' /;/ Jo rest a.'



256 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.

Oxford belonged to one or other of these manors is not improbable,
nor is it impossible that the owner was the same as the one of this
name who afterwards became Bishop. On the other hand it is difficult
to reconcile the data with the biographical notice of his life given in
Orderic Vital ^.

Wido of Reinbodcurth 2 seems to have had only one manor in
Oxfordshire, namely Werochestan ^ (i. e. Wroxton near Banbury), but
he had ten in Northamptonshire, and some sixteen distributed in
Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, and Lincolnshire. Though with only
one manor in the county he yet had two mansions in Oxford.

Walter Gifard, lord of Longueville, afterwards Earl of Buckingham,
was one of the more fortunate of holders of manors, his total reaching
to nearly a hundred, of which he held ten in Oxfordshire * and nearly
fifty in Buckinghamshire. These are sufficient to account for his
having so many as seventeen mansions in Oxford. It is added that the
predecessor of Walter had one, of the gift of King Eadward ex VIII to
virg' quae consiietudinariae erant T R E. There is nothing amongst
the entries of the lands of Walter which in any way connects any of
his manors with Oxford ; at the same time the eight virgae being named,
if the interpretation be correct ^, affords an example of the amount of
ground belonging to a single house, i. e. the extent of the plot of ground
in which the house stood.



^ He died 1128. See a summary of the evidence given in Professor E. A. Free-
man's Reign of Willia/n Rtifiis, 1S82, vol. ii. p. 551.

^ The name is found spelt in the following ways in the course of the Domesday
Survey: Rainbuedcurt, Reinbuedcurt, Reinbuedcurth, Reinbodcurth, Reinbecurt,
and Renbudcurt. No such place has been observed in Normandy. There is a
Rembodcourt in the Department of the Meuse, and another in that of the Meurthe.

^ Domesday, folio 159 b, col. 2.

* Domesday, fol. 157 b, col. i.

^ It could not mean that the house stood in eight virgates, though the form virg-f
seems to stand for virgata, of which it is clear four went to the hyde, and as all
Oxford (putting it at about ninety acres) would be included in a single hyde, it is
impossible that such an extent of land within Oxford could belong to a single
house. It might be thought that the gift consisted of the eight virgates elsewhere
in the county, and the house in Oxford belonged to it : but throughout Walter
Gifard's manors there does not seem to be one of two hydes. Or, again, it might
be thought the house was assessed at the equivalent of eight virgates of land, but,
compared with the 172 houses at Dorchester assessed at ten hydes, this would be
excessive. (Folio 75 a, col. i.) It has therefore been concluded that, although the
word is written precisely in the same way as where it means virgate, it may mean
only a virga, i. e. a rod, or pole. At the present time such measures about 30 square
yards, and the eight would measure 240 square yards, i. e. a moderately sized garden ;
but there are no means of arriving at any definite measurement for the virga at that
time.



DESCRIPTION OF OXFORD IN DOMESDA V SURVE V. 257

Next appear two mansions which are entered as belonging respec-
tively to the two manors of Hampton and Bletchingdon. The
names may possibly be those of the two tenants resident in them, and
they may be Englishmen. The name Gernio is found amongst the
King's thanes as holding ten hydes of the King in Hamptun \ and here
therefore is another instance of a house belonging to a manor. In the
time of King Eadward the ten hydes seem to have been divided up
into five small manors.

The son of Manasses might be thought to be an early instance of
a Jew at Oxford ; it must be borne in mind however that Old Testa-
ment names were often borne by Christians 2. At the same time there
is just a reason for a slight suspicion that this was a Jew. For in
the entry under the Terra Minisirorum regis, to the effect that Alwi
the Sheriff holds of the King two hydes and a half in Blicesione
(Bletchingdon), it is added, ' This land Manasses bought of him without
the king's licence ^.' This statement is suggestive of the land being
pledged to INIanasses, or at least of some reason for his not having
purchased the land in the usual way. However the surveyors omit all
reference to Alwi, and insert the son of Manasses as the owner, but
with the qualification that the house belongs to the manor.

