Show all data

• Metadata

  Kelly, St Augustine's. Kelly, S. E., ed., The Charters of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, and Minster-in-Thanet, Anglo-Saxon Charters (Oxford, 1995), 4. 88 charters cited.

  • S 2. Comments, fabrication partly modelled on a lost charter of Æthelberht II (725-62), witness-list may derive from a lost 7th-century source, pp. 4-9
  • S 3. Comments, spurious, forged on the basis of S 2, pp. 11-13
  • S 4. Comments, spurious, pp. 16-18
  • S 5. Comments, fabrication incorporating a genuine witness-list of c. 670 x 676., p. lxxiv n. 18
  • S 6. Comments, spurious., pp. 24-6
  • S 7. Comments, authenticity uncertain, but present text probably does rely on a genuine 7th-century record., pp. 27-30
  • S 8. Comments, on Kentish diplomatic., pp. lxxiii-lxxxv passim
  • S 9. Comments, generally acceptable, boundary clause perhaps an addition., pp. 31-3
  • S 10. Comments, not authentic in its present form, but based on genuine seventh-century documentation. The inconsistent dating elements in MS 1 are the result of later medieval revision; the readings in the earlier MS 3 are entirely consistent., pp. ci-iii, 141-6
  • S 11. Comments, essentially authentic., pp. 147-9
  • S 12. Comments, authentic., pp. 34-6
  • S 13. Comments, formulation eccentric, but probably genuine., pp. 150-1
  • S 14. Comments, probably authentic., pp. 152-3
  • S 15. Comments, probably authentic, has complex relationship with S 156 and CCC 2 (S 1610) from the Christ Church archive., pp. 155-7
  • S 16. Comments, authentic., pp. 37-8
  • S 17. Comments, spurious., pp. 158-9
  • S 18. Comments, some difficulties, but a genuine charter probably underlies the present text., pp. 160-2
  • S 19. Comments, on Kentish diplomatic, pp. lxxxiii-v passim
  • S 20. Comments, authentic, MS 1 probably a 9th-century copy of a 7th-century original, divergent regnal year and indiction in MS 2 are the result of later medieval tampering., pp. 40-4
  • S 22. Comments, p. xvi n. 13
  • S 23. Comments, on Kentish formulation., pp. lxx-lxxxv passim
  • S 24. Comments, on Kentish formulation, pp. lxxii-lxxxv passim
  • S 25. Comments, authentic., pp. 45-7
  • S 26. Comments, likely to be fundamentally authentic, probably drawn up at Minster and modelled on S 1180. Incarnation year of S 26 can be read 724 or 727; the latter would agree with the regnal year and the implication that Wihtred was dead, pp. 166-7
  • S 27. Comments, on Kentish formulation., pp. lxxiii-lxxxv passim
  • S 28. Comments, late medieval tampering with date; authentic, regnal year in MS 1 altered to identify the donor with Eadberht I (d. 748), see also S 29, 1612, p. ciii, 53-6
  • S 29. Comments, diplomatic; late medieval tampering with date; authentic, regnal year of MS 1 altered to identify the donor with Eadberht I (d. 748), cf. also S 28, 1612., pp. lxxxv-xc passim, ciii, 181-2
  • S 30. Comments, on date., p. 200
  • S 31. Comments, on dating limits., p. 200
  • S 33. Comments, on formulation, dating limits, pp. 53-4, 201
  • S 34. Comments, on historical background., p. 201
  • S 37. Comments, on date., p. 201
  • S 86. Comments, on diplomatic; authentic, but dating clause has been tampered with., pp. lxxxv-xc, passim, pp. 169-72
  • S 87. Comments, on diplomatic; authentic, but dating clause probably tampered with., pp. lxxxv-xc passim, pp. 170-5
  • S 88. Comments, on diplomatic, on relationship with S 86, pp. lxxxv-xc passim, 169-72
  • S 91. Comments, authentic, cf. S 1788., pp. lxxxv-xc passim, 177-8
  • S 98. Comments, on diplomatic, pp. lxxxv-xc
