Search Results

You searched for:
Label: Finberg, ECW

Results: 1-1 of 1

Show all data

  • Metadata

    Finberg, ECW. Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Wessex (Leicester, 1964). 482 charters cited.

    • S 51. Comments, authentic basis, no. 355
    • S 53. Comments, reading should be Penintanham, not Penitanham, identifies with Inkberrow, p. 251
    • S 71. Comments, the bounds in B 59A (S 1578) have no connection with this grant, which refers to Charlton in Tetbury, Gloucs., no. 339
    • S 73. Comments, authentic, no. 183
    • S 74. Comments, probably spurious (= Finberg, ECWM, pp. 242-3, probably spurious), p. 254
    • S 96. Comments, authentic, agrees with Tockenham identification, Readabeorg is probably the tumulus on Waite Hill, no. 189
    • S 145. Comments, spurious, no. 193
    • S 149. Comments, authentic, no. 196
    • S 152. Comments, authentic, no. 400
    • S 221. Comments, on place-name Wenlock, pp. 251-2
    • S 227. Comments, authentic basis, no. 353
    • S 228. Comments, spurious, no. 550
    • S 229. Comments, spurious, witnesses from a Mercian charter of 793 x 796, no. 195
    • S 234. Comments, spurious, no. 185
    • S 236. Comments, authentic basis, no. 360
    • S 237. Comments, authentic basis, no. 361
    • S 238. Comments, authentic basis, no. 364
    • S 240. Comments, authentic, grant apparently refers to Isle Abbotts, Stretmerch may be a detached portion of woodland between Broadway and Ashill, no. 365
    • S 242. Comments, spurious, no. 2
    • S 243. Comments, authentic, no. 187
    • S 244. Comments, authentic, bounds too brief for secure identification but probably refer to Ham near Muchelney, no. 367
    • S 245. Comments, authentic, no. 368
    • S 246. Comments, spurious, local adaptation of S 245, no. 369
    • S 247. Comments, authentic basis, apparently adapted from S 248, no. 370
    • S 248. Comments, authentic, no. 371
    • S 249. Comments, authentic, no. 380
    • S 250. Comments, spurious, no. 378
    • S 251. Comments, authentic, no. 379
    • S 253. Comments, authentic, no. 381
    • S 254. Comments, authentic basis, cf. chapter 7. especially p. 233, on background of forgery, no. 383
    • S 256. Comments, authentic, no. 188
    • S 257. Comments, authentic, no. 385
    • S 258. Comments, authentic; on term familiae, no. 6, pp. 217-18
    • S 259. Comments, authentic; on term familiae, no. 6, pp. 217-18
    • S 260. Comments, authentic, no. 190
    • S 261. Comments, authentic, no. 392
    • S 262. Comments, authentic, rejects Radstock identification, no. 394
    • S 263. Comments, authentic, no. 562
    • S 264. Comments, original, no. 194
    • S 265. Comments, authentic, date 808 probably error for 758, no. 388
    • S 267. Comments, authentic basis, no. 398
    • S 268. Comments, authentic, regnal year miscopied, for witnesses see S 270a, no. 9
    • S 269. Comments, authentic, no. 8
    • S 270a. Comments, authentic basis, accepts that donor was Egbert, king of Wessex, witnesses recur in S 268, no. 401
    • S 272. Comments, spurious, dating clause from S 273, no. 198
    • S 273. Comments, authentic basis, no. 11
    • S 274. Comments, authentic, unobjectionable, no. 12, p. 219
    • S 275. Comments, spurious, no. 199
    • S 276. Comments, spurious, bounds and many of the witnesses copied from S 446, no. 13
    • S 277. Comments, authentic, no. 565
    • S 281. Comments, authentic, no. 15
    • S 283. Comments, authentic, no. 10
    • S 284. Comments, spurious, text and bounds identical with S 242, witnesses taken from a genuine charter of 824 x 833, no. 14
    • S 290. Comments, substantially genuine although the two witness-lists have been transposed, no. 567
    • S 292. Comments, authentic, meeting-place may have been Andersey (now Nyland), Somerset, no. 405
    • S 294. Comments, authentic basis, discussion, no. 566, cf. pp. 194-6, 206-9
