(90, _a_, 2) (I. 190, _b_, 2)\ (p. 102) Non potuerunt Non potuerunt | Non potuerunt recedere recedere sine recedere sine | vel vendere absque licentia abbatis. ejus licentia. | eius licentia. } (I. 200, _a_, 2) | Non potuerunt | vendere sine | ejus licentia. / (105, _a_, 2) (I. 200, _a_, 1) (p. 109) Potuerunt dare et Terras suas vendere Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine soca. potuerunt. Soca de vendere cui voluerunt, viii. sochemannis sed saca eorum remansit remansit in abbatia eidem abbati. de ely. (113, _b_, 1) (201, _a_, 1) (p. 112) Potuerunt recedere Terram suam vendere Potuerunt dare preter sine soca. potuerunt. Soca licentiam abbatis vero remansit et sine soca. abbati. No one can glance at these passages without perceiving that _dare_, _vendere_, and _recedere_ are all interchangeably used, and that even any two of them (whether they have the conjunction 'et' or the disjunction 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point. Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque') 'ejus licentia' is immaterial, it being understood where not expressed. So too with the words 'cui voluit'. In short, like the translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and paraphrase.[44] Our own conceptions of the sacredness of a text and of the need for verbal accuracy were evidently foreign to their minds. Glancing for a moment at another county, we have in the Survey of Leicestershire a remarkable instance of a whole fief being entered twice over. It is that of Robert Hostiarius: Robertus hostiarius tenet de Robertus filus W. hostiari, rege ii. car. terræ in Howes. tenet de rege in Howes ii. Terra est iii. carucis. In cari terræ. Ibi habet i. car. dominio est i. caruca et iii. in dominio et iii. serv[os] et servi, et viii. villani cum viii. villani cum i. bordario i. bordario habent ii. car.... habentes ii. car....