The total number of the names thus assumed from local denominations amounts to 627, but as several occur once only, while others are found repeated in various counties, I find the whole number reaches to 1329, which are distributed through the counties in a very striking manner, as the following table will show.

There are two slight causes of inaccuracy to be borne in mind in using the foregoing tables: the first arises from the insertion of names which probably do not, the other from the omission of names which probably do, belong to this class. But I think these two errors may nearly balance one another, and that they do not interfere with the general correctness of the results.

It is remarkable how many of these names still stand alone, without any addition of -wÍc, -hÁm, -worÐig, or similar words. The total number of patronymical names thus found (in the nominative plural) is 190, or very nearly one-seventh of the whole; they are thus distributed: in Kent, 25; Norfolk and Sussex each 24; Essex 21; Suffolk 15; Yorkshire 13; Lincoln 7; Southampton 6; Berks and Surrey, 5 each; Bedfordshire, Lancashire, Middlesex and Northampton, 4 each; Hertford, Huntingdon, Northumberland and Nottingham, 3 each; Cambridge, Derby, Dorset, Gloucester and Oxford, 2 each; Bucks, Devon, Leicester, Salop, Somerset, Warwick, and Wilts, 1 each; and none at all in the remaining ten counties. When now we consider that of 190 such places, 140 are found in the counties on the eastern and southern coasts; and that 22 more are in counties easily accessible through our great navigable streams, we shall be led to admit the possibility of these having been the original seats of the Marks bearing these names; and the further possibility of the settlements distinguished by the addition of -hÁm, -wÍc and so forth to these original names, having been filial settlements, or as it were colonies, from them. It also seems worthy of remark that they are hardly found to the north of the Humber, or about 53° 40´ N. Lat., which renders it probable that the prevailing mode of emigration was to take advantage of a N.E. wind to secure a landing in the Wash, and thence coast southward and westward as far as circumstances required. Sailors, who in the ninth century could find their way from Norway to Iceland in sufficient numbers to colonize that island, who in the tenth could extend their course from Iceland to Greenland, and who had noble spirit enough to confront the perils of the Polar ocean rather than submit to oppression at home, were not likely to find any insurmountable difficulty in a voyage from the Elbe or Skager Rack to England: and the conquest of the Orkneys and Hebrides, of the south of Ireland and Man, nay of large tracts of England by the Scandinavians in the ninth, tenth and following centuries, may supply the means of judging how similar adventures were conducted by populations of the same race, and as noble spirit, nine hundred or a thousand years before.

The following additions may be made to the evidences given in this chapter.

A marked linden or lime-tree is noticed in Cod. Dipl. No. 1317. Again in Kent we hear of earnes beÁm, the eagle’s tree, ibid. No. 287: it is more probable that this was a tree marked with the figure of an eagle, than that a real bird of that species should have been meant. Further in the boundary of the charter No. 393 we have, on ÐÁn merkeden Ók, to the marked oak.

The sacred woods are again mentioned by Tacitus, Annal, i. 59, where he tells us that Arminius hung up the captured Roman ensigns to the gods of the country, in the woods, lucis: we hang them up in cathedrals. See also Tac. Germ, vii., Annal. iv. 22.

The character of the Mark or March is very evident in the following passage: “Siquidem in Lindeseia superiori extat prioratus qui Marchby dicitur, longas ac latas pasturas pro gregibus alendis inhabitans, non omnino privato iure, sed communem cum compatriotis libertatem ex dono patronorum participans,” etc. Chron. Lanerc. an. 1289. See also the quotations from the Indiculus Pagan. and Synod. Leptin. an. 742, in MÖser, Osnab. i. 52, and the whole of his twenty-ninth chapter, for the religious rites with which boundaries were dedicated, especially vol. i. p. 58, note c.

It is more than one could now undertake to do, without such local co-operation as is not to be expected in England as yet, but I am certain that the ancient Marks might still be traced. In looking over a good county map we are surprised by seeing the systematic succession of places ending in -den, -holt, -wood, -hurst, -fold, and other words which invariably denote forests and outlying pastures in the woods. These are all in the Mark, and within them we may trace with equal certainty, the -hÁms, -tÚns, -worÐigs and -stedes which imply settled habitations. There are few counties which are not thus distributed into districts, whose limits may be assigned by the observation of these peculiar characteristics. I will lay this down as a rule, that the ancient Mark is to be recognised by following the names of places ending in -den (neut.), which always denoted cubile ferarum, or pasture, usually for swine. Denu, a valley (fem.), a British and not Saxon word, is very rarely, perhaps never, found in composition. The actual surface of the island, wherever the opportunity has been given of testing this hypothesis, confirms its history. But there are other remarkable facts bearing upon this subject, which are only to be got at by those who are fortunate enough to have free access to manorial records, before the act of Charles II. destroyed all feudal services in England. A striking example of the mark-jurisdiction is the “Court of Dens,” in Kent. This appears to have been a mark-court, in the sense in which mark-court is used throughout this second chapter, and which gradually became a lord’s court, only when the head markman succeeded in raising himself at the expense of his fellows: a court of the little marks, marches, or pastures in Kent, long after the meaning of such marks or marches had been forgotten: a court which in earlier times met to regulate the rights of the markmen in the dens or pastures. I am indebted (among many civilities, which I gratefully acknowledge) to the Rev. L. Larking of Ryarsh for the following extracts from Sir Roger Twisden’s journal, which throw some light upon what the court had become in the middle of the seventeenth century, but still show its existence, and lead us to a knowledge of its ancient form.

