|The National Archives,
Domesday Book: an engraving published in 1900. Great Domesday (the larger volume) and Little Domesday (the smaller volume), in their 1869 bindings, lying on their older "Tudor
|Also known as
Liber de Wintonia
|Place of origin
The assessors' reckoning of a man's holdings and their values, as recorded in Domesday Book, was dispositive and without appeal. The name
for Doomsday Book
) came into use in 12th century.
As Richard FitzNeal
1179 in the Dialogus de Scaccario
The book is an invaluable primary source for modern historians and historical economists. No survey approaching the scope and extent of Domesday Book was attempted again in Britain until the
1873 Return of Owners of Land
(sometimes termed the "Modern Domesday")
which presented the first complete, post-Domesday picture of the distribution of landed property in the British Isles.
Domesday Book encompasses two independent works: "Little Domesday" (covering
) and "Great Domesday" (covering much of the remainder of England and parts of Wales—except for lands in the north which later became
, and the
County Palatine of Durham
). No surveys were made of the
City of London
, probably due to their tax-exempt status, and some other towns. (Other areas of modern London were then in Middlesex, Kent, Essex, etc., and are included in Domesday Book.) Most of Cumberland and Westmorland are missing.
is missing because the Bishop of Durham
(William de St-Calais
) had the exclusive right to tax it; in addition, parts of north-east England were covered by the 1183
, listing areas liable to tax by the Bishop of Durham. The omission of the other counties and towns is not fully explained, although in particular Cumberland and Westmorland had yet to be fully conquered
Little Domesday was named for being in a physically smaller format than its companion, but this survey is the more detailed, down to numbers of livestock. It may have represented the first attempt, resulting in a decision to avoid such level of detail in Great Domesday.
Both volumes are organized into a series of chapters (literally "headings", from Latin
, "a head") listing the
, broadly identical to
by a named tenant-in-chief
of the king (who formed the highest stratum of Norman feudal society below the king), namely religious institutions, Bishops, Norman warrior magnates and a few Saxon thegns
who had made peace with the Norman regime. Some of the largest such magnates held several hundred fees, in a few cases in more than one county. For example, the chapter of the Domesday Book Devonshire
section concerning Baldwin the Sheriff
lists 176 holdings held in-chief by him. Only a few of the holdings of the large magnates were held in demesne
, most having been
to knights, generally military followers of the tenant-in-chief (often his feudal tenants from Normandy) which latter thus became their overlord
. The fees listed within the chapter concerning a particular tenant-in-chief were usually ordered, but not in a systematic or rigorous fashion, by the
under the jurisdiction of which they were situated, not by geographic location.
As a review of taxes owed, it was highly unpopular.
Each county's list opened with the king's
lands (which had possibly been the subject of separate inquiry). It should be borne in mind that under the feudal system the king was the only true "owner" of land in England, under his allodial title
. He was thus the ultimate overlord and even the greatest magnate could do no more than "hold" land from him as a
(from the Latin verb teneo
, "to hold") under one of the various contracts of
feudal land tenure
. Holdings of Bishops followed, then of the abbeys and religious houses, then of lay
and lastly the king's serjeants (servientes
), and Saxon
who had survived the Conquest
, all in hierarchical order.
In some counties, one or more principal towns formed the subject of a separate section: in some the
(disputed titles to land) were also treated separately. This principle applies more specially to the larger volume: in the smaller one, the system is more confused, the execution less perfect.
Domesday names a total of 13,418 places.
Apart from the wholly rural portions, which constitute its bulk, Domesday contains entries of interest concerning most of the towns, which were probably made because of their bearing on the fiscal rights of the crown therein. These include fragments of custumals
(older customary agreements), records of the military service due, of markets, mints
, and so forth. From the towns, from the counties as wholes, and from many of its ancient lordships, the crown was entitled to archaic dues in kind, such as
. (In a parallel development, around 1100 the
in southern Italy completed their Catalogus Baronum
based on Domesday Book.)
The manuscripts do not carry a formal title. The work is referred to internally as a
(survey), and in other early administrative contexts as the king's brevia
(writings). From about 1100, references appear to the liber
(book) or carta
(document) of Winchester
, its usual place of custody; and from the mid-12th to early 13th centuries, to the Winchester or king's
The name "Domesday" was subsequently adopted by the book's custodians, being first found in an official document in 1221.
or deliberate word play
, the name also came to be associated with the Latin phrase
("House of God"). Such a reference is found as early as the late 13th century, in the writings of Adam of Damerham
; and in the 16th and 17th centuries,
such as John Stow
and Sir Richard Baker
believed that this was the name's origin, alluding to the church in Winchester in which the book had been kept.