    • S 294a. Comments, may have authentic basis, chapter vi, esp. pp. 193-6
    • S 294b. Comments, authentic basis, cf. chapter vi, no. 200
    • S 295. Comments, spurious, no. 642
    • S 301. Comments, authentic, apparently abbreviated from a lost original, no. 202
    • S 303. Comments, authentic, cf. chap. vi, no. 408
    • S 304. Comments, authentic, cf. chapter vi, esp. p. 205, no. 16
    • S 305. Comments, authentic basis, cf. chapter vi, no. 204
    • S 306. Comments, the text reads like an epitome of a (lost) original, no. 207
    • S 307. Comments, authentic, pp. 203-4
    • S 308. Comments, authentic, MS based on older original, no. 203, cf. chapter vi, esp. pp. 197-8
    • S 309. Comments, spurious, no. 17
    • S 310. Comments, spurious, no. 409
    • S 311. Comments, spurious, bounds describe hundred of Taunton Dene, Grundy is wrong to include Crowcombe in estate, no. 410
    • S 312. Comments, spurious, based on S 313, no. 206
    • S 313. Comments, record drawn up long after the event, no. 205 and p. 203
    • S 315. Comments, authentic, p. 202
    • S 325. Comments, spurious, no. 19
    • S 326. Comments, authentic, no. 209
    • S 329. Comments, authentic, no. 210
    • S 333. Comments, authentic, no. 573
    • S 334. Comments, authentic, no. 574
    • S 336. Comments, authentic basis, but date impossible for King Æthelberht and Bishop Swithhun, dates ? 866 x 867, no. 20
    • S 340. Comments, authentic, bounds identical with those of S 273, no. 21
    • S 341. Comments, authentic basis possible, no. 211
    • S 340. Comments, authentic, bounds identical with those of S 273, no. 21
    • S 341. Comments, authentic basis possible, no. 211
    • S 342. Comments, authentic, no. 575
    • S 343. Comments, authentic, dates 871 x 886, no. 415
    • S 345. Comments, authentic, Cyrices tun is Creech, no. 420
    • S 347. Comments, authentic, no. 421
    • S 348. Comments, authentic, bounds nearly the same as in S 424, no. 217
    • S 351. Comments, authentic basis, formulas are of Athelstan's time but witness-list is composite, part 9th- and part 10th-century, no. 56
    • S 352. Comments, authentic, emends dating clause, no. 416
    • S 354. Comments, authentic, no. 28
    • S 356. Comments, authentic, no. 213
    • S 357. Comments, doubtful features, no. 212
    • S 358. Comments, authentic, no. 31
    • S 359. Comments, authentic, no. 32
    • S 360. Comments, original, no. 34
    • S 362. Comments, authentic, no. 221
    • S 363. Comments, authentic, perhaps an abbreviated copy, no. 220
    • S 364. Comments, authentic, no. 219
    • S 365. Comments, authentic, from a late and faulty transcript, emends witness-list, no. 35
    • S 366. Comments, authentic, no. 222
    • S 368. Comments, authentic, no. 224
    • S 370. Comments, spurious, witness-list identical with that of S 360, no. 36 (pp. 35-6, 80)
    • S 371. Comments, authentic basis, no. 423
    • S 372. Comments, authentic, no. 39
    • S 373. Comments, authentic, with interpolation relating to rents, tolls and jurisdiction, no. 424 and pp. 221-3
    • S 374. Comments, authentic, no. 38
    • S 375. Comments, spurious but authentic basis possible, no. 41 and chapter vii, esp. pp. 237-9
    • S 376. Comments, authentic basis, passage relating to later hundred of Chilcomb is an interpolation, no. 40 and chapter vii, esp. pp. 230-3
    • S 377. Comments, spurious, nos 43, 44
    • S 378. Comments, a composite text, but authentic basis, no. 42
    • S 379. Comments, authentic basis, indiction and witness-list point to 933, no. 237
    • S 380. Comments, authentic, no. 422
    • S 381. Comments, spurious, and cf. chapter vii, no. 47
    • S 382. Comments, spurious, no. 45
    • S 383. Comments, spurious, bounds identical with those of S 258 and 565, no. 46
    • S 384. Comments, conflation of S 358 and 359, p. 34