The reader who feels how thoroughly English liberty has become grounded in the struggles between the duties and privileges of various classes, how entirely the national right has been made up and settled by the conflict of private rights, how impossible it was for the union of empire and freedom to exist,—or for imperium and freedom to co-exist, without the battle in which the several autocracies measured their forces and discovered the just terms of compromise,—will value this record of the reluctance with which a staunch country squire submitted to the duties of his position. It is not only amusing, but instructive, to watch these men of the seventeenth century, fighting on the minutest grounds of squabble: very amusing, to those who take the world as it is, to have been always as it is, and likely always so to remain: very instructive to those who know the miserable condition from which such “squabbles” have raised us. There are people, who having no sense of right, but a profound sense of the wrong done them, raise barricades, and overturn dynasties in moments of irrepressible and pardonable excitement: there are people on the other hand who steadily and coolly measure right and wrong, who take to the law-book rather than the sword, who argue the question of ship-money, on which a system of government depends, as calmly as if it were a question of poor-rates in a parish attorney’s hands, and having brought their right, the ancient right of the land, into light, fall back into the orderly frame of society in which they lived before, as if no years of desperate struggle had intervened,—the law being vindicated, and the work of the workmen done. This work without distinction of Parliamentarian or King’s Man was done by the Seldens and the Twisdens, and men of more general note and name, but not more claim to our gratitude and respect. But to do this, required that study which unhappily our English gentlemen no longer think absolutely necessary to their education, the study of the law, of which they are the guardians, though a professional class may be its ministers; and most amusing now it is to see how zealously these old champions of the law did battle in its defence, even in the most minute and now unimportant details. It was then a happy thing for England that there were courts of Dens, and squires who did not like them: it is now an admirable thing for England that there are courts of all sorts and descriptions, and people who do not like them, who are constantly trying their right against them, constantly winning and losing at the great game of law, or perhaps the greater game, of the forms under which law is administered,—litigious people,—people liking to argue the right and the wrong in a strict form of logic, the legal form; who are always arguing, and therefore never fighting. If there had not been courts of Dens to argue about,—and unhappily, at last, to fight about,—there would most certainly not now be a “High Court of Parliament,” for there would never have been those who knew how to establish it. The country-gentlemen of the seventeenth century appeal to the experience of the nineteenth, in every land but this of England, whose steady, legal order the country-gentlemen of the seventeenth century founded; and the grateful middle class of the nineteenth century in no country but this respond to that appeal in this year 1848, by declaring that no force, whether of king or not of king, shall be known in England, except that of the law,—the great and ancient law,—that all associations of men are united in a guarantee of mutual peace and security.

It is now time to return to Sir R. Twisden and the Court of Dens. It appears that this was held at Aldington, and that it claimed jurisdiction over a considerable space. If we follow the main road from Hythe to Maidstone, a little to the north of Aldington^[837], and running to the east of Boughton, we find a tract of country extending to the borders of Sussex and filled with places ending in -den, or -hurst; this country of the Dens runs exactly where we should expect to find it, viz. along the edge of the Weald, within whose shades the swains found mast and pasture. I will enumerate a few of the places so named: they can readily be found on a good map of Kent, and form a belt of mark or forest round the cultivated country, quite independent of the woods which once lay between village and village.

It is not likely that all these various places, the list of which might be greatly increased, were ever reduced under one judicial unity; but, even with the aid of Sussex, I have been able to mention only twenty-five dens, and we know that at least thirty-two, if not forty-four, were subject to the court of Aldington.

The entries in Twisden’s Journal are to the following effect:—

“18th September 1655. I was at Aldyngton Court, at the chusing the officers to gather the Lord’s Rent, where grew a question, whither, if the Lord released our Rent, Sute, and Service, to the Court, we were subject to the slavery of attendance, and whither the Tenants could prescribe men, &c., &c., &c., or impose an office upon them,—and it was the whole resolution of the Court, the Lord might sell his quit-rents and all manner of attendance on the Court, and then he could not be tyed to any office, nor the Tenants impose any office upon him....

“The 16th September 1656, I went to Aldyngton Court, but came too late, there beeing layd on me the office for collecting the 32 Denns, for my land in them. I desired to know what land it was ... in the 32 Dens upon which the office was laid, but this I could not learn ... the issue was, that if they can name the land or descry it, I am to do it,—if not, I refused to gather it.”

“1658. I was at Aldynton Court again, and then there was much stir about this land which could not bee found. I still insisted the Denne of Plevynden held of Wye, that the 16s. 2d. ob. I payd was for light money in time past. The Conclusion was, They will distrain me if they can find the land, and then come to a trial in their Court which is held at Smethe.”

“1659. I was at Aldington Court, where I came before the Steward sate, yet were they then chusing for the 32 Denns, and Mr. Short brought me a note for chusing Mr. John Maynard, Serg^t at Law ... he was not chosen after the ancient custom of the Court, that is, to present two to the Steward, and he to take one.... The tenants of the 12 Denns pretended if it were sometime a Custom it had been long interrupted, and refused to follow the example of the 32 ... after dinner, this grew a great dispute, Mr. Short complaining of partiality, that the choice of one man was received for the 12 and not for the 32 Dennes. This drew on the manner of chusing of the 32 Dennes, which was, that they usually met at 9 o’clock long before the Steward himself could reach the Court, made choice of one man before there was a Court.... This brought forth an excellent order, that the Denns should chuse and present the person by them chosen after the manner the other Culets did.... Coming away, the Bailiff told me he had a writ to distreyn me for the rent of the 32 Denns. I told him I had no land held of it that I knew.... Sir Edward Sydnam, Lord of the Manor, and who is to answer the rents to the Exchequer, told me I would be distreyned for it,—my answer was, I was not willing to make my land chargeable with a burthen more than my ancestors had paid—that there was a Court of Survey to be kept in the Spring,—that if I could not then discharge myself of having land, held of the 32 Denns, I would and must pay it.”

“Aldington Court. 1664. S^r John Maynard Serg^t at Law was chosen to the Great Office though it were affirmed, he being Kings Serg^t would procure a discharge. The order before mentioned of 6s. 8d. for such Culets as received from the Steward a transcript of what they were to collect, and 10s. for the Great Office was at this Court willingly assented to.”

This determined refusal of a Markgraviat in the Mark of Kent is amusing enough; the Alberts, Berchtholds and Luitpolts did not make quite so much difficulty about Brandenburg, Baden or Ancona. How the dispute ended I do not know, but the right was not in question: all that Sir Roger doubted was its applicability to himself. Still the nature of the jurisdiction seems clear enough, and the transition of an old Mark Court into a Lord’s Court, with a steward, is obvious from the custom of the Tenants chusing “before the Steward himself could reach the Court;” the abolition of which, Sir Roger naturally considered an excellent thing.

