Show all data

• Metadata

  Edwards 1988. Edwards, H., The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, British Archaeological Reports, British Series (Oxford, 1988), 198. 106 charters cited.

  • S 45. Comments, mainly authentic, dispositive section interpolated, pp. 292-9
  • S 51. Comments, authentic basis but substantially interpolated and rewritten, may not originally have referred to a minster in Bath, pp. 218-23
  • S 71. Comments, authentic., pp. 90-2
  • S 73. Comments, interpolated version of S 71, pp. 90-2
  • S 93. Comments, fabrication, but some details perhaps derive from early records, pp. 177-9
  • S 96. Comments, citing T.J. Brown, could be original, pp. 124-6
  • S 108. Comments, interpolated but authentic basis, pp. 267-72
  • S 149. Comments, probably authentic, pp. 121-3
  • S 152. Comments, authentic, William of Malmesbury may have found charter at Winchcombe, pp. 52-5
  • S 166. Comments, spurious but probably adapted from a genuine charter of Coenwulf, pp. 185-7
  • S 183. Comments, spurious, but based on authentic charter of Coenwulf, pp. 189-93
  • S 184. Comments, 10th-century fabrication, pp. 187-9
  • S 227. Comments, spurious, perhaps 10th-century fabrication partly based on S 257 and 1249, pp. 20-3
  • S 228. Comments, total fabrication, pp. 240-1
  • S 229. Comments, spurious, fabricated in 10th century, most of wording duplicatedin S 275, a purported confirmation of S 229, pp. 131-2
  • S 230. Comments, citing Brooks, 10th-century fabrication, p. 266
  • S 231. Comments, may be authentic, incarnation date added, pp. 97-100
  • S 233. Comments, fabrication ultimately based on authentic 7th-century material, pp. 300-5
  • S 234. Comments, authenticity uncertain, may represent a conflation of S 231 with a charter of Centwine, pp. 97-100
  • S 235. Comments, basically authentic, pp. 132-7, 163
  • S 236. Comments, may be reworking of genuine 7th-century charter but difficult to say how much text has been revised, pp. 11-15
  • S 237. Comments, revised and interpolated version of apparently genuine early instrument, date 672 in B 62 is an error, pp. 15-17
  • S 238. Comments, substantially genuine, on formulation, pp. 23-5, 50
  • S 239. Comments, probably a fabrication, pp. 172-4
  • S 240. Comments, authentic basis, present text is a later account of a charter quoted after some introductory material, identification with Isle Abbotts is problematic, grant may refer to Ilminster, Somerset, pp. 198-201
  • S 241. Comments, fabrication, based on early records from Bradfield minster, pp. 174-7
  • S 242. Comments, fabrication, 10th-century vocabulary and style, pp. 137-8
  • S 243. Comments, may be authentic, witness-list abbreviated, pp. 105-7
  • S 244. Comments, probably authentic, although ill-copied and corrupt in places, pp. 201-3
  • S 245. Comments, strong probability of authenticity, pp. 26, 107-14
  • S 246. Comments, fabrication based on a copy of S 245, p. 26
  • S 247. Comments, revised version of S 248, pp. 33-4
  • S 248. Comments, authentic, may be early modern script-facsimile, pp. 27-33
  • S 249. Comments, fabrication based on S 251, probably produced in later 10th century, pp. 204-6
  • S 250. Comments, post-Conquest fabrication, pp. 36-7
  • S 251. Comments, may be genuine or have some genuine basis, boundary clause an addition; on formulation; probably model for S 249, pp. 38-40, 48-52, 205
  • S 252. Comments, basically authentic, a few anachronistic details may have been interpolated, pp. 168-70
  • S 253. Comments, probably authentic; on formulation, pp. 40-1, 48-52
  • S 254. Comments, extremely dubious, but witness-list may be from genuine charter, pp. 138-40
  • S 255. Comments, basically authentic, but interpolated and rewritten in 11th century, hidation altered, pp. 255-8
  • S 256. Comments, on formulation; probably authentic, pp. 48-52, 116-19
  • S 257. Comments, basically authentic but substantially rewritten; on formulation, pp. 45-52
  • S 258. Comments, fabrication based on S 259 and 565, pp. 140-3
  • S 259. Comments, apparently authentic, pp. 140-3, 163
  • S 260. Comments, authentic, perhaps abbreviated by a copyist, pp. 119-21