    • S 385. Comments, authentic, no. 37
    • S 391. Comments, interpolated, no. 580
    • S 393. Comments, spurious, notes dating impossibilities, no. 236
    • S 399. Comments, authentic, no. 229
    • S 400. Comments, authentic, no. 228
    • S 412. Comments, authentic, no. 48
    • S 414. Comments, authentic basis, dates 934 x 939, no. 435
    • S 415. Comments, authentic basis, dates 934 x 939, no. 240
    • S 416. Comments, original, no. 231
    • S 417. Comments, authentic, no. 49
    • S 418. Comments, authentic, no. 50
    • S 419. Comments, authentic, no. 577
    • S 422. Comments, authentic, no. 578
    • S 423. Comments, may be fabrication modelled on S 422, no. 579
    • S 424. Comments, authentic, but Bishop Ælfheah's subscription a difficulty, no. 239
    • S 426. Comments, authentic, no. 238
    • S 427. Comments, authentic basis, no. 51
    • S 429. Comments, authentic, no. 581
    • S 430. Comments, authentic, indiction 7 for 8, no. 53
    • S 431. Comments, authentic, indiction 8 for 9, no. 434
    • S 432. Comments, authentic, no. 436
    • S 434. Comments, authentic, indiction 8 for 10, no. 242
    • S 435. Comments, authentic, no. 243
    • S 436. Comments, spurious, composite text based on S 415, 434 and 435, no. 244
    • S 438. Comments, authentic, no. 241
    • S 439. Comments, spurious, no. 54
    • S 440. Comments, authentic, no. 439
    • S 441. Comments, authentic, no. 440
    • S 443. Comments, spurious, bounds as in S 254, cf. chapter vii, no. 438
    • S 444. Comments, authentic, no. 55
    • S 445. Comments, authentic, no. 583
    • S 446. Comments, authentic, bounds as in S 276, no. 57
    • S 449. Comments, authentic, no. 245
    • S 454. Comments, spurious, no. 247
    • S 455. Comments, authentic basis, no. 437
    • S 458. Comments, authentic, no. 235
    • S 459. Comments, authentic, no. 252
    • S 462. Comments, authentic, beneficiary probably Ælfsige, no. 441
    • S 463. Comments, authentic, no. 58
    • S 465. Comments, authentic, no. 59
    • S 466. Comments, authentic, no. 251
    • S 468. Comments, authentic, no. 253
    • S 469. Comments, authentic, with a note on appurtenances, no. 254
    • S 470. Comments, original, no. 248
    • S 472. Comments, authentic, no. 249
    • S 473. Comments, authentic, no. 250
    • S 474. Comments, authentic, no. 584
    • S 475. Comments, authentic, no. 444
    • S 476. Comments, authentic, no. 443
    • S 478. Comments, authentic, no. 255
    • S 481. Comments, authentic, no. 445
    • S 485. Comments, authentic, no. 585
    • S 486. Comments, authentic, no. 262
    • S 487. Comments, authentic, no. 62
    • S 488. Comments, authentic, no. 61
    • S 490. Comments, authentic, no. 586
    • S 492. Comments, authentic, cf. similar bounds in S 766, no. 260
    • S 493. Comments, authentic, no. 263
    • S 499. Comments, interpolated, no. 456
    • S 502. Comments, authentic, no. 591
    • S 504. Comments, authentic, no. 264
    • S 505. Comments, authentic, no. 64
    • S 508. Comments, authentic, no. 457
    • S 509. Comments, authentic, no. 458
    • S 511. Comments, authentic, incarnation year miscopied, indiction and regnal year point to 941, no. 60
    • S 513. Comments, authentic, no. 63
    • S 516. Comments, authentic, impossible date in postscript, no. 594
    • S 519. Comments, authentic, no. 592
    • S 521. Comments, spurious, witness-list from S 523, no. 459
    • S 522. Comments, authentic, queries Ekwall's identification, no. 265
    • S 526. Comments, authentic, no. 66
    • S 530. Comments, authentic, no. 266
    • S 531. Comments, authentic, no. 269
    • S 532. Comments, authentic, no. 68
    • S 534. Comments, authentic, no. 593
    • S 540. Comments, spurious, no. 268
    • S 541. Comments, authentic, no. 267
    • S 543. Comments, authentic, no. 70 (pp. 43-4, 89-90)
