Search Results

You searched for:
Label: Stenton 1918

Results: 1-1 of 1

Show all data

  • Metadata

    Stenton 1918. Stenton, F. M., 'The Supremacy of the Mercian Kings', English Historical Review 33 (1918), 433–52. 117 charters cited.

    • S 7. Comments, genuine; dating elements (= Stenton 1970 p. 49 n. 2, p. 50 n. 3), p. 434 n. 5, p. 436 n. 13
    • S 8. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970 pp. 49, 51 n. 5, p. 52 n. 1), pp. 434, 437 nn. 19 & 20
    • S 9. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970 p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 10. Comments, authentic, but dating clause inconsistent (= Stenton 1970, pp. 51, 52 n. 1), pp. 436, 437 nn. 19 & 20
    • S 12. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5, p. 52), p. 437
    • S 13. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5, p. 52 n. 3), p. 437 nn. 19 & 22
    • S 14. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5, 52 n. 3), p. 437 nn. 19 & 22
    • S 15. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 16. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 17. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 18. Comments, some grounds for confidence (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 19. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 437 n. 19
    • S 21. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 5), p. 427 n. 19
    • S 23. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 65 n. 8), p. 451 n. 84
    • S 33. Comments, (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 1), p. 448 n. 66
    • S 40. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 64 n. 3), p. 450 n. 74
    • S 45. Comments, probably authentic (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 46. Comments, doubtful (= Stenton 1970, p. 61 n. 1), p. 447 n. 65
    • S 49. Comments, doubtful (= Stenton 1970, p. 61 n. 1), p. 447 n. 65
    • S 50. Comments, dubious (= Stenton 1970, p. 61 n. 1), p. 447 n. 65
    • S 52. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 53 n. 3), p. 438 n. 29
    • S 53. Comments, commands respect (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 4), p. 436 n. 18
    • S 56. Comments, cited (= Stenton 1970, p. 58 n. 2), p. 444 n. 50
    • S 65. Comments, MS 1 is 9th century, early formulas but may not be authentic (= Stenton 1970, p. 53 n. 4), p. 438 n. 30
    • S 67. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 49 n. 3), p. 434 n. 6
    • S 68. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 49 n. 3), p. 434 n. 6
    • S 69. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 49 n. 3), p. 434 n. 6
    • S 70. Comments, not a medieval fabrication (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 4), p. 436 n. 18
    • S 71. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 73. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 76. Comments, cited (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 4), p. 436 n. 18
    • S 77. Comments, cited (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 4), p. 436 n. 18
    • S 86. Comments, probably genuine (= 1970, p. 53 n. 5), p. 439 n. 31
    • S 88. Comments, probably genuine (= Stenton 1970, p. 53 n. 5), p. 439 n. 31
    • S 89. Comments, MS 1 contemporary, discusses royal style (= Stenton 1970, pp. 53-6), pp. 439-42
    • S 94. Comments, formulas and name-forms contemporary (= Stenton 1970, p. 56), p. 442
    • S 95. Comments, probably genuine (= Stenton 1970, p. 53 n. 5), p. 439 n. 31
    • S 96. Comments, treats as authentic and discusses witness-list, rejects Birch's identification (= Stenton 1970, pp. 57-8), p. 443
    • S 101. Comments, contemporary formulas (= Stenton 1970, pp. 56-7), p. 442
    • S 102. Comments, probably genuine (= Stenton 1970, p. 53 n. 5), p. 439 n. 31
    • S 103. Comments, possibly represents a text that was produced before the Mercian witan in 896, cf. S 1441 (= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 2), p. 442 n. 44
    • S 104. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, pp. 62-3 n. 2), p. 448 n. 67
    • S 105. Comments, authenticity uncertain (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 1), p. 448 n. 66
    • S 108. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 2), p. 448 n. 67
    • S 109. Comments, may descend from ancient text but includes some suspicious wording, cf. S 145 (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 2), p. 448 n. 67
    • S 110. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 60), p. 446
    • S 111. Comments, original, discusses royal style (= Stenton 1970, p. 60 and n. 6), p. 446 and n. 64
    • S 114. Comments, authentic (= Stenton 1970, pp. 54 n. 4, 60 n. 1), pp. 440 n. 35, 445 n. 59
    • S 116. Comments, suspicious but some early features, may be authentic (= Stenton 1970, pp. 58-60), pp. 444-6
    • S 117. Comments, suspicious reservation clause need not be fatal to authenticity of the text (= Stenton 1970, pp. 58-60), pp. 444-6
    • S 118. Comments, forged in 11th century (= Stenton 1970, pp. 58-9), p. 444
    • S 121. Comments, either spurious or remodelled (= Stenton 1970, pp. 58-9 n. 6), p. 444 n. 54
    • S 123. Comments, on royal style (= Stenton 1970, p. 58 n. 2), p. 444 n. 50
    • S 125. Comments, on royal style (= Stenton 1970, p. 58 n. 2), p. 444 n. 50
    • S 132. Comments, MS 1 contemporary, but abnormal in structure and phraseology, correct date may be 795 (= Stenton 1970, p. 63), p. 449
