on folio 289d. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae used for the ploughs and the value statement in the present entry are not used elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		He avoided writing on the imperfection in the parchment at the end of the first two lines of this entry and after the x of the 1086 value; see 11,26 taxable note.
	COSSALL. This was a chapelry of Wollaton Ancient Parish and, like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35), it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 10,36.
		The entry looks manorial, but there is no marginal designation, as commonly with added entries.
	LEOFNOTH. See 13,6 Leofnoth note.
	LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is, for 6 oxen, or three-quarters of a plough-team of eight, though there were 3 ploughs actually present.
	3 PLOUGHS THERE, WITH 3 VILLAGERS. This is a formula only found here and in the added entry for Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,12), and compare 10,66 plough note, 30,10 ploughs note and 5,6 plough note. It is not found anywhere in circuit VI, but occurs in other circuits written after it and is especially common in circuit II. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY 16s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
13,13	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the previous one (13,12) and the next one (13,14) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of the space originally left by him at the end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief on folio 289d. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula used for the value statement is one not used elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. The previous entry was in Broxtowe Wapentake, like the entries before it, but the present entry is for land in Thurgarton, though he failed to include the head for it, as he did for almost all the entries added by him after rubrication.
	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gibsmere (13,13).
	GIBSMERE. This was a settlement in Bleasby Ancient Parish. Bleasby itself does not appear in Domesday. Gibsmere probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	MORTON. This was one of several places called Morton in Nottinghamshire. It was a chapelry of Southwell Ancient Parish and was abolished for civil purposes in 1884 to help create the Civil Parish of Fisherton-cum-Morton and abolished ecclesiastically in 1886 to help form the Ecclesiastical Parish of Rolleston-with-Morton. Like Southwell itself (5,1), it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 11,16.
	A JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. That is, of the collegiate church of Southwell, a possession of the Archbishop of York (5,1), of which both Morton and Gibsmere had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 outliers note. The jurisdictional tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church. Morton had probably been alienated and joined to Gibsmere.
	THE VALUE WAS AND IS 28s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 10,64 value note and compare 5,6 formerly note and 2,3 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
13,14	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the two previous ones (13,12-13) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday in about half of the space originally left by him at the end of Ralph son of Hubert's fief. He did not keep to the scored lines but squeezed six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, though there were still five blank lines before the next fief. These entries were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. He failed to include the head for Rushcliffe Wapentake, as he did for almost all the entries added by him after rubrication. For a correction to this added entry that was made at an even later date, see 13,14 bovate note.
	[* RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Widmerpool (13,14).
	WIDMERPOOL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,47-48.
	1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the i of .i. bou' over the erasure of a longer number or possibly an ink blot as the scraped area extends above and below the line; he either retained the two dots either side of the original number or he added new ones well spaced to fill the gap. He used a different pen to the one he had used for the rest of the entry.
	IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF BUNNY. The Latin iacet ad is similar in meaning to adiacet ('is attached to'). The Phillimore printed translation has 'It lies with Bunny'. Bunny had been entered at 13,6, and presumably this dependency was missed by the main scribe of Great Domesday at first.
14	LAND OF RALPH OF LIMESY. He came from Limésy in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Rouen, canton Pavilly. He was lord of Cavendish (Suffolk), which became head of a barony of that name. With his wife, he was founder of Hertford Priory as a cell of St Albans c. 1093. He seems to have died shortly after, leaving a son also called Ralph. A probable daughter, Matilda, married Nicholas of Stafford. See Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 54; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 29; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 334. On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note.
	The first two wapentakes (Newark Wapentake and Thurgarton Wapentake) in this chapter are entered in standard county order. However, the last two entries, which are nonetheless not postscrptal, contain additional land in Newark Wapentake. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied:
		14,1-4 [Newark Wapentake]
		14,5-6 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
	___________________________________
		14,7-8 [Newark Wapentake]
14,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Hawton (14,1).
	HAWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,7. 14,2-3.
	THORTH. On this name, see 9,80 Thorth note. A Thorth was a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Holme Pierrepoint (9,80), but that place is distant from Hawton and no evidence has so far been found to connect the two men.
	A PRIEST AND 2 CHURCHES. If one church was at Hawton itself, it is not clear where the other was in this Ancient Parish which is devoid of other significant settlement. The answer may lie in the fact that Hawton itself (14,1-3), assessed at 2 carucates and formerly containing 5 manors (14,1-2), as well as a Jurisdiction (14,3), could well have supported two churches.
	THE VALUE of this manor is presumably given at the end of the account of the combined manor of Hawton (14,2) and its Jurisdiction (14,3); see 14,3 value note.
14,2	4M. See 3,4 2M note. Details of the population of these four combined manors and of the Jurisdiction there were entered in 14,3, as was their value and that of the other manor at Hawton (14,1); see 14,3 lands note and 14,3 value note.
	THERE ALSO ^[HAWTON]^. See 14,1 Hawton note.
	BUGGI. On his possible identity and his name, see 6,7 Buggi note.
	REGNVALD. On this name, see 9,127 Regnvald note.
	THORFRIDH. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.
	^[ANOTHER]^ BUGGI. This name is rare in Domesday Book (see 6,7 Buggi note), but it would seem that there were two people with this name holding land in Hawton, as there is IIII M' in the margin next to this entry, denoting that it had been four manors in 1066. There is a small possibility, however, that Buggi had had two separate estates in Hawton.
14,3	THERE IS A TEAR OR CUT in the manuscript which has been neatly patched on the recto of folio 289. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote round this, as he usually did, and Farley also indicated it. For the position of this defect on the recto of this folio, see 11,33 Radcliffe note.
	A JURISDICTION. That is, of the manor of Hawton (14,2).
	THERE ALSO ^[HAWTON]^. See 14,1 Hawton note.
	IN THESE LANDS. It would seem that the details of population refer to the manor and Jurisdiction at Hawton (14,2-3). The mention by the main scribe of Great Domesday of the Jurisdiction of Hawton interrupts the account of the manor. See 14,3 value note and compare the account of Watnall (10,42-46) which similarly has the manorial resources separated by Jurisdictions (10,46 land note and 10,42 Watnall note).
	ALFRED. On this name, see 1,66 Alfred note. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 139; she states that he was a 'tenant at Hawton, Nottinghamshire, of both Ralph fitz Hubert and Ralph de Limesi', but he was only a tenant of the latter.
	THESE FIVE MANORS. Hos, here treating manerium as masculine, perhaps on the analogy of locus, place, which may normally be masculine or neuter in the plural, occasionally in the singular (JRM). Manerium is usually neuter and the correct adjective with maneria would have been haec. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have unconsciously been influenced by the gender of the Freemen, villagers and smallholders that he has just written.
		The five manors are the single one at Hawton (14,1) and the quadruple manor also there (14,2).
	VALUE. It would seem that the value is that not only of the combined manor of Hawton and its Jurisdiction there (14,2-3), but of the other manor in Hawton (14,1) which otherwise lacks a value. The fact that Alfred held all five manors from Ralph of Limésy was probably the reason for the their being given a joint value, though the main scribe of Great Domesday could have made this clearer by writing ual' in full as the plural ualent. See 14,3 lands note and compare 10,42 Watnall note.
14,4	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of the combined manor of Hawton at 14,2, as the preceding entry (14,3) was for another Jurisdiction of it.
	DANETHORPE. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of North Collingham; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 203. Like North Collingham and South Collingham (8,1. 14,8), it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. The Domesday name is represented by Danethorpe (SK847581) and Little Danethorpe Farm (SK836580).
	A CHURCH AND A PRIEST WITH 1 PLOUGH. The possession of a plough by the priest, presumably with some land, may indicate that this was a superior church; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
14,5	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Epperstone and Woodborough (14,5).
	EPPERSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 9,73.
	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9-10.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. He might be the same as Ralph's predecessor in 14,7, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Wulfric was a common name.
	ALSI. On this name, see S5 Alsi note.
	[WHO HAD] NO HALL. The sentence originally read 'Wulfric and Alsi had 3 carucates of land and 4 bovates taxable'. However, the main scribe of Great Domesday interlined n' aulā ( 'not a hall' or 'no hall', depending on whether the Latin intended for n' was non or nulla) above Alsi but without rectifying the grammar of the sentence to accommodate the addition.
		The interlineation draws attention to the fact that despite having no hall, this was a manor, or, more probably, that it had not been a double manor (in other words Wulfric had a hall, but Alsi did not); see 9,20 hall note.
	QUARTER. Ferding, a fourth part; often a 'furlong' (JRM). The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined . i. boû above ferding, but it is uncertain whether this is to be expanded to i bouata, ablative case after de and therefore an explanation or gloss of the word ferding ('a ferding, that is 1 bovate'). Such an equation is factually incorrect, but the word ferding appears nowhere else in Circuit VI and the scribe may have been trying to make sense of the term. However, it is more likely that the expansion should be to bouatae (genitive case), the meaning then being (as in the Phillimore printed translation and in the Alecto edition) 'a quarter of 1 bovate'. A further possibility, suggested by VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 232, is that the i boû was a replacement for ferding, but this would be very odd as the Freemen would then have had '6 bovates and 1 bovate': if they had really had 7 bovates it would have been easier for the scribe to have added a minim to the vi and deleted the 7 ferding.
14,6	GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,3. 30,49.
		Domesday does not indicate the status of this land. It is given no value, so it may have been a Jurisdiction, possibly of Epperstone and Woodborough (14,5). However, it may be included here merely because it was a piece of land belonging to Ralph of Limésy in Thurgarton Wapentake.
	{{4 CARUCATES OF LAND}} 5 BOVATES AND THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday underlined .iiii. car' t'rê for deletion and interlined .v. bou' 7 t'ciā' partē .i. bou' above it, using a finer pen than he had for his original assessment.
		The Penguin edition of the Alecto translation does not indicate the deletion of these words; for its other failings of this nature in Nottinghamshire, see 1,16 bovates note.
14,7	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Thorpe (14,7). Lands in Newark Wapentake have already been entered in their normal place, at the head of the fief. These two further entries for land there are not postscriptal in Domesday, but might have been misplaced in the source used by the main scribe of Great Domesday or he might merely have briefly omitted them during editing it.
	THORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Thorpe-near-Newark or Thorpe-by-Newark. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 14,5 Wulfric note.
	MANFRED <OF THORPE>, RALPH'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Mainfrid[us], Meinfrid[us] - represent Old German Manfred: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 185-86. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Manfred and Manfrid; these have now been standardized as Manfred. The Alecto edition has Mainfrid and Manfred.
		He is almost certainly the same person as Ilbert of Lacy's tenant at the adjacent estate at East Stoke (20,3). The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are as tenants of William of Mohun in Somerset and of William the goat in Devon.
	MEADOW, 72 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
14,8	SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 20,2.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote Sceltun and then interlined h above and between the c and the e to produce Scheltun. Farley misread this h as a t and printed it between the S and c; he was probably misled by the scribe writing the h in the form it would be if joined to another letter, so that it resembled more closely half of a capital H than a lower-case h. In the other occurrences of Shelton the spelling is Sceltune, Sceltun. Darby, Domesday Gazetteer, under Shelton, only has Sceltun(e) and not the corrected form. The places index to the Alecto edition, however, has Scheltun for the present occurrence. The scribe of the Abbreviatio (folio 205v) has Scheltun, but the scribe of the Breviate (folio 147v) has Sceltvn. For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note.
	COLLINGHAM. North Collingham and South Collingham were adjacent Ancient Parishes. Collingham lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (a portion is below a wapentake head at 8,1), as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For another part, see 8,1.
	LAND FOR [3] PLOUGHS. In the manuscript the number of ploughs appears as .iii., but with what might be part of a fourth minim above the punctus after it; its top may have been erased or the main scribe of Great Domesday may have begun it and then realized his error. Farley read it as .iiii. and it was translated as such in the Phillimore printed edition. The Alecto edition has '[There is] land for †3† ploughs'.
	WOODLAND, NOT PASTURABLE. The Latin siluae n' past' is probably to be extended to siluae non pastilis (as in NTH 9,6), this being a negative version of silua pastilis ('pasturable woodland'); see 1,1 woodland note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'woodland, not pasture' as if siluae non pasturae were being abbreviated; the Alecto edition has 'woodland, not for pasture'. See also DBY 1,28 woodland note.
	2 ACRES AND 1 VIRGATE. It is unusual to mix these units of measurement in assessing woodland. Acres alone could have been used. This virgate is probably a square perch; see 1,34 virgates note and 16,3 virgate note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Ralph of Limesy, as he had done for Geoffrey Alselin and Ralph son of Hubert on this folio, though he may have left them for aesthetic reasons.
15	LAND OF RALPH OF BURON. He probably came from one of two places called Buron in the French département of Calvados; one is in the commune of Cairon, the other in that of Saint-Contest. He was lord of Horseley (Derbyshire) which became a head of a barony of that name under his successors. His heir was Hugh de Buron who died in 1156. Hugh's son Roger died in 1194 whereupon the fief escheated to the Crown, but was re-granted. See Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 122-23; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 331. On the name Ralph, see B10 Ralph note.
	The wapentakes, in which the estates in this fief lay, are entered in the standard county order (see {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}):
		15,1-2 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake
		15,3 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		15,4-6 Broxtowe Wapentake
		15,7-10 Bingham Wapentake.
15,1	OSSINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Domesday places it in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, though it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. It is adjacent to the putative boundary of 'Lythe' Wapentake.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote OsCHINTONE, but corrected the second letter to a capital, though the result is not good. He made the same mistake with the place-name EDVVOLTONE (16,4) and corrected it.
	OSMUND <OF OSSINGTON>. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note. Ralph of Buron's predecessor in Kelham (15,3) was called Osmund, as was his predecessor in Denby (DBY 11,3), possibly the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name.
	MEADOW, 28 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
15,2	OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall itself (17,9) seems to have lain in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. Later in the Middle Ages the townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 362. The same may have been true in 1086. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 12,6. 15,2. 17,10.
		Domesday does not indicate the status of this piece of land. It lacks a value and was therefore probably a Jurisdiction, possibly of Ossington (15,10).
15,3	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kelham (15,3).
	KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 18,4. 30,45.
	OSMUND <OF OSSINGTON>. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note; see also 15,1 Osmund note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had written iii. part' which could be read as abbreviating either iii. partes ('3 parts') or iii. partem ('the third part'). Scribe B clarified this by interlining tiâ (the last letters of tertiam, 'third') above the iii., erasing the original abbreviation sign after part' and interlining an ç above/after part' to produce partem; see 4,7 part note. For his other contributions to Domesday Nottinghamshire, including nineteen to the assessments, see 1,12 bovates note. Further third parts of a bovate in Kelham are recorded in 9,59 and 11,19 and 2 parts of 1 bovate in 30,45.
	WILLIAM, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note. He might be the same person as Ralph's tenant at Costock (15,5), but that is about 17 miles from Kelham, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and William was a very common name.
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. On this phrase, see 11,27 ploughing note. The remaining 6 oxen are not immediately apparent. The figures for all the estates in Kelham amount to 13 ½ ploughs and these 2 oxen. There is a deficiency of ½ plough at Hockerton (11,8) and at South Muskham (30,46) there are similarly 2 oxen in a plough. These places are close to each other: Kelham at SK7755, Hockerton at SK7156 and South Muskham at SK7957. However, there is still a deficiency of ½ plough.
	MEADOW, 9 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
	UNDERWOOD 8 FURLONGS LONG AND 12 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate here is used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.
	NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for this manor at Kelham and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). However, this information is given for all the other estates there. On the few similar omissions, see 9,120 plough note.
15,4	HUCKNALL. Hucknall Torkard was an Ancient Parish. Domesday Hochenale is represented by the adjacent settlements of Hucknall (SK5349) and Hucknall Torkard (SK5348). Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 (the entry for Hucknall at 15,4 is beneath a wapentake head) as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
		There is another Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, which was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Sutton-in-Ashfield. This Hucknall first occurs as Hodweit in 1199 and the addition Hokenhale, Hockenall is first found in the fourteenth century; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 119. This Hucknall (Hucknall-under-Huthwaite) is not related to the Domesday estate of Hucknall and Hucknall Torkard, but was presumably part of Sutton-in-Ashfield (1,23, part of Mansfield) in 1086.
	ULFKIL <OF HUCKNALL>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note. Ralph of Buron was preceded on three estates by an Ulfkil (Hucknall, Rempstone and Lamcote: 15,4;6-7), perhaps the same person, though it was a common name and Hucknall is 9 ½ miles from Lamcote and over 16 miles from Rempstone, while Lamcote is 9 ½ miles from Rempstone. However, see 15,7 Ulfkil note.
	OSMUND <OF HUCKNALL>, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note. He might be the same person as Ralph's tenant at Lamcote (15,7), where Ulfkil had also preceded him, but it was a common name.
15,5	COSTOCK. This was an Ancient Parish. The manors here (9,94. 10,53. 15,5) appear to have been among the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,11;53.
	SAERIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Seric, Saric - represent the hypothetical Old English Særic: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 354. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saeric and Seric; these have now been standardized as Saeric. The Alecto edition has Saeric. The only other occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire is of a thane holding South Muskham (30,46), which is, however, 23 miles away.
	LAND FOR 14 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.
	WILLIAM, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note; see also 15,3 William note.
15,6	REMPSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish and appears to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It later lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,94. 10,54.
	ULFKIL <OF HUCKNALL>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 15,4 Ulfkil note.
	LAND FOR 6 OXEN. The estimates for the various parts of Costock and Rempstone, which are either combined in the text or in adjacent entries (9,94. 10,11;53-54. 15,5-6) make up land for 42 oxen (13+1+2+6+14+6), or five plough-teams plus 2 oxen.
15,7	LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two parts (here and at 30,36) lie directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104. For other parts, see 9,96. 30,36. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.
	ULFKIL <OF HUCKNALL>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 15,4 Ulfkil note. A person called Ulfkil had held another manor in Lamcote (30,36) and has been tentatively identified as the thane holding (in 1066 and 1086) elsewhere in chapter 30 (30,2 Ulfkil note); it is possible that he and this predecessor of Ralph of Buron are the same.
	NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for either this manor at Lamcote or for the one there at 30,36 and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). Roger of Bully's manor there (9,96) has this information, however. For the few other omissions of the plough estimate in this county, see 9,120 plough note.
	OSMUND <OF HUCKNALL>, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 9,22 Osmund note; see also 15,4 Osmund note.
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
15,8	COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,9-10. 16,7.
	"OGHE". The Domesday form of this name, which only appears here, has been retained, as von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 335, was unsure whether it represented Old English Ogga, or Old Norse/Old Danish Uggi. The Alecto edition has Oghe.
	HALF A CHURCH. There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.
15,9	THERE ALSO ^[COTGRAVE]^. Seee 15,8 Cotgrave note.
	THORKIL. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note.
	JOCELYN, RALPH'S MAN. On this name, see 10,46 Jocelyn note.
15,10	COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,8-9. 16,7.
	WARNER <OF SHIRLAND>. On the name Warner, see 10,25 Warner note.