As a result, the alternative spelling "Domesdei" became popular for a while.
The usual modern scholarly convention is to refer to the work as "Domesday Book" (or simply as "Domesday"), without a definite article. However, the form "the Domesday Book" is also found in both academic and non-academic contexts.
states that planning for the survey was conducted in 1085, and the colophon
of the book states the survey was completed in 1086. It is not known when exactly Domesday Book was compiled, but the entire copy of Great Domesday appears to have been copied out by one person on parchment
(prepared sheepskin), although six scribes seem to have been used for Little Domesday. Writing in 2000, David Roffe argued that the inquest (survey) and the construction of the book were two distinct exercises. He believes that the latter was completed, if not started, by William II
following his assumption of the English throne; he quashed a rebellion that followed and was based on, though not consequent on, the findings of the inquest.
Most shires were visited by a group of royal officers (legati
), who held a public inquiry, probably in the great assembly known as the shire court. These were attended by representatives of every township as well as of the local lords. The unit of inquiry was the Hundred (a subdivision of the county, which then was an administrative entity). The return for each Hundred was sworn to by twelve local jurors, half of them English and half of them
What is believed to be a full transcript of these original returns is preserved for several of the
Hundreds and is of great illustrative importance. The Inquisitio Eliensis
is a record of the lands of Ely Abbey
The Exon Domesday
(named because the volume was held at Exeter
, and one manor of
. Parts of Devon, Dorset and Somerset are also missing. Otherwise this contains the full details supplied by the original returns.
Through comparison of what details are recorded in which counties, six Great Domesday "circuits" can be determined (plus a seventh circuit for the Little Domesday shires).
— the Marches
Three sources discuss the goal of the survey:
tells why it was ordered:
- The list of questions asked of the jurors were recorded in the
- The contents of Domesday Book and the allied records mentioned above.
The primary purpose of the survey was to ascertain and record the fiscal rights of the king. These were mainly:
- the national land-tax (geldum), paid on a fixed assessment,
- certain miscellaneous dues, and
- the proceeds of the crown lands.
After a great political convulsion such as the Norman conquest, and the following wholesale confiscation of landed estates, William needed to reassert that the rights of the Crown, which he claimed to have inherited, had not suffered in the process. His Norman followers tended to evade the liabilities of their English predecessors. The
of Odo de Bayeux
at Penenden Heath
less than a decade after the conquest was one example of the Crown's growing discontent at the Norman land-grab of the years following the invasion. Historians believe that the survey was to aid William in establishing certainty and a definitive reference point as to property holdings across the nation, in case such evidence was needed in disputes over Crown ownership.
The Domesday survey therefore recorded the names of the new holders of lands and the assessments on which their tax was to be paid. But it did more than this; by the king's instructions, it endeavoured to make a national valuation list, estimating the annual value of all the land in the country, (1) at the time of
Edward the Confessor
's death, (2) when the new owners received it, (3) at the time of the survey, and further, it reckoned, by command, the potential value as well. It is evident that William desired to know the financial resources of his kingdom, and it is probable that he wished to compare them with the existing assessment, which was one of considerable antiquity, though there are traces that it had been occasionally modified. The great bulk of Domesday Book is devoted to the somewhat arid details of the assessment and valuation of rural estates, which were as yet the only important source of national wealth. After stating the assessment of the
, the record sets forth the amount of
, and the number of plough teams (each reckoned at eight oxen) available for working it, with the additional number (if any) that might be employed; then the river-meadows, woodland, pasture, fisheries (i.e.
(if by the sea) and other subsidiary sources of revenue; the peasants are enumerated in their several classes; and finally the annual value of the whole, past and present, is roughly estimated.
The organization of the returns on a feudal basis, enabled the Conqueror and his officers to see the extent of a baron's possessions; and it also showed to what extent he had under-tenants, and the identities of the under-tenants. This was of great importance to William, not only for military reasons, but also because of his resolve to command the personal loyalty of the under-tenants (though the "men" of their lords) by making them swear allegiance to hims. As Domesday Book normally records only the Christian name of an under-tenant, it is not possible to search for the surnames of families claiming a Norman origin. Scholars, however, have worked to identify the under-tenants, most of whom have foreign Christian names.
