Search Results

You searched for:
Label: Stevenson 1914

Results: 1-1 of 1

Show all data

  • Metadata

    Stevenson 1914. Stevenson, W. H., 'Trinoda Necessitas', English Historical Review 29 (1914), 689–703. 166 charters cited.

    • S 7. Comments, 'seems to be genuine', p. 703
    • S 8. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 10. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 13. Comments, 'seems to be genuine', p. 703
    • S 20. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 22. Comments, MS 1 is an 11th-century copy of MS not later than 9th century passages relating to Rochester and Christ Church are probably interpolations, p. 699 n. 48
    • S 23. Comments, contemporary, pp. 696, 703
    • S 24. Comments, contemporary, p. 703
    • S 26. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 27. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 31. Comments, MS 5 a chartulary note with exemption added; MS 1 a contemporary text, pp. 697 n. 37, 703
    • S 33. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 37. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 41. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 44. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 45. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 48. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 50. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 52. Comments, doubtful authenticity, pp. 692 n. 16, 698 n. 44
    • S 54. Comments, a late and clumsy fabrication, p. 702
    • S 56. Comments, a 9th-century copy of a presumably genuine contemporary charter of the 8th century, p. 695 n. 35
    • S 57. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 58. Comments, a variant of S 59, p. 696 n. 37
    • S 59. Comments, unimpeachable', pp. 692 n. 16, 696 and n. 37
    • S 65. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 71. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 73. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 75. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 76. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 77. Comments, it may have been written or interpolated about the end of the 8th century, p. 697 n. 38
    • S 79. Comments, spurious, a late and clumsy fabrication, pp. 695 n. 33, 702
    • S 86. Comments, apparently genuine, p. 703
    • S 88. Comments, 9th-century copy of a presumably genuine charter, p. 695 n. 35
    • S 90. Comments, MS 1 doubtful or spurious; exemption clause inserted in MSS 4 and 7; MS 1 written c. 800, pp. 692 n. 16, 697 n. 40, 700 n. 49
    • S 92. Comments, similar formulation in S 583, B 140 is an extract from B 178, p. 700 n. 49
    • S 110. Comments, scribe also wrote S 230 MS 1, p. 692 n. 18
    • S 117. Comments, MS 1 in 11th-century hand but cartulary text probably older and cannot have been forged later than c. 1000, p. 697 n.
    • S 121. Comments, spurious, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 123. Comments, cited, with reference to immunity, p. 696 n. 36
    • S 125. Comments, cited with reference to immunity, p. 696 n. 36
    • S 128. Comments, cited with reference to immunuty, p. 696 n. 36
    • S 129. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 130. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 136. Comments, spurious, pp. 692 n. 16, 702
    • S 138. Comments, spurious, pp. 692 n. 16, 702
    • S 139. Comments, contemporary, pp. 689 n. 3, 692 n. 16, 696 nn. 36 & 37
    • S 146. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 147. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 151. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 154. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 165. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 168. Comments, MS 1 is original and MS 2 was copied c. 1000 with an interpolation, MS 2 has imitative features, p. 696 n. 35
    • S 169. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 171. Comments, genuine, p. 698, n. 44
    • S 173. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 175. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 176. Comments, genuine, p. 703
    • S 177. Comments, contemporary, p. 689 n. 3
    • S 178. Comments, contemporary, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 179. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 180. Comments, cited, p. 696 n. 37
    • S 181. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 185. Comments, authentic, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 186. Comments, contemporary, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 187. Comments, contemporary, p. 699 n. 48
    • S 190. Comments, original, pp. 689 n. 2, 692 n. 16
    • S 197. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 201. Comments, authentic, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 206. Comments, authentic, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 218. Comments, authentic, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 220. Comments, suspicious, pp. 699 n. 44, 703
    • S 225. Comments, spurious, dates 916, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 228. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 230. Comments, spurious, MS 1 written c. 975, scribe also wrote S 110 MS 1, pp. 691-6
    • S 232. Comments, p. 694 nn. 24 & 25
    • S 235. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 241. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 245. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 247. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 248. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 250. Comments, spurious, pp. 695 n. 33, 702 and n. 61