		As this Warner is the only other Warner in Nottinghamshire apart from William Peverel's subtenant in Toton and Wollaton (10,25;35; see10,25 Warner note), and indeed in the Midlands, and the present holding is 8 miles from Wollaton and 9 miles from Toton, which are within 4 miles of each other, it is possible that he is the same man, though there are no tenurial associations to support this and Toton and Wollaton are separated from Cotgrave by the River Trent (JP).
	LAND OF THE SAME MANOR. That is, of the last-mentioned of the two manors of Cotgrave (15,9).
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining eight lines of the column, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Ralph of Buron, or for aesthetic reasons.
16	LAND OF ROGER OF POITOU. He was the third surviving son of Earl Roger of Montgommery and Mabel of Bellême. He had held a large fief in England which included what became the county of Lancashire. However, at the time of the Domesday Survey he was being partially dispossessed of his lands or his fief was being adjusted.
		JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'Roger of Poitou had forfeited his lands into the King's hands in most counties; either he retained his Nottinghamshire lands, or the Survey was drafted before his forfeiture was known'. This presents the traditional view of the situation. Certainly, in 1086, Roger of Poitou is recorded as no longer holding some of his lands, but as still holding others. Moreover, it could be that part of the difficulty in understanding the situation is that different counties reported at different times and some may have ignored a state of affairs that was considered temporary, as in the case of Bishop Odo of Bayeux who was actually in prison in Rouen in 1086 but still holding lands according to some county schedules. However, there is no reason to think that Roger of Poitou was disgraced. He continued to hold extensive, but, in some cases, different lands into the reign of William Rufus. It is perhaps more likely that Roger's fief was being restructured; see Lewis, 'Introduction', The Lancashire Domesday, pp. 36-38.
		He was disgraced with the rest of the house of Montgommery in 1102 and retired to Aquitaine where his wife was countess of La Marche. He was named 'the Poitevin' (often translated as 'of Poitou') from his wife's inheritance. His descendants were heirs of La Marche; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 410.
		On the name Roger, see B8 Roger note.
	The bulk of this chapter is laid out in the standard county order of wapentakes. However, it ends with three additional entries for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake, although these are not postscriptal, and with an added entry for an estate which probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake.
		16,1-2 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake.
		16,3 Thurgarton Wapentake
		16,4-5 Rushcliffe Wapentake
		16,6-8 Bingham Wapentake
		_______________________________
		16,9-11 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		[16,12 Broxtowe? Wapentake]. This is an added entry.
16,1	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	GAMSTON. This is one of two different places called Gamston. The present one was a chapelry of Blyth Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 (a part is below a 'Bassetlaw' wapentake head at 16,2) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 9,9. 16,2.
	GAMAL. The Domesday forms of this name - Gamel, Game - represent Old Norse Gamall, Old Danish Gamal: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 257-58. In some of the Phillimore printed translations this name appeared as Gamal, and in others as Gamall; these have now been standardized as the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Gamal.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a person called Gamal was Roger of Poitou's predecessor in LIN 16,32 and YKS 30W3;13;36, perhaps the same individual, though it was a very common name in those counties. In 1066 a Gamal had also held Nettleton (LIN 4,23) with Ketilbiorn who had also held in Gamston (16,2). It is possible that Gamal gave his name to this estate ('Gamal's tun'), although Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 51, cautions against this on the grounds that Gamal 'is so common a name in the Danelaw'.
		See 9,36 Cuckney note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note. He may be the same person as Roger's predecessor in West Drayton (16,11), which is adjacent to Gamston; a Swein was also his predecessor in LIN 16,10;28. However, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Swein was a very common name.
16,2	THERE ALSO ^[GAMSTON]^. See 16,1 Gamston note.
	KETELBIORN<OF NETTLETON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Chetelbern, Chetelbern[us], Chetelb[er]t[us], Chetelber, Chetelbar - represent Old Danish Ketilbiorn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 304. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Ketilbiorn and Ketelbern; these have now been standardized as Ketilbiorn. The Alecto edition has Ketilbiorn. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Ketilbiorn occurs on more than two dozen holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing four or five individuals, of whom the most significant was the Ketilbiorn <of Nettleton>, one of the manors held T.R.E. by Ketilbiorn in Lincolnshire (LIN 4,23). Although some of his holdings were held at different dates, lay in three counties, and were held from or devolved upon three tenants-in-chief, there are sufficient links between them to indicate that they had all belonged to a single individual. The pre-Conquest holdings in Lincolnshire, which devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux and Osbern the priest, were intermingled with those acquired by the 1086 tenant of the same name, suggesting a common identity; and the Yorkshire holding of Worsborough was shared with one Gamal in 1086, as Nettleton had been in 1066, providing another link between Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and between the 1066 and 1086 Ketilbiorns. The form of the name at Worsborough, Chetelber, occurs also in three adjacent holdings, all likely to have been held by the same man. The Nottinghamshire property, held by Ketilbiorn at both dates, lay midway between those in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, providing another link between the two counties and the 1066 and 1086 Ketilbiorns (JP).
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. For the interpretation of the Latin silua per loca pastilis, see 1,45 woodland note.
	3 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
16,3	CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,10. 30,13.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. Roger's predecessor in 16,6-7 may be the same as this Wulfric, though the estates are not close, no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a common name.
	NOW 2 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript a black ink blot covers the punctus before the number, but it is clearly ii.
	MEADOW, 1 VIRGATE. Meadow is usually measured in acres, but here and in 30,9 the square virgate is used; compare 14,8 virgate note which refers to its use with woodland. For its use elsewhere in Domesday Nottinghamshire as a linear measure, see 1,34 virgates note. The main use of the virgate, as a square measure, is for arable in those counties that are assessed in hides (of which a virgate is a quarter).
16,4	EDWALTON. This was a chapelry of Ruddington Ancient Parish. Ruddington itself (2,6. 9,83. 17,15. 25,2) apppears to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as later. Edwalton is specifically placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 16,4) and was in that wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 23,1.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote a small d for EDVVOLTONE, but corrected it to a capital at once; he made the same mistake in the place-name OSCHINTONE (15,1) and corrected it.
	STIUPI. The Domesday forms of this name - Stepi, Stepiot - represent the Old Norse byname Stiupi, meaning 'stepson'; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 375. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Stepi and Stjupi; these have now been standardized as Stiupi. The Alecto edition has Stiupi.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and it only occurs twice elsewhere (LIN 3,1. 27,60), but no tenurial or other evidence has so far been found to connect them.
16,5	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. Parts appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday at 9,90 16,12 and 30,35. This place is one of the five (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) that in 1086 formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,12. 30,26;35.
		Two parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (10,10. 30,26) have been identified as probably lying in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086. It is probable that the present holding also was in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake heading at 16,4) and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
	ERNWY. JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'He is possibly Ernwy the priest, who held from Roger of Poitou in Lincolnshire, and the future Lancashire; and from the king in Nottinghamshire (30,11). He may also be identical with Ernwin the priest, and some or all of the other persons entered as Ernwy or Erwin in Nottinghamshire.'
		In fact, only one other person called Ernwy was connected with Roger of Poitou in this county, as his predecessor in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,12) where he is not described as a priest. He may, however, be the same man as the present Ernwy. The priest who holds from Roger of Poitou in 'the future Lancashire' is Ernwin (YKS 30W40). His group of estates, consisting of Beetham and its members, later lay both in Lancashire and in Westmorland. An Ernwin, not described as 'the priest' but as Roger of Poitou's man and possibly the same man, held from Roger of Poitou in Lincolnshire (LIN 16,1;33;47). Interlaced with these entries are ones where Roger's predecessor was also called Ernwin (LIN 16,2;4;7-8), and he was possibly, but not necessarily the same as his subtenant. The matter is further complicated by the fact that an Ernwin the priest occurs eleven times in Lincolnshire, but with no apparent connection with Roger of Poitou. There is an Ernwy the priest in Nottinghamshire at 30,11.
		Farrer in VCH Lancashire, i. p. 275, was inclined to identify all the 1086 Ernwins as Ernwin the priest and to regard the T.R.E. Ernwin as the same man or his father. He silently conflated the two Ernwys of Nottinghamshire with Ernwin (his folio reference, 290, shows this). He further identified Ernwin the priest with the fief-holder in Bedfordshire (BDF 14), which he inherited from his father (unnamed) who was 'King Edward's man' (BDF 14,1). Farrer deduced from this that the 1086 Ernwin was a priest of King Edward and that his father was none other than Ernwin Catenase ('cat's nose') (YKS CW32).
		The Domesday forms of this name - Ernui, Ernuin(us), Arnui, Erneuui, Arnuinus, Ernu, Ernuit etc. - represent Old English Earnwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 243-44. JRM preferred Ern- for Old English Earn-, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. Von Feilitzen pointed out the frequent confusion between the elements -wig and -wine (in this case Earnwig and Earnwine), making it impossible to classify the Domesday forms Ernui and Ernuin correctly: ibidem and §148. The Alecto edition has Earnwig.
		On the possible confusion between the names Ernwy and Ernwin, see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	LAND FOR 12 OXEN. That is, for 1½ ploughs; see 1,6 ox note.
16,6	CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,32. 20,7.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 16,3 Wulfric note.
16,7	COTGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 15,8-10.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note; see also 16,3 Wulfric note.
16,8	'WARBY'. This is a lost place in Plumtree Ancient Parish, presumably in that portion of the parish that was in Bingham Wapentake, judging by the order of Domesday at this point. The name survived in Warby Gate (1790), the form of which suggests that Domesday Warberga, Wareberg which is Old English weard-beorg ('watch-hill') had by then been assimilated to place-names with the Scandinavian termination -by ('farm', 'homestead'). See Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 240. There is no trace of 'Warby' on Ordnance Survey maps. Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 379, locates it at SK621333. For another part, see 9,105.
	FREDEGIS. On this name, see 2,1 Fredegis note.
	MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
16,9	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Haughton and West Drayton (16,9;11).
	HAUGHTON. This was a chapelry within Bothamsall chapelry in Elkesley Ancient Parish. Both Bothamsall (1,9) and Elkesley (1,10. 9,32. 30,41) appear to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. It is likely that Haughton was in that wapentake in 1086 as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229.
	BALDRIC <OF FOSTON>. On this name, see B3 Baldric note. The only other occurrences in Domesday Book of a Baldric holding in 1066 are in DBY 6,26 (Foston) and 6,49 (Hatton), as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers. Although these places are far distant from Haughton, it is possible that the same individual was involved.
	PERCHES. See B20 perches note.
16,10	A JURISDICTION. That is, presumably of Haughton (16,9).
	WALESBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,20. 9,13. 12,4.
16,11	[WEST] DRAYTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Markham. Like East Markham itself (1,3. 9,6;10-11) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For another part, see 9,31.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 16,1 Swein note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. The other two-thirds of this bovate in [West] Drayton are recorded in 9,31, an addition made by scribe B.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	NOW 5s 4d. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected an original .iii. to .iiii. by adding a fourth minim over the original punctus at the end and adding a new one, probably at an early stage because the pen and ink are the same as he used for the surrounding text. He interlined or (the last two letters of quattuor, '4') in clarification.
16,12	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of a four-line space left by him at the end of the fief of Roger of Poitou on folio 290b. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae used for the status of this holding, for the ploughs and for the value statement are not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it may have been added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For the addition of other land in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,93, and for other of Roger's holdings that were added, see LIN 16,21;25-26.
	[* BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE *]. The restoration of this wapentake head depends on the identification of Willoughby (16,12); see 16,12 Willoughby note.
	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This Wilgebi, which could represent one of three places called Willoughby in Nottinghamshire, was identified by the Phillimore printed edition as the Willoughby that lay in Walesby (see 1,20;24.12,3). The presence of a 'Bassetlaw' wapentake heading at 16,9 and of Walesby itself at 16,10 may have influenced this identification. However, this entry was added to the fief and is not necessarily a part of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Moreover, Ernwy, the T.R.E. holder here, may well have been the same as the Ernwy who shared a double manor of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds with Godric (16,5). Furthermore, in this entry the number of carucates and of ploughlands are the same, an equivalence that is found particularly, though not at all exclusively, in Broxtowe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note. Thus, this entry has been tentatively identified with Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and as one of the parts of it that lay in Broxtowe Wapentake; see 9,92 Willoughby note. This identification has also been suggested by Black and Roffe, Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 32.
		Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was an Ancient Parish. Some other parts (9,92. 16,5. 30,35) appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday, though the whole vill was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For all the parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,5. 30,26;35.
	ERNWY. See 16,5 Ernwy note.
	AS A MANOR. This phrase takes the place of the marginal M' for Manerium ('manor') and is a formula not one found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (as also here in 5,6. 10,66. 12,12 and 30,10), but it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	LAND FOR AS MANY OXEN. That is, for 5 oxen.
	2 PLOUGHS THERE, WITH. This is a formula not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries (it appears here also in 13,12 and compare 10,66 plough note and 30,10 ploughs note), but it occurs in circuits written up after it and is especially common in circuit II. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY 20s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
17	LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT. . He came from Ghent in Flanders and was the son of Ralph, lord of Alost, near Ghent and Gisla. Gilbert married Alice, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughter who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the monastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a cell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders, English Baronies, p. 46; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 210. On the name Gilbert, see 9,52 Gilbert note.
	The manors in this fief are entered in the standard order of wapentakes in this county ({Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}):
		17,1-12 Newark Wapentake (error for 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake)
		17,13-14 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		17,15 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		17,16-18 Bingham Wapentake.
17,1	NEWARK WAPENTAKE. ['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. In view of the location of the manors listed below (17,1-4;7-8 and probably 17,9;12) which were almost certainly in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, the Newark wapentake head is erroneous. No doubt the main scribe of Great Domesday mechanically entered the first wapentake name in the standard sequence, as several times in other counties, for example in Shropshire; see SHR 4,9,1. 4,11,5. 7,1 and {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}; also NTT {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}.
	BOUGHTON. This was a chapelry of Kneesall Ancient Parish. Kneesall probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086, but in later times parts of the Ancient Parish were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. These included Boughton (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228), and it seems probable that Boughton was also in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086; see 17,9 Kneesall note. For another part, see 9,16.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for 3-4 letters after Vlf here and also in 17,4;9;12-13;16, but oddly not in 17,14-15. These spaces were probably for the later insertion of his byname, perhaps fenisc ('fenman') as he was Gilbert of Ghent's predecessor in DBY 13,1, HUN B2, LIN 24,1. CW17. CK 41 and also in CAM 23,1-6 (his byname provided by the corresponding entries in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis). He failed to provide a byname in other entries in LIN 24, and for Gilbert's predecessor Ulf in BUK 22,2, in RUT 5,15 and in HUN 21, and left no space for its later insertion. His predecessor 'Ulf, a thane of King Edward's' in BDF 27,1 and BUK 22,1 was probably Ulf Fenman. The Vlf fenisc who appears in S5 as having had full jurisdiction, market rights etc. over his land in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire strengthens the case for this identification.
		On both the name Ulf and on 'Fenman', see S5 Ulf note.
17,2	KIRTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other references to Kirton, see 1,19;24. 9,13. 12,2, and on the Domesday name-form, see 1,19 Kirton note.
	REGNVALD. On this name, see 9,127 Regnvald note.
17,3	OLLERTON. This was a chapelry of Edwinstowe Ancient Parish. Like Edwinstowe itself (1,24;28) it probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 9,17.
	WADA <OF OLLERTON>. On this name, see 9,55 Wada note. There are only two occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, the other being as a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Harworth (9,55), but the estates are not close to each other and no tenurial or other evidence has so far been found to connect these T.R.E. holders.
		The name Wada occurs on seven holdings in Domesday Book and may represent four, five or six individuals. Although there are no tenurial associations or other links to any other Wada, the name is so rare this Wada could be the same individual as either he of Brampton (DBY 8,2) or of Harworth (JP).
	WILLIAM, GILBERT'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note. He might be the same as Gilbert's tenant in 17,7 (Eakring), which about three miles from Ollerton, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and William was a very common name.
17,4	RUFFORD. This was an extra-parochial place which was made a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 367. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, like the places in the surrounding entries. For its depopulation, see Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
17,5	ALSO A JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Bilsthorpe was a Jurisdiction of Rufford (17,4).
	BILSTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228.
17,6	INKERSALL. This was included in Rufford Civil Parish at its creation in 1858 and, like Rufford (17,4), had presumably lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 and previously had been extra-parochial; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 303. The Domesday form is Wirchenefeld and the place was long known as 'Winkerfield'. The alternative name Inkersall appears in 1747 ('Winkerfield otherwise Inkersall'); see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 95. The grid reference is to Inkersall Manor (SK625606). There is an Inkersall Farm at SK629606 and an Inkersall Grange Farm at SK615598, but any nucleated settlement has disappeared. For Inkersall's depopulation, see Barley, 'Cistercian Land Clearances of Nottinghamshire'.
	AN OUTLIER. That is, presumably, of Rufford (17,4).
17,7	EAKRING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,24. 12,5. 17,8.
		Both this and the other manor of Eakring (17,8) were assessed at 6 bovates, had the same plough estimate and values and the same extent of meadow and woodland. This suggests the equal division of an estate between co-heirs, though there is no evidence of kinship between Egbrand and Ingulf and there are no other instances in Domesday of men with these names holding near each other. The main scribe of Great Domesday could presumably have written the two estates into a single entry, designating it a double manor and combining all the manorial appurtenances and value, except for the fact that different 1086 subtenants were involved.
	INGULF. The Domesday forms of this name - Ingulf(us), Ingolf - represent Old Danish Ingulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 298. The Alecto edition has Ingulf. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	WILLIAM, GILBERT'S MAN. On this name, see B9 William note; see also 17,3 William note.
17,8	THERE ALSO ^[EAKRING]^. See 17,7 Eakring note.
		In the manuscript the IBIDĒ is lined through in red (albeit faintly), as expected, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, there is no red-lining in the Alecto facsimile; on other omissions of this sort there, see 2,2 there note and, on other problems of reproduction in that facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	EGBRAND. The Domesday forms of this name - Egbrand, Echebrand, Eghebrand, Aechebrand - represent Old German Egbrand: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 245. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Egbrand and (here, in error) Erchenbrand; these have now been standardized as Egbrand. The Alecto edition has Egbrand. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
17,9	KNEESALL. This was an Ancient Parish. Later in the Middle Ages Kneesall as a parish was divided between 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake and the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe. The townships of Kneesall and Kersall were in Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, while the township of Ompton and the chapelry of Boughton were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 362. Kneesall itself is listed in 'Lythe' Wapentake in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106, and Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. In the present context, however, Kneesall is listed after the two manors of Eakring (17,7-8) and before that of 'Crastell' (17,12). The former were probably in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, as was the latter if it is a correct identification of Domesday Creilege; see 17,12 'Crastell' note. However, 'Lythe' Wapentake is next in the standard sequence of wapentakes, and if the identification of Creilege with 'Crastell' is not accepted, a 'Lythe' wapentake heading could be inserted in the translation above Kneesall. The Phillimore printed edition places Kneesall in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. Of its Jurisdictions, Ompton (17,10) probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086, while Maplebeck (17,11) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake.