  • S 261. Comments, entirely authentic, most likely refers to Isle Abbotts, pp. 206-7
  • S 262. Comments, perhaps an authentic charter in favour of Sherborne, later altered at Wells, pp. 252, 259-61
  • S 263. Comments, substantially authentic, pp. 241-3
  • S 264. Comments, citing T.J. Brown, 10th-century copy; apparently authentic, pp. 59-62
  • S 265. Comments, probably authentic, with some corruption and minor alterations, pp. 223-7
  • S 267. Comments, substantially genuine, pp. 263-4
  • S 268. Comments, probably authentic, for Crux Easton see also S 689, pp. 183-4
  • S 269. Comments, authentic, pp. 179-83
  • S 270. Comments, fabrication based on S 23, pp. 275-6
  • S 270a. Comments, substantially genuine, donor was Queen Eadburh, pp. 56-9
  • S 271. Comments, fabrication partly based on 9th-century records, pp. 282-5
  • S 272. Comments, probably spurious, but the forger has used some early records, pp. 146-8, 153-5
  • S 273. Comments, probably substantially genuine, but may have been reworked at Winchester, pp. 146-8, 150-3
  • S 274. Comments, suspicious, perhaps 10th-century fabrication, dating clause and witness-list basically authentic, pp. 146-8, 155-6
  • S 275. Comments, 10th-century fabrication, cf. S 229, p. 148
  • S 276. Comments, fabrication produced entirely by taking clauses from other charters, pp. 146-8, 156-7
  • S 277. Comments, authentic, boundary clause added, pp. 234-5
  • S 278. Comments, spurious, some details may derive from a contemporary charter, pp. 193-5
  • S 279. Comments, authentic, pp. 289-90
  • S 280. Comments, probable fabrication, largely based on genuine charter of Egbert but details of transaction have probably been changed, pp. 285-8
  • S 281. Comments, may be a fabrication, based on a version of S 1438, pp. 146-8, 157-60
  • S 282. Comments, later copy of substantially genuine charter, incarnational year miscopied or miscalculated, pp. 273-5
  • S 283. Comments, substantially authentic, bounds not contemporary, pp. 146-50, 163
  • S 284. Comments, 10th-century fabrication, p. 148
  • S 286. Comments, authentic, pp. 278-9
  • S 292. Comments, on estate history, p. 44
  • S 294b. Comments, on Rodbourne, p. 107
  • S 323. Comments, genuine, dates c. 833 x c. 836, pp. 277-8
  • S 358. Comments, spurious, pp. 194-5
  • S 435. Comments, model for S 1166, pp. 87-8
  • S 455. Comments, probably authentic, p. 207
  • S 565. Comments, cited, p. 142
  • S 567. Comments, p. 168
  • S 680. Comments, new set of bounds drawn up for the charter, probably because draftsman did not have access to earlier Winchester documentation, cf. S 258, 383, 565, p. 142
  • S 689. Comments, authenticity very doubtful, p. 184
  • S 729. Comments, suspicious, p. 207
  • S 740. Comments, probably authentic, p. 207
  • S 841. Comments, on Rodbourne, p. 107
  • S 884. Comments, certainly authentic, p. 207
  • S 1038. Comments, probably spurious, p. 89
  • S 1164. Comments, authentic, pp. 229-34
  • S 1166. Comments, fabricated, pp. 87-90
  • S 1167. Comments, authentic, dates 680, pp. 214-18
  • S 1168. Comments, wording of charter entirely genuine, cartularist may simply have copied the wrong witness-list by mistake, pp. 211-14, 216-18
  • S 1169. Comments, authentic, pp. 93-4
  • S 1170. Comments, authentic, pp. 94-7
  • S 1172. Comments, spurious endorsement to S 45, p. 296
  • S 1176. Comments, probably authentic, p. 204
  • S 1178. Comments, of doubtful authenticity, p. 267
  • S 1179. Comments, probably substantially authentic, pp. 170-2
  • S 1245. Comments, fabrication, but sanction, dating clause and witness-list probably taken from authentic document, pp. 85-7
  • S 1248. Comments, probably genuine but interpolated, pp. 306-8
  • S 1249. Comments, authentic, pp. 18-19
  • S 1251a. Comments, fabricated, no indication of genuine basis, pp. 115-16
  • S 1253. Comments, abbreviated text of authentic charter, pp. 34-6
  • S 1256. Comments, authentic, pp. 229-34
  • S 1257. Comments, p. 226
  • S 1258. Comments, authentic, pp. 272-3
  • S 1263. Comments, probably authentic, perhaps abbreviated, pp. 143-4, 163
  • S 1410. Comments, argues for basic authenticity; discusses on formulation, pp. 41-5,48-52
  • S 1438. Comments, authentic, p. 279