    • S 555. Comments, authentic, accepts as Buckland Denham, no. 466
    • S 563. Comments, original, no. 469
    • S 565. Comments, authentic, original extant at Winchester in 1643, no. 77
    • S 568. Comments, authentic, no. 273
    • S 570. Comments, authentic, no. 467
    • S 571. Comments, authentic, no. 468
    • S 573. Comments, authentic basis, no. 596
    • S 580. Comments, authentic, probably Little Langford, no. 270
    • S 582. Comments, authentic, no. 274
    • S 585. Comments, authentic, no. 278
    • S 586. Comments, authentic, indiction and regnal year point to 959, no. 289
    • S 589. Comments, authentic, no. 79
    • S 593. Comments, authentic, no. 471
    • S 596. Comments, authentic, several landmarks in common with S 254, no. 473
    • S 598. Comments, authentic, no. 82
    • S 600. Comments, authentic, no. 80
    • S 604. Comments, authentic, no. 83
    • S 606. Comments, authentic, no. 472
    • S 609. Comments, authentic, no. 599
    • S 612. Comments, authentic, no. 277
    • S 613. Comments, authentic, no. 81
    • S 619. Comments, authentic, no. 84
    • S 625. Comments, authentic basis, no. 276
    • S 626. Comments, authentic basis, no. 470
    • S 627. Comments, authentic, no. 474
    • S 629. Comments, authentic, perhaps abbreviated, no. 275
    • S 630. Comments, authentic, no. 281
    • S 631. Comments, authentic, no. 283
    • S 632. Comments, authentic, no. 598
    • S 635. Comments, authentic, no. 279
    • S 636. Comments, original, no. 78
    • S 637. Comments, authentic, note on identifications, no. 280
    • S 640. Comments, authentic, no. 287
    • S 642. Comments, authentic, no. 285
    • S 643. Comments, authentic, no. 476
    • S 647. Comments, authentic, no. 286
    • S 652. Comments, authentic, no. 483
    • S 655. Comments, authentic, no. 602
    • S 656. Comments, authentic, no. 603
    • S 660. Comments, authentic, no. 88
    • S 661. Comments, authentic but misdated, belongs to 956 x 958, no. 475
    • S 662a. Comments, authentic, no. 86
    • S 666. Comments, authentic, no. 284
    • S 668. Comments, authentic, no. 654
    • S 680. Comments, authentic, no. 89
    • S 683. Comments, authentic, no. 90
    • S 685. Comments, authentic, no. 290
    • S 687. Comments, original, no. 91
    • S 688. Comments, authentic, no. 291
    • S 689. Comments, authentic, no. 98
    • S 690. Comments, authentic, no. 93
    • S 692. Comments, authentic, no. 486
    • S 693. Comments, authentic, nos 96-7
    • S 694. Comments, authentic, respectable witness-list of 961, may have been model for S 661, no. 485
    • S 695. Comments, authentic, no. 95
    • S 696. Comments, authentic, no. 292
    • S 697. Comments, original, bounds are a slightly expanded version of those in S 254, no. 484
    • S 699. Comments, authentic, original extant in 1643, no. 94
    • S 701. Comments, authentic, no. 99 (pp. 50, 141)
    • S 705. Comments, authentic, some of the landmarks are the same in S 638, no. 295
    • S 706. Comments, authentic, no. 294
    • S 707. Comments, abbreviated but authentic, no. 293
    • S 709. Comments, authentic, no. 488
    • S 710. Comments, authentic, no. 604
    • S 711. Comments, authentic, no. 487
    • S 715. Comments, authentic, no. 296
    • S 719. Comments, authentic, refers either to Avon in Bremhill or, more probably, to Avon in Durnford, no. 297
    • S 727. Comments, authentic, no. 298
    • S 729. Comments, authentic, no. 489
    • S 730. Comments, authentic, no. 299
    • S 735. Comments, authentic, no. 491
    • S 736. Comments, original, no. 605
    • S 740. Comments, authentic, no. 492
    • S 742. Comments, authentic, no. 606
    • S 743. Comments, authentic, no. 493
    • S 744. Comments, authentic, no. 607
    • S 745. Comments, authentic, no. 100
    • S 746. Comments, spurious, no. 300
    • S 748. Comments, authentic, no. 652