	KERSALL. This was a township in Kneesall Ancient Parish. Like the township of Kneesall, but unlike some parts of the Ancient Parish, it lay in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. It is uncertain in which wapentake it lay in 1086. As a dependency of Kneesall, it could, however, have been in 'Lythe' Wapentake, even if Kneesall itself were in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. It is mapped in 'Lythe' Wapentake in the Alecto edition. See 17,9 Kneesall note.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
17,10	ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Ompton was a Jurisdiction of Kneesall (17,5).
	OMPTON. This was a township of Kneesall Ancient Parish. It is not certain in which wapentake Kneesall itself lay in 1086 (see 17,9 Kneesall note), but Ompton could have been in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake then, as it was later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts of Ompton, see 1,24. 12,6. 15,2.
17,11	MAPLEBECK. . This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to Maplebeck, see 1,24;29.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Kneesall (17,9).
	MEADOW, 30 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.
17,12	'CRASTELL'. This was a settlement, now lost, that lay in the Ancient Parish of Wellow. Wellow itself no doubt lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later.
		JRM citing VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 280 (which in turn cited Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, iii. p. 200), and Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 65, said that 'Creilege or Cratela appears to be the old name of Wellow'. There are two difficulties with this. Firstly, there is an apparent lack of continuity between the Domesday name-form (Creilege) and later forms such as Cratela, Cratele which show a medial -t-. If the Domesday form is, nonetheless, accepted as a somewhat distorted precursor of 'Crastell', then it is not certain that it was the old name of Wellow. Although the earliest form cited for Wellow (Welhag') dates from 1207, the name, since it is Old English wielle ('spring') and haga ('enclosure'), is likely to have arisen much earlier. It is more probable that 'Crastell' and Wellow were adjacent, but distinct places, and that Wellow came to replace 'Crastell' and to name the parish while 'Crastell' itself disappeared. It is Wellow that is named in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107, and Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228, in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake. On the destruction of 'Crastell' by the monks of Rufford, see Crook, 'Community of Mansfield', p. 19.
		The name-form adopted here, 'Crastell', is the latest cited in Place-Names of Nottinghamshire (1428), but is not the best representative of the earlier forms.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
	MEADOW, 26 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
17,13	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kirklington (17,13).
	KIRKLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
	THE JURISDICTION BELONGS TO SOUTHWELL. That is, to the collegiate church of Southwell, held under the Archbishop of York (5,1), of which Kirklington had probably once been an integral part. The jurisdictional tie probably indicates that this land had once 'belonged' to Southwell church; see 5,1 outliers note.
	4 VILLAGERS [WHO HAVE] 2 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote h'nt' (with abbreviations lines over the first n and the t) .i. car', but then erased the 'nt' and inserted a second minim on top of the punctus after .i., added a new punctus after it and interlined as (the last two letters of duas, '2'), but failed later to return to deal with the h. If he had intended to alter the verb from the present participle h[abe]ntes ('having', regularly translated by JRM as 'who have') to the main verb h[abe]nt ('[they] have'), there was no need for him to erase n't, but merely the second abbreviation sign; he obviously intended to add something because he squeezed in the second minim after rather than before the original one. If the meaning was 'have', as the Phillimore edition translated it (though the note by JRM suggested the alternative 'having'), then Gilbert did not have the villagers (because there would then be two main verbs in the sentence), but if it was 'having', as in the Alecto edition, then Gilbert had the villagers who had 2 ploughs. In the next entry the scribe wrote cū before the villagers' ploughs, which solved the problem. His source may have been unclear.
17,14	NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Southwell. It was a hamlet in Southwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 30,11.
	ULF [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
	A JURISDICTION OF SOUTHWELL. That is, of the archiepiscopal manor (5,1), of which this portion of Normanton had probably once been an integral part; see 5,1 outliers note.
17,15	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ruddington (17,15).
	RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 1109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 9,83. 25,2.
	ULF [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
	MEADOW, 33 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote xxx, but interlined .iii., extending the middle minim downwards to act as an insertion mark; Farley did not show this extension.
17,16	WHATTON[-IN-THE-VALE]. Whatton was an Ancient Parish; the principal settlement has recently become known as Whatton-in-the-Vale. Domesday places the latter in Bingham Wapentake and it also lay there later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
	ULF [***] [* FENMAN *]. See 17,1 Ulf note.
	ROBERT, GILBERT'S MAN. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 374, a Robert of Armentières was Gilbert of Ghent's tenant in Lincolnshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. However, she does not give a folio reference for the Robert here (nor for LIN 24,92) and includes four references on folio 354c for the two occurrences there (LIN 24,10;12), possibly because four places appear in those two entries, though see 2,3 Robert note on her referencing policy and compare 11,3 Mauger note and 15,10 Warner note. There seems to be no mention of Robert of Armentières or of Gilbert of Ghent in the Abingdon Chronicle (ed. Stevenson) at the reference she gives (ii. pp. 12-13); however, in Hudson (ed.), History of the Church of Abingdon, ii. pp. 18-21 (which had not been published when Domesday People appeared), there is a record of Gilbert of Ghent giving to the abbey a house in London. Among the witnesses was Robert de Armenteres. Hudson's note 45 identifies him as the Robert of Armentières who held a house in Wallingford (BRK B9), and as possibly the Robert who held from Gilbert of Ghent, but suggests that there could have been more than one Robert.
	1 MILL ... MEADOW, 80 ACRES. The cases of the Latin i. molin' and of ac' are unclear; they might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
	A MILLSTONE QUARRY WHERE MILLSTONES ARE DUG. The Latin is una molaria ubi molae fodiuntur and the relative clause is not as redundant as the translation suggests: molaria is a noun derived from the adjective molaris which itself comes from mola ('a mill-stone'). Thus molaris means 'relating to a mill-stone' and molaria is 'something relating to a millstone'. Like many Latin adjectives and their substantival derivatives (for example piscaria ('fishery') and plumbaria ('lead-works') in Domesday, the exact meaning is given by the context. Since molaria itself can mean 'a mill', the relative clause is necesssary.
		Geologically, the land around Whatton-in-the-Vale consists mainly of Keuper marl with thin layers of sandstone; see Domesday Geography of Northern England, p. 273.
17,17	JURISDICTION OF THIS MANOR. That is, Hawksworth and Aslockton (17,17-18) are Jurisdictions of Whatton-in-the-Vale (17,16).
	HAWKSWORTH. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written Holesuuorde, but later, using a yellowy ink, he underlined Holes and interlined Hvches above it to produce Hvchesuuorde; in the only other occurrence of this place-name here (11,23) the spelling is Hochesuorde. This correction was made during a campaign of addition and correction that took place after the county had been rubricated; see 9,93 entry note.
		In the Alecto facsimile the interlineation appears as Hoches, but the main scribe definitely wrote a v, with a pointed base and not closed at the top; this is fairly clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note. Farley read it as Hoches, but if the scribe had wanted to correct the place-name to Hochesuuorde he would only have had to underline the original l and interline ch above it. The scribe of the Abbreviatio (folio 206r) read it as Hochesworde, but the scribe of the Breviate (folio 148r) wrote Bochesworde. For other of Farley's rare mistakes, see 9,31 Drayton note.
		Hawksworth was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (heading at 17,16) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,23.
17,18	ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 20,6. 30,37.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left over half a column blank, perhaps in case he found further holdings of Gilbert of Ghent, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
18	NEXT TO THIS CHAPTER HEAD, in the central margin, are written the letters fr. There is also an f written beside the heads for chapters 24-29 and beside 19,1. Compare DBY 12 chapter note. The purpose of these letters is obscure, but they were not written by the main scribe of Great Domesday or scribe B or any of the other scribes of Great Domesday. For a discussion of these letters, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 129-30 and Fig. 16 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 195-97 and Fig. 15.16).
	LAND OF GILBERT TISON. The byname Tison (Tison) is Old French meaning 'firebrand' (Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 382), but the exact significance is unclear; it could refer to a man who ignited conflict, or to an individual quick to anger, or to someone hot-headed or, in a good sense, to qualities of leadership. Compare Ranulf Flambard. Gilbert died c. 1129 and was succeeded by his son Adam. Gilbert's small Nottinghamshire fief apparently became the honour of Averham from his holding in that county, while his Yorkshire lands were swallowed by the honour of Mowbray, becoming a mesne tenancy. See VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 232; the Thurgarton Cartulary (Foulds, pp. 92-93); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 214. On the name Gilbert, see 9,52 Gilbert note.
	The core of this short chapter (18,3-6) is entered in the standard order of wapentakes found in this county ({Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}), but these entries which include two estates in 'Lythe' Wapentake, are prefaced by ones for the same wapentake (18,1-2). It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday initially missed the entry for Finningley in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake (18,3) which should have begun this chapter (Gilbert holding nothing in Newark Wapentake) or that he started the fief with Gilbert's largest manor. The final entry (18,7) is not post-scriptal. All the wapentake headings need to be supplied:
		18,1-2 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
	__________________________________
		18,3 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		18,4-5 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		18,6 [wapentake unknown]
		18,7 [Thurgarton? Wapentake].
	It is possible that Finningley (18,3) was a detached part of 'Lythe' Wapentake; if so there would be no disjunction in the wapentake order at the beginning of this chapter; see 18,3 Finningley note.
18,1	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Averham and Cromwell (18,1-2).
	AVERHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note. A Swein was also Gilbert Tison's predecessor in 18,3;5;7, possibly the same person, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and it was a very common name.
	22 SMALLHOLDERS ... 12 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of smallholders from xvi to xxii by turning the v into a second x and interlining ti (the last two letters of viginti, '20') in clarification, and interlining another minim above the first one. At the same time he added a minim to the number of ploughs.
	6 [***]. There is a black ink blot in the manuscript between .vi. and m' with smudges in the next two lines and an offset on folio 290d. It is not clear whether the main scribe of Great Domesday had written a word here, as the blot does not obscure where the ascenders of either lib' (= £6) or sol' (= 6s) would be and these are the most likely words. Both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition have '[£]6', but the scribe may have left a space here, as he did in the entry for Woodborough on folio 292c (30,9), because his source was unclear or he doubted its reading; the corrections to the number of smallholders and the ploughs lend support to this suggestion.
	ARE APPURTENANT. The Latin is appendunt, meaning that these Freemen are 'hanging from', 'attached to', 'appendages of'. The Phillimore printed translation has 'are attached' as it does for the Latin adiacent (6,1. 9,118. 10,21;41. 24,1), but in this revision it has been thought better to translate the two verbs differently. The Alecto edition has 'belong' for appendunt. Freemen in Upton and Collingham are said to belong to the manor of Rolleston; see 7,5 Freemen note.
	5 FREEMEN IN OTHER HUNDREDS. Averham was evidently in or named a 'small hundred'. In Nottinghamshire where these hundreds may have contained 12 carucates, the three carucates of Averham would account for a quarter of the hundred. There is no other mention of Averham in the text nor an indication of where the 'other hundreds' are. These hundreds were probably a universal subdivision of the wapentake, but are only mentioned in passing in Great Domesday. In this case it is possible that in the source of Domesday Nottinghamshire or in an earlier recension the names of the hundreds in which the places lay were included as well as their wapentakes, but that these were largely abbreviated out while leaving a few traces, as, for example, at 18,6 and DBY 2,1; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
18,2	CROMWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 30,4.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that Cromwell was a Jurisdiction, probably of Averham (18,1).
18,3	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Finningley (18,3).
	FINNINGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in a detached part of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. However, this entry falls between two places (18,2;4) that were in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and interrupts the wapentake sequence. Finningley was adjacent to Misson (1,65-66. 9,21. 30,43-44) which probably formed a detached part of 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. It is possible that Finningley was, in fact, a detached part of 'Lythe' Wapentake. If so, it would have given that wapentake or a major manor within it access to the resources of fenland.
		In the fourteenth century, part of Auckley in Yorkshire was taxed with Finningley. This may have been the situation in 1086; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 301, and Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. Certainly, the township of Auckley, though in Yorkshire, was regarded as part of Finningley Ancient Parish until the creation of separate Civil Parishes in 1866; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 360.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.
18,4	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kelham and Winkburn (18,4-5).
	KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 30,45.
	AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.
	14 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.
18,5	WINKBURN. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
		Roffe ('Domesday Book and Northern Society', p. 323, note 3) gives this entry among others that 'are significantly postscriptal' and contain distinctive formulae from circuits I and V. In Black and Roffe, Domesday Nottinghamshire, p. 32, it is stated that the detail on the 2 bovates held by 5 thanes was 'a later addition to 2 blank lines'. However, there is no sign in the manuscript that this entry, or the last two lines of it, was postscriptal, and the present editors can find nothing unusual or out of place in its formulae, as was the case in several other added entries (see 10,64 entry note).
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.
	THE SENIOR OF THE OTHERS. It is not certain in how wide a sense Latin senior ('older', 'more important') should be taken. Stubbs, cited in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 232, inclined to see in this man a senior thane such as played an important role in court proceedings. However, the aliorum seems to limit the sense to this man's relationship with the others. A parallel instance in BUK 5,15 is: 'Eight thanes held this manor; one of them, Alli, King Edward's man, was senior to the others'. A case from Lincolnshire may also illustrate the meaning: in Biscathorpe (LIN 3,41) Godric and his two brothers held 3 taxable carucates and 'Two [of the brothers] served the third' (duo seruiebant tercio). In the present context the information may have been included to explain that one man, not five, answered for these two bovates. In another Lincolnshire instance (LIN CS38) four brothers held jointly, but one of them was the king's man and was the first of them to go on the 'king's expedition', if necessary. This also represents a form of seniority.
	IT DID NOT BELONG TO SWEIN. Latin q[u]e, with singular verb, evidently referring to terra, perhaps intending only the land of the 'senior' thane (JRM). The construction is loose and cuius terra ('whose land'), as suggested by VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 232, would have made the meaning clearer, if that is what the main scribe of Great Domesday intended. However, it looks as if there are two statements being made here: firstly that Swein had added these two bovates illegally to ten that he rightly held (with the added implication, presumably, that this piece of land should not have passed to Gilbert Tison); secondly that the occupants of these two bovates were five thanes of whom one (probably) received the services of the rest. The Alecto edition has 'This [land] did not belong to Swein'.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1251.
18,6	THE PHILLIMORE printed edition supplied a Thurgarton wapentake head here, presumably because it was felt that the Blidworth hundred head at the end of 18,6 ("Alwoldestorp") referred to it and because Blidworth itself (5,9) was in Thurgarton Wapentake. This is not so; see 18,7 Blidworth note.
	"ALWOLDESTORP". Identified with Caythorpe (SK6845; first mentioned c. 1170: Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 159) by Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, cited VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 281, followed by Domesday Gazetteer; not noted in Place-Names of Nottinghamshire. It is possibly the deserted medieval village immediately north of Caythorpe (SK6946) (JRM). Although apparently accepting the identification with Caythorpe, JRM put Alwoldestorp in this entry and indexed it as such, though the index also contains a mention of Caythorpe with a cross-reference to Alwoldestorp.
		If the identification of "Alwoldestorp" with Caythorpe was based partly or wholly on the fact that it appears to be in Blidworth Hundred, this support has now been removed, because the heading 'In Blidworth Hundred' can be shown to belong with Staythorpe (18,7) and not with "Alwoldestorp". Caythorpe is not far from Lowdham which was a member of Blidworth manor (5,9), but "Alwoldestorp" can neither be assigned to a hundred nor to a wapentake.
	AETHELSTAN. On this name, see 9,120 Aethelstan note.
18,7	[* THURGARTON? WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Staythorpe (18,7).
	BLIDWORTH HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday added this in a space at the end of the previous entry (18,6), interlining h'd because of lack of space. It is not rubricated, so it is likely that it was entered at a late stage in the checking process. However, the pen and ink used for it are not the same as those of the large campaign of post-rubrication addition (see 12,22 entry note), but are similar to those of the entries on this folio, so it is just possible that he only briefly omitted it and then failed to rubricate it (see 1,10 manor note).
		The Phillimore printed translation places this hundred head at the end of 18,6, but the scribe obviously intended it for the present entry or he would have added it in the larger space at the end of 18,5: in this county wapentake and hundred heads were written either on lines by themselves (as above 1,1;23;51. 5,1;3. 6,13. 9,1;6;59;72;77;90. 15,4. 16,3;6. 17,16. 30,1;14) or on the same line as the chapter head (as for 15,1. 16,1) or in a space at the end of the previous entry (relating to the entries at 16,4 and 30,49). In the Alecto edition this hundred head is placed above Staythorpe, as in the present edition. The insertion of hundred heads is rare in Domesday Nottinghamshire; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}. However, this type of insertion is common in several Lincolnshire fiefs.
		As JRM observed, Staythorpe is 'remote from Blidworth and separated from it by Southwell hundred'. He also reconstructed a 12-carucate hundred which included "Alwoldestorp" (18,6; on his view of its being Caythorpe, see 18,6 "Alwoldestorp" note), but excluded Staythorpe: 'Blidworth (5,9) held the mill at Lowdham, which bordered on Caythorpe, and with the villages between, Salterford, Oxton, which 'lay in Blidworth' (5,11), Calverton, Woodborough and Epperstone, the area was assessed at exactly 12 carucates, the extent of a small hundred'. However, as explained in {Introduction: Small Hundreds}, the reconstruction of a single hundred in the middle of a shire is bound to be insecure, unless the surrounding hundreds are reconstructed as well, ideally up to the county border. It is, anyway, not clear what size the Nottinghamshire hundreds were and whether any had detached portions. Blidworth (5,9), held by the Archbishop of York, was situated on a hill and had one remote resource, the mill at Lowdham (5,9); it is possible that the estate at Staythorpe provided meadow and fish for the archiepiscopal manor, and was included in its hundred. Nonetheless, there is a puzzle here.
	STAYTHORPE. This was a township of Averham Ancient Parish. Averham itself (18,1) probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. However, Staythorpe adjacent to the shared boundary of Thurgarton Wapentake and 'Lythe' Wapentake and apparently in Blidworth Hundred, was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake, unless Blidworth Hundred was split between two wapentakes. The Phillimore printed edition includes it in Thurgarton Wapentake.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note; see also 18,1 Swein note.
	MILL ... MEADOW, 60 ACRES. The cases of the Latin i. molin' and of ac' are unclear; they might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note and 1,1 fishery note.
19	LAND OF GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE. He came from La Guerche-de-Bretagne in the French département of Ille-et-Vilaine, arrondissement Rennes. His father, Sylvester, was Bishop of Rennes, and his elder brother, William, was lord of La Guerche. Geoffrey's estates appear to have been given to Nigel de Albini in unknown circumstances. Nigel first married Maud, the widow of Robert of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland. By his second wife he had a son, Roger who took the name de Mowbray. Nigel was brother of the William de Albini Brito who was the ancestor of the earls of Arundel and Sussex. See Complete Peerage, ix. pp. 367-69; the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, pp. 88-90); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 226; Cain, 'Introduction', Leicestershire Domesday, p. 20. On the name Geoffrey, see B13 Geoffrey note.
	Geoffrey's fief in Nottinghamshire consisted of a single manor in Newark Wapentake.
19,1	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Langford (19,1).
	LANGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. The modern settlement is at SK822582. The site of a deserted medieval village is marked at SK822587, adjacent to the Old Hall (SK820588).