  • S 103a. Comments, on diplomatic, pp. lxxxv-xc passim
  • S 103b. Comments, on diplomatic, pp. lxxxv-xc passim
  • S 105. Comments, probably authentic, pp. 53-4
  • S 134. Comments, authentic, pp. 61-3
  • S 140. Comments, spurious, fabrication based on a genuine charter of Offa, probably from the later part of his reign and not originally in favour of Abbot Æthelnoth, pp. ciii, 57-60
  • S 143. Comments, authentic, pp. 178-9
  • S 156. Comments, spurious, probably modelled on S 15, pp. 155-7
  • S 159. Comments, authentic charter with beneficiary's name altered first to Abbot Wernoth and later to Abbot Cunred, anachronistic subscription of Archbishop Wulfred may reflect conflation of original witness-list with that of a later confirmation, pp. ciii-iv, 65-70
  • S 160. Comments, on historical background, p. xxix
  • S 233. Comments, p. lxxix n. 27
  • S 279. Comments, probably abbreviated, pp. 75-7
  • S 286a. Comments, probably authentic, although the beneficiary's name may have been altered, pp. 77-9
  • S 297. Comments, authentic, no. 80-2
  • S 300. Comments, authentic, MS 3 is a version of S 300 with the name of the beneficiary altered, cf. S 324, pp. 84-7
  • S 301. Comments, on links with S 300, p. 85
  • S 319. Comments, on circumstances of production, pp. xciv-v
  • S 324. Comments, version of S 300 with the name of the beneficiary altered, pp. 84-7
  • S 330. Comments, authentic, pp. 89-91
  • S 332. Comments, on estate history, cf. CSA 6 (S 1651a), p. xxxii
  • S 344. Comments, on circumstances of production, pp. xciv-v
  • S 394. Comments, authenticity uncertain, may cover land near Margate, pp. 100-3
  • S 489. Comments, estate apparently near Westgate on Sea, p. xxviii n. 45
  • S 501. Comments, authentic charter in favour of a thegn (cf. MSS 1-2, 4-9), beneficiary transformed into a fictitious abbot of St Augustine's in MSS 3, 10. Witness-list (partial) only in MS 10, pp. civ-v, 105-7
  • S 518. Comments, authentic, notice of Heresige's regrant may be suspicious, pp. 109-12
  • S 809. Comments, fabrication, probably of 11th century, modelled on 9th-century charter (perhaps S 332), pp. 113-15
  • S 875. Comments, some unusual features but probably authentic, p. 117
  • S 989. Comments, spurious, largely based on S 1091, pp. 120-1
  • S 990. Comments, probably spurious, according to a note in MS 10 the pseudo-original had a seal, p. 122
  • S 1048. Comments, spurious, pp. 124-5
  • S 1050. Comments, authentic, pp. 130-1
  • S 1090. Comments, on estate history, p. xxxii n. 57
  • S 1091. Comments, English version may be authentic, pp. 128-9
  • S 1092. Comments, probably authentic, pp. 135-6
  • S 1180. Comments, probably authentic, although the list of swine-pastures is almost certainly a later addition, pp. 163-5
  • S 1182. Comments, authentic, pp. 48-51
  • S 1193. Comments, probably authentic, pp. 92-4
  • S 1198. Comments, authentic, pp. 95-7
  • S 1239. Comments, authentic, pp. 98-9
  • S 1244. Comments, spurious, pp. 21-2
  • S 1247. Comments, seems generally acceptable, p. lxxiv n. 18
  • S 1267. Comments, authentic, pp. 71-4
  • S 1400. Comments, no trace in St Augustine's archive, pp. xxxii-iii
  • S 1401. Comments, probably, authentic, pp. 131-2
  • S 1455. Comments, authentic, pp. 118-19
  • S 1467. Comments, p. xx n. 20
  • S 1472. Comments, no trace in St Augustine's archive, pp.xxii-iii
  • S 1502. Comments, authentic, probably translation of Old English original., pp. 133-4
  • S 2. Printed, ex MSS 2, 7, 21, no. 1
  • S 86. Printed, ex MSS 1, 2, no. 49
  • S 1651. Printed, no. 23A
  • S 1651. Comments, appears to be a fabrication, pp. 92-94