From the tables in the above chapter, it appears that we cannot allow one hundred actual acres to the HÍd, and still less one hundred and twenty. A similar result will be obtained if we examine the entries in Domesday. Thus

I have intentionally selected one or two examples where the whole acreage exactly makes up the sum of hides multiplied by 120, because it is probable that such instances may have led to that calculation: but it is necessary to bear in mind that the HÍd is exclusively arable land, and that in the case where the number of hides equalled the whole acreage, there could have been neither forest, nor meadow nor pasture. The notes on some of the entries will show how erroneous any such calculation would necessarily be. And lest this assertion that the hÍd is exclusive of unbroken land should appear unsupported, I wish the following data to be considered. But first we must see how the hÍd is distributed into its component parts. In Domesday the hÍd consists of four yard-lands, virga or virgata: and the virga of four farthings or farlings, ferlingus, ferlinus, ferdinus, fertinus: thus

whatever may have been the number of acres in the ferling. Again in Domesday, the amount of an estate held by any one is given, together with the amount of wood, meadow and pasture in his hands. If these be included in the amount of the hÍd, or its parts, which the tenant held, we shall arrive at the following results; which (even for a moment taking the hÍd at 120 acres) are a series of reductiones ad absurdum. In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 205^b (vol. iii. 187) I find an estate valued at 11 acres: the pasture etc. mentioned as belonging to it is counted at 20 acres: these, it is clear, could not be comprised in the eleven. But let us take a few examples tabularly.

Now it is particularly necessary to bear in mind that these ridiculous amounts are the minimum; that in every case the arable land remains to be added to them, and in some cases whole square miles of forest and moorland. I conclude then that the wood, meadow and pasture were not included in the hÍd or arable, but were appurtenant to it. Sometimes indeed they bear a very small proportion to the arable, and to the number of cattle owned—a fact perhaps to be explained by the existence of extensive commons.

Let us now endeavour to settle the amount, as well as the proportions of the hÍd and its several parts. As I have said the hÍd consisted of four virgates, the virgate of four ferlings^[845]. I do not give examples, because they may be found in every other entry in Domesday; but I may add that the gyld or tax payable to the king from the land, is based upon precisely the same calculation: the hÍd paid 6 shillings (worth now about 18s. 6d.), the virgate 1s. 6d., and the ferling ¹⁸/₄ or 4½d. Thus (Exon. D. f. 80, 80, b. vol. iii. p. 72) in the hundred of Meleborne, the king had £18 18s. 4½d. as geld from 63 hides and 1 ferling of land:

Again (fol. 80, b. iii. p. 73) the king had £9 10s. 8¼d. for 31 h. 3 v. ½ ferl.

in which passage, ferlingus is used for the coin as well as the measure of land. Again (fol. 81, b. vol. iii. p. 74) the geld for 60 h. 3 v. 1½ ferl. was £18 5s. 0¾d. (“unum obolum et unum ferling”).

Or to test it another way; the hÍd = 16 ferlings, ? 60 h. 3 v. 1½ ferl. = 973½ ferl. But the ferl. paid 4½d. ? 973½ ferl. paid 4380¾d. which gives us the same value 18l. 5s. 0¾d.

Now if we can obtain the value of any one of these denominations, we can calculate all the rest with security. The value of the virga or yardland we can obtain: it consisted of ten Norman agri, acrÆ or acres, perhaps eight or eight and a third Saxon.

In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 48 (vol. iii. p. 42) we find ten hides of land to be made up of the following parcels, 4 hides + 1 virg. + 10 agri + 5½ hides + 4 agri;

But

But

It will now be seen why I have given a column in which the whole acreage was measured by a calculation of forty acres to the hÍd. That this result is a near approximation to the truth appears from the following considerations. In the Cornish Domesday, (a county where arable land bore a very small proportion to the markland, forest and pasture,) there are a great number of estates, valued at one ager or acre. These are generally said to pay geld for half a ferling. Thus in Treuurniuet, one ager paid geld for half a ferling^[846]: so in Penquaro^[847], in Trelamar^[848], in Lantmatin^[849], in Chilo^rgoret^[850], in Roslet^[851], in Pengelli^[852], in Telbricg^[853], in Karsalan^[854], in Dimelihoc^[855]; and similarly in Widewot, two agri paid geld for one ferling^[856]. Now throughout Domesday there are innumerable examples of land being rated at less than its real value, or even at its real value; but I have not detected any instance in which it is rated at more: and in Cornwall especially the rating seems to have been in favour of the tenant. I do not therefore believe that one ager was less than half a ferling: it was either more than half a ferling or equal to it. But ½ ferl. = 1¼ Norman acre, which is more than one statute acre; therefore we may conclude that the ager or acre was equal to half a ferling. The way I understand this, is by the assumption that the Saxon acre was somewhat larger than the Norman: we know that they differed in point of extent^[857], and it is possible that the original Saxon calculation was founded upon multiples of eight, while the Norman was reduced to a decimal notation: if this were so, we may believe that the hÍd was the unit, and that its principal subdivisions remained, being familiarfamiliar to the people, but that the value of the acre was slightly changed. Hence that the

The document entituled “Rectitudines singularum personarum” says^[858], that the poor settler on first coming in, ought to have seven acres laid down for him in seed, out of his yardland; and the same authority implies that his grass-land was usually short of his need: this it might be, if he had only one acre to support the two oxen and one cow with which his land was stocked on entry. The lot of meadow and pasture attached to these small plots of one ager, is so frequently quoted at thirty agri, in Cornwall, that one could almost imagine an enclosure-bill to have been passed just previous to the Conquest, under which the possession of even so small a quantity as one acre qualified the owner to receive a handsome share of the waste.

It is obvious that all these calculations are ultimately founded upon the value of the acre relatively to our own statute measure, in which the survey of 1841 is expressed. That ager and acra are equivalent terms appears from their being used interchangeably in various entries of Domesday. Nor is there any good reason to suppose that the Normans made any violent change in the values of these several denominations, although they might adopt more convenient subdivisions of the larger sums. They did just the same thing in respect to the Saxon money. Besides, as it was from the Saxons that they derived the information which the Survey contains, it is reasonable to believe that the Saxon values were generally adopted, at least as far as the hÍd was concerned. The minute subdivision of land consequent upon the Conquest probably rendered it necessary to pay especial attention to the smaller units, and I can conceive nothing more likely than a slight change in the value of the acre, while the hÍd and virgate remained unaltered. Then where an estate comprised only one Saxon acre, it might readily be considered equal to half a ferling, or 1¼ acre, Norman measure, for it would have been difficult and complicated to express it in other terms. In fact where small fractional parcels of land were to be subtracted, the Commissioners were generally glad to avoid details, and enter “A. has so much in demesne, and the Villani have aliam terram, the rest of the land.” If the Saxon ager paid for half a ferling in the time of the Confessor, it was likely to be taken at that value in the Survey; for the law, quÆ de minimis non curat, could hardly notice so trifling a deviation. The approximate value of the Saxon acre, however, I have given; it was one day’s work for a plough and oxen, in other words very nearly our own statute-acre.