This completes the list of ienenies in capite holding Oxford man-
sions. In spite of the disproportion in several instances the list of
the holders of these mansions may fairly be said to represent the chief
holders of the manors in the county of Oxford and its neighbourhood.
There are however certain tenants in chief in the county who might
have been expected to have held mansions who do not do so; e.g. Robert
of Stratford with nine manors ; Geoffrey of Mandevile, and Walter Fitz-
Poyntz, each with three ; Gilbert of Ghent, Richard Puingiant, Alfred,
the nephew of Wigod, the Countess Judith (widow of Earl Waltheof)
and Roger of Ivry's wife, each with two; and several others with
single manors belonging to them ; but such exceptions, bearing in mind
the chances of the separation, and the evident breaking up of manors
which had gone on during the twenty years of the Conqueror's rule, do
not seriously militate against the view here taken.

* Domesday, folio 160 b, col. 2, Hampton is also mentioned under the land of
Roger of Ivry (i5Sb, col. 2). The whole manor seems afterwards to have been
divided into Hampton Gay and Hampton Poyle.

'^ At this very time the Archbishop of Rheims was named Manasses. His father
was named Manasses before him, and his next successor but one to the see, viz. in
1096, was named Manasses. In the tenth century a Bishop of Aix was named
Israel. At Exeter the. praeposilus Canonicorum Saudi Andreac was named Isaac
(Domesday, vol. ii.fol. 71).

^ Domesday, fol. T6ob, col. 2.



358 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.

A paragraph is here inserted in the Survey, that all the above-written
mansions are held free because they repair the wall, but the exact force
of the words is not very clear. They probably paid geld, but they
were held in capite from the king, free on the condition named.

We then have a somewhat more important list of names, for it
may be presumed that the majority actually represent the inhabitants
of the town, whereas, in the case of those which have preceded them,
there is no reason to suppose that any one except Robert D'Oilgi, and
possibly his friend the co-founder of the college in the Castle, Roger
of Ivry, ever set foot in Oxford.

The first entry we have amongst them is an interesting one, namely,
' The Priests of S. Michael's.' There can be little or no doubt that
this is S. Michael's at North Gate, of v/hich the tower remains to this
day, similar in many respects to that of the castle, which we are prac-
tically sure that Robert D'Oilgi erected. Had it not been for this entry,
showing that there were priests attached to the church of S. Michael
at this early date, it might have been left an open question whether,
after all, the tower was not wholly a military work, and not in any way
connected with the churches which the Abingdon Abbey Chronicle
says that Robert D'Oilgi ' repaired.' But when we find priests serving
S. Michael's, and when we learn from the original record that even within
the precincts of the castle he erected a church with a college of priests,
the inferences are very strong that S. Michael's priests were practically
endowed with their houses by Robert D'Oilgi, and that he certainly
restored, if he did not erect, the church of S. Michael's at North Gate.

The tower is an interesting one from many points of view. It is
intimately associated with the early history of Oxford, inasmuch as it
is one of the very few remnants existing of work which was standing
as visible to the inhabitants of Oxford at the time the Domesday
Survey was compiled as it is to the inhabitants of Oxford now ; again,
it is interesting as an example of military architecture of that period,
of which the examples are so few and far between, not only in this '■
country, but on the continent also ; it is interesting, too, perhaps,
from the fact of it serving a double purpose, namely, that of protecting '
the city and yet connected with a church : lastly, it is interesting from
a purely architectural point of view.

It will not be out of place here, perhaps, to say a few words on i,'
some of these points. On the evidence for the history of the building ,!
and the association with Robert D'Oilgi's name, sufficient perhaps ii
has been already said; and that it guarded the north gate, the way,
into Oxford mostly requiring protection against the enemy, is suffi-



DESCRIPTION OF OXFORD IN DOM BSD A Y SURVEY. 259

ciently proved from the line of wall and ditch, as well as from the
name which the church received later on, viz. St. Michael's at North
Gate, to distinguish it from a little chapel which seems to have been
erected at a later period near the south gate of Oxford \

But while the appearance is much more like that of a church tower
than the tower of the castle, there is a feature which is especially worthy
of attention, namely, a small round-headed doorway, about five feet
high, and little more than two feet wide, which exists at the north side
of the tower, at twenty-seven feet from the ground. It is hidden on the
exterior by the chimneys of the house built against it, and so is probably
entirely overlooked by most visitors ; but it is well seen and readily
accessible from the interior, and has the jambs and each abacus
complete. The use of this there can be but little doubt is the same
as that of the arches, now blocked up with masonry, at the very
top of the castle tower, some sixty feet from the surface of the
ground, and which have already been referred to as being constructed
for the purpose of giving access to the ' hourdes ' or wooden galleries
which projected from the wall I The reason for the gallery in
S. Michael's tower being on a much lower level than that in the castle
tower, was that it might guard the approach to the gatew^ay adjoining,
while in the castle the tower had to command the river and a much
more extended line.

