INSULA VECTA.

'Presentatum est eciam per quandam inquisicionem captam apud Suthwike xxj die Septembris anno ixno dicti Regis nunc henrici viijui coram Ricardo episcopo Wintoniensi & aliis comissionariis Regis.'

As to inclosures in the Isle of Wight see Introduction, pp. 278-280, supra.

'Ricardo episcopo Wintoniensi,' ¿.e. Richard Fox.

'Quod centum acre terre arrabilis includuntur & in pasturam posite per vj annos tunc preteritos in hassebourne per quendam Johannem fflemynge tanner. Et quod hereditas eiusdem in quodam Willelmo Barleye existit.'

'Item quod abbas de Bewleye posuit 1 acras terre arrabilis in pasturam per xj annos tunc preteritos. Et quod dimidium terre vnius aratri in decasu racione eiusdem.'

The place is not mentioned. The Abbey of Beaulieu or or Bewley in the New Forest possessed land at Esthamlode in the Isle of Wight (Dugdale, ‘Monast.' v. 683).

I take the entry to mean that this area of fifty acres is half a ploughland. A carucate of eighty acres by the long hundred would give the approximate area of ninety-six

acres.

'Item quod est ibidem quedam ffirma vocata Stepelhirst posita in pasturam per quendam Thomam Sygons per xij annos tunc preteritos per quod quoddam messuagium ibidem est in decasu. Et quod abbas de Quarrye habet successionem eiusdem.'

The manor of Staplehurst was the property of the Abbey of Quarr or Quarreria in the Isle of Wight (Dugdale, 'Monast.' v. 320).

Here 'ffirma' is used as the area of a farm. No area is given and it can only be inferred. It has been seen (sub Ewerst, p. 288, supra) that in the southern county of Hereford the area associated with a messuagium is on the average fifty-five acres. The area in this case is clearly not fifty or a hundred acres, or it would have been described as

'dimidium aratri' or 'aratrum.' I venture, therefore, to put it at the Herefordshire area of fifty-five acres.

The phrase 'habet successionem' seems to indicate that the tenant held of the abbey for his life. Here, as elsewhere I have taken the use of the word instead of the derivatives of occupo and teneo as implying a clerical tenant.

'Item presentatum per dictam inquisicionem quod tunc quedam terre vocate lytell panne que in pasturam ponuntur racione cuius dimidium acre vnius aratri est in decasu post dictum annum quartum dicti nuper Regis Henrici vijmi.'

'Tunc' apparently refers back to the last entry, the incloser and landowner being the same. But qu. whether incorrectly transcribed for 'sunt.'

'Dimidium acre vnius aratri' cannot be intended to mean that an 'acra' is equivalent to an 'aratrum.' I take it that 'acra' is used here in a sense of which I can find no instance in Du Cange, viz. for acreage.' The area converted will then be fifty acres. See p. 291, supra, under the Abbot of Bewleye's inclosure.

'Item quod quedam sunt terre in pasturam posite vocate Chalcom per Willelmum porter ffirmarium eiusdem. Et quod terra vnius aratri in decasu existit racione eiusdem. Et quod Abbas de Quarre modo seisitus existit vt in iure domus sue.'

Chalcomb, Shalcombe, or Shancomb. The Abbey owned the manor here at the Dissolution (Dugdale, Monast.' v. 320). For the meaning of 'ffirmarius' see sub Ryborow,

supra.

THE PROGRESS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH DURING THE SESSION 1892-93.

THE dearth of serious literature, which has been the chief feature of the English book-market in the publishing season of 1892-3, has visited with especial vigour the domain of History. Some who are well qualified to discuss the causes of the above phenomenon have attributed the falling-off to the vast increase in the production of serial literature. In the last volume of 'Transactions' attention was called to this state of affairs, with the remark that 'it would seem as though the progress of research in this country must, for some time to come at least, be traced in the pages of periodical and serial publications.' This somewhat bold prediction is apparently in a fair way to be verified, and it may be worth while to examine more closely the nature of the crisis with which we are confronted.

It might possibly be supposed that this indisposition to engage in the production of substantial Histories' is due to a want of energy or of application on the part of the modern historian. This, however, is by no means the case. On the contrary, the study of historical problems is pursued with an almost feverish zeal by the younger school of writers, and with an expenditure of time and labour which is out of all proportion to the apparent results. The truth is that the science of history has become very exacting. The unremitting exertions of the national libraries and of publishing societies, in addition to the researches of foreign scholars, have made available for the first time a vast mass of authentic materials which were entirely overlooked, or at least ignored, by a former generation of writers. Moreover, the standard of historical

accuracy has reached a formidable height. It is not enough to cite original authorities haphazard, or to edit the same with a pleasant, easy-going scholarship. The respective merits of the different manuscripts are now well established, and it is regarded as a criminal offence to employ an inferior version.

All these considerations have to be taken into account in estimating the progress made by the latter-day historian. His path is beset with pitfalls, and if he would avoid disaster and consequent disgrace he must walk circumspectly; therefore his progress is slow. Those who are inclined to make light of these difficulties are soon daunted by some terrible example. 'Before all things,' we are told, 'let us be accurate.' This laudable desire for accuracy is the keynote of the modern historian's method, and it sometimes manifests itself in a curious striving after realism. There is no room left for the play of the imagination, and there is very little scope for art in this new method, which strips every legend of its picturesque embellishments and exposes the truths of history in all their naked ugliness.

After all, however, this method has its drawbacks. It is too obviously a reaction from the political partisanship and the incompetent scholarship of the second quarter of the present century. Because certain historians resolutely ignored the only authentic sources of history, and because certain antiquaries were unequal to the task of editing an historical manuscript with the critical acumen that we should expect from a modern German savant, we are not compelled to execrate their literary memories. A purely destructive criticism is fatal to the progress of the work of historical reconstruction, which demands the unselfish labour of the whole body of earnest students, each of whom in his own way can contribute something for the common benefit. It is absurd to contend that the work should stand still pending the erection of a universal standard of accuracy.

During the last twelve months the great work of one of the greatest of modern historians has been exposed to the fierce light of a highly technical criticism, and the interest of the

historical world has been aroused by the fierce controversy which this criticism has provoked and which is not even yet at an end. It cannot be said, however, that we are much the wiser for all this intensity of criticism, while we are certainly inconvenienced by the clouds of dust raised by some one of the combatants which for the time being have obscured all possible view of the battle of Hastings.

This is only a single instance in point; but it is notorious that there are scores of accomplished scholars who have never yet made any useful contribution to the work of historical research, simply because they are unable to satisfy a fastidious standard of accuracy. Perhaps this irresolution is preferable to the feverish energy with which some people devote their lives to finding out mistakes in other people's work. This last disease, however, is very infectious, and it may lay hold with slight warning on those who are not occupied with an appointed task. Moreover, as probably no history that was ever written does not contain a large number of mistakes, most of which yet remain to be detected and exposed, it will be evident that a good deal of moral courage would be a useful part of the equipment of the historical student in the future.

The Public Record Office is admittedly the fountain-head of English historical research, and moreover, furnishes a very considerable part of the material for Continental history. It is true that in the British Museum, the University Libraries, and in a number of public and private collections, there is preserved a vast mass of precious manuscripts; but of these the most important have already been printed, and, apart from certain vexed questions concerning their legal authority, it will be found that a very large proportion of these manuscripts are either supplementary to the main series in official custody or else later and inferior transcripts.

The work of repairing, sorting, and classifying the public records is making slow but satisfactory progress, to judge from the latest report of the Deputy Keeper. In addition to the almost daily discovery of new hoards of buried Record-treasure,