[39] ‘Wihtmund minister’ is found in 938 (Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ p. 326), and ‘Widmundesfelt’ in the earliest extant Essex charter (Ib. p. 13). It is, therefore, amazing that Professor Earle, dealing with the phrase “æt Hwætmundes stane” (Ib. p. 317), should have gone out of his way to adopt a theory started by Mr. Kerslake in the ‘Antiquary,’ connecting it with the “sculptured stone in Panier Alley,” writing: “If now the _mund_ of ‘Wheatmund’ might be this _mand_ [basket], then _hwætmundes stane_ would be the stone of the wheatmaund, and the ‘antiquum petrosum ædificium’ may have been the block of masonry that was once the platform or basis of a market cross which had become the usual pitching-place of cereal produce” (Ib. p. 318). This is an admirable instance of that perverse Folk-etymology which has worked such havoc with our place-names. Morant’s derivation in the last century of ‘Widemondefort,’ from ‘a wide mound,’ is comparatively harmless in its simplicity. [40] Calendar of Bodleian Charters, p. 80. [41] ‘Ac’ was the Domesday equivalent of ‘oak.’ [42] Dorset Domesday, p. 57. [43] So Kemble derived it from the “Færingas.” [44] Saxons in England, i. 63. [45] Saxons in England, i. 475. [46] I have shown (‘Feudal England,’ 103–106) that the _solanda_ of other counties is not (as Seebohm thought, following Hale) in any way the same as the _sulung_. [47] See Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ pp. 18, 24, 33, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 75, 78, 80, 82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 105, 124, 126, 133, 142, 152, 209. [48] Ibid. pp. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–24, 26, 29, 31, 40, 45, etc. [49] Feudal England, pp. 421 _et seq._ [50] English Historical Review, xi. 740, 741. [51] Norm. Conq., iv. 56–7. [52] According to the Peterborough Chronicle, he gave 40 marcs for this reconciliation. [53] Norman Conquest, vol. iv., App. C. [54] The italics are mine. [55] English Historical Review, xii. 109, 110. [56] Ibid. [57] 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452. [58] The italics are mine. [59] Compare Dr. Sheppard’s remarks in 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452 _a_. It would take us too far afield to undertake the distinct task of reconciling the clause in A.I (Ibid.) with Lanfranc’s letter to the pope, which implies, as Mr. Freeman observes, that there was but one hearing, namely, that at Winchester (Norm. Conq., iv. 358). The clause in A.I asserts an adjournment of the hearing at Easter (Winchester), and a decision of the case at Whitsuntide (Windsor). [60] I need not print the list, as it will be found in the ‘Monasticon,’ and in Kempe’s ‘Historical Notices of St. Martin’s le Grand,’ as well as in Mr. Stevenson’s paper. [61] E. H. R., xii. 109 note. [62] Norm. Conq., vol. iv., App. C. [63] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 435. I do not guarantee the derivation. [64] Mon. Ang., ii. 302. [65] He is also clearly the “Eustachius de Huntedune” mentioned under Stamford (D. B. 336 _b_). [66] Norman Conquest, vol. ii. [67] Const. Hist., i. 243. [68] pp. viii., 299.