	LEOFRIC [* SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Geoffrey of La Guerche acquired several of his estates in Domesday Book from a Leofric (as here and in NTH 47,1c) and he was called Leofric son of Leofwin in LEC 29,3;18 and Young (cilt) Leofric in LIN 63,1; his whole fief in Warwickshire (WAR 31) had been held by Leofwin in 1066, as had LEC 29,14 and LIN 63,2;5. On the connection between Geoffrey and Leofwin and Leofric, see LEC 29 Geoffrey note.
	RANULF, GEOFFREY OF LA GUERCHE'S MAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Ranulf(us), Rannulf(us) - represent Old German Ran(n)ulf: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 211-12. The Alecto edition has Ranulph.
	This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and Geoffrey of La Guerche had no other tenant called Ranulf. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 351.
	2 PLOUGHS AND ½ PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday added 7 dimid' car' above the Freemen, but obviously intending Ranulf to have 2 ½ ploughs, though the repetition of car' is unnecessary and odd. The Phillimore printed edition has '2 ½ ploughs', but it has been thought better to retain the wording of the manuscript in the present edition, as in the Alecto edition.
	1 FISHERY. Langford parish had a short frontage on the River Trent near SK810615, but its boundary with Holme (part of North Muskham) largely separated it from that river by a few fields. However, this boundary was formed by Slough Dyke and The Fleet, in both of which a fishery could have been sited.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining five lines of the column, possibly in case he found further holdings of Geoffrey de la Guerche, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
20	LAND OF ILBERT OF LACY. He was brother of Walter of Lacy, lord of Weobley (Herefordshire), and like him came from Lassy in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Vire, canton Condé-sur-Noireau). His own fief was centred on Pontefract in Yorkshire. He and his wife Hadruda were benefactors of the Abbey of La Sainte-Trinité of Caen where a son was buried. Ilbert died c. 1093. His heir was a son, Robert of Lacy. His estates became the barony of Pontefract. See VCH Surrey, i. p. 280; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 53; Wightman, Lacy Family; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 138; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 277.
		The Domesday form of his first name, Ilbertus, represents Old French Ilbert: Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames. According to Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 161-62, it probably derived from Old German Hildiberht, and the form Ildeb[er]t(us) appears in SOM 6,10;14. 44,1;3 (rendered here as Hildebert). The Alecto edition has Ilbert for the Ilbertus forms.
	The estates in this fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order. The final entry (20,8) is added but this does not disrupt the order. Both wapentake headings need to be supplied:
		20,1-5 [Newark Wapentake]
		20,6-8 [Bingham Wapentake].
20,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Sibthorpe, East Stoke and Elston (20,1;3-5).
	SIBTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish, originally the land of a collegiate church mentioned here and at 2,1; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 367. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,1-2. 10,2.
	PILWIN <OF ELSTON>. He appears to have preceded Arngrim at Elston (6,5) as he did here at Sibthorpe. On this name, see 6,5 Pilwin note. See also 20,4 claims note.
	ARNGRIM <OF ELSTON>. Arngrim is presumably the same man who holds Elston (20,5) from Ilbert of Lacy. On the present estate his predecessor was Pilwin, who also probably preceded him at Elston (6,5); see 6,5 Arngrim note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 MILL. The Latin ciā above iii. indicates that this is accusative, as is ac's of the meadow acres; see 1,2 meadow note.
		The remainder of the mill is not found in Domesday.
	THE FOURTH PART OF THIS LAND BELONGS TO THE CHURCH. The possession by the church of five-eighths of a bovate probably makes it a non-manorial church, and probably a 'superior' establishment, possibly a minster. The statement is repeated under another holding at Sibthorpe (2,1) and presumably refers to the same quarter.
20,2	JURISDICTION. This repeats the marginal S[oca]. Both indications probably mean that the four estates detailed in this entry were Jurisdictions of Sibthorpe (20,1).
	SHELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 9,2. 14,8.
	ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in NewarkWapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,3. 22,1.
	KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 22,1.
	THOROTON. This was a chapelry of Orston Ancient Parish, which was sometimes known as Orston with Thoroton. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 1,54.
20,3	[EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,6. 21,1. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450). 'East' is probably relative to Stoke Bardolph (SK6441).
	THORKIL <OF STOKE>. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note. He might be the same person as one of Ilbert's predecessors in Hickling (20,8), though that is about 14 miles from East Stoke.
	5 BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. The space between t'rę and ad in the manuscript is caused by the bottom part of a hole in the parchment, now patched on the verso of folio 291. The main scribe of Great Domesday also wrote round this hole in the entry for Syerston (21,2) on the verso.
	MANFRED <OF THORPE> HOLDS. He is almost certainly the same person as Ralph of Limésy's tenant at the adjacent estate at Thorpe (14,7); on this name, see 14,7 Manfred note.
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. On arantes, see 11,27 ploughing note. It seems probable that the whole plough-team of eight oxen is made up of the present two, the half-plough (= 4 oxen) that Manfred has here and another two oxen in East Stoke (21,1).
	MEADOW, 64 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
20,4	ELSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Elston itself was a chapelry that named the parish, but was ecclesiastically in the Ancient Parish of East Stoke at an early date: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 359. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part is below a Newark wapentake head at 9,1) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3;5. 9,1. 20,5.
	3 MESSUAGES. In towns, the Latin mansurae, apparently interchangeable with mansiones, tends to be used of messuages, that is house-sites, with or without houses on them. Here, the actual dwellings may be meant. Whereas houses, huts or cottages are normally implied in the case of rural estates, they are presumably mentioned here explicitly because, in the absence of any land (terram non habent), they are the only 'resource' .
	ILBERT CLAIMS THE PRIEST'S LAND. Elston (6,5) was held T.R.E. by Leofwin and Pilwin and in 1086 by Ravensward and Arngrim from Bishop Remigius of Lincoln. Pilwin's land at Sibthorpe (20,1) went to Ilbert, so he is presumably claiming from Bishop Remigius that part of Elston that was held by Pilwin, assuming that Pilwin was 'the priest'. He is thus asserting that Pilwin was his antecessor.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1252.
	BISHOP REMIGIUS. He was Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames from 1067 to 1072 when he was authorized to move his seat to Lincoln. He died in 1092. See NTT 6 bishop note. On the name Remigius, see 6,1 Remigius note.
	IN [EAST] STOKE HE CLAIMS THE FOURTH PART OF THE VILLAGE. Ilbert is presumably claiming the 1½ bovates of East Stoke held by Bishop Remigius as a Jurisdiction of his manor of Newark (6,3).
20,5	ELSTON. See 20,4 Elston note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note. He might be the same person as one of Ilbert's predecessors in Hickling (20,8), though that is 12 ½ miles from Elston and no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect the two men and Godwin was a very common name.
	6 BOVATES OF LAND. In the manuscript a space of about two or three letters is left between boû and t're (JRM). There is a hole in the parchment here, now patched on the recto of folio 291.
	ARNGRIM <OF ELSTON>. He is presumably the same man who held another part of Elston (6,5) and part of Sibthorpe (20,1); see 6,5 Arngrim note.
20,6	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Aslockton, Cropwell Butler and Hickling (20,6-8).
	ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 17,18. 30,37.
	LEOFING. On this name, see 9,57 Leofing note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. On the meaning of the interlineation, cu[m] saca 7 soca, see B14 jurisdiction note.
	WULFRIC <OF ASLOCKTON>. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note. He is probably the same person as the Wulfric the thane holding another part of Aslockton where he also has 2 oxen in a plough (30,37).
	HE HAS 2 OXEN PLOUGHING. A Wulfric, probably the same man, has a further 2 oxen in a plough in another part of Aslockton (30,37). There are also three half-ploughs at Aslockton (11,22. 20,6. 30,37) two of which would have amounted to a plough and one of which would have combined with these four oxen to make another plough. In another part of Aslockton (1,57), a Jurisdiction of Orston, there is 1 bovate and '1 villager ploughs there', but it is not said with what portion of a plough, nor whether the plough or part-plough is there or borrowed from elsewhere.
		On the significance of 'ploughing', see 11,27 ploughing note.
	MEADOW, 8 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
20,7	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	CROPWELL [BUTLER]. This was a township of Tithby Ancient Parish. It lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 (wapentake head above another part at 16,6) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 11,32. 16,6.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note.
	AND GODRIC HAD 4 BOVATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Godric and at the same time a further ii. above an original .ii., inserting above them or (the last two letters of quattuor, '4') in clarification. It would seem that each of the T.R.E. holders had 2 bovates, totalling 4 bovates. Compare DBY 6,3 Uhtred note.
		On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note.
	ILBERT OF LACY WAS IN POSSESSION. It appears that Ilbert of Lacy was enfeoffed before Roger of Poitou. Thus, Ilbert was put in possession of Cropwell Butler some time after the Conquest, but when, at a later stage, Roger of Poitou received his fief, he gained, among other lands, another part of Cropwell Butler (16,6), a manor rated at 2 carucates and 6 bovates whose possession is not in dispute. Roger must have seized Ilbert's part of Cropwell Butler and attempted to add it to his own.
	TOOK THIS MANOR FROM ILBERT. The Latin saisire used in the active voice can mean 'to put in possession' if the direct object is a person or 'to seize' if the direct object is land. Here the latter sense is appropriate. In the passive voice, saisire is used in the first sense only ('to be put in possession of', 'to be seised of'). In the present case Ilbert was put in possession of four bovates in Cropwell Butler, but Roger of Poitou took them from him when he received his own fief. However, Fleming (Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1253) translates 'Ilbert of Lacy was seised of this land. When Roger the Poitevin, however, took land, he was seised of this manor against Ilbert'. This mistranslates accepit (normally 'received' and certainly not 'took' in an aggressive sense), and fails to mark the important distinction between the active and passive senses of saisire. The Phillimore printed translation has 'took possession of this manor, against Ilbert', and the Alecto edition has 'took possession of this manor to Ilbert's wrong'. The Latin super in this sense has the notion of 'winning' that it has in the verb supero ('I overpower/overcome/defeat').
	THE WAPENTAKE BEARS WITNESS. The wapentake jurors merely say that Ilbert had held this part of Cropwell Butler. They do not pronounce on the legality of his tenure by mentioning, as juries sometimes do, that they had seen the land delivered to him or heard the king's writ; compare 30,22 through note. Neither of the T.R.E. holders, Wulfgeat and Godric, preceded Ilbert in his other Nottinghamshire manors, but a Godric was Roger of Poitou's predecessor at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (16,5).
	NOW ... AND "TAINUM" WHICH IS THE HEAD OF THE MANOR [AND] WHICH ILBERT HOLDS. The grammar is confused. The emendations suggested by VCH Nottinghamshire of tainum to tainagium (i. p. 233) or to tainlanda (i. p. 282) are not parallelled, and neither word could be masculine. Perhaps a manuscript error for tainum qui habet (JRM).
		The Latin is: modo est in manu regis praeter terciam partem et Tainum qui est caput manerii quem tenet Ilbertus. The overall meaning of the sentence is clear: that part of the manor is still in Ilbert's hands and that the portion he holds is the core of the manor. The detail is more problematic. The Latin qui and quem must grammatically both refer to the same masculine antecedent, that is to Tainum, which, as it stands, can only be a thane; the quem does not refer to manerii ('manor') nor to caput ('head') both of which are neuter nouns and would require quod. One possibility is that a place-name is really required here; that is to say that while Ilbert has lost most of Cropwell Butler, he retains a third of it and the 'head of the manor', that is an estate lying elsewhere. There are cases in Domesday where land is related to 'the head of the manor', which is somewhere else and the subject of a separate entry. For example, in NTH 18,8 it is said that 'In the other Heyford, the Count holds the third part of 1 virgate which is assessed with the head manor'. The head manor here is presumably the Brampton of NTH 18,7 or the Heyford of NTH 18,83. In SHR 4,3,15 of Longnor it is said: ' Roger Hunter holds from Earl Roger the head of this manor', which appears to be at Pulverbatch (SHR 4,26,4). In WOR 2,41 Church Icomb is 'assessed with the head of the manor', which was Blockley (WOR 2,38) The capital T of Tainum could imply that it was intended to be a place-name, but there is no name in or near Cropwell Butler which can be recognised in Tainum and place-names are not usually treated as masculine. Moreover, the fact that Cropwell Butler is marked as a double manor suggests that the caput manerii lay within it and not elsewhere.
		If it were not for the gender (feminine) Latin terram ('land') for tainum would supply an acceptable sense: 'apart from the third part and the land which is the head of the manor that Ilbert holds'. This, however, requires a triple emendation: of tainum to terram of qui to quae and of quem to quam.
		There are a number of instances in Domesday where caput manerii means the 'chief place' in the manor that is being surveyed. Thus in GLS 1,24, of the multiple estate of Tewkesbury Domesday says (in the Phillimore printed translation): 'In the head of the manor, there were in lordship 12 ploughs; 50 slaves male and female'. The translation might be better as 'At the chief place in the manor (that is, the settlement of Tewkesbury itself) there were in lordship ... '. Here the scribe appears to be saying that the ploughs and slaves formed part of the lordship of the caput (Tewkesbury) rather than of the dependencies, which are detailed next. In SSX 9,4, of Ninfield it is said that 'the said Robert the cook holds the head of the manor. He holds only 2 virgates'. In other words the Count of Eu's subtenant has the centre of the manor, Ninfield, and perhaps the hall, but an unusually small portion of the land. He does not, however seem to have any lordship since earlier in the entry it is said that the count himself holds 5 virgates in lordship, Osbern 3 virgates, Waring 2 virgates and Reinbert 2 virgates. In SSX 12,6, of Ditchling it is said that '6 woods belonged to the head of the manor', that is, presumably, to Ditchling itself rather than to any dependencies. In some cases caput manerii may be synonymous with the lordship part of the estate. Thus in GLS 19,1, the large estate of Deerhurst is assessed at 59 hides, and 'before 1066 [there were] 5 hides in the head of the manor'. In view of all this, the present entry could mean 'It is in the king's hands except for the third part which is the chief part of the manor (that is, Cropwell Butler itself and, possibly the lordship) which Ilbert holds'. This, however, requires emendation of qui to quae (to agree with terciam partem and of quem to quam for the same reason. It also requires that the scribe has been clumsy in his Latinity in that the relative pronoun qui (which needs to be emended to quae) does not refer to its immediate antecedent, tainum, but to partem. This is easier to accept, for such a slip is understandable in an unrevised long sentence and it might also explain why he erroneously wrote qui rather than quae (and by extension quem rather than quam) as it was next to tainum and unconsciously attacted by its gender. The sense would then be: 'Now it is in the king's hands except for the third part and a thane. This (third part) is the chief place in the manor and Ilbert [still] holds it'.
		The smallest emendation would be to insert ad between est and caput. This would then give the sense 'now it is in the king's hand apart from a third part and a thane [that is, 'an Englishman'] who is at [that is, 'lives at'] the head of the manor and Ilbert holds him'. The sense is, however, unusual and unsatisfactory.
		There remains the simple possibility that the text is seriously corrupted. The Phillimore printed translation has 'and a thane; which is the head of the manor which Ilbert holds'. and the Alecto edition has 'and the thegn[land] which is the head of the manor, which Ilbert holds'. Fleming, (Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1253) fails to comment on the difficulty of the text and translates: 'It is now in the hand of the King, except for a third of the manor and a thegn, which are in the head of the manor, which Ilbert now holds'. This translation renders est (singular) in qui est caput manerii as 'are' (plural) and supplies an 'in' where there is no preposition in the Latin.
20,8	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in part of the 11-line space left by him at the end of the entry for Ilbert of Lacy on folio 291b. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the presence in it of two formulae, for its status and for the value statement, which are only found in added entries in circuit VI, but are found in circuits written later than it, may suggest that this entry was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	HICKLING. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,3. 11,30, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note. This portion remained in the Lacy family: in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 93, two parts of the vill were held respectively by the prior of Thurgarton and Richard de Gray as a Lacy fee from the Earl of Lincoln.
	THORKIL <OF STOKE>. On this name, see 9,15 Thorkil note; see also 20,3 Thorkil note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note; see also 20,5 Godwin note.
	AS 2 MANORS. This phrase takes the place of the marginal IIM', denoting that the manor had been held by two people in 1066. It is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (as also here in 10,64 and 30,55). On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	FORMERLY £6; VALUE NOW £4. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
21	LAND OF BERENGAR OF TOSNY. He was the son of Robert of Tosny, who was the lord of Belvoir in Lincolnshire, and was named after his uncle Berengar Spina. Their place of origin was Tosny in the French département of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gaillon-Campagne). Berengar's wife was called Albreda. His fief passed after his death to a sister (also called Albreda) who was married to Robert de Insula. Robert was holding this fief at the time of the Lindsey Survey. From Albreda, the lands passed to Hugh Bigod, son of Adelisa, another sister of Berengar. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 164.
		The Domesday forms of his first name - Berenger, Berengarius, Berengerius - represent Old German Beringer, Berengar, Old French Beringier, Berenger, Berengar: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 44-45. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Berengar and, in Norfolk, Berenger; these have now been standardized as Berengar. The Alecto edition has Berengar.
	The lands in this small fief seem to have lain in a single wapentake, Newark Wapentake.
21,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the three estates (21,1-3).
	[EAST] STOKE. This was an Ancient Parish, known ecclesiastically as East Stoke with Syerston. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 11,6. 20,3. It is represented by East Stoke (SK7549) and Stoke Hall (SK7450).
	ESBIORN CROC. The Domesday forms of his first name - Sbern, Sberne, Esbern[us], Esber - represent Old Norse Asbiorn, Old Danish Esbiorn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 165. The form Esbern appears in the Phillimore printed translation for some counties; it has now been standardized as Esbiorn. The Alecto edition has Esbiorn for the T.R.E. holders, but Esbern for the only 1086 holder (WIL 67,93). His byname, croc, apparently comes from the Old Danish Krok, 'originally a nickname from krokr ('a hook')': Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 179; see also Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Crook etc., the modern derivative. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Croc for the 1086 tenants in Wiltshire and Hampshire (Domesday forms Croc and Croch), but Crook here; these have now been standardized as Croc. The Alecto edition has Croch and, for this byname, Croc.
		Esbiorn Croc was also Berengar's subtenant in 21,2, but appears nowhere else in Domesday with his byname.
	RALPH, HIS MAN. On this name, see B10 Ralph note.
	WHO PLOUGH WITH 2 OXEN. The Latin is arantes .ii. bob', with the .ii. bob[us] being an instrumental ablative. This pure Classical use is rare, normally being replaced by a prepositional phrase cum .ii. bobus.
		It seems probable that the whole plough-team of eight oxen is made up of the present two, the half-plough (= 4 oxen) that Manfred has in East Stoke (20,3) and a further two oxen at East Stoke (20,3).
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac' over an erasure, perhaps immediately as it is blurred, the ink spreading because he did not wait until the surface of the parchment had been re-prepared.
21,2	SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 (another part of Syerston is below a Newark wapentake head at 30,40) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 6,3. 30,40.
	ESBIORN CROC. On these names, see 21,1 Esbiorn note.
	GODWIN HOLDS. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	½ PLOUGH. This appears to complement the 1½ ploughs at another part of Syerston (2,3).