    • S 754. Comments, authentic, no. 107
    • S 756. Comments, authentic, reference to Oswald probably a copyist's mistake for Oscytel, no. 303
    • S 762. Comments, authentic, no. 653
    • S 763. Comments, authentic, same bounds as in S 486, 638, 763, no. 306
    • S 764. Comments, authentic, no. 609
    • S 765. Comments, authentic, no. 304
    • S 766. Comments, authentic, no. 108 (pp. 51, 96)
    • S 767. Comments, authentic, no. 305
    • S 775. Comments, authentic, no. 307
    • S 777. Comments, authentic, no. 512
    • S 783. Comments, spurious, no. 513
    • S 784. Comments, authentic, no. 308
    • S 785. Comments, authentic, bounds identical with those of S 476, no. 515
    • S 789. Comments, authentic, the survey relates to Avon in Durnford, no. 309
    • S 791. Comments, authentic, no. 517
    • S 793. Comments, authentic, no. 516
    • S 796. Comments, authentic, no. 311
    • S 797. Comments, authentic, suggests name may be a mistake for Avene, meaning Avon in Bremhill, Wilts, no. 310
    • S 799. Comments, authentic, no. 312
    • S 800. Comments, authentic, no. 124
    • S 804. Comments, spurious, post-Domesday particulars have been inserted into what may have been a genuine grant of a 5-hide estate, no. 519
    • S 806. Comments, authentic basis, both versions summarize provisions in a genuine lost charter of Edgar, no. 510 and p. 229
    • S 807. Comments, authentic, no. 101
    • S 811. Comments, authentic, anachronistic subscription of Archbishop Wulfhelm (d. 941) perhaps derived from the lost landbook, no. 92
    • S 812. Comments, authentic, no. 123
    • S 813. Comments, authentic basis, no. 611
    • S 814. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 111
    • S 815. Comments, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, pp. 237-41
    • S 816. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 117
    • S 817. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 110
    • S 818. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, esp. p. 241, may have been drawn up after Æthelwold's death, no. 119 (pp. 54, 98, 144, 241)
    • S 819. Comments, authentic, the land is no doubt Highclere, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 112
    • S 820. Comments, authentic, no. 122
    • S 821. Comments, authentic basis, the 30 hides on the Isle of Wight lay at Calbourne in Bowcombe hundred (cf. S 274); reference to Chilcomb probably an interpolation into a text drawn up at Winchester with Edgar's permission, no. 109, pp. 235 n., 237-41
    • S 822. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 137-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 116
    • S 823. Comments, authentic, cf.pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 115
    • S 824. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 113
    • S 825. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 509
    • S 826. Comments, authentic, cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 114
    • S 827. Comments, authentic, suggests Hortun is Horton in Stoke Park or Houghton, Hants., cf. pp. 237-41, probably drafted at Winchester with Edgar's knowledge, but not formally promulgated, no. 118
    • S 831. Comments, authentic, no. 313
    • S 835. Comments, authentic, no. 129
    • S 836. Comments, authentic, corrects an error in witness-list, no. 131
    • S 837. Comments, authentic, no. 130
    • S 840. Comments, authentic, no. 133
    • S 841. Comments, authentic, no. 314
    • S 842. Comments, authentic, discusses bounds, no. 132
    • S 844. Comments, authentic, identifies Westwuda as Westwood, Wilts, no. 317
    • S 845. Comments, authentic, no. 134
    • S 846. Comments, authentic, no. 315
    • S 848. Comments, authentic, text and bounds identical with S 846, no. 316
    • S 850. Comments, authentic, no. 318
