TheBook of Fees is the colloquial title of a modern edition, transcript, rearrangement and enhancement of the medievalLiber Feodorum (Latin: 'Book of Fiefs') which is a listing of feudal landholdings orfief (Middle Englishfees), compiled in about 1302, but from earlier records, for the use of the EnglishExchequer. Originally in two volumes of parchment, theLiber Feodorum is a collection of about 500 written brief notes made between 1198 and 1292 concerning fiefs heldin capite or in-chief, that is to say directly from the Crown.
From an early date, the book comprising these volumes has been known informally as theTesta de Nevill (meaning 'Head of Nevill'), supposedly after an image on the cover of the volume of one of its two major source collections. The modern standard edition, known colloquially as "The Book of Fees" whose three volumes were published between 1920 and 1931, improves on two earlier 19th-century efforts at publishing a comprehensive and reliable modern edition of all these mediaeval records of fees. The nomenclatureBook of Fees is that generally used in academic citations by modern scholars to refer to this 20th-century modern published edition of the ancient collected documents.
SirHenry Maxwell-Lyte in his preface to the latest edition, suggests that the documents transcribed into the "Book of Fees" stem from two major collections of records:
Towards the end of the reign ofKing Edward I (1272–1307), documents from these various collections were brought together into a massive book compiled for the use of the Exchequer. TheLiber Feodorum, as it was officially entitled, is first referred to in the Issue Roll for 1302 which reports that John of Drokensford (Droxford), keeper of the royalwardrobe, paid the sum of £4 13s to William of Coshall for the service of transcribing theliber de feodis ("book concerning fees") into two volumes. The book was bound the same year and book measures 121⁄2 by 9 inches and would have been larger had not the binder cut down the margins, removing some textual notes in the process.[6] It is held in theNational Archives under catalogue number E164/5-6.[7] The surviving documents from which it was compiled are also held by the National Archives, catalogued under E198[8] as follows, in date order:
Maxwell-Lyte suggests that the production of the book was prompted by theAid which was to be collected from King Edward I'stenants-in-chief for the marriage of his eldest daughter.[9] The Aid was assessed on fees held byfeudal tenures of eitherknight service orserjeanty. As the Exchequer needed to initiate inquiries for the purpose of assessing and collecting the aid, it was desired that the various documents should be capable of consultation in a format facilitating quick reference.[10] In 1303 many of the original rolls were lent to the officers in charge of making the assessment and collecting of the aid.[5]
Opposing Maxwell-Lyte's suggested purpose, the historianF. M. Powicke objected that the evidence for such a historically concrete motive is weak and asserted that the expertise alone of the officers would have been sufficient for the job.[11] He proposed instead that a rationale for its production may be found in the political attitudes of King Edward I, whose "insistence upon feudal rights and duties kept the officials of the exchequer very busy". It was therefore naturally to be expected that during the rule of such a king unique and often fragile records to which the Exchequer had to make frequent recourse should be produced in a new edition which assisted the clerks in making their work efficient.[12]
For whatever purpose, the new compilation was not intended to replace or supersede the original documents in the sense of definitive and authoritative records. This is made clear in amemorandum written on theflyleaf, which appears to be contemporary with the manuscript itself:
Michael Clanchy describes it as a "register" (after the medieval Latin termregistrum), which he defines primarily as an administrative reference book which did not enjoy the authority of the originals as a record in legal proceedings.[14] Earlier examples of such registers or "remembrance books" include theRed Book of the Exchequer and theBlack Book of the Admiralty, anOld French compilation of maritime law.[14]
The written cautionary instruction that the compilation could not replace the originals in the sense of a legal record which could be used as evidence is repeated in later times. For example, the statement on the flyleaf is cited in the vernacular by anOld French document[citation needed] recording a petition of monks fromCroyland Abbey in 1383. Officers of the Exchequer repeated the memorandum themselves on several occasions.[13]
The position changed however over time. Many of the original documents were already in poor condition at the time of their transcription and of those that were lent out to itinerant officers for the collection of the aid in 1303, many were never returned. Thus the book rather than originals eventually became of necessity a first reference for the Exchequer, a development which itself contributed to the neglect of the originals. Indeed, by 1383 the nameTesta de Nevill had come to be used colloquially for the two volumes, while the archive formerly known by that name is no longer mentioned in the sources.[15]
Norh'mpton: Feoda militum tenencium de domino rege in capite et tenencium de ipsis tenentibus de domino rege in capite et tenencium de wardis quae sunt in manu domini regis in comitatu Norht' propter scutagium eos quorum vera(?) tulerunt de habendum scutagium suis et propter feoda militum existencium infra balliam abbis burgi.
Feoda tenencium in capite de domino rege:
Translation:
"Northampton: Fees ofmilitary tenants heldin chief from the Lord King and holdings in chief by the same tenants from the Lord King and holdings of wardships which are in the hands of the Lord King in the county of Northampton on account ofscutage those of whom in truth who bear... from having their scutage and on account of knight's fees in existence within thebailiwick of theAbbey of Northampton.
Knight's fees held in chief from the Lord King:
A printed edition of the book was first produced by staff of the Exchequer in December 1804, at the special request ofRoyal Commissioners. The text was taken from a transcript made by an Exchequer clerk named Simpson,[16] and was edited byJohn Caley andWilliam Illingworth with a preface added by Illingworth.[17]
In 1807 adiplomatic edition was published in the format of one thick volume,[18] in which a non-chronological arrangement of the contents was retained, and blank spaces between various entries sometimes omitted.[16] It is said to "bristle with error and confusion throughout".[19] Maxwell-Lyte complained that the resulting structure was potentially misleading and highly inconvenient to students and scholars seeking to establish dates for particular entries.[6] In the opinion of the historian and genealogistJ. Horace Round the edition was “at once the hunting-ground and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy".[18]
TitlePage.jpg)
Between 1920 and 1931 a new edition in three volumes was published by thePublic Record Office, presenting a new and revised,critical edition of theBook of Fees. C. G. Crump was responsible for editing the Latin text and significant contributions were also made by other officers of the P.R.O., including A. S. Maskelyne, who prepared the 700-page index.[20][21] The preface was written by the Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office, Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte, who explained that the new edition represented a radical departure from its precursor. Firstly, the clumsy semi-geographical order adopted by the mediaeval transcriber was abandoned and instead the material was for the most part arranged chronologically. Secondly, whenever possible it was based directly on the original materials used by William of Coshal. Moreover, certain omissions by the transcriber were supplied. In 1932 historian F.M. Powicke hailed the edition as an “indispensable guide...one of which the Public Record Office may well be proud”.[22]