That the value of the hide became gradually indistinct, when reckonings ceased to be made in it, and the calculation was taken upon knights’ fees, is very intelligible. We consequently find surprising variations in the amount of hides counted to a knight’s fee, as well as the acres contained in this last measure. In the time of Edward the Third it was computed that there were 60,215 knight’s fees in England, which taking the present acreage of 31,770,615 gives rather more than 527 acres to a fee: hence those who believed a hide to contain 100 acres, calculated five hides to a knight’s fee, in accordance with the Saxon law which made that amount the minimum of a thane’s estate, and also to the entries in Domesday, from which it appeared that one miles went from five hides: but here it was overlooked that the hide was exclusively arable land. To such erroneous modes of calculation we owe such entries as the following:—

“Decem acrae faciunt fardellum, iv fardelli faciunt virgatum, quatuor virgatae faciunt hydam, quatuor hydae faciunt unum feodum.” MS. Harl. 464. fol. 17, b.

Again we are told (Regist. Burgi Sci. Petri, fol. 81, b) that

“Quinque feoda fuerunt antiquitus una baronia; et quinque hydae unum feodum; et quinque virgatae terrae una hyda, quaelibet virgata de viginti acris.”

Or tabularly,—

which results neither coincide with the last, nor with those of Domesday, nor with those derived from Saxon authorities.

The hidage of various ancient GÁs which has been given in Chapter III. could naturally not be sufficient guide under the new shire divisions. Unfortunately we have not a complete account of the hidage in the shires: nor does what we have coincide with the conclusion arrived at in the course of the fourth chapter.

In the Cotton. MS. Claud. B. vii. (fol. 204, b), which appears to have been written in the time of Henry III., we have the following entries:—

The Cotton MS. Vesp. A. xviii. fol. 112, b, written in the reign of Edward I., gives a different list of counties, among which the following variations occur:—

If we pursue the plan heretofore adopted, we shall have these results:—

Now either these figures cannot be relied on, or we must carry the hide in this calculation to a very different amount. If we take it at 100 acres, we shall find the whole hidage of these thirteen counties amounts to 25,300 × 100 or 2,530,000 acres, while the whole actual acreage is 7,669,905; giving an excess of 5,139,905, and consequently a ratio of 25:51 nearly, or 1:2. This would a little exceed the present ratio, which is 5:11, a result which appears very improbable indeed in the reign of Henry III. But when we consider the numberless errors of transcription, so unavoidable where merely numbers, and not words, are given, and the totally inconsistent accounts contained in different manuscripts, we can hardly rest satisfied that the figures themselves are trustworthy. Even on the hypothesis that in the time of Henry III. or Edward I. the hide was calculated on the new footing of 100 acres, we yet could not reconcile the conflicting amounts assigned to the counties themselves.

The following examples of Manumission are illustrative of the assertions in the text.

The following manumissions from a religious book, formerly the property of St. Petroc’s, are selected from a much larger number found in the Codex Dipl. No. 981. The British names which occur in them are of great interest.

Ælfred by his will manumitted all his unfree dependents, and with great care provided for their enjoyment of this liberty: he says^[859]:—

Cyrelif is a person who has a right of choice, or who has exercised a choice: these must have been poor men, free or unfree, who had attached themselves personally to Ælfred, voluntarily or not. He provides that these as well as his serfs may have full liberty to select any other lord, without disquiet through demands of arrears or any other claims. This is confirmatory of the view taken in the text, that the manumitted serf was obliged to find himself a lord, and so did not become fully free.

The next passage which I have to cite is unhappily very corrupt, but as the sense is obvious I have given such corrections as were required: the readings of the MS. may be seen in the copy printed Cod. Dipl. No. 1339.

The following manumissions are recorded by the Convent in Bath. They will be found in the Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1351.

These examples, so numerous and varied, supply a very clear view of the mode of emancipation, and its objects, in the Anglosaxon time. It is to be regretted that we have not more of them, and from other places: but still, as it is probable that the system adopted by the clergy prevailed throughout England, these may serve as a very satisfactory specimen of the usual course on these occasions,—both as to the form of manumission and the method of providing for the emancipated serf.

ORCY'S GUILD AT ABBOTSBURY.

“This writing witnesseth that Orcy hath granted the guildhall at Abbotsbury and the site thereof, to the honour of God and St. Peter, and for a property to the guild, both during his life and after his life, for a long lasting commemoration of himself and his consort. Let him that would set it aside, answer it to God in the great day of judgment!

“Now these are the covenants which Orcy and the guildsmen of Abbotsbury have ordained, to the honour of God, the worship of St. Peter, and the hele of their own souls. Firstly; three days before St. Peter’s mass, from each guildbrother one penny, or one pennyworth of wax,—look which the minster most needeth; and on the mass eve, from every two guildbrothers one broad loaf, well sifted and well raised, towards our common alms; and five weeks before Peter’s mass, let each guildbrother contribute one guildsester full of clean wheat, and let this be paid within two days, on forfeiture of the entrance, which is three sesters of wheat. And let the wood be paid within three days after the corn-contribution, from every full guildbrother one load of wood, and from those who are not full brothers, two; or let him pay one guildsester of corn. And let him that undertaketh a charge and performeth it not accordingly, be mulcted in the amount of his entrance; and be there no remission. And if one brother misgreet another within the guild, in hostile temper, let him atone for it to all the fellowship with the amount of his entrance, and after that to him whom he misgreeted, as they two may arrange: and if he will not bend to compensation, let him lose our fellowship and every other advantage of the guild. And let him that introduceth more guests than he ought, without leave of the steward and the caterers, forfeit his entrance. And if any of our fellowship should pass away from us, let each brother contribute a penny over the corpse for the soul’s hele or pay ... brothers: and if any one of us should be afflicted with sickness within sixty ... we are to find fifteen men who shall fetch him, and if he be dead, thirty, and they shall bring him to the place which he desired to go to, while he lived. And if he die in this present place, let the steward have warning to what place the corpse is to go; and let the steward warn the brethren, the greatest number that he can ride or send to, that they shall come thither and worthily accompany the corpse and bear it to the minster, and earnestly pray there for the soul. It is rightly ordained a guildship if we do thus, and well fitting it is both toward God and man: for we know not which of us shall first depart.