It is difficult at this distant date, and after so many alterations have
taken place, to decide where the wall or rampart joined the tower.
Following the ordinary rule of fortification, it would abut on the eastern
side, but leaving the tower slightly projecting on the north.

On the south side, however, the masonry shows that there had been
a building of some kind abutting against the tower, and, still visible
in the masonry, there are marks of an original doorway, the base
of which would have been about twelve feet from the level of the
ground. Also, by taking into account the line of the old ditch found
during the recent excavations in the yard of the Ship Inn, and also

^ In reference to S. Michael's Church and Chapel at the north and south gate
respectively, ds also to there being a S. Peter's Church in the eastern part of Oxford
and another in the west, there is a Latin distich as follows : —
'Invigilat porta australi boreaeque Michael
Exortum solem Petrus regit atque cadentem.'
'At North-gate and at South-gate too S. Michael guards the way.
While o'er the east and o'er the west S. Peter holds his sway.'
The distich is probably not earlier than the fourteenth or fifteenth century, but the
first occurrence has not been definitely traced.
- See ante, p. 210.



26o THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.

the line of the wall on the west, it must be admitted that there is
some reason to suppose the tower wholly projected from the north
side of the rampart, and that the rampart was continued along the
south side of the tower, and that the doorway at twelve feet from the
ground opened upon this rampart. In time of siege the soldiers would
be able to pass from the rampart into the tower, which was no doubt
provided on the interior with wooden staircases, and so reach the
projecting ' hourd ' on the north side, whence, if the suggested plan
is correct, they would command the ditch on the right, and the road-
way in front of the gate on the left.

The traces of one more original doorway should be observed,
namely, on the west side, and level with the street. From this door-
way access would be gained from the road into the basement storey of
the tower. But whether the wall abutted against the eastern side of
the tower, or was carried along under the southern side, a great
difficulty arises in fixing upon the site of the church. In the eleventh
century a church tower was, as a rule, either central or at the west end,
and when the latter was the case, the tower arch, opening into the
church, was an important feature, and generally bore distinctive marks
of the Romanesque style. Here there is no trace of any such arch,
but a fourteenth century arch, which, so far as can be judged, does not
take the place of any pre-existing arch of such a size as would have
existed had the church occupied the eastern end. In other words, the
evidence points to the tower not having been a western tower ; and it
could not have been a central tower, but to being a detached tower,
such as the tower was in the castle ; and though possibly provided
with bells, and having much more of the appearance of a church tower
than its companion, still it was not part and parcel of the church which
stood at the north gate, such as it is now.

On looking at the plan it will be at once seen that the wall has been
extended on the north so as to include the church ; but the precise
time when this was done it is difficult to determine. It may be con-
jectured however that the last extension was in the fifteenth century,
for the wall (and opportunity was given recently of examining it to the
foundations) was found to be scarcely two feet thick, while the main
city wall, as seen at the end of Turl Street, was close upon nine feet
in thickness.

The existing tower windows, it will be observed, present what are
called mid-waU shafts, of the type which occur at Jarrow, Monkwear-
mouth, and in other early architectural examples. In the cases named
they were probably the distinguishing feature which made the venerable



