The Domesday Controversy: A Review and a New Interpretation

How and why was Domesday made? These questions matter, partly because the making of Domesday is one of the most remarkable achievements of medieval government, and partly because it is essential to know how Domesday came into being before interpreting its precious contents. However, two basic problems make them difficult to answer. The first is historical: neither Domesday Book itself nor any other near-contemporary document addresses either question directly.2 We have some vital clues, most notably those given to us by the annals for 1085 and 1086 in MS E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, an eye-witness account of the survey written by Bishop Robert of Hereford, the colophon to Little Domesday Book, the prologue to the collection known at Inquisitio Eliensis, and a text in Hemming’s cartulary which records the identity of the Domesday commissioners for Worcestershire and the western circuit.3 These illuminate the Domesday landscape like lightning flashes in a nocturnal storm, giving sudden, partial glimpses of its contours, and afterimages of features we can grope towards when darkness resumes – but they might easily have said more. For instance, if the author of the annal for 1085 had been moved to explain the substance of the careful thought and deep discussion which preceded he launch of the survey, or if the Great Domesday scribe had written a prologue describing when, how and why his ork was undertaken, they might have saved a vast amount of scholarly effort. As it is, we can only infer how and why omesday was made from the records it generated: these are the results from which cause and process must be found.