Book of Fees

Maxwell-Lyte suggests that the production of the book was prompted by the Aid which was to be collected from King Edward I's tenants-in-chief for the marriage of his eldest daughter.[9] The Aid was assessed on fees held by feudal tenures of either knight service or serjeanty. 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 historian F. 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 a memorandum written on the flyleaf, which appears to be contemporary with the manuscript itself:

Memorandum quod iste liber compositus fuit et compilatus de diversis inquisitionibus ex officio captis...et sic contenta in eodem libro pro evidenciis habentur hic in Scaccario et non pro recordo.[13] ("It must be remembered that this book was composed and compiled from several official inquests...and therefore the contents in this book are held for evidence here in the Exchequer and not for the record").[14]

Michael Clanchy describes it as a "register" (after the medieval Latin term registrum), 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 the Red Book of the Exchequer and the Black Book of the Admiralty, an Old 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 an Old French document recording a petition of monks from Croyland 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 name Testa 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]

A printed edition of the book was first produced by staff of the Exchequer in December 1804, at the special request of Royal Commissioners. The text was taken from a transcript made by an Exchequer clerk named Simpson,[16] and was edited by John Caley and William Illingworth with a preface added by Illingworth.[17]

• Caley, John and William Illingworth (ed. and pref.). Testa de Nevill sive Liber feodorum in Curia Scaccarii. Temp. Hen. III & Edw. I. London, Exchequer / Record Commission, 1804.

Title page of 1807 edition

In 1807 a diplomatic 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 genealogist J. Horace Round the edition was “at once the hunting-ground and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy".[18]

• Diplomatic edition, with an index of places and persons prepared by Sir Henry Ellis and Thomas Hartwell Horne. OCLC: 1407059.

Title page of 1920 edition, vol. 1 ("part 1") (of 3) 1920-1931

Between 1920 and 1931 a new edition in three volumes was published by the Public Record Office, presenting a new and revised, critical edition of the Book 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]

• "Liber Feodorum: The Book of Fees commonly known called Testa de Nevill, reformed from the earliest MS, by the Deputy Keeper of the Records", Preface by Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte, 3 volumes, published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1920–31. (Available from Family History Archives in the digital collections of the Harold B. Lee Library.)
  • Vol. 1 (AD. 1198-1242), London, 1920
  • Vol. 2 (AD 1242-1293 and appendix), London, 1923
  • Vol.3 (Index). London, 1931