    • S 255. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 264. Comments, cited, p. 695 n. 34
    • S 268. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 271. Comments, cited, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 272. Comments, on a formula, p. 689 n. 3
    • S 273. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 276. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 287. Comments, contemporary, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 293. Comments, contemporary, p. 699 n. 48
    • S 296. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 298. Comments, contemporary, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 300. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 324. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 326. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 327. Comments, date altered from 860 to 790, perhaps to identify it with S 130, hand somewhat later than 860 but not 11th-century, p. 703 nn. 75 & 76
    • S 328. Comments, contemporary, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 334. Comments, doubtful or spurious, pp. 692 n. 16, 694 n. 32, 698 n. 44
    • S 338. Comments, contemporary, p. 699 n. 48
    • S 338a. Comments, spurious, p. 694 n. 32
    • S 343. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 352. Comments, suspicious, p. 699 n. 44
    • S 360. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 370. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 378. Comments, spurious, p. 694 n. 32
    • S 379. Comments, spurious, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 380. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 389. Comments, spurious, p. 698 n. 42
    • S 405. Comments, contemporary, discusses immunity, p. 702 and n. 62
    • S 416. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 421. Comments, in late 10th-century hand, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 425. Comments, contemporary, p. 697 n. 41
    • S 440. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 453. Comments, spurious, the work of the same forger as S 752, 1035, 1056, p. 703
    • S 498. Comments, spurious, p. 703
    • S 499. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 501. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 512. Comments, contemporary, p. 689 n. 3
    • S 515. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 516. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 517. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 540. Comments, contemporary, p. 689 n. 2
    • S 548. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 552. Comments, contemporary, p. 689 n. 2
    • S 583. Comments, a very suspicious text, spurious, pp. 695 n. 33, 700 n. 49
    • S 692. Comments, dubious or spurious, pp. 692 n. 14, 697 n. 41
    • S 752. Comments, p. 703
    • S 774. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 787. Comments, B 1258 is doubtful or spurious, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 859. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 873. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 880. Comments, spurious, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 907. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 925. Comments, a late and clumsy forgery, p. 702 and n. 61
    • S 951. Comments, slightly later hand, p. 698 n. 24
    • S 977. Comments, contemporary, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 993. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 1002. Comments, spurious, p. 702 and n. 61
    • S 1007. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 1026. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 1029. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 698 n. 44
    • S 1030. Comments, late and clumsy fabrication, p. 702
    • S 1035. Comments, work of the same forger as S 453, 752, 1056, p. 703
    • S 1041. Comments, spurious, p. 702
    • S 1056. Comments, spurious, work of same forger as S 453, 752, 1035, p. 703
    • S 1164. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 1170. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 1172. Comments, doubtful or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 1180. Comments, seems to be genuine, p. 703
    • S 1181. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 1186a. Comments, on reservation clause, pp. 691 n. 16, 696 n. 37
    • S 1193. Comments, spurious, pp. 699 n. 48
    • S 1246. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 1248. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 703
    • S 1259. Comments, MS 7 a chartulary version of MS 1 with exemption clause added, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 1265. Comments, authentic, p. 703
    • S 1434. Comments, cited, p. 695 n. 34
    • S 1438. Comments, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 1450. Comments, late and clumsy fabrication, p. 702
    • S 1611. Comments, cartulary version of no. 24 with addition of exemption clause, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 1615. Comments, p. 697 n 37
    • S 1618. Comments, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 1620. Comments, dubious or spurious, p. 692 n. 16
    • S 1623. Comments, a cartulary version of no. 323, p. 697 n. 37
    • S 1632. Comments, obviously spurious, p. 700 n. 49
    • S 1638. Comments, impossible date, p. 690 n. 10