	VALUE BEFORE 1066. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote round a hole in the parchment, as he did in the entry for East Stoke (20,3) on the recto of this folio. This hole is now patched on this side of the folio.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a line's space, perhaps to draw attention to the fact that the next entry (21,3) was held in 1086 by two people. On other one-line spaces left within fiefs, see 1,44 after note.
21,3	BROADHOLME. This was a hamlet of Thorney Ancient Parish. Like Thorney (6,4) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086. For another part, see 9,5.
	THORGOT [* LAG *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Turgot, Turgod, Turgotus - represent Old Danish Thorgot, Old Norse Thorgautr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 393. The Old Norse forms appear in the printed Phillimore edition of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and the form Thurgot appears in Norfolk; these have now been standardized as Thorgot, as in the other Phillimore counties. The Alecto edition has Thorgot.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire, but a Thorgot was Berengar's predecessor in OXF 34,1-2, while in LIN 18 Thorgot Lag (Lag, not always given his byname, which means 'low', 'short': Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 320) was the predecessor of Berengar's father Robert of Tosny, who was also a tenant-in-chief in 1086. Thorgot was Robert's predecessor in his two estates in Yorkshire, both of which Berengar held from his father (YKS 7E1-2).
		See Clarke, English Nobility, p. 344, whose list omits dependencies and also NTT 21,3, perhaps because it was without value (JP).
	HEALFDENE. On this name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
		He was perhaps the same man as the king's thane of that name, who held land in Cromwell (30,4), and was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234, though Stenton did not refer to this Healfdene; see 30,2 Healfdene note.
	WILLIAM OF PERCY. From Percy-en-Auge, in the French département of Eure (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Mézidon-Canon), not from Percy in the French département of Manche (arrondissement Saint-Lô). He was a tenant-in-chief and a subtenant of Earl Hugh of Chester and of his father-in-law, Hugh of Port. He fought in the campaign in Scotland in 1072, built a castle at Topcliffe (Yorkshire) and re-founded Whitby Abbey, where his brother Serlo became prior before 1087 and his nephew William became abbot (c. 1109 x 1114 to before 1125). William of Percy joined the first crusade and died near Jerusalem in 1098. His lands became the barony of Topcliffe. See Complete Peerage, x. pp. 435-44; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 148; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 58, 80; Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 77-78; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 478. On the name William, see B9 William note.
	THIS LAND IS AN ADJUNCT OF NEWARK[-ON-TRENT]. For the manor of Newark-on-Trent, see 6,1. For this use of Latin iacet ad, see 1,66 adjunct note.
	THE VILLAGERS' WORK. That is, their customary due of labour-service.
	SAXILBY IN LINCOLNSHIRE. Saxilby does not appear by name in the Lincolnshire Domesday folios. It lay at SK8975 and was presumably part of the manor of Ingleby (LIN 22,30) held in chief by William of Percy.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left six lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Berengar of Tosny, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
22	LAND OF HUGH SON OF BALDRIC. Under William the Conqueror he was sheriff not only of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire (apparently a joint shrievalty for many generations), but also of Yorkshire. He was a benefactor of the Abbey of Préaux and of St Mary's of York. After 1086 he appears to have forfeited his lands probably for supporting Robert Curthose as the Conqueror’s successor. His sons-in-law were Guy of Craon and Walter of Rivers, both Domesday tenants. See Green, English Sheriffs, pp. 67, 89; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 267-68. On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note; on his father's name, see B3 Baldric note.
	The two lands in this fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in the standard county order, though both heads need to be supplied:
		22,1 [Newark Wapentake]
		22,2 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake].
22,1	[NEWARK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Kilvington and Alverton (22,1).
	KILVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 6,3. 20,2.
		Farley printed CHELVINGTVNE for this place-name, but it is clearly CHELVINCTVNE in the manuscript; the other two occurrences are spelt Cheluintone (6,3) and Cheluintun (20,2). For other errors of his in this county, see 9,31 Drayton note. The scribes of both the Abbreviatio (folio 206r) and the Breviate (folio 148v) omitted the letter C altogether and wrote CHELVINTONE.
	ALVERTON. This was a hamlet of Kilvington Ancient Parish. Like Kilvington itself (6,3. 20,2. 22,1) it probably lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 11,3. 20,2.
	KOLGRIM. The Domesday forms of his name - Colegrim, Colgrim, Colgrin, Golegrim - represent Old Norse Kolgrimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 306-307. JRM preferred to omit the final r in Old Norse names such as this as it does not appear in any of the Domesday forms. The form Kolgrimr, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Kolgrim. The Alecto edition has Kolgrimr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	ANSGER HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Ansger, Ansgerus, Ansgerius - represent Old German Ansger: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 167, at the end of his account of Old Norse Asgeirr, Old Danish Esger for T.R.E. holders. See also Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 31-32. The Alecto edition has Ansgar and Ansger. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
22,2	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Cuckney (22,2).
	CUCKNEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Norton Cuckney. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 9,36.
		On the history of this estate at the time of Domesday, see 9,36 Cuckney note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note.
	RICHARD HOLDS. On this name, see B16 Richard note. This is the only occurrence of a Richard as a tenant of Hugh son of Baldric. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 367, who calls him miles.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Hugh son of Baldric, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
23	LAND OF HUGH OF GRANDMESNIL. He came from Grandmesnil in the French département of Calvados, arrondissement Lisieux, canton Sainte-Pierre-sur-Dives. Hugh was the eldest of three sons of Robert de Grandmesnil and Hawise, daughter of Giroie. Robert's fief was divided between Hugh and one of his brothers. Between them they re-founded the monastery of Saint-Evroult, Robert becoming a monk there and later abbot. Robert and Hugh were accused of complicity in a rebellion of Robert son of Giroie, a brother of Hawise, and went into exile in 1061. Robert became an abbot in Sicily, but Hugh was recalled in 1064 and fought at Hastings. He was initially a trusted supporter of King William and was castellan of Winchester castle in the vital early period (1066-1069) when William was establishing his rule. By 1086 he was castellan of Leicester castle and probably sheriff of Leicestershire. He was married to Adeliza, the daughter of Ivo, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise. The English lands she held are separately recorded in Domesday Book. Hugh supported Robert Curthose as successor to William the Conqueror against William II in 1087-1088, but was allowed to retain his offices. He died in England in 1098 and was buried at Saint-Evroult, where he had become a monk. His English estates went to his son Ivo, but were lost by him in 1102 after he had joined Robert of Bellême, Earl of Shrewsbury, in revolt. Ivo attempted to redeem himself by joining the first crusade. His lands were left in the custody of Robert, Count of Meulan, who joined them to his own lands after Ivo’s death on crusade. They became part of Robert’s earldom of Leicester. See VCH Leicestershire, i. p. 291; Crouch, The Beaumont Twins; Cain, ‘Introduction’, Leicestershire Domesday, pp. 17-18; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 262. On the name Hugh, see B3 Hugh note.
		Both of Hugh of Grandmesnil's estates were attached to manors in other counties (Leicestershire and Derbyshire respectively), so he had no real presence in Nottinghamshire. Compare 1,65-66, two entries added after rubrication, which were also for dependencies of manors in another county (Lincolnshire).
	Both Hugh's holdings here appear to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake.
23,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Edwalton and Thrumpton (23,1-2).
	EDWALTON. This was a chapelry of Ruddington Ancient Parish. Ruddington itself (2,6. 9,83. 17,15. 25,2) appears to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as later. Edwalton is specifically placed in Rushcliffe Wapentake by Domesday (there is a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 16,4 above another part) and was in that wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
		Domesday gives no marginal indication of the status of this land, although it appears from the text to be an adjunct of Stockerston in Leicestershire (LEC 13,15). However, it has full manorial details, including a T.R.E. holder and value, so would appear to be, or to have been, a manor.
	GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. See 10,5 Gytha note.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
	IT IS AN ADJUNCT OF STOCKERSTON. The statement Ad Stoctun iacet was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space at the end of the entry at the same time as he added the next entry (23,2 entry note). He may have found this information during a check of the putative circuit volume or documents preceding it, for Leicestershire. Compare 23,2 entry note and 1,65 entry note. Stockerston (LEC 13,15) was likewise held by Hugh of Grandmesnil and had been held T.R.E. by Earl Ralph, Countess Gytha's husband. Stockerston and Edwalton are not adjacent on the ground, but it may be that this sentence is a way of saying that its tax and service are rendered at or through Stockerston.
23,2	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a two-line space left at the end of the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil on folio 291c, extending into the outer margin. He wrote an exceptionally tall I for In, extending it upwards and with a hook on it, probably to link it to Hugh's only other holding (23,1); see 9,47 entry note, 11,13 entry note and compare WOR 8,25 entry note. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. At the same time, he added the statement Ad Stoctun iacet ('It is an adjunct of Stockerston') to the previous entry (23,1), which like this one was for land attached to a manor in a different county, though, unlike it, was provided with full manorial details. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		This account of land in Thrumpton which was a dependency of Sandiacre in Derbyshire (DBY 17,15-17) may have been found by him during a check of that county. Compare 23,1 Stockerston note and 1,65 entry note.
	THRUMPTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Like Ratcliffe-on-Soar itself (30,20) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,79. 10,4.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday gave no T.R.E. holder nor a marginal indication of the status of this land, although it appears from the text to be an adjunct of Sandiacre in Derbyshire (DBY 17,15-17).
	IT LIES IN [THE LANDS OF] SANDIACRE [DERBYSHIRE]. Hugh of Grandmesnil held three manors there (DBY 17,15-17). Thrumpton is 4 miles from Sandiacre and divided from it by the River Trent.
24	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the chapter head, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS. He came from Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire, in the French département of Eure (arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie). In Normandy he was lord of Longueville. His father, Walkelin de Ferrières, died before 1040. In England Henry held a large fief in more than a dozen counties. His principal English manor was at Tutbury (in Staffordshire) where, with his wife, he founded a priory dependent on Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy. He died c.1101. His third son Robert inherited his English estates and became first Earl of Derby in 1138. His descendants held the honour of Tutbury and were Earls of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. After Robert II of Ferrers lost the barony in 1266, it passed to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, then to Thomas, likewise earl. Following his execution in 1322 the castle of Tutbury and the honour were granted to John, Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King Edward II. See VCH Leicestershire, i. p. 292; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 42; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 247. On the name Henry, see S5 Henry note.
	There are only three estates in this fief and they appear to have lain in two wapentakes; both heads need to be supplied. The land at Willoughby (24,3), which is not a manor, was entered out of sequence by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see 24,3 'Lythe' note. As a result the usual order of wapentakes is reversed:
		24,1-2 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		24,3 ['Lythe' Wapentake].
24,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Leake (24,1).
	LEAKE. East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 9,89. 28,2.
		The Earls of Ferrers appear to have held both at East Leake and at West Leake, although the identity of the Domesday holdings (4,4. 9,89. 24,1. 28,2) is difficult to disentangle since the lands of both Roger of Bully (chapter 9) and Henry of Ferrers were part of the honour of Lancaster in the fourteenth century. East Leake is held (as Esterleke) with Sutton (Sutton Bonington, 24,2) in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103, while Westleke is a Ferrers fee in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 28; Westerlek' is held by the Earl of Derby in Book of Fees, p. 995 and Westerleke from the honour of Tutbury in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103. It is not clear whether the separation into East Leake and West Leake had occurred by 1086 and if it had which was the manor and which the outlier in the present entry. VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 283, perhaps arbitrarily, has East Leake for the manor and West Leake for the outlier here.
	SIWARD [* BARN *]. See S5 Siward note.
	AN OUTLIER, LEAKE. Domesday does not otherwise distinguish between East and West Leake (JRM). It is not possible to identify either of the modern places with an individual Domesday holding, which were of identical sizes; see 24,1 Leake note.
		The Phillimore printed translation had: 'To this manor is attached the outlier of Leake'. This might suggest that the outlier itself is unnamed. However, in the Latin Ad hoc man[erium] adiacet BEREW[ICA] Lecche, the Lecche is in apposition to berewica, not a genitive dependent on it. The Alecto edition has ''the BEREWICK of [East and West] Leake'.
	PLUMTREE HUNDRED. This detail is probably a stray survivor of more systematic hundredal information contained in the putative circuit volume or earlier recension of the Domesday material, but eliminated from them; see 18,7 Blidworth note. Because of the absence of such information from the text of Great Domesday, it is unclear whether only this outlier lay in Plumtree Hundred or whether both parts of Leake (24,1) and probably the rest of the vill, were there, although the most obvious sense of the text is that the main part of Leake did not lie in Plumtree Hundred, but that 'this [outlier]' - haec [berewica] - did.
		Of this entry, David Roffe says (Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 9): 'Henry de Ferrers' estate of Leake was enrolled in two entries because it was situated in two hundreds'. However, it is not 'enrolled in two entries' in the normal sense of entry, since the outlier in Leake is entered as an appendage. Further, Roffe uses this and other examples of information relating to the same place's being entered twice to argue that all such 'separate' entries are proof that the parcels of land concerned lay in different hundreds; for a discussion, see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
24,2	[SUTTON] BONINGTON. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 30,15;17-18.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday gave no indication of the status of this piece of land, but the presence of a T.R.E. holder, full manorial details and value suggest that it was a manor, as does his use of the 'square' form of I for In.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	SIWARD [* BARN *]. See S5 Siward note.
24,3	[* 'LYTHE' WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from the uncertain evidence for the location of Willoughby (24,3) whose identification in turn depends on its relationship to Bathley; see 24,3 Bathley note. As Willoughby is a Jurisdiction, the main scribe of Great Domesday would not necessarily have included a wapentake head in the text. Places in 'Lythe' Wapentake are usually entered before those in Rushcliffe Wapentake, but the scribe may initially have missed this piece of land just as he seems to have left out Bathley entirely.
	WILLOUGHBY. This place was identified by both the Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition as Willoughby-on-the-Wolds. However, in view of its dependency on Bathley (see 24,3 Bathley note), it is more likely to be the Willoughby that was a settlement in Norwell Ancient Parish and like Norwell (5,13) was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086.
	BATHLEY. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of North Muskham. North Muskham (5,2. 8,2. 12,11-13. 30,7) probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and Bathley was probably in the same wapentake; it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106. The identification of the Domesday Badeleie seems certain (Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 182), although its etymology is unclear. If the place is correctly identified as Bathley in Nottinghamshire, there must have been a manor here in 1086, for it to have Willoughby as a dependency. It is therefore, probably, a Domesday omission or, as in the case of Colston Basset (27,2), Bathley is really in the text of Domesday as a manor, but has been misnamed by scribal error; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 233; and 27,2 Colston note. Bathley turns up later associated with South Muskham (Book of Fees, pp. 980, 988) but the relation to any Domesday estate is unclear.
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the accusative ac[ra]s in error, perhaps influenced by its (correct) use in the previous entry (24,2); see 1,1 fishery note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left six lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Henry of Ferrers, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
25	[LAND] OF ROBERT MALET. He was the son of William Malet of Graville-Sainte-Honorine (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, commune of Le Havre) and Esilia Crispin of Tillières. William was also prominent in England in the early years of the Conqueror's reign. Robert's large English fief, which he inherited from his father, was centred on Eye in Suffolk (briefly held by Roger of Poitou after 1087) where he began the foundation of a cell of the Abbey of Bernay. He was recorded as sheriff of Suffolk in 1071 possibly in succession to his father. He went on to be chamberlain to Henry I. He died after 1107. He was probably father of William II Malet (who forfeited Eye in 1109) and Robert Malet, ancestor of the Mallets of Curry Mallet (Somerset).
		The origin of the byname Malet is unclear. Tengvik, Old English Bynames, pp. 350-51, suggests Old French malet, a diminutive of mal (from Latin malus), meaning 'bad', 'wicked' or 'evil'. The force of the diminutive is unclear, whether 'quite evil', 'rather wicked' or 'a little naughty'. A related possibility, due to Ekwall (Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 1936 edition) is that Malet is from Old French maleit, past participle of the verb maleir, meaning 'cursed'. Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Mallett suggests two further possibilities. The first is that the name is a patronymic, a diminutive of French Malo, derived from the sixth-century Breton Saint Maclovius, represented in the place-name Saint-Malo. His second suggestion is based on the fact that Orderic Vitalis calls William Malet Gulielmus agnomine Mal(l)eto ('William with the surname Malletum) suggesting that he connected the name with Old French maillet, mallet, a diminutive of Old French mail, mal from Latin malleus ('hammer'). Maillet in Medieval French is a mace. Support for this comes from the fact that when William Malet was banished in 1109, his son Hugh took the name Fichet. Fichet is a diminutive of Old French fiche ('iron point') probably used of a lance or javelin. Thus Hugh Malet in becoming Hugh Fichet may have wished to retain the warrior connections of his name in changing it. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 377. On his first name, see 2,3 Robert note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday did not include TERRA before ROBERTI MALET. He also omitted it before the names of the tenants-in-chief in NTT 26, NTT 28 and NTT 29. The reason for this is unclear, but occurs occasionally elsewhere in Great Domesday, though generally because of lack of space, which is not so here.
	This fief consisted of a single manor with one Jurisdiction. Both seem to have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086.
25,1	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Bradmore (25,1).
	BRADMORE. This was a chapelry of Bunny Ancient Parish. Like Bunny (13,6) it probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note.
25,2	RUDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 1109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 2,6. 9,83. 17,15.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left five lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Robert Malet, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
26	[LAND] OF DURAND MALET. He was probably connected with William Malet and Robert Malet, most likely a son of William (who died in 1071) and therefore a brother of Robert. Ralph Malet and Walter Malet held after him in the early twelfth century and were probably his sons. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 182. On his first name, see 9,69 Durand note, and on Malet, see NTT 25 [land] note.
		On the omission of TERRA before DVRANDI MALET, see NTT 25 [land] note.
	This fief consisted of a single manor, apparently in Bingham Wapentake.
26,1	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Owthorpe (26,1).
	OWTHORPE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 9,111. 12,21.
	ROLF <OF OWTHORPE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Rolf, Roulf, Rolft, Rolfus, Rov - represent Old Danish Rolf, Old Norse Hrolfr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 294. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Rolf and, in Lincolnshire, Rothulfr; these have now been standardized as Rolf. The Alecto edition usually has Rolf, but has Ralph for NFK 65,1, for LIN T5 (the son of Skialdvor) and for WOR 8,7 ("Turstin"'s father, though elsewhere it has Rolf for him) and has Hrolf in SFK 74,8 and NFK 4,44.
		Durand Malet's predecessor in LIN 44,5;7-11;16 was called Rolf, probably the same person.
	LAND [SIC] LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote T'ra at the end of the first line of this entry and then repeated it in error at the beginning of the second line. The Phillimore printed translation has just 'Land for 3 ploughs'.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining eight lines of the column, possibly in case he found further holdings of Durand Malet, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
27	IN THE TOP MARGIN, above the chapter head, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	LAND OF OSBERN SON OF RICHARD. He was the son of a Norman, Richard Scrob or Richard Scrope, who settled on the Welsh border in the time of Edward the Confessor and who built Richard's Castle in Herefordshire. See Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iv. p. 301; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 75; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 316. On the name Osbern, see 2,2 Osbern note, and, on Richard, see B16 Richard note.
