Domesday: The Inquest and the Book

Roffe, David

ISBN 10: 0198208472 / ISBN 13: 9780198208471

Edité par OUP Oxford, 2000

A propos de cet article

Unread. Has "Damaged" stamped on the title page. In stock ready to dispatch from the UK.

N° de réf. du vendeur mon0000229879

Détails bibliographiques

• Titre: Domesday: The Inquest and the Book
• Éditeur: OUP Oxford
• Date de parution: 2000
• Langue: anglais
• ISBN à 10 chiffres: 0198208472
• ISBN à 13 chiffres: 9780198208471
• Reliure: Hardcover
• État de l'article: Very Good

A propos de ce titre

Synopsis

Domesday Book is the main source for an understanding of late Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. And yet, despite over two centuries of study, no consensus has emerged as to its purpose. David Roffe proposes a radically new interpretation of England's oldest and most precious public record. He argues that historians have signally failed to produce a satisfactory account of the source because they have conflated two essentially unrelated processes, the production of Domesday Book itself and the Domesday inquest from the records of which it was compiled. New dating evidence is adduced to demonstrate that Domesday Book cannot have been started much before 1088, and old sources are reassessed to suggest that it was compiled by Rannulf Flambard in the aftermath of the revolt against William Rufus in the same year. Domesday Book was a land register drawn up by one of the greatest (and most hated) medieval administrators for administrative purposes. The Domesday inquest, by contrast, was commissioned by William the Conqueror in 1085 and was an enterprise of a different order. Following the threat of invasion from Denmark in that year it addressed the deficiencies in the national system of taxation and defence, and its findings formed the basis for a renegotiation of assessment to the geld and knight service. This study provides novel insights into the inquest as a principal vehicle of communication between the crown and the free communities over which it exercised sovereignty, and will challenge received notions of kingship in the eleventh century and beyond.

Revue de presse

there is intriguing material here even for the uninitiated. (Medieval Review, 28/03/2001)

With meticulous care Roffe unscrambles the chronology of completion (Medieval Review, 28/03/2001)

Roffe's study helps to reconstruct a tentative chronology of the writing. (Medieval Review, 28/03/2001)

This is an imaginative and courageous book, and a valuable contribution to Domesday scholarship. (Reviews in History, October 2001)

The book is the product of very considerable learning. Not the least of its virtues is its extensive bibliography. (Reviews in History, October 2001)

This is by any standards a remarkable thesis. To read it is to feel as if the landscape of Domesday scholarship has been struck by a tidal wave: one feels compelled to return to that landscape to see how many of the familiar structures of Domesday historiography have been swept away, and whether some of them will remain standing when the water eventually recedes. (Reviews in History, October 2001)

develops a radically new interpretation of Domesday Book (Northern History, XXXVIII)

This book challenges most of the current orthodoxies of Domesday scholarship ... Controversial though it is, no one with a serious interest in Domesday Book and the society it documents should ignore this book ... Dr Roffe has written a stimulating work which will cause scholars to revise much of what they currently believe, and to question much else. (J.J.N.Palmer, EHR, April 2001)

By marking the ways that the scribe modified his systems of notation and organization, Roffe's study helps to reconstruct a tentative chronology of the writing. ... With meticulous care Roffe unscrambles the chronology of completion and succeeds at least in identifying the early quires. (Emily Albu, University of California, Davis)

Roffe has not written a book for the curious nonspecialist who wants a learned introduction to Domesday studies. This is a technical work that assumes considerable familiarity with the concepts and language of land tenure in medieval England. Still, there is intriguing material here even for the uninitiated. (Emily Albu, University of California, Davis)