“Now we have faith through God’s assistance, that the aforesaid ordinance, if we rightly maintain it, shall be to the benefit of us all. Let us earnestly from the bottom of our hearts beseech Almighty God to have mercy upon us, and also his holy apostle St. Peter to make intercession for us, and take our way unto eternal rest, because for his sake we have gathered this guild together: he hath the power in heaven to admit into heaven whomso he will, and to exclude whomso he will not, even as Christ himself spake unto him in his gospel: Peter, I give to thee the keys of heaven, and whatsoever thou wilt have bound on earth, the same shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou wilt have unbound on earth, the same shall be unbound in heaven. Let us have hope and trust in him, that he will guide us here in this world, and after death be a help to our souls. May he bring us to eternal rest! Amen!”

THE GUILD AT EXETER.

“This assembly was collected in Exeter, for the love of God, and for our soul’s need, both in regard to our health of life here, and to the after days, which we desire for ourselves by God’s doom. Now we have agreed that our meeting shall be thrice in the twelve months; once at St. Michael’s Mass, secondly at St. Mary’s Mass, after midwinter, and thirdly at Allhallows Mass after Easter; and let each gild-brother have two sesters of malt, and each young man^[860] one sester, and a sceat of honey; and let the mass-priest at each of our meetings sing two masses, one for our living friends, the other for the dead: and let each brother of common condition sing two psalters of psalms, one for the living and one for the dead; and at the death of a brother, each man six masses, or six psalters of psalms; and at a death, each man five pence; and at a houseburning each man one penny. And if any one neglect the day, for the first time three masses, for the second five, and at the third time let him have no favour, unless his neglect arose from sickness or his lord’s need. And if any one neglect his subscription at the proper day let him pay double. And if any one of this brotherhood misgreet another, let him make boot with thirty pence. Now we pray for the love of God that every man hold this meeting rightly, as we rightly have agreed upon it. God help us thereunto.”

THE GUILD AT CAMBRIDGE.

“In this writ is the notification of the agreement which this brotherhood hath made in the thanes’ gild of Grantabrycg. That is first, that each gave oath upon the relics to the rest, that he would hold true brotherhood for God and for the world, and all the brotherhood to support him that hath the best right. If any gild-brother die, all the gildship is to bring him where he desired to lie; and let him that cometh not thereto pay a sester of honey; and let the gildship inherit of the dead half a farm, and each gild-brother contribute two pence to the alms, and out of this sum let what is fitting be taken to St. ÆÐelÐrÝÐ. And if any gild-brother have need of his fellows’ aid, and it be made known to the reeve nearest the gild (unless the gild-brother himself be nigh) and the reeve neglect it, let him pay one pound; if the lord neglect it, let him pay a pound, unless he be on his lord’s need or confined to his bed. And if any one steal from a gild-brother, let there be no boot, but eight pounds. But if the outlaw neglect this boot, let all the gildship avenge their comrade; and let all bear it, if one misdo; let all bear alike. And if any gild-brother slay a man, and if he be a compelled avenger and compensate for his insult, and the slain man be a twelve-hundred man, let each gild-brother assist ... if the slain be a ceorl, two ores; if he be a Welshman, one ore. But if the gild-brother with folly and deceit slay a man, let him bear his own deed; and if a comrade slay another comrade through his own folly, let him bear his breach as regards the relatives of the slain; and let him buy back his brotherhood in the gild with eight pounds, or lose for ever our brotherhood and friendship. And if a gild-brother eat or drink with him that slew his comrade, save in the presence of the king, the bishop or the ealdorman, let him pay a pound, unless he can clear himself with two of his dependents, of any knowledge of the fact. If any comrade misgreet another, let him pay a sester of honey, except he can clear himself with his two dependents. If a servant draw a weapon, let his lord pay a pound, and recover what he can from the servant, and let all the company aid him to recover his money. And if a servant wound another, let the lord avenge it, and the company, so that seek what he may seek, he shall not have his life. And if a servant sit within the spence, let him pay a sester of honey, and if any one hath a footsitter let him do the same. And if any gild-brother die or lie sick out of the country, let his gild-brethren fetch him alive or dead, to the place where he desired to lie, under the same penalty as we have before said, in case of a comrade’s dying at home, and a gild-brother neglecting to attend the corpse.”

The following document, which seems justly referable to the reign of EÁdgÁr, that is to the close of the tenth century, gives the regulations under which the Hundred was constituted^[861].

“This is the Ordinance how the Hundred shall be held.

“First that they meet every four weeks, and that each man do right to other.

“That a thief be pursued, if necessary. If there be present need, let it be told to the hundredman, and let him afterwards make it known to the tithingmen, and let them all go forth whither God may direct them to their end: let them do justice on the thief as it was formerly EÁdmund’s law. And be the ceÁpgild paid to him that owns the chattel; and be the rest divided in two, half to the hundred, half to the lord, except men; and let the lord take possession of the men.

“And if any man neglect this, and deny the judgment of the hundred, and the same be afterwards proved against him, let him pay to the hundred thirty pence; and the second time, sixty pence; half to the hundred, half to the lord. If he do it a third time, let him pay half a pound: the fourth time, let him lose all that he hath, and be an outlaw, unless the king will allow him to remain in the land.

“And we have ordained respecting unknown cattle, that no man should have it without the witness of the hundredman or the tithingman; and that he be a well trusty man; and unless he have one or other of these, let no vouching to warranty be allowed him^[862].

“We have also ordained, that, if the hundred pursue a track into another hundred, notice be given to the hundredman, and that he then go with them. If he neglect this, let him pay thirty shillings to the king.

“If any one flinch from justice and escape, let him that had him in custody pay the angild. And if he be accused of having aided the escape, let him clear himself according to the custom of the country.

“In the hundred as in every other gemÓt, we ordain that folkright be pronounced in every suit, and that a term be appointed when it shall be fulfilled. And if any one break that term, unless it be through the lord’s decree, let him make amends with thirty shillings, and on a set day fulfil that which he should have done before.

“An ox’s bell, and a dog’s collar, and a blast horn, each of these three shall be worth a shilling, and each is reckoned an informer.