    • S 133. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 2), p. 448 n. 67
    • S 139. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 54 n. 4), p. 440 n. 35
    • S 145. Comments, suspicious, vernacular bounds cannot be contemporary (= Stenton 1970, p. 62 n. 2), p. 448 n. 67
    • S 146. Comments, seems to be authentic (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 147. Comments, probably spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 153. Comments, original; on royal style (= Stenton 1970, pp. 59 n. 3, 64), pp. 445 n. 57, 450
    • S 155. Comments, original, discusses Offa's royal style (= Stenton 1970, p. 60 and n. 3), p. 446 and n. 61
    • S 164. Comments, authenticity by no means certain (= Stenton 1970, p. 64 and n. 3), p. 450 and n. 74
    • S 168. Comments, MS 1 original (= Stenton 1970, p. 64 n. 2), p. 450 n. 73
    • S 169. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 64 n. 2), p. 450 n. 73
    • S 171. Comments, no serious exception need be taken (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 180. Comments, genuine, model for S 181 (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 181. Comments, probably forged on the basis of S 180 (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 186. Comments, original, discusses royal style (= Stenton 1970, p. 64), p. 450
    • S 187. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 64), p. 450
    • S 193. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 197. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 198. Comments, suspicious (Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 205. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 231. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 234. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 235. Comments, no conclusive exception need be taken (= Stenton 1970, p. 53), p. 438
    • S 243. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438 n. 26
    • S 252. Comments, probably founded on ancient material (= Stenton 1970, p. 52 n. 6), p. 438 n. 25
    • S 263. Comments, cited with reference to witness-list(= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 6), p. 443 n. 48
    • S 264. Comments, on witnesses (= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 6), p. 443 n. 48
    • S 270. Comments, very suspicious, forger may have combined charters of Egbert II of Kent (c. 765 x c. 785) and Egbert of Wessex (802 x 839), witness-list belongs to 833 x 839 (= Stenton 1970, p. 65 n. 8), p. 451 n. 84
    • S 271. Comments, doubtful (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 272. Comments, transparent fabrication (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 275. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 276. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 277. Comments, poor copy of a probably genuine charter (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 279. Comments, may be authentic (= Stenton 1970, p. 65 n. 3), p. 451 n. 79
    • S 280. Comments, cited (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 282. Comments, original, dates 830 (= Stenton 1970, pp. 59 n. 3, 65), pp. 445 n. 57, 451
    • S 294a. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 303. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 304. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 7
    • S 305. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 308. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 323. Comments, no conclusive exception need be taken (= Stenton 1970, p. 65), p. 451
    • S 339. Comments, discusses a formula (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 578. Comments, on detail of bounds (= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 4), p. 443 n. 46
    • S 1164. Comments, 'no conclusive exception need be taken' (= Stenton 1970, p. 53), p. 438
    • S 1165. Comments, some genuine original lies behind present, p. 435 n. 11
    • S 1166. Comments, 'of ill repute' (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 1167. Comments, ancient formulas (= Stenton 1970, p. 51 n. 4), p. 436 n. 18
    • S 1169. Comments, of ill repute with some possibly authentic features (= Stenton 1970, pp. 52-3 n. 7), p. 438 n. 26
    • S 1170. Comments, of ill repute (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438
    • S 1171. Comments, probably contemporary (= Stenton 1970, pp. 49-50 n. 8, 52), pp. 435 n. 11, 438
    • S 1172. Comments, obvious forgery (= Stenton 1970, p. 52 n. 5), p. 438 n. 24
    • S 1173. Comments, ill-copied fragment, probably authentic (= Stenton 1970, p. 52), p. 438 and n. 24
    • S 1178. Comments, may well be genuine (= Stenton 1970, p. 63), p. 449
    • S 1183. Comments, (= Stenton 1970, p. 61 n. 1), p. 447 n. 65
    • S 1204. Comments, original, discusses formula (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 1256. Comments, witness-list corrected (= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 6), p. 443 n. 48
    • S 1266. Comments, original (= Stenton 1970, p. 64 n. 3), p. 450 n. 74
    • S 1269. Comments, original, dates 833 (= 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 1274. Comments, spurious (= Stenton 1970, p. 59 n. 3), p. 445 n. 57
    • S 1430. Comments, cited (= Stenton 1970, p. 63 n. 2), p. 449 n. 69
    • S 1441. Comments, (= Stenton 1970, p. 57 n. 2), p. 242 n. 44
    • S 1648. Comments, some grounds for confidence, p. 437 n. 19