	This fief consists of a single manor Granby (27,1), and two dependencies (27,2-3) of another manor (Colston Bassett) that seems to have been omitted. Both manors seem to have lain in the same wapentake (Bingham Wapentake).
27,1	[BINGHAM WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Granby (27,1).
	GRANBY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. It seems likely that this estate is named in error and that it was really Colston Bassett; see 27,2 Colston note. If Granby and Colston Bassett were next to each other in a territorially-arranged schedule, densely written with no blank lines to separate vills, it would have been easy to miss the name of a vill and attribute an estate to the vill entered before it. The main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B sometimes corrected the names of estates, probably, in some cases, for this reason, but the error may have crept at an earlier stage in the Domesday process.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,59 Algar note. He was also the predecessor of Osbern son of Richard in Warwickshire (WAR 37,1;6).
	ROBERT D'OILLY HOLDS. He came from Ouilly-le-Basset, in the commune of Pont-d'Ouilly in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Failaise-Nord). He was a close friend of Roger d'Ivry and he distinguished himself at the battle of Hastings. By his marriage to Aldith, daughter of Wigot of Wallingford, he acquired many of Wigot's estates and his holding was increased by the Conqueror. He was castellan of the castles of Oxford and Wallingford which he built and sheriff of Berkshire and of Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. He died c. 1091-1092 and was buried at Abingdon Abbey. His daughter Matilda married the Domesday tenant-in-chief Miles Crispin. His wife’s estates later formed part of the honour of Wallingford; his own became the barony of Hook Norton (Oxfordshire) and went to his brother Nigel of Ouilly. These estates subsequently became part of the honour of Warwick. See Farrer, ‘The Honour of Wallingford’; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 378. Robert was also a subtenant of Osbern son of Richard in Worcestershire (WOR 19,3). On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note.
27,2	WIVERTON. Wiverton Hall was an extra-parochial place, created a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 370. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 10,58;60. 11,29;32. The grid reference is to Wiverton Hall (SK713363).
		The S' in the margin beside this entry is reproduced very faintly in the Alecto facsimile; in the manuscript it is also rather faint, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	A JURISDICTION OF COLSTON [BASSETT]. Colston Bassett was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232.
		The Domesday form of this place-name, Coletone, is in origin, despite the different spelling, the same as that of Car Colston ('Kolr's tun') which also lay in this wapentake (1,56. 9,107. 11,24). If the present Coletone is correctly identified as Colston Bassett, there is no other occurrence of this place in Domesday. In view of the fact that the next entry (for Salterford, 27,3) is said to be an outlier of Coletone, it seems possible that a manor of Colston Bassett, belonging to Osbern son of Richard, has been omitted after the entry for Granby (27,1) and that both Wiverton and Salterford were its dependencies. An alternative explanation is that the name Granby was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in error for the estate at 27,1. It is quite probable that, in view of its later history and importance, Walter of Aincourt's estate there (11,26) accounted for the whole vill; see 11,26 Granby note. Certainly there is nothing in the later descent of Granby to connect it via the tenant-in-chief of chapter 27 (Osbern son of Richard) with the honour of Richard's Castle or via its subtenant (Robert d'Oilly) with the honour of Wallingford. On the other hand, Colston Bassett was held of the honour of Wallingford (the Red Book of the Exchequer: Hall, p. 331); see VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. p. 233; and Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 317, where Colston is held by Ralph Basset from Richard Basset of Weldon [Northamptonshire].
27,3	SALTERFORD. This was a settlement in Calverton Ancient Parish. Like Calverton itself (5,10. 16,3. 30,13), it probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086. The name means 'ford of the salters' (Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 158), though there is no mention of salt-working in Domesday. It is not on the River Trent, but may have originated as the holding of men who worked on the salt-pans of the tidal part of that river, when Salterford was part of a much larger estate that touched the river.
		The grid reference is to Salterford Farm (SK605523).
		The B' in the margin beside this entry is reproduced very faintly in the Alecto facsimile; in the manuscript it is also rather faint, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a third of a line blank after the tax assessment, possibly for the later insertion of the plough estimate.
	AN OUTLIER OF COLSTON [BASSETT]. For the idiomatic use of Latin in, see 9,7 jurisdiction note. For Colston Bassett, see 27,2 Colston note.
	AND. The 7 linking the measurements of length and width of the pasturable woodland is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile; it is faint in the manuscript, but clear, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left four lines blank, possibly in case he found further holdings of Osbern son of Richard, though probably for aesthetic reasons.
28	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the chapter head, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	[LAND] OF ROBERT SON OF WILLIAM. In Leicestershire a small fief is held by Robert the usher (LEC 20). The entries are repeated in a postscriptal addition at LEC 43,9-11 where the holder is said to be Robert son of William the usher. Barring a scribal transfer of 'the usher' from one man to the other, it appears likely that there existed a Robert the usher son of William the usher. A Robert occurs in Cambridgeshire (CAM 39,3) and is identified in the Inquisitio Eliensis (p. 115) as Robert the usher, but he is not necessarily the same man. However, it is possible that the Robert son of William who holds in Derbyshire (DBY 15) and also holds the the adjacent fief to William the usher in the Nottinghamshire folios (NTT 28-29) is the same as this Leicestershire Robert. A William the usher also occurs in Devon (DEV 5,9. 51,2-12). See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 387. On the name Robert, see 2,3 Robert note, and on the name William, see B9 William note.
		On the omission of TERRA before ROBERTI FILII WILL'I, see NTT 25 [Land] note.
	The estates in this small fief lay in two wapentakes which are entered in standard county order, though the heads need to be supplied:
		28,1-2 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		28,3 [Broxtowe Wapentake].
28,1	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Stanford-on-Soar.
	STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (another estate here is below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 9,77) as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	ALFHEAH <OF STANFORD>. On this name, see 10,34 Alfheah note.
		Note on the identification to be supplied (JP).
28,2	ALSO JURISDICTION THERE. That is, Leake was a Jurisdiction of Stanford-on-Soar (28,1).
	IN {{STANTON[-ON-THE-WOLDS]}} LEAKE. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written In Stan[...], then erased the second part of the place-name and wrote tone to produce Stantone. It is unlikely that he had written Stanford initially (that is, Stanford-on-Soar), although quite a few 'multiple estates' had Jurisdictions in the same vill as themselves, as not all of the e of Stantone is over the erasure and there is no sign of the ascender of a d here. He then underlined Stantone for deletion when he interlined its replacement LECHE above it. He wrote a wavy line to avoid the firmly-scored horizontal line here, as he also did under [O]XETVNE on folio 288c (11,11), but in the Alecto facsimile it looks as if he underlined the In before it here as well. This second layer of correction was done during a campaign of addition and correction that took place after the county had been rubricated and which included the insertion on Stanford-on-Soar later in this entry; see 28,2 Stanford note and 9,93 entry note. The underlining is missing in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, which misled Stenton in VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 284, note 2. The scribe of the Abbreviatio (folio 206v) wrote Lesche, but then, using a different pen, added Stantone above and slightly to the left of it with an insertion mark before the In Lesche. The scribe of the Breviate seems to have been similarly confused as to what was intended by the Great Domesday scribe, as he wrote In Lesche Stantona (folio 148v).
		It is not completely clear why the scribe had written Stantone here. Stanton-on-the-Wolds and Leake are close to each other on the ground and it could be that both had formerly been part of the same estate (called 'Stanton') and that Leake was interlined as a more exact designation, as elsewhere in Domesday. It is also possible that Stanton followed Leake in a geographically-arranged document (as at 4,4-5) and that at some stage in the Domesday process a scribe wrote Stantone instead of the next place-name, Leche; a check would then have revealed the error.
		East Leake and West Leake were adjacent Ancient Parishes. They probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 4,4. 9,89. 24,1.
		This holding appears to have been at East Leake which occurs (as Esterlek) in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103) as it is in the hands of Elie de Staunton, presumably named from Stanton-on-the-Wolds (28,2).
	IT BELONGS TO STANFORD[-ON-SOAR]. This sentence was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the same time as two unrubricated entries (9,93. 11,13) and some other corrections of place-names, including the one in the present entry, which were not rubricated; see 9,93 entry note.
28,3	[BROXTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This heading is derived from the fact that Broxtowe (28,3) named the wapentake.
	BROXTOWE. This was a chapelry of Bilborough Ancient Parish. It named the wapentake in which it lay in 1086 and was still there later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 1,49. 10,41.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note.
29	[LAND] OF WILLIAM THE USHER. This man was possibly father of Robert son of William, the tenant-in-chief of NTT 28; see NTT 28 Robert note. On the name William, see B9 William note. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 492.
		On the omission of TERRA before WILLELMI HOSTIARII, see NTT 25 [Land] note.
	The two manors in this small fief lay in a single wapentake, Broxtowe Wapentake, but the head has to be supplied.
29,1	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN, next to the first line of this entry, is written an f; see NTT 18 chapter note.
	4M. See 3,4 2M note.
	[BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Bramcote and Trowell (29,1-2).
	BRAMCOTE. This was a chapelry of Attenborough Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,46. 10,37.
	ULFKIL. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,10 Godric note. The Godric who was the predecessor of William the usher in Devon (DEV 51,2) is unlikely to have been the same as this man: Godric was a very common name.
	AELFRIC. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note.
	LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note.
	12 BOVATES. See 1,46 bovates note.
	3½ PLOUGHS. The odd half plough may be that present at 'Eastern' Chilwell (30,52), which was probably less than 2 miles away.
29,2	TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 30,30;50-51.
	UHTBRAND <OF TROWELL>. The Domesday forms of his name - Uctebrand, Ostebrand - represent the hypothetical Anglo-Scandinavian Uhtbrand: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 398. The Alecto edition has Uhtbrand.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire. There are only four other occurrences of it in Domesday, two in Derbyshire (DBY 1,38. 6,93), who are likely to have been the same individual (see DBY 1,38 Uhtbrand note) and one each in Lincolnshire and Cheshire (LIN 59,1. CHS 19,3).
		It is possible that the Uhtbrand <of Trowell> in NTT 29,2 is the same man as the Uhtbrand here, as Trowell is only eleven miles from Aston, but there are no tenurial or other links to confirm this (JP).
	HALF A CHURCH. There is no sign of the other half in Domesday.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining ten lines of the column and all of the adjacent column (folio 292b). It is unlikely that he left all of this space for further holdings of William the usher, but if he had been picking out from a large section on the lands of various tenants the holdings of some of the better-known individuals (such as perhaps Robert and Durand Malet, Osbern son of Richard, Robert son of William and William the usher), he could have decided after the last of these to begin a chapter on the remaining tenants, but, in case he decided to remove any more from the section in his source, he kept his options open by leaving this large space and not starting this chapter until folio 292c. In the Liber Exoniensis there are just such large sections on the lands of the thanes, French men-at-arms, king's servants etc. from which the main scribe of Great Domesday removed the holdings of several well-known people and created a number of separate chapters for them; see DEV 22 William note. He might have been abstracting holdings from more than one large section in his source, which would explain why at this point he was still unsure how many more separate chapters he might decide to create.
30	LAND OF [KING'S] THANES. This chapter, like similar final chapters in many Domesday counties, groups together lands held by Englishmen. This group is probably more miscellaneous than at first appears. Some held these lands T.R.E., others may be relatives of the T.R.E. holder, yet others may have received these lands in exchange for estates larger in number or size that they held in 1066; a further group may have been rewarded by the king after 1066. The names of some 1086 holders have been omitted and it would be rash to assume that in every case they are the same as the T.R.E. holders.
	Like other such chapters, there is no simple sequence of wapentakes. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably had to comb through a large composite section (or sections) containing not only the land of Englishmen but also of minor Frenchmen. He may even have had to re-read all the material for the county to see if these holdings were still attached to other parts of the same vills in his source, or he may have had to extract them from the details of royal multiple estates from which most of these holdings originated. At the same time he was perhaps attempting to maintain a regular sequence of wapentakes, although the fact that 30,2-6 are all lands held by Healfdene in two wapentakes might suggest that he briefly contemplated another type of order, that is, by tenant. However, probably as a result of several scans through his source material, the standard order appears four times (30,1-6;7-11;12-39;40-52) and there are other minor dislocations. The last four entries (30,53-56) are added:
		30,1 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		30,2-4 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		30,5-6 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		____________________________________
		30,7 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		30,8-11 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		____________________________________
		30,12 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		30,13 [Thurgarton Wapentake]
		30,14-26 Rushcliffe Wapentake
		30,27-35 [Broxtowe Wapentake]
		30,36-38 Bingham Wapentake
		30,39 [Oswaldbeck Wapentake]
		____________________________________
		30,40 Newark Wapentake
		30,41-44 ['Bassetlaw' Wapentake]
		30,45-46 ['Lythe' Wapentake]
		30,47-48 [Rushcliffe Wapentake]
		(30,49 is a Jurisdiction in Thurgarton Wapentake)
		30,50-52 [Broxtowe Wapentake]
		____________________________________
		(30,53-56 are added entries out of sequence, respectively in the wapentakes of 'Bassetlaw', Oswaldbeck, Broxtowe and 'Bassetlaw').
	Most of the heads for these wapentakes need to be supplied.
30,1	FARLEY printed M with an abbreviation line over it in the margin here, which is how the main scribe of Great Domesday usually abbreviated the word manerium and its plural maneria. However, in this instance the scribe had written M with a faint hook after it to indicate the missing letters.
	OSBERTON. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written and rubricated ORMESTVNE, but then underlined it for deletion and wrote OSBERNESTVNE above it in correction. No place called Ormestune has been identified.
		Osberton was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Worksop St Mary and St Cuthbert; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 107. Worksop itself (9,43) probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086. Osberton undoubtedly did so, as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. The grid reference is to Osberton Hall.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.
	WULFGEAT <OF RADCLIFFE>. On this name, see 6,8 Wulfgeat note. He is probably the same person as the 1086 holder and possibly as the Wulfgeat who was William Peverel's predecessor and also subtenant in Radcliffe-on-Trent; see 10,55 Wulfgeat note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see S5 Swein note.
	5 FREEMEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected their number by writing a large .v. over erasure. He wrote similar large vs, when correcting the number of villagers in Sibthorpe (10,2) and the number of smallholders in Basford (10,22), but in this case it is impossible to tell whether he had originally written ii or another number.
	A CHURCH; MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin ęccl[es]iam and ac[ra]s are accusative; see 1,1 fishery note.
30,2	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the next three entries (30,2-4).
	CARLTON[-ON-TRENT]. This was a chapelry of Norwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other references to this place, see 1,21;24. 2,5. 9,61. 12,10;23.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note. It is likely that Ulfkil the thane who had held land here in 1066 and in 30,5-6;9;22;30-31;33;36;45, and who continued to hold it in 30,9 and in 30,25, was the same man; certainly seven of his estates probably passed to the same person, Healfdene (here and in 30,5-6;30;33;36;45). If that is so, then he would seem to be the Ulfkil brother of Aelfgar Cida who can be identified from the later history of his holding at Kingston-on-Soar (30,22); see 3,2 Normanton note. On other T.R.E. holders called Ulfkil who might be the same as this individual, see also 10,6 Ulfkil note and 15,7 Ulfkil note.
	HEALFDENE <OF CROMWELL> HAS IT. It is likely that all the references to Healfdene in this chapter (30,2-6;30;33;36;45;47-48) are to the same individual (he succeeded an Ulfkil on seven estates: 30,2 Ulfkil note) and that he is the same as the thane called Healfdene in DBY 17,19 and in LIN 68,32;34. According to VCH Nottinghamshire, i. p. 234, he was an ancestor of the medieval lords Cromwell and was probably the same man as the Healfdene of 4,1. He held land in Cromwell (30,4). Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 134, only mentions the thane called Healfdene in Nottinghamshire as being an ancestor of the Cromwell family.
		On the name Healfdene, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.
	MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
30,3	KNAPTHORPE. This was a hamlet of Caunton Ancient Parish. Like Caunton itself (5,16. 12,8), it probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 11,9. 12,7;22.
	IN THE OUTER MARGIN, next to the last line of this entry, the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote an r (for require, 'enquire'). There is nothing obviously missing or inaccurate in this entry, but, as with the nine other instances of this (including the one at 9,2), his source may have been unclear and he guessed the reading, but decided to check it and it turned out to be correct. On these marginal requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91). Farley did not print this r, as on a number of other occasions, though generally when the r was faint or partially obscured by the binding, neither of which was the case here.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	1 OX IN A PLOUGH. The plough is evidently shared, but there is no sign of the other seven oxen on neighbouring estates.
30,4	CROMWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 18,2.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	1 FISHERY. Cromwell is adjacent to the River Trent.
30,5	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Lambley and Woodborough (30,5-6).
	LAMBLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	3 FREEMEN ... WITH 1 PLOUGH. See 9,95 Freemen note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'and' for cum ('with'). This error also appears in the first version of Domesday Explorer.
30,6	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,9-10.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly VDEBVRG, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as VDBBVRG; see 5,3 Hickling note.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
30,7	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of North Muskham (30,7). This entry for 'Lythe' Wapentake interrupts a group of places in Thurgarton Wapentake (30,5-6;8-11). However, the chapter is not arranged in strict order of wapentakes; see NTT 30 thanes note.
	NORTH MUSKHAM. Unusually (as at 5,2. 8,2. 12,11), Domesday distinguishes this Muskham as 'North'; see 1,13 Ordsall note. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,2. 12,11-13.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote NORDMVSCHAM clearly, but it appears as NOBDMVGHAM in the Alecto facsimile; see 5,3 Hickling note. This place-name appears correctly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
	SIWARD. On this name, see S5 Siward note. He may be the same as the Siward who was holding Sutton Bonington in 1086 (30,17), though he had not held it in 1066.
30,8	[THURGARTON WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Colwick and Woodborough (30,8-10). On the disrupted order, see 30,7 'Lythe' note.
	COLWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,1. 12,17.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On this name, see 5,6 Aelfric note. It is possible that the thane Aelfric who had held land in 1066 also in 30,10;13;27-29;34;50;55 was the same individual, though no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Aelfric was a very common name. If so, he continued to hold his land here and in 30,10;13;27;34;50, had gained the manor of Nuthall (30,32) and his other estates were waste in 1086 and no holders are mentioned.
	BUGGI. On his possible identity and his name, see 6,7 Buggi note.
	[HAD] 5 BOVATES OF LAND. The verb (habebant) is omitted after the place-name and before Aelfric, as also in 30,13 and, perhaps, in 30,16 (30,16 verb note). This is its normal position and the tense must be past as is clear from the fact that they continue to hold 'their' manor.
	MEADOW, 31 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from xxx by inserting a minim over the original punctus and adding a new one.
	UNDERWOOD, 8 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ac[ra]s, accusative, in error, as occasionally elsewhere in this county; see 1,1 fishery note.
30,9	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;10.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	MILL ... MEADOW, 1 VIRGATE. The cases of the Latin i. molin' and of uirg' are unclear; they might be accusative after 'He has'; see 5,15 meadow note. On the use of the square virgate, see 16,3 virgate note.
	20 [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after xx., presumably because his source was unclear or defective. The Phillimore printed translation has '20[s]', but it is safer not to speculate, but to indicate the gap left, as in the Alecto edition.