“Let the iron for the threefold ordeal weigh three pounds; and for the single, one pound.”

838. Here are to be added 125 acres of meadow and wood, and one leuga of pasture. (Domesd. iii. p. 133.)

The following documents throw light upon the nature of L?land, and the conditions under which it was held. The first is a detailed account given by Oswald, bishop of Worcester, to king EÁdgÁr, of the plan which he adopted in leasing the lands of his church: it is reprinted here from the sixth volume of the Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1287. The second is a statement of the way in which an estate of six ploughlands at Wouldham in Kent became the property of the Cathedral at Rochester: it is No. 1288 in the same collection.

The following passages of the Anglosaxon Laws contain general enactments against heathen practices, or references to heathen superstitions.

“Gif ceorl bÚton wÍfes wÍsdÓme deÓflum gelde, he sie ealra his ?hta scyldig, and healsfange. Gif butwu deÓflum geldaÐ, sÍon hÉo healsfange scyldigo, ? ealra ?hta.”—Ll. Wihtr. § 12. Thorpe, i. 40.

“Gif ÞeÓw deÓflum geldaÐ .vi. scill. gebÉte, oÐÐe his hÝd.”—Ll. Wihtr. § 13. Thorpe, i. 40.

“Gif hwÁ CristendÓm wÝrde, oÐÐe h?ÐendÓm weorÐige, wordes oÐÐe weorces, gylde swÁ wer swÁ wÍte, swÁ lahslite, be ÐÁm Ðe seÓ d?d sÝ.”—EÁdw. GÚÐ. § 2. Thorpe, i. 168.

“Gif wiccan oÐÐe wigleras, mÁnsworan oÐÐe morÐwyrhtan, oÐÐe fÚle, ÁfÝlede ?bÆre horcwenan Áhwar on lande wurÐan Ágytene, Ðonne fÝsie hÍ man of earde ? cl?nsie Ða ÞeÓde, oÐÐe on earde forfare hÝ mid ealle, bÚton hÍ geswÍcan ? Ðe deÓppor gebÉtan.”—EÁdw. GÚÐ. § 11. Thorpe, i. 172.

“Ond we cw?don be Ð?m wiccecrÆftum, ? be liblÁcum, ? be morÐd?dum, gif man Ð?r Ácweald w?re, ? he his Ætsacan ne milite, ÐÆt he beÓ his feores scyldig.”—ÆÐelst. i. § 6. Thorpe, i. 202.

“ÐÁ Ðe mÁnsweriaÐ ? lyblÁc wyrcaÐ, sÝn hÍ Á fram ?lcum Godes d?le Áworpene, bÚton hÝ tÓ rihtre d?dbÓte gecyrran.”—EÁdm. i. § 6. Thorpe, i. 246.

“And gif wiccan oÐÐe wigleras, scÍncrÆftigan oÐÐe horcwenan, morÐwyrhtan oÐÐe mÁnsworan Áhwar on earde wurÐan Átigene, fÝse hÍ man georne Út of Ðysan earde, ? cl?nsige ÐÁs ÞeÓde, oÐÐe on earde forfare hÍ mid ealle, bÚtan hÍ geswÍcan ? Ðe deÓppor gebÉtan.”—ÆÐelr. vi. § 7. Thorpe, i. 316. Cnut, ii. § 4. Thorpe, i. 378.

“And we forbeÓdaÐ eornostlÍce ?lcne h?Ðenscipe. H?Ðenscipe biÐ ÐÆt man idola weorÐige, ÐÆt is ÐÆt man weorÐige h?Ðene godas ? sunnan oÐÐe mÓnan, fÝr oÐÐe flÓd, wÆterwyllas oÐÐe stÁnas, oÐÐe ?niges cynnes wudutreÓwa, oÐÐe wiccecrÆft lufige, oÐÐe morÐwerc gefremme, on ?nige wisan, oÐÐe on blÓte, oÐÐe on fyrbte, oÐÐe on swylcra gedwimera ?nig Þing dreÓge.”—Cnut, ii. § 5. Thorpe, i. 378.

“Si quis veneno, vel sortilegio, vel invultuacione, seu maleficio aliquo, faciat homicidium, sive illi paratum sit, sive alii, nihil refert, quin factum mortiferum et nullo modo redimendum sit.”—Ll. Hen. I. lxxi. § 1.

The well- and tree-worship noticed in these laws continued to be retained, though in a somewhat altered form, until a very late period; and especially it was usual to perform religious ceremonies at the salt-springs, spots always looked upon as holy^[863].

The confessional however was more likely to be in the secret of the popular heathendom than the civil legislator. Accordingly the Poenitentials supply us with a variety of information upon this subject. The Poenitential of Theodore has a long chapter devoted to the heathen practices of communicants, and their appropriate penances.

“xxvii. De Idolatria et Sacrilegio, et qui Angelos colunt, et maleficos, Ariolos, Veneficos, Sortilegos, Divinos, et vota reddentes nisi ad aecclesiam Dei, et in Kalendas Januarii in cervulo et in vitula vadit, et Mathematicos, et Emissores tempestatum.”

The points principally noted here are, sacrificing to dÆmons, that is, the ancient gods; eating and drinking near heathen temples, fana, in honour of the god of the place; or eating what has been sacrificed to dÆmons; or celebrating festal meals in the abominable places of the heathen^[864]; seeking auguries by the flight of birds, making philacteries or philtres. Other forms may be gathered from the following heads:—

