Considerable light is thrown by the I.C.C. on the origin of these little known duplicate entries in Domesday. In every instance of their occurrence within the limits of its province they are due to a conflict of title recorded in the original return. They appear further to be confined to the estates of two landowners, Picot, the sheriff, and Hardwin d'Eschalers, the titles of both being frequently contested by the injured Abbot of Ely. Why the third local offender, Guy de Raimbercurt, does not similarly appear, it is difficult to say. He was the smallest offender of the three, and Picot the worst; but it is Hardwin's name which occurs most frequently in these duplicate entries.[40] The principle which guided the Domesday scribes cannot be certainly decided, for they duplicated entries in the original return which (according to the I.C.C.) varied greatly in their statements of tenure. Thus, to take the first three: _I.C.C._ _D.B._ fo. 79 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus descalariis'.[41] { _sub abbate_'. {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. fo. 90 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 190 (_b_) 1, 'Tenet Harduinus _de abbate_'. { de Escalers _de abbate_'. {I. 199 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. fo. 92 (_a_) 2, 'Tenet Harduuinus {I. 199 (_b_) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus _de rege_'. { _de abbate_'. {I. 199 (a) 2, 'Tenet Harduinus'. Here, whether the original return states Hardwin to hold (1) of the abbot, (2) of the king, or (3) of neither, the scribes, in each of the three cases, enter the estates (_A_) under the Abbot's land, as held of the Abbot, (_B_) under Hardwin's land, as held _in capite_. And it is singular that in all these three cases the entry of the estate under the Abbot's land is the fuller of the two.[42] On the whole it would appear that the Domesday scribes did not consistently carry out a system of duplicate entry, though, on the other hand, these entries were by no means due to mere clerical inadvertence, but were prompted by a doubt as to the title, which led to the precaution of entering them under the names of both the claimants. But the chief point of interest in these same entries is that they give us, when we add the versions of the I.C.C. and the I.E., four parallel texts. At some of the results of their collation we will now glance. _I.C.C._ _I.E._ _D.B._ _D.B._ (fo. 92, (p. 107) (I. 190, (I. 199, _b_, 2) _b_, 2) _a_, 2)