30,10	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the outer margin of folio 292c next to a manor in Woodborough (30,9). It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formulae for the ploughs and the phrase on the holding's status, as well as the position of the T.R.E. holder, are not found in circuit VI, except in added entries, which may suggest that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		This entry is not included in the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation; for other entries in Nottinghamshire which are similarly missing from it, see 2,3 entry note.
	WOODBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 5,18-19. 9,73. 14,5. 30,6;9.
		As commonly with added entries there is no indication of status at the beginning of the entry, although the fact that it was a manor was entered at the end.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK> HAS. The Latin h[abe]t is correctly translated as the present tense 'has' in the Phillimore printed edition, but it appears as 'had' in the first version of Domesday Explorer. On the name Aelfric, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	PLOUGHS, WHICH ARE THERE, WITH. This is a formula not found anywhere else in circuit VI, except in added entries, but it occurs in circuits written up after it and is especially common in circuit II. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	AS A MANOR. This phrase takes the place of the marginal M' for Manerium ('manor') and is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries (see here also in 5,6. 10,66. 12,12 and 16,12), but it occurs in most of the circuits written up after it. Moreover, in Nottinghamshire the T.R.E. holder is normally listed after the place-name and carucage and before the plough estimate ({Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}), not at the end of the entry as in some other circuits; see also here in 12,12. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
30,11	NORMANTON. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire and is sometimes known as Normanton-by-Southwell. It was a hamlet in Southwell Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 17,14.
		When Southwell was given to the Archbishop of York in 956, every third acre at Normanton was given at the same time; see 5,1 Southwell note. It is possible that the present estate was never in the hands of the archbishops of York but represents some or all of the part that was not granted; see 5,1 outliers note.
	ERNWY THE PRIEST. On this name, see 16,5 Ernwy note. Although Ernwy and Ernwin were separate names, there was sometimes scribal confusion; on Ernwin, see 9,109 Ernwin note. An Ernwin the priest had held a dependency of Arnold (30,49) and was the 1086 holder of a manor in Elkesley (30,41), while in this chapter there were also thanes called simply Ernwy (30,56) and Ernwin (30,35;42-43;51-52;54) who were holding in 1086. It is unclear, however, how many individuals there were and how many of those unidentified were a priest, as both Ernwy and Ernwin were common names. See 30,42 Ernwin note.
		The final letter of Arnui was erased, possibly a curved d judging by the shape of the scraped area; the form Ernuit occurs in SHR 4,5,4 and was accepted by von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 243-44, under OE Earnwig. The shape of the i is odd, as if it had once been part of another, tall, letter, though it could have been written like that to distinguish it from the preceding u. There is no sign, however, that the name had once been written Arnuuin'.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the 1086 holder of this entry, as also of 30,12;14;28-29;40. In the present entry and in 30,28-29 this might be connected to the land being waste, but is not so for 30,12;14;40, and plenty of entries in this county that were waste in 1086 had holders.
30,12	[* 'BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE *]. This heading is necessitated by the fact that the unidentified "Odestorp" (30,12) appears on balance to have lain in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note and, on the disorder of this chapter, see NTT 30 thanes note.
	"ODESTORP". On the form of this name and its probable location, see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. For other parts, see 1,12. 9,42;71.
	WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note. A thane called Wulfmer had also held land in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Clarborough (30,35;39), but it was a very common name, so they may not have been the same person.
	½ MILL. A further quarter appears to have been at "Odestorp" and Retford (9,71), but the final quarter is missing from Domesday.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.
30,13	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the foot margin of folio 292c, extending into the outer margin. It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula for the value statement is not one found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, which suggests that it may have been added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		A one-line entry immediately above the present entry and also extending into the outer margin and in the foot margin, and a three-line entry at the foot of folio 292d and extending into the centre margin, were probably also added after rubrication, but were later erased. Parts of the entry above the present one can still be deciphered in the manuscript and traces are visible in both the Ordnance Survey and the Alecto facsimiles. Although none of the place-name is visible, the words 7 Aluric 7 Br[u]n x ... W' can be made out. An Aelfric and Brun held 12 bovates in 'Sutton Passeys' (30,55), an entry which itself was added after rubrication, and it is possible that the scribe initially added this entry here (but probably without Wulfsi's holding and some of the other details). As for the entry originally in the foot margin of folio 292d, some of it can still be made out in the manuscript, though none appears in either facsimile. The entry seems to have begun In TRo..ell dim' car' [tr]e ... libe(?), then a patched hole and t'ra, followed on the second line by Ibi i. [ui]ll's ... ord' ... iiii ... ten' vi ... M'. The third line, only occupying three-quarters of the line, is too well erased for anything to be visible. The only place-name beginning Tro in Nottinghamshire is Trowell, spelt Trovvalle in 30,50, though the same place is spelt Torwalle in 29,2 and 30,30; the details of these holdings and that at 30,51 do not agree with what can be deciphered here.
	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Calverton (30,13). In order to maintain a better order of wapentakes, this entry should have been inserted after that for Normanton (30,11). In its present position, it is separated by a single estate ("Odestorp") in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake from other places in Thurgarton Wapentake; see 1,12 "Odestorp" note. On the disorder of this chapter, see NTT 30 thanes note.
	CALVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 (heading above 16,3) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 5,10. 16,3.
		As usual with added entries, especially unrubricated ones, the main scribe failed to provide a marginal letter denoting its status, but it would seem from its contents to have been a manor.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	[HAD]. The verb (habebat) is omitted after the place-name and before Aelfric; see 30,8 had note.
	FORMERLY 16s; VALUE NOW 10s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; see 5,6 formerly note and compare 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
30,14	NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,16. No 1086 holder is given, as also, apparently, for the manor at 30,16.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
		Confirmation of the identification of this estate comes from Feudal Aids, iv. p. 103, where Sutton, Boninton, Kyneston and Normanton are all held from the honour of Chester in Rushcliffe Wapentake. These are the estates of Sutton [Bonington] (30,17-18), [Sutton] Bonington (30,15), Kingston[-on-Soar] (30,19;21-22) and Normanton[-on-Soar] (30,14;16).
	ASGOT <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of his name - Osgot, Ansgot, Osgotus, Asgot, Ansgot[us], Angot - represent Old Danish Asgut, Asgot, Old Norse Asgautr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 165-66. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Asgot, Ansgot, Osgot and Asgautr; these have now been standardized as Asgot. The Alecto edition has Asgot.
		He may be the same person as the T.R.E. holder of Ratcliffe-on-Soar (30,20), which is about three miles from Normanton-on-Soar, though not adjacent, but no documentary evidence has so far been found to connect them and Asgot was a common name.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.
30,15	[SUTTON] BONINGTON. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,17-18.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	IT BELONGS TO NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. That is, to Asgot's manor there (30,14).
30,16	NORMANTON[-ON-SOAR]. This is one of several places called Normanton in Nottinghamshire. Normanton-on-Soar was an Ancient Parish. It lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 (one of the estates being below a Rushcliffe wapentake head at 30,14) as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,2. 4,1. 9,78. 30,14. No 1086 holder seems to have been given, as also for the manor at 30,14, though see 30,16 verb note.
		For the possible grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	RAVEN <OF NORMANTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Rauen(us), Rauene, Rauan, Rauuen, Rauaius etc. - represent Old Norse Hrafn, Old Danish Rawn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 292-93, though Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 210-12, gives the Old Danish form as Rafn. JRM preferred Raven as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Rawn.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		The name Raven is uncommon, occurring only 18 times in Domesday Book. This impoverished Nottinghamshire is likely to have been the only holding of this Raven. The only other Raven within 40 miles held a tiny property in Leicestershire with which this had no discernible connection (JP).
	THE VERB (habebat) was perhaps omitted after the place-name and before Raven, as in 30,8;13; see 30,8 had note. However, unlike in those entries, no 1086 holder is mentioned here, so it is just possible that Raven held in 1086. The Phillimore printed translation does not inlude [had], nor does the Alecto edition. See also in 30,18.
30,17	SUTTON [BONINGTON]. There were two Ancient Parishes, Sutton Bonington St Anne and Sutton Bonington St Michael. Sutton Bonington itself arose from the merger of two settlements, Sutton and Bonington, listed as Sutton' cum Bonyngton' in Rushcliffe Wapentake in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230; see Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 256. For other parts, see 3,1;3. 4,2. 24,2. 30,15;18.
	LEOFWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuuard, Leuuord, Leuard[us], Liuuard - represent Old English Leofweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 316, although he stated that the form Leuuord (30,17) might go back to Leofweald with Anglo-Norman dissimilation of l-l > l-r. JRM preferred the second element -ward for the Old English -weard, as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofweard. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	SIWARD HOLDS. On this name, see S5 Siward note; see also 30,7 Siward note.
30,18	THERE ALSO ^[SUTTON [BONINGTON]]^. See 30,17 Sutton note.
	COLEMAN <OF SUTTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Coleman, Colemanus - represent Old German Col(e)man: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 218; he also mentioned derivation from Old Irish Colman. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Coleman and Colman; these have now been standardized as Coleman. The Alecto edition has both Coleman and Colman. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		It is unclear whether he held in 1066 or 1086 or at both dates; see 30,16 verb note.
30,19	KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,4. 30,21-22.
		For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	ALGAR [* "CIDA" *]. He is identified as Alfgar Cida, brother of Ulfkil, in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Algar, see 1,59 Algar note.
	SAEWIN <OF KINGSTON> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Sauuin, Sauuin(us), Seuuin[us], Sauin[us] - represent Old English Saewine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 354-55. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English -wine, as it reflected more closely the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saewin, Sewin and Sawin; these have now been standardized as Saewin. The Alecto edition has Saewine.
		It is likely that the Saewin who was also holding three other manors in 1086 in this chapter (30,20;23-24) was the same as this holder; he was preceded by Algar [* "Cida" *] in 30,23, as here.
	A MILL-SITE; MEADOW, 10 ACRES. The cases of the Latin sed' and of ac' are unclear; they might be accusative after 'He has'; see 5,15 meadow note.
30,20	RATCLIFFE[-ON-SOAR]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230.
	ASGOT <OF NORMANTON>. On this name, see 30,14 Asgot note.
	THE FOURTH PART OF 1 BOVATE. The Latin iiii. part' i. bou' can be extended either to read 'the fourth part of 1 bovate' or '4 parts of 1 bovate' when in the accusative case, as here. The Alecto edition opts for the latter, but the Phillimore printed translation has the former with a question mark. The iiii is more likely to be an ordinal ('4th'), as it clearly is in 30,23 where the phrasing is otherwise identical. On the problems caused by this ambiguity and its correction by both the main scribe of Great Domesday and scribe B, see 4,6 parts note and 4,7 part note.
	SAEWIN <OF KINGSTON> HOLDS. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.
30,21	KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 3,4. 30,19;22.
		The marginal S[oca] indicates that this was a Jurisdiction, presumably of Ratcliffe-on-Soar.
30,22	THERE ALSO ^[KINGSTON[-ON-SOAR]]^. See 30,21 Kingston note.
		For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	ULFKIL [* BROTHER OF AELFGAR "CIDA" *]. On the name Ulfkil, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
		He is identified as Ulfkil, brother of Alfgari Cida in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. It would seem that Godric's possession of this holding, perhaps illegal judging by the statement here, was short-lived.
	NOW GODRIC HOLDS. It is possible that this man was the same as the T.R.E. holder of Gotham (30,24) who is identified as the son of Fredegis in a grant of land there to St Cuthbert's of Durham; see 3,2 Normanton note. However, the present land was not granted by him but by Ulfkil brother of Aelfgar "Cida"; see 30,22 Ulfkil note. On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note.
	BUT THE MEN OF THE LOCALITY DO NOT KNOW. The Latin noun patria is normally translated by 'country', 'native land', 'fatherland'. It is, however, in origin an adjective, the feminine of patrius, derived from the noun pater ('father') and meaning 'relating to a father'. Used with terra it means 'father's land' or 'paternal land' and in classical times came to be a noun in its own right (patria). Here it has the restricted and local sense of the land where these men were born, land they inherited from their fathers. These men are presumably the representatives of the village, giving their evidence to the shire court.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 218 no. 1254. She translates 'the men of the country'. The Alecto edition has 'men of the neighbourhood'.
	THROUGH WHOM [OR] HOW. The Latin is p[er] quç quom[odo] ('through whom how'); the Phillimore printed translation omits the square brackets round 'or'.
		The exact force of the three words here is unclear. They seem to amount to the quo waranto ('on what grounds'), commonly used later. Per quem is not the same as de quo ('from whom?') and so does not ask from whom he holds, but rather 'who put him in possession?'. Quomodo ('in what way') probably overlaps in meaning, but implies the possible answer 'by inheritance from his father', or 'by royal grant' or 'for the lives of three men'.
30,23	BARTON[-IN-FABIS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,7. 13,1-2.
		For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	ALGAR [* "CIDA" *]. He is identified as Alfgar Cida, brother of Ulfkil in a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Algar, see 1,59 Algar note.
	SAEWIN <OF KINGSTON> HAS. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.
	1 VILLAGER. The Latin uill[anu]s is nominative; it should be accusative (uillanum) after 'Saewin has'. See 1,1 villagers note.
	3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.
30,24	GOTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 4,3.
		For the grant of this land to St Cuthbert's of Durham shortly after Domesday, see 3,2 Normanton note.
	GODRIC [* SON OF FREDEGIS *]. For the identity of Godric, derived from a grant to St Cuthbert's of Durham, made soon after Domesday; see 3,2 Normanton note. On the name Godric, see 2,10 Godric note, and on the name Fredegis, see 2,1 Fredegis note.
	SAEWIN <OF KINGSTON> HAS IT. On his possible identity and his name, see 30,19 Saewin note.
30,25	CLIFTON. There are two places called 'Clifton' in Domesday Nottinghamshire, one in Newark Wapentake, the other in Rushcliffe Wapentake. The latter seems the more likely identification here as it follows a number of places (30,14-24) that lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake. If this was the Clifton intended, then it was part of the Ancient Parish of Clifton-with-Glapton. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,5-6. 13,3. On the deletion of the entry at 10,6, which duplicated the present entry, see 10,6 entry note.
		The status of this holding is not clear as there is no marginal M[anerium], S[oca] or B[erewica], but the main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote the I of In in the square form that he used for manorial entries, but then later added a 'tail' to it to turn it into the rustic capital used for dependencies; he could not, however, alter the capitals in which CLIFTVN was written or its rubrication, both signs of a manor.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note and 10,6 Ulfkil note.
	2 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative after 'He has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or ablative after cum ('with'); see 9,128 acre note and 10,6 acre note.
30,26	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. This place is one of the five (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. Parts of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (9,92. 16,12) appear to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday. Two other parts (10,10. 16,5) appear to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086. Thus Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.
		It is also difficult to decide whether the present portion of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake or in Broxtowe Wapentake. It follows an entry for Clifton (30,25) which seems to have been in Rushcliffe Wapentake like the preceding estates, but it is said to be a Jurisdiction of Thorpe-in-the-Glebe which was in Broxtowe Wapentake. Moreover, it is followed by a run of places (30,27-35) which were in Broxtowe Wapentake, and include another part of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds (30,35). On balance it has been included in Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,92 Willoughby note.
	[* EARL *] ALGAR. The other two Algars in this chapter (30,19;23) can be identified as Algar (Aelfgar) "Cida"; see 3,2 Normanton note. This third occurrence of the name might be the same man, but is more probably Earl Algar who had held Upper Broughton (1,59) of which Thorpe-in-the Glebe (1,60) was an outlier; see Roffe, ‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 4; and 30,26 Thorpe note. On Earl Algar and this name-form, see 1,59 Algar note.
		The Algar of NTT 30,26 is also shown to he the earl by its dependency on NTT 1,59-60 (JP).
	A JURISDICTION OF THORPE[-IN-THE-GLEBE]. That is, probably of the royal estate there (1,60) which was an outlier of Upper Broughton held by Earl Algar T.R.E. (see 30,26 Algar note). There was a Jurisdiction of Wysall in Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, described as 'the king's Thorpe' at 9,91.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined in Torp later above an original SOCA,
	which might otherwise have implied that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was a Jurisdiction of the manor of Gotham (30,24).
30,27	[BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the estates which follow (30,27-35); see 30,26 Willoughby note.
	KIRKBY[-IN-ASHFIELD]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 13,9.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
30,28	[OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish.. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;51-52. 30,34. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.
		Roffe (‘Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, p. 9) attributes the separation of the two parts of Old Basford (30,28;34) in this chapter to the fact that they lay in different hundreds. For a discussion of this notion, see {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	AND SKULI [HAD] 1 BOVATE - IT IS WASTE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Escul .i. boû. Wasta ç above Aelfric's holding of 1 bovate. He had already included this information in William Peverel's fief (10,23), but scribe B had then deleted it, probably at the same time as he added it at 10,52; see 10,23 entry note. On the name Skuli, see 10,23 Skuli note.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.
30,29	PAPPLEWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 10,21.
		Domesday gives no indication of the status of this land.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	ALFHEAH <OF NORMANTON>. On this name and possible identification, see 10,34 Alfheah note. The Phillimore printed edition identifies the Domesday form Alfa in error as 'Alfsi'.
	ALRIC. On this name, see 9,36 Alric note.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.
30,30	TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 29,2. 30,50-51.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	NOW 5s 4d. The Phillimore printed translation has '6s 8d' in error, as did the first version of Domesday Explorer.
30,31	STRELLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written and rubricated STADELIE and then underlined it for deletion when he replaced it with an interlined SRAELIE, using a finer pen and paler ink than for the original. He may have meant to write STRAELIE, as the form in the other occurrence of this place is Straleia (10,27). The Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 151, merely mentions the interlined form Sraelie.
		In the Alecto facsimile the replacement name SRAELIE appears as SBCELIE; see 5,3 Hickling note. It is also not very clear in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. The scribe of the Abbreviatio (folio 207r) reproduced SB(?)CELIE and the scribe of the Breviate (folio 149r) wrote SBECELIE.
		Strelley was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,27-28.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 6,9 Godwin note.
	IN THE FOOT MARGIN and centre margin of folio 292d, interrupting the account of Strelley, an entry was added and then erased; see 30,13 entry note.
30,32	NUTHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For another part, see 10,40.
	ESKIL <OF NUTHALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Aschil, Anschil, Anschill(us), Osketel, Osketellus, Oschetel, Aschillus, Aschi, Osketel[us], Oschil - represent Old Danish Eskil, Old Norse Askell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 167-68. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Askell and Asketill; these have now been standardized as Eskil. The Alecto edition has Eskil.
		It is possible that the men called Eskil who had held Elkesley and 'North' Morton (30,41-42) were the same as the T.R.E. holder here; these are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire and the lands in 30,41-42 probably passed to the same person (30,42 Ernwin note).
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK> HOLDS. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
30,33	AWSWORTH. This was a chapelry of Nuthall Ancient Parish. Like Nuthall itself (10,40. 30,32) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For another part, see 10,48.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
30,34	[OLD] BASFORD. Basford was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 10,22-23;51-52. 30,28. Old Basford probably acquired its affix on the creation of New Basford in 1847.