Si quis maleficio suo aliquem perdiderit vii. annos poeniteat. Si quis pro amore veneficus sit et neminem perdiderit, etc. Si autem per hoc mulieris partum quis deceperit, etc. Si quis ariolos quaerit, quos divinos vocant, vel aliquas divinationes fecerit, quia et hoc daemoniacum est, etc. Si quis sortes habuerit, quas Sanctorum contra rationem vocant, vel aliquas sortes habuerit, vel qualicunque malo ingenio sortitus fuerit, vel divinaverit, etc. Si qua mulier divinationes vel incantationes diabolicas fecerit, etc. Si qua mulier filium suum vel filiam super tectum pro sanitate posuerit, vel in fornace, etc. Qui grana arserit ubi mortuus est homo, pro sanitate viventium et domus, etc. Si quis, pro sanitate filioli, per foramen terrae exierit, illudque spinis post se concludit, etc. Si quis ad arbores, vel ad fontes, vel ad lapides, sive ad cancellos, vel ubicunque, excepto in aecclesia Dei, votum voverit aut exsolverit, etc., et hoc sacrilegium est vel daemoniacum. Qui vero ibidem ederit aut biberit, etc. Si quis in Kalendas Januarii in cervulo aut vetula vadit, id est, in ferarum habitus se communicant^[865], et vestiuntur pellibus pecudum, et assumunt capita bestiarum; qui vero taliter in ferinas species se transformant, etc., quia hoc daemoniacum est. Si quis mathematicus est, id est, per invocationem daemonum hominis mentem converterit, etc. Si quis emissor tempestatis fuerit, id est, maleficus, etc. Si quis ligaturas fecerit, quod detestabile est, etc. Qui auguria vel divinationes in consuetudine habuerit, etc. Qui observat divinos, vel praecantatores, philacteria etiam diabolica, et somnia vel herbas, aut quintam feriam honore Jovis, vel Kalendas Januarii, more paganorum, honorat, etc. Qui student exercere quando luna obscuratur, ut clamoribus suis ac maleficiis sacrilego usu eam defendere confidunt, etc. Qui in honore lunae pro aliqua sanitate ieiunat, etc.

Other fragments of Theodore contain this additional provision:—

“Qui nocturna sacrificia daemonum celebraverint, vel incantationibus daemones invocaverint, capite puniantur.”

Archbishop Ecgberht has further details: he says^[866]:—

“Si quis daemonibus exigui quid immolaverit, annum unum iciunet. Quicunque cibum daemonibus immolatum comederit, etc. Quicunque grana combusserit in loco ubi mortuus est homo, pro sanitate viventium et domus, etc. Si mulier filiam suam super domum, vel in foornace posuerit, eo quod eam a febri sanare velit,” etc.

The Saxon version in the MS. at Brussels, applies this to other illness besides fever: “Gif hwylc wÍf seteÐ hire bearn ofer hrÓf oÐÐe on ofen, for hwylcere untrymÐe h?lo .vii. gear fÆste.”

The same prelate in his Poenitential ordains^[867]:—

“Gif ?nig man ÓÐerne mid wiccecrÆfte fordÓ, fÆste .vii. gear,” etc.

“Gif hwÁ drÍfe stacan on ?nigne man, fÆste .iii. gear, and gif se man for Ð?re stacunge deÁd biÐ, Ðonne fÆste he .vii. gear, ealswÁ hit hÉr bÚfpon Áwriten is^[868].”

This “stacan drÍfan” or “stacung” is the invultuatio which has been explained in the text, and of which an example has been given from a charter of EÁdgÁr. Mr. Thorpe’s explanation of Stacung is as follows:—

“StÁcung, a sticking. The practice of sticking pins or needles into a waxen image of the person against whom the witchcraft was directed, consisted probably at first in sticking them actually into the body of the individual, ‘gif hwÁ drÍfe stÁcan on ?nigne man;’ but as this process was no doubt sometimes attended with inconvenience and danger to the operator, the easier and safer method was devised of substituting a waxen proxy, instead of the true man. This practice was known under the name of defixio, ‘quod eiusmodi incantores acus subinde defigerent in imagines cereas, iis locis quibus viros ipsos pungere decreverant, qui puncturas ipsas, ac si ipsi pungerentur persentiebant.’ Du Cange. To it Ovid alludes:

Ecgberht thus continues respecting philtres and other magical practices:—

The Canons enacted under EÁdgÁr give the following full details of popular heathendom^[870]:—

“And we enjoin, that every priest zealously promote Christianity, and totally extinguish every heathenism; and forbid well-worshippings, and necromancies, and divinations, and enchantments, and man-worshippings, and the vain practices which are carried on with various spells, and with ‘frithsplots,’ and with elders, and also with various other trees, and with stones, and with many various delusions, with which men do much of what they should not.”

Many of these heathen practices still continue to subsist, at least in the memory and traditions of the peasantry in remote parts of England. Devonshire, for example, still offers an unexhausted field for the collectorcollector both of popular superstitions and popular tales, counterparts of which are current in Germany. The Anglosaxon herbals^[871] furnish various evidences of heathendom connected with plants, but I pass over these in order to give one or two detailed Saxon spells, which are of the utmost value, as bearing unmistakeable marks of Anglosaxon paganism. The following spells are taken from a MS. in the Harleian collection, No. 585.

1. “WiÐ Cyrnel. Neogone w?ran NoÐÞÆs sweoster, ÞÁ wurdon Ða nygone tÓ viii. ? Þa viii. tÓ vii. ? Þa vii. tÓ vi. ? Þa vi. tÓ v. ? Þa v. tÓ iiii. ? Þa iiii. tÓ iii. ? Þa iii. tÓ ii. ? Þa ii. tÓ i. ? Þa i. tÓ nÁnum. Þis Þe libbe cyrnneles ? scrofellef ? weormeÞ ? ?ghwylces yfeles. Sing benedicite nygon sÍÞum^[872].”

2. “Se wÍfman se hire cild ÁfÉdan ne m?g, gange tÓ gewitenes mannes birgenne ? stÆppe Ðonne Þriwa ofer Ða byrgenne, ? cweÐe Ðonne Þriwa ÐÁs word: Ðis me tÓ bÓte Ð?re lÁÐan lÆtbyrde: Ðis me tÓ bÓte Ð?re swÆran swÆrt byrde: Ðis me tÓ bÓte Ð?re lÁÐan lambyrde. And Ðonne ÐÆt wÍf seÓ mid bearne, ? heÓ to hire hlÁforde on reste gÁ, Ðonne cweÐe heÓ:

And Ðonne seÓ moder gefÉle ÐÆt ÐÆt bearn sÍ cwic, gÁ Ðonne tÓ cyrican, ? Ðonne heÓ tÓforan ÐÁn weofode cume, cweÐe Ðonne:

3. “Se wÍfman se hyre bearn ÁfÉdan ne mÆge, genime heÓ sylf hyre Ágenes cildes gebyrgenne d?l, ÞrÝ Æfter Ðon on blÁce wulle, ? bebicge tÓ cÉpemannum, ? cweÐe Ðonne:

4. “Se [wÍf]man se Ðe [ne] mÆge bearn ÁfÉdan, nime Ðonne Ánes bleÓs cÚ meoluc on hyre handÆ, ? gesÚpe Ðonne mid hyre mÚÐe, ? gange Ðonne tÓ yrnendum wÆtere, ? spÍwe Ð?r in Ða meolc, ? hlÁde Ðonne mid Ð?re ylcan hand ÐÆs wÆteres mÚÐ fulne ? forswelge. CweÐe Ðonne ÐÁs word: GehwÉr ferde ic me Ðone m?ran maga Þihtan, mid Ðysse m?ran mete Þihtan, Ðonne ic me wille habban ? hÁm gÁn. Ðonne heÓ to ÐÁn brÓce gÁ, Ðonne nÉ beseÓ heÓ nÓ, nÉ eft Ðonne heÓ Ðanan gÁ, ? Ðonne gÁ heÓ in ÓÐer hÚs ÓÐer heÓ Út ofeÓde, ? Ð?r gebyrge metes^[873].”