    • S 852. Comments, authentic, accepts Forsberg's identification, no. 135
    • S 854. Comments, authentic but misdated, belongs to 1006 x 1019, no. 525
    • S 857. Comments, authentic, no. 136
    • S 861. Comments, authentic, no. 320
    • S 865. Comments, authentic, no. 323
    • S 866. Comments, authentic, no. 322
    • S 867. Comments, authentic, corrects error in witness-list, no. 321
    • S 868. Comments, authentic, no. 324
    • S 870. Comments, authentic, no. 325
    • S 871. Comments, authentic, no. 137
    • S 874. Comments, authentic, no. 138
    • S 881. Comments, authentic, no. 327
    • S 884. Comments, original, no. 520
    • S 889. Comments, authentic, discusses bounds, no. 142
    • S 891. Comments, authentic, no. 329 and p. 236
    • S 895. Comments, authentic basis, no. 614
    • S 899. Comments, authentic, no. 330
    • S 904. Comments, authentic basis, no. 149
    • S 918. Comments, authentic, bounds identical with those of S 705, no. 332
    • S 921. Comments, authentic, a note in the cartulary identifies the land with that in S 652, no. 526
    • S 925. Comments, authentic, no. 150
    • S 933. Comments, authentic, no. 617
    • S 937. Comments, authentic, no. 147
    • S 938. Comments, authentic basis, no. 612
    • S 942. Comments, authentic, dates 990 x 992, no. 139
    • S 944. Comments, authentic, has same witnesses as S 942, no. 140
    • S 946. Comments, authentic, no. 141 and pp. 230-2
    • S 955. Comments, authentic, no. 619
    • S 956. Comments, authentic, with note on bounds, no. 153
    • S 960. Comments, authentic, no. 154
    • S 961. Comments, original, no. 620
    • S 962. Comments, authentic, no. 155
    • S 966. Comments, authentic basis, no. 529
    • S 969. Comments, authentic, no. 622
    • S 970. Comments, authentic, no. 156
    • S 972. Comments, authentic, no. 530
    • S 975. Comments, authentic, no. 623
    • S 976. Comments, authentic, no. 157
    • S 979. Comments, authentic, dates 1027 x 1032, no. 527
    • S 994. Comments, authentic, no. 158
    • S 999. Comments, authentic, bounds are those of Sevington in Grittleton, no. 333
    • S 1004. Comments, authentic, no. 625
    • S 1006. Comments, authentic, for some boundary marks cf. S 440, 475, no. 531
    • S 1007. Comments, authentic, no. 162
    • S 1008. Comments, authentic, no. 163
    • S 1009. Comments, authentic, identical to S 1008, but a different beneficiary, no. 164
    • S 1010. Comments, authentic, no. 335
    • S 1012. Comments, authentic, no. 161
    • S 1013. Comments, authentic, no. 165
    • S 1016. Comments, spurious, suggests Forde may be Forde in Priors Dean and Hertone saci may be Barton Stacey, both in Hants, no. 166
    • S 1018. Comments, authentic, no. 167
    • S 1024. Comments, authentic, no. 170
    • S 1032. Comments, authentic, no. 627
    • S 1034. Comments, authentic, no. 533
    • S 1042. Comments, spurious, no. 542
    • S 1063. Comments, authentic, no. 626
    • S 1064. Comments, no. 628
    • S 1111. Comments, authentic, no. 534
    • S 1112. Comments, authentic, no. 535
    • S 1113. Comments, authentic, no. 537
    • S 1114. Comments, spurious, no. 538
    • S 1115. Comments, authentic, no. 539
    • S 1116. Comments, authentic, no. 540
    • S 1129. Comments, authentic basis, no. 174
    • S 1151. Comments, authentic, S 1152 seems to be enlarged and doubtful version of same writ, no. 160
    • S 1152. Comments, enlarged and doubtfully authentic version of S 1151, p. 64
    • S 1153. Comments, authentic basis, no. 169
    • S 1154. Comments, spurious, no. 629
    • S 1164. Comments, authentic, no. 551
    • S 1166. Comments, authentic basis, no. 182
    • S 1169. Comments, authentic, no. 184
    • S 1170. Comments, authentic, no. 186
    • S 1176. Comments, authentic, no. 375
    • S 1181. Comments, fabrication partly modelled on S 1165, no. 3
    • S 1205. Comments, authentic, no. 218
