Show all data

• Metadata

  Stenton 1955. Stenton, F. M., The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (Oxford, 1955). 92 charters cited.

  • S 7. Comments, authentic, pp. 34-5
  • S 33. Comments, cited, p. 35
  • S 49. Comments, cited, p. 38
  • S 50. Comments, cited, p. 38
  • S 58. Comments, an earlier version of S 59, p. 57 n. 1
  • S 59. Comments, authentic, p. 57 n. 1
  • S 94. Comments, authentic, pp. 35-6
  • S 104. Comments, on identification, p. 74 n. 1
  • S 114. Comments, p. 60
  • S 120. Comments, cited, p. 74 n. 1
  • S 128. Comments, original, pp. 38-9
  • S 139. Comments, cited, p. 58 n. 1
  • S 154. Comments, fragments of ancient formulas but the date impossible, incarnation year agrees with indiction but is incompatible with reference to Egbert of Wessex, pp. 27-8
  • S 155. Comments, cited, p. 28
  • S 177. Comments, on poor latinity, p. 39 n. 1
  • S 186. Comments, on poor latinity, p. 40
  • S 197. Comments, authentic basis, p. 54
  • S 204. Comments, authentic, may be contemporary, p. 46
  • S 210. Comments, treats as authentic, p. 49
  • S 214. Comments, cited with reference to restriction of inheritance, pp. 64-5
  • S 221. Comments, cited with reference to latinity, p. 45
  • S 261. Comments, authentic, p. 15 n. 1
  • S 268. Comments, possibly authentic, pp. 25-7
  • S 293. Comments, continental draftsman, pp. 47-8
  • S 298. Comments, cited, p. 55
  • S 332. Comments, on poor latinity, p. 40 n. 2
  • S 333. Comments, probably genuine in substance, perhaps translation of Latin original, pp. 36, 46-7
  • S 342. Comments, cited, p. 47 n. 1
  • S 361. Comments, no obvious anachronism, p. 52
  • S 362. Comments, probably authentic, p. 52
  • S 368. Comments, cited, p. 52
  • S 369. Comments, possibly authentic, p. 52
  • S 371. Comments, possibly authentic, p. 52
  • S 395. Comments, cited, p. 53
  • S 396. Comments, authentic, p. 30
  • S 397. Comments, authentic, p. 30
  • S 407. Comments, possibly genuine but corrupt and obscure in places, p. 30 n. 3
  • S 416. Comments, MS 1 contemporary, scribe also wrote S 425, p. 53
  • S 425. Comments, original, same hand as S 416, p. 53
  • S 443. Comments, imitative copy, probably of 11th century, but the text is spurious, p. 27
  • S 500. Comments, cited, p. 73
  • S 558. Comments, accepted, p. 72
  • S 578. Comments, on detail of bounds, p. 72
  • S 652. Comments, authentic, considers subscription of Archbishop Brihthelm, p. 23
  • S 659. Comments, pp. 67-8
  • S 660. Comments, abnormal in form but undoubtedly genuine, pp. 22-3
  • S 681. Comments, on reference to soke, p. 68
  • S 687. Comments, cited, p. 67
  • S 691. Comments, cited, p. 71
  • S 700. Comments, cited, p. 71
  • S 715. Comments, authentic, pp. 20-1
  • S 727. Comments, authentic, p. 21
  • S 740. Comments, questions Stevenson's arguments against authenticity, pp. 15-16
  • S 766. Comments, unusual form not fatal to authenticity, p. 3 n. 1
  • S 772. Comments, on endorsement, p. 67
  • S 831. Comments, possibly authentic, p. 74
  • S 835. Comments, probably authentic, pp. 75-6
  • S 883. Comments, pp. 76-8
  • S 884. Comments, contemporary, p. 15 n. 1
  • S 886. Comments, cited, p. 81 n. 1
  • S 898. Comments, authentic, unusual structure, p. 74
  • S 916. Comments, pp. 78-9
  • S 926. Comments, pp. 79-80
  • S 951. Comments, cited, p. 82
  • S 956. Comments, authentic, pp. 82-3
  • S 959. Comments, diplomatically acceptable, either represents or is modelled in minute detail on charter of 1023, p. 17
  • S 1004. Comments, may be contemporary, p. 85 n. 1
  • S 1005. Comments, may be contemporary, p. 85 n. 1
  • S 1021. Comments, p. 25
  • S 1028. Comments, authentic, p. 85
  • S 1036. Comments, post-Conquest forgery, pp. 86-7
  • S 1164. Comments, authentic, p. 23
  • S 1165. Comments, 'distended with spurious matter....but the ancient formulas at its core show that it descends from a text of the 7th century', p. 29
  • S 1171. Comments, imitative copy; spurious in context, dates c. 682, pp. 10, 92
  • S 1183. Comments, cited, p. 38
  • S 1184. Comments, pp. 37-8
  • S 1186a. Comments, cited, p. 42
  • S 1187. Comments, cited, p. 43
  • S 1196. Comments, cited, p. 51
  • S 1199. Comments, contemporary, p. 51 n. 3
  • S 1203. Comments, cited, p. 50
  • S 1204. Comments, cited, p. 51
  • S 1246. Comments, spurious, names of estates derived wholly or partly from authentic early charters, p. 12
  • S 1258. Comments, cited, pp. 13-14
  • S 1259. Comments, cited, p. 28
  • S 1264. Comments, accepted, p. 28
  • S 1271. Comments, 'a characteristic piece of Mercian draftmanship', p. 29 n. 2
  • S 1436. Comments, contemporary, p. 41
  • S 1438. Comments, MSS 1, 2, 3 cannot be much later than 850, p. 41
  • S 1447. Comments, contemporary, p. 44
  • S 128. Translated, lacks witnesses, pp. 38-9
  • S 926. Translated, narrative section only, pp. 79-80