5. “WiÐ hors oman ? mannes, sing Ðis Þriwa nygan sÍÐan on Æfen ? on morgen, on ÐÆs mannes heÁfod Úfan, ? horse on ÐÆt wynstre eÁre, on yrnendum wÆtere, ? wend ÐÆt heÁfod ongean streÁm. In domo mamosin in chorna meoti. otimimeoti. quod dealde otuuotiua el marethin. Crux mihi vita. e. tibi mors inimici. alfa et o initium et finis, dicit dominus^[874].”

6. “WiÐ oman. Genim Áne grÉne gyrde, ? lÆt sittan Ðone man on middan hÚses flÓre, ? bestric hine ymbÚtan, ? cweÐ: O pars et o rilli A pars et pars iniopia. e. alfa et o. iitium^[875].”

7. “Gif wÆnnas eglian mÆn Æt Ð?re heortan, gange m?den man tÓ wylle Ðe riht eÁst yrne, ? gehlade Áne cuppan fulle forÐ mid ÐÁm streÁme, ? singe Ð?ron Credan ? Paternoster, ? geÓte Ðonne on ÓÐer fÆt, ? hlade eft ÓÐre, ? singe eft Credan ? Paternoster, ? dÓ swÁ ÐÆt ÐÚ hÆbbe Þreo. Do swÁ nygon dagas: sona him biÐ sel^[876].”

8. “WiÐ fÆrstice, Feferfuige, and seÓ reÁde netele, Ðe Ðurh Ærn inwyxÐ, and wegbr?de: wylle in buteran.

9. “Her^[878] is seÓ bÓt, hÚ ÐÚ meaht ÐÍne Æceras bÉtan, gif hÍ nellaÐ wel wexan, oÐÐe Ð?r hwilc ungedÉfe Þing ongedÓn biÐ, on drÝ oÐÐe on liblÁce.

“Genim Ðonne on niht, ?r hyt dagige, feower tyrf on feower healfa ÐÆs landes, and gemearca hÚ hÍ ?r stÓdon. Nim Ðonne ele and hunig and beorman, and ?lces feos meolc, Ðe on Ð?m lande sÍ, and ?lces treÓwcynnes d?l, Ðe on Ð?m lande sÍ gewexen, bÚtan heardan beÁman, and ?lcre namcÚÐre wyrte d?l, bÚtan glappan Ánon: and dÓ Ðonne hÁlig wÆter Ð?ron, and drype Ðonne Þriwa on Ðone staÐol ÐÁra turfa, and cweÐe Ðonne ÐÁs word: Crescite, wexe, et multiplicamini, and gemÆnigfealda, et replete, and gefylle, terre, ÐÁs eorÐan, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sit benedicti; and pater noster, swÁ oft swÁ ÐÆt ÓÐer; and bere siÐÐan Ða turf tÓ cyrcean, and mÆsse preost Ásinge feower mÆssan ofer ÐÁn turfon, and wende man ÐÆt grÉne tÓ ÐÁm weofode; and siÐÐan gebringe man Ða turf Ð?r hÍ ?r w?ron, ?r sunnan setlgange; and hÆbbe him geworht of cwicbeÁme feower Cristes m?o, and ÁwrÍte on ?lcon ende Mattheus and Marcus, Lucas and Johannes. Lege ÐÆt Cristes m?l on Ðone pyt neoÐeweardne; cweÐe Ðonne: Crux Mattheus, Crux Marcus, Crux Lucas, Crux Sc’s Johannes. Nim Ðonne Ða turf and sette Ð?r ufon on, and cweÐe Ðonne nigon sÍÐon ÐÁs word, Crescite, and swÁ oft, Pater noster; and wende Ðe Ðonne eÁstweard, and onlÚt nigon sÍÐon eÁdmÓdlÍce, and cweÐ Ðonne ÐÁs word:

“Wende Ðe Ðonne Þriwa sunganges, Ástrecce [Ðe] Ðonne on andlang, and Árim Ð?r Letanias, and cweÐ Ðonne, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, oÐ ende. Sing Ðonne Benedicite ÁÞenedon earmon, and Magnificat, and Pater noster iii, and bebeÓd hit Criste and sancta Marian, and ÐÆre hÁlgan rÓde, tÓ lofe and tÓ weorÐinga, and ÐÁm [tÓ] Áre Ðe ÐÆt land Áge, and eallon ÐÁm Ðe him under-ÞeÓdde synt.

“Ðonne ÐÆt eall sÍe gedÓn, Ðonne nime man uncÚÐ s?d Æt Ælmesmannum, and selle him twa swyle swylce man Æt him nime and gegaderie ealle his sulhgeteÓgo tÓgÆdere: borige Ðonne on ÐÁm beÁme stÓr and finol and gehÁlgode sÁpan, and gehÁlgod sealt. Nim Ðonne ÐÆt s?d, sete on ÐÆs sules bodig. CweÐ Ðonne:

“Ðonne man Ða sulh forÐ drÍfe and Ða forman furh onsceÓte, cweÐ Ðonne:

“Nim Ðonne ?lces cynnes melo, and ÁbacÆ man innewerdne handa brÁdne hlÁf, and gecned hine mid meolce and mid hÁligwÆtere, and lecge under Ða forman furh. CweÐe Ðonne:

“CweÐ Ðonne Þriwa Crescite in nomine Patris sit benedicti. Amen: and Pater noster Þriwa.”

The greater number of these pieces will be found printed very carefully from the MSS., and translated into English, in the Rev. O. Cockayne’s Leechdoms.