    • S 1217. Comments, authentic, no. 613
    • S 1240. Comments, authentic, no. 541
    • S 1241. Comments, authentic, no. 545
    • S 1242. Comments, authentic, no. 523
    • S 1245. Comments, authentic basis, no. 181
    • S 1249. Comments, authentic basis, no. 357
    • S 1253. Comments, authentic, indiction points to 718, no. 376
    • S 1256. Comments, authentic, no. 557
    • S 1263. Comments, authentic, no. 197
    • S 1275. Comments, authentic, no. 22
    • S 1277. Comments, authentic, no. 24
    • S 1284. Comments, authentic, no. 30
    • S 1285. Comments, authentic, no. 223
    • S 1286. Comments, authentic, estate may have included the land at Ham covered in S 416, no. 225
    • S 1287. Comments, authentic, no. 29
    • S 1371. Comments, authentic, p. 251
    • S 1376. Comments, authentic, no. 126
    • S 1382. Comments, authentic basis, no. 615
    • S 1391. Comments, authentic, no. 159
    • S 1402. Comments, authentic, no. 168
    • S 1403. Comments, authentic, no. 336
    • S 1410. Comments, authentic, no. 384
    • S 1417. Comments, authentic, no. 230
    • S 1418. Comments, authentic, no. 69
    • S 1419. Comments, authentic, no. 74
    • S 1420. Comments, authentic, no. 148
    • S 1427. Comments, authentic, no. 536
    • S 1443. Comments, authentic, cf. S 360, no. 33
    • S 1445. Comments, authentic, no. 227
    • S 1449. Comments, authentic, no. 121
    • S 1476. Comments, authentic, no. 171
    • S 1484. Comments, authentic, no. 610
    • S 1485. Comments, authentic, no. 120 (pp. 54, 98, 145)
    • S 1488. Comments, p. 249
    • S 1491. Comments, authentic, suggests Chiltington, Sussex, as an alternative identification of Ciltrigtune, no. 85
    • S 1498. Comments, authentic, no. 125
    • S 1503. Comments, authentic, identifies Rotherfield as lying in East Tisted, Hants, no. 151
    • S 1504. Comments, authentic, land at Wylye was probably Stockton, no. 65 (pp. 42-3, 88)
    • S 1505. Comments, authentic, no. 326
    • S 1507. Comments, authentic, no. 25 (pp. 32, 76, 126, 166)
    • S 1509. Comments, authentic, no. 52
    • S 1512. Comments, authentic, no. 514
    • S 1513. Comments, authentic, no. 216
    • S 1514. Comments, authentic, p. 202
    • S 1515. Comments, authentic, no. 75
    • S 1524. Comments, authentic, no. 176
    • S 1533. Comments, authentic, no. 246
    • S 1538. Comments, authentic, no. 524
    • S 1539. Comments, authentic, no. 71
    • S 1552. Comments, formerly in Wilts, no. 344
    • S 1557. Comments, a slightly fuller but substantially identical version of the bounds in S 589, no. 79
    • S 1558. Comments, no. 180
    • S 1560. Comments, no. 177
    • S 1570. Comments, no. 546
    • S 1571. Comments, no. 547
    • S 1572. Comments, no. 548
    • S 1575. Comments, no. 345
    • S 1576. Comments, survey ends with statement that property included 5 hides at Charlton and the wode felde by Cleverdon, no. 348
    • S 1577. Comments, no. 346
    • S 1578. Comments, no. 339
    • S 1579. Comments, no. 342
    • S 1580. Comments, no. 341
    • S 1581. Comments, no. 352
    • S 1582. Comments, associates with S 796, no. 350
    • S 1583. Comments, no. 347
    • S 1584. Comments, no. 349
    • S 1585. Comments, no. 343
    • S 1586. Comments, no. 340
    • S 1587. Comments, no. 351
    • S 1588. Comments, dates survey 1047 x 1052, no. 337
    • S 1589. Comments, associates with S 746, no. 300
    • S 74. Printed, (= Finberg, ECWM, pp. 241-2), pp. 252-4
    • S 267. Printed, no. 398 (pp. 118-20)
    • S 290. Printed, no. 567
    • S 294. Printed, no. 566
    • S 295. Printed, no. 642
    • S 343. Printed, ex MS 3, no. 415 (pp. 123-5)
    • S 376. Printed, pp. 244-8
    • S 432. Printed, no. 436 (pp. 130-2)
    • S 632. Printed, witness-list only, p. 171
    • S 652. Printed, no. 483 (pp. 140-1)
    • S 1581. Printed, no. 352 (pp. 107-8)