		For the possible significance of the separation of the two parts of Old Basford in this fief, see 30,28 Basford note.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE; 2 MILLS; UNDERWOOD, 1 ACRE. The cases of the Latin ac' and molin' are unclear: they could be either accusative after 'He has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or ablative after cum ('with'); see 9,128 acre note and 10,6 acre note.
30,35	2M. See 3,4 2M note.
	WILLOUGHBY[-ON-THE-WOLDS]. This was an Ancient Parish. It appears to be included in Broxtowe Wapentake by Domesday (head at 9,90), and to have been one of the five places (Costock, Rempstone, Thorpe-in-the-Glebe, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and Wysall) parts or all of which, in 1086, formed a detached part of Broxtowe Wapentake, separated from the main body by Rushcliffe Wapentake; see 9,90 Broxtowe note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Wapentakes}. It was later in Rushcliffe Wapentake: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 109; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 9,92-93. 10,10. 16,5;12. 30,26. Of these, it is possible that three parts (10,10. 16,5. 30,26) were in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 and that Willoughby-on-the-Wolds was divided unequally between the two wapentakes.
		The present entry appears to be last in a run of places in Broxtowe Wapentake, and was probably in that wapentake in 1086 with most of the rest of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds.
	ESBIORN. On this name, see 21,1 Esbiorn note.
	AND WULFMER HAD 3 BOVATES OF LAND TAXABLE. LAND FOR 3 OXEN. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined 7 Vlmer above Sbern, extending the tail of the 7 downwards before, rather than after, Sbern. At the same time he interlined .II. above the marginal M' to show that it had been two manors in 1066 and he corrected the number both of bovates and of the oxen in the estimate from ii to iii. For other additions and corrections made to this entry, probably at the same time, see 30,35 Ernwin note, 30,35 smallholders note and 30,35 now note. This level of correction suggests either a very poorly written source or, perhaps more likely in view of what the scribe did with the Liber Exoniensis when he edited it for the counties of circuit II, he amalgamated two holdings in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds and failed to enter all the details the first time.
		On the name Wulfmer, see 2,9 Wulfmer note; see also 30,12 Wulfmer note.
	ALWIN. On this name, see S5 Alwin note.
	AND ERNWIN. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined 7 Ernuin above Eluuin; see 30,35 Wulfmer note.
		On this name, see 9,109 note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note. There is no evidence that he was Ernwin the priest.
	IT IS WASTE ... 5 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday later interlined 7 v. bord' above the 5 acres of meadow. As he normally wrote the resources after the population, he should have put the 7 after the bord'. See 30,35 Wulfmer note.
		For other examples of population being recorded in entries described as 'waste', see 1,12 waste note.
	NOW 4s. Although the main scribe of Great Domesday often doubled up the number iiii, he may have corrected an original ii here to iiii when he made the other additions and corrections to this entry; see 30,35 Wulfmer note.
30,36	BINGHAM WAPENTAKE. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have merely failed to rubricate this wapentake head (see 1,10 manor note) rather than added it later as he wrote it in the same colour ink and with the same pen as the rest of the entry.
	LAMCOTE. This was a hamlet of the Ancient Parish of Holme Pierrepont. Holme Pierrepont itself (9,80) may have lain in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086, but Lamcote was clearly in Bingham Wapentake: two parts (see also 15,7) lie directly below a Bingham wapentake head. It was in the same wapentake later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104. For another part (where there is another third of a bovate), see 9,96. It is represented by Lamcote Field, a settlement.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note and 15,7 Ulfkil note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 BOVATE. Another third part of a bovate in Lamcote is recorded in 9,96, but there is no sign of the final third of a bovate.
	NO PLOUGH ESTIMATE is recorded for either this manor at Lamcote or for the one there at 15,7 and no space was left for the later insertion of it, as in other entries (1,59 land note). Roger of Bully's manor there (9,96) has this information, however. For the few other omissions of the plough estimate in this county, see 9,120 plough note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note..
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 10,10 meadow note.
30,37	ASLOCKTON. This was a township of Whatton Ancient Parish. Like the settlement of Whatton-in-the-Vale itself (17,16), it probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For other parts, see 1,57. 11,22. 17,18. 20,6.
	LEOFRIC. On this name, see 7,1 Leofric note.
	WULFRIC <OF ASLOCKTON>. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note, and on his identity, see 20,6 Wulfric note.
	2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. See 20,6 oxen note.
30,38	KINOULTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Bingham Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 104; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 232. For another part, see 11,31, and for a bequest here to Ramsey Abbey, see 5,3 Hickling note.
	AZUR. On this name, see S5 Azur note.
	3 OXEN PLOUGHING. See 11,27 ploughing note and 11,31 oxen note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,39	[OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Clarborough (30,39).
	CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,54.
	WULFMER. On this name, see 2,9 Wulfmer note; see also 30,12 Wulfmer note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION, WITHOUT A HALL. This rare phrase seems to imply that Clarborough was not a manor, but that Wulfmer possessed an authority that would normally go with holding a manor. Thus his authority was personal rather than based on possession of land.
		On the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B14 jurisdiction note.
	MEADOW, 3 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,40	SYERSTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of East Stoke. It lay in Newark Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 233. For other parts, see 2,3. 6,3. 21,2.
	[WHICH] IS THE KING'S. The interlineation regis est, added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in paler ink, means simply: 'it is the king's'. JRM suggested that this was 'inserted to distinguish this land from other Syerston holdings'. If that were the case one would expect the information to be added to every estate in a village that was shared. It is more probable that the inserted regis est means that this land (for which no 1086 holder is given) was not simply held from the king as a grant of land, but was actually still royal land and should rightly have been included in chapter 1, the Terra Regis ('Land of the King'). Another part of Syerston was a Jurisdiction of the manor of Newark (6,1), held by Countess Godiva in 1066 and later granted to the Bishop of Lincoln, possibly on Godiva's death or on the foundation of the see, whichever was the later. Newark will have been an escheat in royal hands, and it is possible that this small portion of that manor, lying at Syerston, remained in the king's hands.
	THORFRIDH. On this name, see 9,54 Thorfridh note.
	[*** HOLDS FROM THE KING]. See 30,11 holds note.
30,41	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Elkesley and Misson (30,41;43).
	ELKESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other parts, see 1,10. 9,32.
	ESKIL <OF NUTHALL>. On this name and his possible identity, see 30,32 Eskil note.
	ERNWIN THE PRIEST. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
30,42	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a half-line space at the end of the entry for the manor of Elkesley (30,41); because of lack of space he had to interline the T.R.E. and 1086 holders (who were the same as those of that manor). It was probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
	'NORTH' MORTON. Morton was a settlement in Babworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For discussion of the four estates here, see 1,11 Morton note, 1,11 other note and 9,34 Morton note.
		As commonly with added entries, there is no indication of status.
	ESKIL <OF NUTHALL>. On this name and his possible identity, see 30,32 Eskil note.
	ERNWIN [* THE PRIEST *] HOLDS. It is likely that he is the same individual as the Ernwin the priest who was also preceded by an Eskil in the previous entry, for Elkesley (30,41) and 'North' Morton were probably no more than three miles from each other. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
30,43	MISSON. This was an Ancient Parish divided between Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire until a boundary change in 1886 placed the parish entirely in Nottinghamshire. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. If so, it will, in 1086, have been detached from that wapentake by the presence of Scaftworth (5,8), Everton (5,8. 9,117;124) and Harwell (9,117;124) which appear to have lain in Oswaldbeck Wapentake then, though they were later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake when Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged with it. For other parts of Misson, see 1,65 (duplicated in 30,44). 1,66. 9,21.
	CNUT <OF MISSON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Cnut, Cnud, Chnut, Chenut, Gnut, Canut(us) - represent Old Norse Knutr, Old Danish Knut: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 305-306. JRM preferred the form Canute, but that form is rarely used now. Both Canute and Knutr appear in the Phillimore printed translations; they have now been standardized as Cnut. The Alecto edition has Knut, but Cnut for the king (as does the Handbook of British Chronology). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
		This name is rare south of the Humber, occurring only seven times and possibly representing four individuals. The tiny holding at Mission is some distance from others without tenurial associations with any of them. Mission was probably the only property of this man (JP).
	ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	2 FREEMEN WITH 1 PLOUGH. See 9,95 Freemen note.
	A FISHERY. The Latin case of piscar' is unclear: it might be accusative after 'Ernwin has' (see 5,15 meadow note) or it might be ablative after cum ('with'); see 9,128 acre note and 10,6 acre note.
30,44	THERE ALSO ^[MISSON]^. See 30,43 Misson note. This appears to duplicate the entry at 1,65; see 1,65 Misson note.
	A JURISDICTION OF KIRTON[-IN-LINDSEY]. That is, the royal manor which is surveyed in LIN 1,38. Another part of Misson, held by the king (1,66) was also a dependency of a Lincolnshire manor, Laughton (LIN 57,7).
30,45	['LYTHE' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of the manors of Kelham and South Muskham (30,45-46).
	KELHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It lay in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 (part of Kelham is below a 'Lythe' wapentake head at 9,59) and it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 9,59. 11,19. 15,3. 18,4.
	ULFKIL <OF CARLTON>. On this name, see 9,11 Ulfkil note; see also 30,2 Ulfkil note.
	2 PARTS OF 1 BOVATE. In 9,59. 11,19 and 15,3 there are third parts of 1 bovate recorded for Kelham.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
	8 FURLONGS LONG AND 8 VIRGATES WIDE. The virgate is here used, as in other parts of Kelham, as a linear measure; see 1,34 virgates note.
30,46	[SOUTH] MUSKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was probably in 'Lythe' Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe Feudal Aids, iv. p. 106; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For another part, see 5,5.
		The estates at North Muskham, South Muskham and Little Carlton (5,2;5. 8,2. 12,11-14. 30,7;46) formed a 12-carucate unit, and possibly a hundred; see {Introduction: Small Hundreds} and, on the identification of Carlton, see 5,5 Carlton note.
	SWARTBRAND. The Domesday forms of this name - Sortebrand, Suertebrand - represent the hypothetical Old Norse name Svartbrandr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 378-79; see also Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 274-75, who states that it is composed of Swart and brand. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Swartbrand and Svartbrandr; these have now been standardized as Swartbrand. The Alecto edition has Svartbrandr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Nottinghamshire.
	SAERIC HOLDS. On this name, see 15,5 Saeric note.
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The case of the Latin ac' is uncertain and might be accusative; see 5,15 meadow note.
30,47	[RUSHCLIFFE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Widmerpool (30,47).
	WIDMERPOOL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Rushcliffe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 13,14. 30,48.
	WILLIAM. On this name, see B9 William note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	2 SLAVES. See 10,1 slaves note.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,48	THERE ALSO ^[WIDMERPOOL]^. See 30,47 Widmerpool note.
	HEALFDENE. On his possible identity, see 30,2 Healfdene note, and on his name, see 4,1 Healfdene note.
	3 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The remaining 5 oxen needed to make a team were probably at the adjacent estate of Stanton-on-the-Wolds (9,86).
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,49	[* THURGARTON WAPENTAKE *]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Gonalston. As Gonalston is here a Jurisdiction of Arnold, the main scribe of Great Domesday might not have included a wapentake head which he normally placed only above manors. However, the head manor, Arnold (1,45) which lay in Broxtowe Wapentake is not included here, so a heading has been inserted for clarity.
	GONALSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Thurgarton Wapentake in 1086 as it was later in the combined wapentake of Thurgarton and Lythe: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 105; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 231. For other parts, see 10,3. 14,6.
	ERNWIN THE PRIEST. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	A JURISDICTION OF ARNOLD. That is, of the royal manor (1,45). Such an arrangement seems to be a step on the way to Gonalston's becoming a separate manor. It is no longer included in the land of the king as a Jurisdiction of Arnold (unless it is erroneously placed here), it had a separate named T.R.E. holder which is unusual for a Jurisdiction, yet a tie to Arnold remains and Gonalston is not yet stated to be a manor, like many of the holdings in this chapter which probably originated in grants out of royal manors.
	4 FREEMEN HAVE. They are almost certainly the 4 Freemen who with Ernwin the priest had held Gonalston in 1066.
30,50	[BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Trowell (30,50).
	TROWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 230. For other parts, see 29,2. 30,30;51.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,51	THERE ALSO ^ [TROWELL]^. See 30,50 Trowell note.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see S5 Wulfric note.
	ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
	A JURISDICTION. The SOCA refers only to the waste bovate.
30,52	'EASTERN' CHILWELL. This place, only evidenced in Domesday Book, was probably adjacent to Chilwell (10,26. 13,1;4-5) which was a hamlet of Attenborough Ancient Parish. Chilwell itself probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 110; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For an attempt to locate it, heavy with theory but lacking historical or archaeological evidence, see Cossons, 'East Chilwell and Keighton'. For a further part of 'Eastern' Chilwell, see 13,4.
	DUNNING. On this name, see 9,62 Dunning note.
	ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	½ PLOUGH. This possibly complements the 3½ ploughs at Bramcote (29,1) which was probably less than 2 miles away.
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The Latin is ac[ra]s, accusative; see 1,9 meadow note.
30,53	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the next three (30,54-66) were added together by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. This entry is a duplicate of one already entered in the king's fief (1,25), though that entry also includes details of a smallholder and his oxen. For an unrubricated entry added in the king's lands that was a duplicate of one in this section on the lands of the king's thanes, see 1,65 entry note. For other added entries in Domesday Nottinghamshire that were duplicates, see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries} and compare 30,55 entry note.
	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Warsop (30,53).
	WARSOP. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For other references to Warsop, see 1,24-25. 9,40. Warsop is now divided into Market Warsop (SK6557) and Church Warsop (SK5668).
	HOLDS ... IN ALMS. This distinguishes the tenure from other cases in this chapter where someone 'holds from the king'. In some counties, the king's almslands form a separate chapter, and the uncertainty about how to treat this land is reflected in the fact that it is duplicated, with fuller detail at 1,25. This grant was made out of the royal manor of Mansfield (1,23) of which Warsop (1,24-25) was a dependency.
30,54	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the previous one (30,53) and the next two (30,55-56) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after the county had been rubricated; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula for the value statement in the present entry is not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries, but occurs in circuits written up later, which may suggest that it was added after he had finished work on the whole circuit; see 10,64 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		There would seem to have been confusion over some of the holdings in Clarborough and Tiln because he had already added an entry for Tiln before rubrication (1,31 entry note), while scribe B added details of a Jurisdiction in Clarborough (5,8 Clarborough note), a note on a mill in Tiln (5,8 Laneham note) and interlined 'and Tiln' in an entry for Clarborough (1,41 Tiln note).
	[OSWALDBECK WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Clarborough (30,54).
	CLARBOROUGH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Oswaldbeck Wapentake in 1086 it was later in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake with which Oswaldbeck Wapentake merged after 1086: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 107; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 227. For other parts, see 1,41. 5,8. 9,127-128. 30,39.
		As with other added entries, there is no indication of the status of this piece of land, but the fact that it had a T.R.E. holder and a value suggests it was a manor.
	ARNKETIL. On this name, see 9,44 Arnketil note.
	ERNWIN. On this name, see 9,109 Ernwin note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	THE VALUE WAS 4s; NOW 2s. This is a formula not found elsewhere in circuit VI, except in added entries; compare 5,6 formerly note, 2,3 value note and 10,64 value note. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
30,55	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY, the two previous ones (30,53-54) and the next one (30,56) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. However, the formula for the status of this holding is one not found elsewhere in circuit VI, though it occurs in circuits written up after it, which suggests that this entry may have been written up after he had finished work on the whole circuit. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note.
		Most of this added entry seems to be a duplicate of an entry already recorded in William Peverel's fief where 12 bovates in 'Sutton Passeys' (10,38) were said to be a Jurisdiction of Wollaton (10,35). The fact that the present entry also provides the T.R.E. holders of the 12 bovates and gives details of a further 1 ½ carucates held by Wulfsi there, apparently also a Jurisdiction of Wollaton, was probably the reason why the duplicate was not noticed. For other added entries that were duplicates, see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}. Another Jurisdiction of William Peverel's manor of Wollaton (10,37) may have been duplicated, though misplaced; see 1,46 entry note.
	[BROWTOWE WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of 'Sutton Passeys' (30,55).
	'SUTTON [PASSEYS]'. This lost place lay in Wollaton Ancient Parish. The information given in Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, p. 154, should now be rejected in favour of Cameron, 'Deserted Medieval Village of Sutton Passeys'. Cameron gives a detailed history and topography of the estate and suggests that its centre lay at SK544400.
		Like Wollaton itself (1,47. 10,35) it probably lay in Broxtowe Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 111; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 229. For the apparent duplicate of most of this entry in 10,38, see 30,55 entry note.
	AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. On his name, see 5,6 Aelfric note, and on his possible identity, see 30,8 Aelfric note.
	BRUN. On this name, see 10,28 Brun note.
	AS 2 MANORS. This takes the place of a marginal IIM', denoting that the manor had been held by two people in 1066. It is a formula not found in circuit VI, except in added entries (see also here in 10,64 and 20,8), but it occurs in most of the circuits written after it. On the significance of this, see 10,64 entry note.
	WULFSI. On this name, see 9,36 Wulfsi note.
	THE JURISDICTION LIES IN WOLLATON. That is, presumably the jurisdiction of Wulfsi's 1½ carucates which are not described as a manor. However, the 12 bovates of 'Sutton Passeys' duplicated in William Peverel's fief (10,38) are there described as a Jurisdiction (not as two manors), most probably of Wollaton (10,35); see 30,55 entry note. Thus, the manor in Wollaton that has the jurisdiction is presumably William Peverel's. The king holds in Wollaton, but only an outlier (1,47) of Arnold (1,45). Wollaton probably originated as a grant from Arnold.
		On the phrase 'jurisdiction lies in', see 10,50 jurisdiction note.
	IT IS WASTE. This overrun was indicated by the main scribe of Great Domesday with a gallows sign, but this is not visible in the Alecto facsimile though it is clear in the manuscript and in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. For other problems of reproduction in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,3 Hickling note.
30,56	THIS UNRUBRICATED ENTRY and the three previous ones (30,53-55) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the lands of the king's thanes on folio 293b. He did not keep to the scored lines but put six lines of writing onto five ruled lines, although there was no need to economize on space as there were still 18 lines blank after them. They were probably written during a large campaign of addition after rubrication; see 12,22 entry note. He failed to include the wapentake heads for any of them, as he did for virtually all unrubricated added entries. For other entries added by him that were never rubricated, see 1,19 entry note. For the addition of another entry in Ordsall, see 9,23 entry note.
	['BASSETLAW' WAPENTAKE]. This head is supplied from evidence for the location of Ordsall.
	ORDSALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in 'Bassetlaw' Wapentake in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 108; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 228. For other parts, see 1,5;12-13. 9,19;23.
		This added entry probably originated as a grant out of the royal manor of Bothamsall (1,9) and may even duplicate the 1 bovate that is listed as a Jurisdiction of that manor at 1,12.
	ERNWY. On this name, see 16,5 Ernwy note; see also 30,11 Ernwy note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank, before writing the account of 'Roteland' on folio 293cd and 294a.