Show all data

• Metadata

  O'Donovan 1973. O'Donovan, M. A., 'An Interim Revision of Episcopal Dates for the Province of Canterbury, 850–950, II', Anglo-Saxon England 2 (1973), 91–113. 67 charters cited.

  • S 34. Comments, witness-list is suspect, p. 99
  • S 191. Comments, dubious, indiction and regnal year correspond with 840 but episcopal witnesses belong some years later, p. 91
  • S 197. Comments, suspect, indiction possible for late 847 or 848, perhaps a date 847 was miscopied, p. 91
  • S 200. Comments, forgery, witness-list has no coherence and cannot belong to 851, pp. 92, 97
  • S 204. Comments, p. 112
  • S 206. Comments, on beneficiary, p. 112
  • S 207. Comments, on beneficiary, p. 112
  • S 208. Comments, on beneficiary, p. 112
  • S 210. Comments, on beneficiary, p. 112
  • S 214. Comments, on a witness, p. 92
  • S 215. Comments, on witness-list, p. 92
  • S 217. Comments, on date, p. 93
  • S 225. Comments, dates 915, pp. 94-5, 113
  • S 283. Comments, witness-list not above suspicion, p. 103
  • S 294. Comments, dubious, p. 108
  • S 306. Comments, witness-list and dating clause acceptable, charter may have a genuine base, p. 108
  • S 321. Comments, witness-list suits the date, p. 100
  • S 327. Comments, suspect, date altered from 860, witness-list looks genuine, pp. 93, 96, 99-100
  • S 335. Comments, on date, p. 108
  • S 336. Comments, on dates of Bishop Swithhun, p. 108
  • S 337. Comments, p. 96
  • S 343. Comments, not acceptable, impossible date, pp. 104, 108
  • S 348. Comments, very suspect, p. 104
  • S 352. Comments, suspicious, pp. 103-4
  • S 356. Comments, spurious, pp. 97, 104
  • S 357. Comments, suspicious, pp. 103, 109
  • S 360. Comments, suspicious, p. 94, 102
  • S 361. Comments, p. 94
  • S 365. Comments, suspect, pp. 94, 105
  • S 366. Comments, suspect, p. 94
  • S 370. Comments, spurious, p. 94
  • S 379. Comments, p. 98
  • S 382. Comments, on error in witness-list, p. 105
  • S 385. Comments, p. 109
  • S 391. Comments, spurious, p. 105
  • S 398. Comments, witness-list not in original state, p. 98
  • S 400. Comments, some dubious features; wording not above suspicion, but dating clause and witness-list acceptable, pp. 98, 113
  • S 404. Comments, p. 97
  • S 407. Comments, pp. 101, 111
  • S 411. Comments, dates 935 x 938, p. 101
  • S 413. Comments, epact and concurrent miscopied, p. 102
  • S 420. Comments, forgery, p. 105
  • S 421. Comments, on dating problem, p. 111
  • S 424. Comments, date may have been miscopied, perhaps originally 936, pp. 101, 111
  • S 427. Comments, pp. 111-12
  • S 428. Comments, indiction, epact and concurrent correct for 934, probably modelled on S 407, p. 101
  • S 430. Comments, pp. 111-12
  • S 436. Comments, spurious, p. 101
  • S 445. Comments, on beneficiary, pp. 105-6
  • S 553. Comments, witness-list incompatible with date, p. 99
  • S 573. Comments, indiction for 955, probably tampered with, p. 98
  • S 615. Comments, on beneficiary, p. 107
  • S 675. Comments, on a witness, p. 113
  • S 691. Comments, on witness-list, p. 106
  • S 731. Comments, should be dated late in 963, p. 95
  • S 1194. Comments, p. 112
  • S 1204. Comments, original date may have been 867
  • S 1206. Comments, cited, p. 10
  • S 1208. Comments, dates 926 x 928, p. 95
  • S 1273. Comments, on uncertainty about the bishop's name, p. 112
  • S 1275. Comments, looks reputable, p. 103
  • S 1276. Comments, reputable, p. 100
  • S 1277. Comments, not entirely above suspicion, p. 108
  • S 1278. Comments, reputable, p. 112
  • S 1282. Comments, suspicious, p. 112
  • S 1286. Comments, p. 102
  • S 1443. Comments, acceptable, witness-list better preserved in MS 2, p. 94