The survey provided the King with information on potential sources of funds when he needed to raise money. It includes sources of income but not expenses, such as castles, unless they needed to be included to explain discrepancies between pre-and post-Conquest holdings of individuals. Typically, this happened in a town, where separately-recorded properties had been demolished to make way for a castle.
Domesday Book was preserved from the late 11th to the beginning of the 13th centuries in the royal
(the Norman kings' capital). It was often referred to as the "Book" or "Roll" of Winchester.
When the Treasury moved to the Palace of Westminster
, probably under
, the book went with it. In the Middle Ages, the Book's evidence was frequently invoked in the law-courts. Even in the 21st century, its information is referred to in certain cases.
The two volumes (Great Domesday and Little Domesday) remained in Westminster until the 19th century, being held at different times in various offices of the
(the Chapel of the Pyx of Westminster Abbey
; the Treasury of Receipts; and the Tally Court).
On many occasions, however, the books were taken around the country with the Exchequer: for example to York
in 1300, to York again in 1303 and 1319, to Hertford
in the 1580s or 1590s, and to Nonsuch Palace
, in 1666, following the
Great Fire of London
The volumes have been rebound on several occasions. Little Domesday was rebound in 1320, its older oak boards being re-used. At a later date (probably in the
) both volumes were given new covers. They were rebound twice in the 19th century, in 1819 and 1869, on the second occasion by the binder
. In the 20th century, they were rebound in 1952, when their physical makeup was examined in greater detail; and yet again in 1986 for the survey's ninth centenary. On this last occasion Great Domesday was divided into two physical volumes, and Little Domesday into three volumes.
The project to publish Domesday was begun by the government in 1773, and the book appeared in two volumes in 1783, set in "record type
" to produce a partial-facsimile
of the manuscript. In 1811, a volume of indexes was added. In 1816 a supplementary volume, separately indexed, was published containing
Exon Domesday—for the south-western counties
Liber Winton—surveys of Winchester late in the 12th century.
Boldon Buke—a survey of the bishopric of Durham a century later than Domesday
of Domesday Book, for each county separately, were published in 1861–1863, also by the government. Today, Domesday Book is available in numerous editions, usually separated by county and available with other local history
In 1986, the
released the BBC Domesday Project,
the results of a project to create a survey to mark the 900th anniversary of the original Domesday Book. In August 2006 the contents of Domesday went online
, with an English translation of the book's Latin. Visitors to the website are able to look up a place name and see the index entry made for the manor, town, city or village. They can also, for a fee, download the relevant page.
Domesday Book is critical to understanding the period in which it was written. As H. C. Darby noted, anyone who uses it
The author of the article on the book in the
eleventh edition of the
noted, "To the topographer, as to the genealogist, its evidence is of primary importance, as it not only contains the earliest survey of each township or manor, but affords, in the majority of cases, a clue to its subsequent descent."
Darby also notes the inconsistencies, saying that "when this great wealth of data is examined more closely, perplexities and difficulties arise."
One problem is that the clerks who compiled this document "were but human; they were frequently forgetful or confused." The use of Roman numerals
also led to countless mistakes. Darby states, "Anyone who attempts an arithmetical exercise in Roman numerals soon sees something of the difficulties that faced the clerks."
But more important are the numerous obvious omissions, and ambiguities in presentation. Darby first cites F. W. Maitland's
comment following his compilation of a table of statistics from material taken from the Domesday Book survey, "it will be remembered that, as matters now stand, two men not unskilled in Domesday might add up the number of hides in a county and arrive at very different results because they would hold different opinions as to the meanings of certain formulas which are not uncommon."
Darby says that "it would be more correct to speak not of 'the Domesday geography of England', but of 'the geography of Domesday Book'. The two may not be quite the same thing, and how near the record was to reality we can never know."
"Domesday Book". Dictionary.com.
Note: One common abbreviation was
TRE, short for the Latin
Tempore Regis Eduardi, "in the time of King Edward (the Confessor)", meaning the period immediately before the Norman conquest
The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson: English Traits, Volume 5, p. 250 n. 65.15 (notes by Robert E. Burkholder, Harvard University Press, 1971).
Johnson, C., ed. (1950).
Dialogus de Scaccario, the Course of the Exchequer, and Constitutio Domus Regis, the King's Household. London. p. 64.
Cellan-Jones, Rory (13 May 2011).
"Domesday Reloaded project: The 1086 version". BBC News.
