[Footnote 10: These extracts are _extended_ and _punctuated_ to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed within square brackets.] [Footnote 11: Curiously enough, the cases in which the I.C.C. does really supplement the Domesday version, that is, in the names of the holders T.R.E. and of the under-tenants T.R.W., were left unnoticed by Mr Hamilton.] [Footnote 12: The references to pages are to those of Mr Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets are the passages omitted.] [Footnote 13: In this instance the omission is so gross that it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnote that his MS. 'confounds two separate entries'. It would, however, be more correct to say that the MS. here omits a portion of each. It is easy to see how the scribe erroneously 'ran on' from the first portion of one entry to the second portion of another. This entry has a further value, for while D.B. convicts the I.C.C. of omitting the words 'de Widone', it is itself convicted, by collation, of omitting the entry, 'Terra est i. bovi'.] [Footnote 14: The I.C.C. here wholly omits one of the three holdings T.R.E. 'The three hides and a virgate', at which the estate was assessed, were thus composed: (1) three virgates held by Huscarl, (2) a hide and a virgate held by Eadgyth, (3) a hide and a virgate held by Wulfwine, her man. It is this last holding which is omitted. Note here that the Domesday 'hide' is composed as ever (_pace_ Mr Pell) of four virgates.] [Footnote 15: 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.'] [Footnote 16: 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p. 50).] [Footnote 17: 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'--p. 62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).] [Footnote 18: 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).] [Footnote 19: 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).] [Footnote 20: 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).] [Footnote 21: The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the right one because confirmed by I.E.] [Footnote 22: This, like the similar cases where D.B. is given as the authority for the second reading, is proved arithmetically (_vide infra_).] [Footnote 23: The I.C.C. enumerates only _three_, which is the number given in D.B.] [Footnote 24: The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just before, and are here wrongly repeated.] [Footnote 25: 'Inter totum valent et valuerunt xii. den.' This was _exclusive_ of the value of the Manor, which by the way the I.C.C. gives as sixteen pounds and D.B. at six pounds, one of those cases of discrepancy which have to be left in doubt, though D.B. is probably right.]