DESCRIPTION OF OXFORD IN DOMESDAY SURVEY. 261

Bede speak of those buildings as being erected more Romano'^. Truly-
Romanesque before the style had developed into Norman, they stand
as important landmarks in the history of architecture ; for while they
were erected under the superintendence of the Norman Constabularius
who came over with the Conqueror, yet they were not more Norman
in style than buildings which had been erected for centuries previously
in the country. They point to the fact that although our intercourse
with Normandy accelerated, and possibly in a measure influenced the
development of our national style of architecture, we did not import
that style from Normandy. It is dangerous, with the few remains we
possess, and still fewer records which directly interpret the history of
those remains, to compare the tower of S. Michael's with other exist-
ing towers, and the architectural details of the same with those of
other buildings, but it may be said to represent the architecture of
the close of the eleventh century, before the long-and-short work at the
angles, with the rest built of rubble, gave way to the more expensive
but more lasting mode of building with surface ashlar masonry
throughout ; also before the plain pierced arch with a mid-wall shaft
gave way to the splayed Norman window or to arches with orders
duly recessed, such as eventually developed into the rich Gothic work
with their series of mouldings. And further, it is to be noticed that
the mid-wall shafts of S. Michael's are in the most perfect state of pre-
servation, inasmuch as regards three of the windows they have only
been exposed during the last few years ^

The next entry in the Survey relates to the fifteen mansions held
by the Canons of S. Frideswide. These mansions again were probably
part of the endowment of the monastery in Oxford, either given by
wealthy residents or possibly built by the community on land which
they had acquired. Houses were not unfrequently given on the con-
dition that for the rest of the donor's life a ' corrody,' that is, sufficient
maintenance, and perhaps an annual sum of money, should be secured
to him by the monastery ; and it is possible that some of the tenements
of S. Frideswide had been already obtained in this way, as the

^ Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. v. cap. 21.

^ About ten years since, partly with a view of lightening the weight of the tower,
as it was, in spite of the iron clamps, in a somewhat dangerous condition, and
partly with a view of improving the effect, the parish proposed to open the
windows, which had been long blocked up. To the satisfaction of every one, the
mid-wall shafts were found perfect. This had not been anticipated, and can only
be explained from the circumstance of the abacus in each case having been broken
by the pressure of the superincumbent mass, in which state each was found, and
therefore probably soon after their erection the windows were walled up to prevent
further giving way of the masonry above them.



262 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.

documents show that many were so obtained after the eleventh
century.

But S. Frideswide's, as has been already said, does not appear to
have been prosperous. We find no parish church in Oxford at this
time which there is any reason to suppose had been built under its
auspices or in any way belonged to it, and the property in Oxford-
shire was still exceedingly small compared with that of other existing
monasteries, or with that which it acquired in Henry the First's
reign. As to the church itself, not a vestige exists of the old work,
the whole having been rebuilt, or at least been begun to be rebuilt,
under Prior Guimond at the beginning of the next century^.

In the Domesday Survey all that we find is under the heading ' No.
xiv. The Land of the Canons of Oxford and of other Clerks.^ It runs
as follows : —

'The Canons of S. Frideswide hold 4 hydes of the King near
Oxford. They held it in King Edward's Time. The land five Caru-
cates. There 18 'villani have five ploughs and 105 acres of meadow,
and eight acres of spinney. It was and is worth 40^-. This land never
paid tax ; neither does it belong, nor did it belong to any hundred.

' Siward holds of these same Canons 2 hides in Codeslaiv. Land for
two ploughs, which are there now. It was and is worth 40J. It
belonged and does belong to the Church ^.'

As to the four hydes near Oxford, it is dangerous to assign to them
any definite place. Indeed it is not clear that it includes the precincts
of the nunnery. It has already been suggested that it does not neces-
sarily follow that the land was all in one part, and might possibly
include some on the western side of Oxford at Binsey. At the same
time it will not be overlooked that three hydes adjoining to the eastern
side of Oxford are expressly referred to in the charter of King
Ethelred granted a.d. 1004^, namely, a piece of land on the north
bank of the Thames, stretching from the Cherwell on the west, to

' The site is of course the same, or rather nearly so. It will be remembered
that the author of the life of S. Frideswide speaks of the tomb of that saint having
been moved. Whether he had any evidence for saying it was moved in the time of
King Athelred may be doubted. See ante, p. loi.

^ The remaining entries under the same heading refer to the holding of a certain
Osmund the priest, of land at Chertdintone (Kirtlington); of Brun, a priest, of
land in Cadcivcll (qy. Adwell) ; of Edward, also probably a priest, the place of
whose holding is not named ; and of Rannulf Flambard, of land in Middleton
(perhaps Middleton Stoney), and who has been already referred to as probably
first a clerk and afterwards a Bishop. See ante, p. 255. Appendix A, § 99.

