[Footnote 40: We have three separate statements (of which more anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-7 of Mr Hamilton's book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin, all but one or two can be identified as the subject of duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in 'Melrede', though not mentioned in this list, is also entered in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a virgate (D.B., i, 199, _b_, 2, gives it erroneously as half a hide, but D.B., i, 190, _a_, 1, rightly as half a virgate), which Picot, as sheriff had regained for the king against the 'invading' Aubrey.] [Footnote 41: The I.E. adds 'sub abbate ely' in each case, but is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.] [Footnote 42: This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for instance, the entry under Hardwin's land is the fuller. It is noteworthy also that in this case the _later_ entry (i. 198, _b_, 1) is referred to ('Hæc terra appreciata est cum terra Hardwini') in the _earlier_ one (i. 191, _a_, 2).] [Footnote 43: This same change of phrase is repeated four times on two pages (pp. 4, 5).] [Footnote 44: So, for instance: 'de appulatione navis' (I.C.C.) = 'de theloneo retis' (D.B.). 'ferarum siluaticarum' (I.C.C.) = 'bestiarum siluaticarum' (D.B.). 'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' (D.B.).] [Footnote 45: Compare the I.C.C. version on p. 100, _infra._] [Footnote 46: _Inq. Com. Cant._, pp. xviii, xix.] [Footnote 47: 'Et dimidiam' [hidam] is omitted in B, and (oddly enough) in Domesday itself.] [Footnote 48: All three MSS. err here, as the reading should clearly be 'dim. _virg._'] [Footnote 49: b. 65. This distinction between the one and the nine, but not the size of the holding, is preserved in D.B.; while the I.E., though preserving it, gives the numbers as two and eight.] [Footnote 50: This is the I.E. and D.B. version. For 'extra ecclesiam', the I.C.C. substitutes 'sine ejus [abbatis] licentia'.] [Footnote 51: 'Soca _remansit abbati_' is the D.B. and I.E. version. It should be noted that the I.E. and _Breve Abbatis_ give 'herchenger pistor' as the despoiler, while the I.C.C. and D.B. record him only as a 'miles' of Picot the sheriff. This is a case which certainly suggests special local knowledge in the compiler of the former documents, who also gives the sokeman's name--Siward.]