A New Survey of England, Devon, London, 1954, p.87
"Return of Owners of Land, 1873, Wales, Scotland, Ireland". Retrieved
Palmer, Alan (1976). 'Kings and Queens of England", p.15. Octopus Books Limited, Great Britain.ISBN 0706405420
"The Domesday Book".
History Magazine. October 2001. Retrieved
Hallam 1986, pp. 34–5.
Harvey 2014, pp. 7–9.
Harvey 2014, pp. 271–328.
Harvey 2014, p. 271.
Johnson, C., ed. (1950).
Dialogus de Scaccario, the Course of the Exchequer, and Constitutio Domus Regis, the King's Household. London. pp. 63–64.
Hallam 1986, p. 35.
Hallam 1986, p. 34.
Harvey 2014, pp. 18–19.
Domesday; The Inquest and The Book, pages 224–249. Oxford University Press, 2000.
"Inquisitio Eliensis". Domesday Explorer. Retrieved
Cooper, Alan (2001). "Extraordinary privilege: the trial of Penenden Heath and the Domesday inquest".
English Historical Review
(469): 1167–1192. doi:10.1093/ehr/116.469.1167.
Hallam 1986, p. 55.
Hallam 1986, pp. 55–6.
Hallam 1986, pp. 133–4.
Hallam 1986, pp. 150–52.
Hallam 1986, pp. 155–6.
Hallam 1986, pp. 167–9.
Cantwell, John D. (1991).
The Public Record Office, 1838-1958. London: HMSO. pp. 379, 428–30.
Hallam 1986, pp. 29, 150–51, 157–61, 170–72.
Forde, Helen (1986).
Domesday Preserved. London: Public Record Office.
(Cambridge: University Press, 1977), p. 12
Domesday England, p. 13
Domesday Book and Beyond
(Cambridge, 1897), p. 407
- Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. London: Penguin, 2003.
- Darby, Henry C.
Domesday England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
- Hallam, Elizabeth M. (1986).
Domesday Book through Nine Centuries. London: Thames & Hudson.
- Harvey, Sally (2014).
Domesday: Book of Judgement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Keats-Rohan, Katherine S. B.
Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents, 1066–1166. 2v. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1999.
- Holt, J. C.
Domesday Studies. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1987.
- Lennard, Reginald.
Rural England 1086–1135: A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.
- Maitland, F. W.
Domesday Book and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
- Roffe, David.
Domesday: The Inquest and The Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- Roffe, David.
Decoding Domesday. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2007.
- Vinogradoff, Paul.
English Society in the Eleventh Century. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1908.
- Wood, Michael.
The Domesday Quest: In Search of the Roots of England. London: BBC Books, 2005.
- Willis, Connie. "Doomsday Book".
- Wikisource: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: Domesday Book
- Bates, David
(1985). A Bibliography of Domesday Book. Woodbridge: Boydell.
- Bridbury, A. R. (1990). "Domesday Book: a re-interpretation".
English Historical Review
- Darby, Henry C. (2003).
The Domesday Geography of Eastern England. Domesday Geography of England
(revised 3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521893968.
- Darby, Henry C.; Terrett, I. B., eds. (1971).
The Domesday Geography of Midland England. Domesday Geography of England
(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521080789.
- Darby, Henry C.; Campbell, Eila M. J., eds. (1961).
The Domesday Geography of South-East England. Domesday Geography of England
3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Darby, Henry C.; Maxwell, I. S., eds. (1977).
The Domesday Geography of Northern England. Domesday Geography of England
(corrected ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521047730.
- Darby, Henry C.; Finn, R. Welldon, eds. (1979).
The Domesday Geography of South West England. Domesday Geography of England
(corrected ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521047714.
- Finn, R. Welldon (1973).
Domesday Book: a guide. London: Phillimore.
- Snooks, Graeme D.; McDonald, John (1986).
Domesday Economy: a new approach to Anglo-Norman history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Hamshere, J. D. (1987). "Regressing Domesday Book: tax assessments of Domesday England".
Economic History Review. n.s.
- Leaver, R. A. (1988). "Five hides in ten counties: a contribution to the Domesday regression debate".
Economic History Review. n.s.
- McDonald, John; Snooks, G. D. (1985). "Were the tax assessments of Domesday England artificial?: the case of Essex".
Economic History Review. n.s.
- Sawyer, Peter, ed. (1985).
Domesday Book: a reassessment. London: Edward Arnold.
- Volumes of the Phillimore series, one for each county (e.g. Thorn, C. et al. (eds.) (1979)
Cornwall. Chichester: Phillimore) which contain the Latin in facsimile with an English translation.