^ See ante, p. 143.



DESCRIPTION OF OXFORD IN DOMES DA V SUR VE V. 263

Iffley on the east, and bounded by Bullingdon and Cowley on the
norths

The land which they held on the north of Oxford, known as Cutslow,
and which also was part of the grant of King ^thelred, it will be
seen, they had leased to a certain Siward. This is not an uncommon
name amongst the tenants in the time of King Edward, and occurs in
several counties. But in Oxfordshire there is an entry under the
King's thanes'^ respecting a certain Siwardus Venator, i.e. the king's
'hunter,' who holds from the king 25 hydes at Cedelintone (i.e. Kid-
lington). The record adds, ' This Siward held it freely in the time of
King Edward. Probably from his abilities as a huntsman he was
allowed to retain his land, but de rege and not libere as before, and it is
clear that he found it convenient to farm the neighbouring land of
the Canons of S. Frideswide in the adjoining manor of Cutslow.'

The land however at Cutslow^ held by S. Frideswide had not in-
creased in value. It had belonged to S. Frideswide's before the
Conquest, and it belonged to it now ; in other words, the conduct of
the occupants of the monastery or of its lands had given no excuse to
the Conqueror to despoil them of their property*.

We now come to the names of the tenants, who may be for the
most part considered to be actually occupiers of the houses in Oxford,
for it will be observed that out of the thirty-eight thirty-two represent
occupiers of a single house. The names may be said to be all
English names ^, but we are met by the circumstance that they are

^ The question as to the extent of these lands can only be discussed by taking
into account the confirmation charters of the next century.

- LVIII. Terra Ricardi et aliorum ministrorum Regis. Domesday, fol. i6ob,
col. 2.

^ The following is an instance of the obscurity in the entries in the Domesday
Sur\'ey arising from their terseness. Though we find Siward holding 2 hydes from
S. Frideswide's in Cutslow, we find later on (fol. 159 a) under XXIX. Terra
Rogeri de Iveri, ' Aluredus Clericus tenet de R[ogerio] Codeslave! There are
there three hydes, &c. It must be assumed that these three hydes held by the
' clerk ' from Roger of Ivry are distinct from the two hydes held by the ' huntsman '
from the Canons of St. Frideswide's ; and we must infer that the whole manor of
Cutslow, represented at the present day only by a few farm buildings, consisted of
five hydes. The value of Roger of Ivry's three hydes had increased from three
pounds to four pounds. The two hydes belonging to St. Frideswide's were origin-
ally valued at two pounds, and are declared to be of the same still. However
much is left to conjecture ; very few words more would have made all clear.

* This circumstance ought to have suggested itself to Thierry, when he describes
the action of the monks of S. Frideswide's at the siege of Oxford. See ante,
note 2, p. 195.

^ William perhaps might be taken as an exception, but whether or not English-
men by birth, there were several Williams in the country in the time of Edward
the Confessor.



264 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.

given as a rule, unfortunately, without any designation, and further,
they are names of tolerably frequent occurrence in various parts of the
country, so that there is very little means of identifying the owners
with others bearing the same name. Coleman, the first of the series,
held three mansions, and is referred to as being dead, other occupiers
presumably having been found for his houses ; it is a name not un-
frequent in the neighbourhood ; he may, perhaps, be identified with one
of the original holders of the six hydes at Cestito7te (Chesterton), in
Oxfordshire, which were now held from the king by Aluric, and which
Coleman and Azor had once held^ ; or with one of those of Sezve/k{?)
in Berkshire, which had been confiscated to the Earl of Evreux, but
which Coleman and Brictward had held of King Eadward ^. Some
little time after, that is, early in Henry the First's reign, one of the
houses in question was purchased by Abbot Faritius of Abingdon. The
following is the entry in the chronicle of that abbey, in reference to the
revenue being set aside for, the use of the occupation of the infirmary
there, and though as to date it belongs to the next century, the
passage so directly concerns the houses referred to in the Survey that
it must be given here.

' Since the brethren who were sick, and who had been bled were