Search Results

You searched for:
Label: Brooks 1984

Results: 1-1 of 1

Show all data

  • Metadata

    Brooks 1984. Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984). 136 charters cited.

    • S 10. Comments, p. 77
    • S 15. Comments, authentic, pp. 102-3, 348 n. 60
    • S 20. Comments, authentic, pp. 183-4, 195
    • S 22. Comments, forged in early 9th century, perhaps by Archbishop Wulfred; scribe and script of MS 1; Upmynster, pp. 191-7, 289-90, 366 n. 63
    • S 24. Comments, authentic, p. 344 n. 52
    • S 33. Comments, on historical background, p. 112
    • S 38. Comments, abbreviated cartulary version of a lost charter, date may not be reliable., pp. 113, 349 n. 15
    • S 40. Comments, MS 1 later copy, pp. 359-60 n. 67
    • S 65. Comments, pp. 141-2, 353 n. 44
    • S 90. Comments, forged in early ninth century, perhaps by Archbishop Wulfred, witness-list an impossible concoction, pp. 191-3, 196, 317-19, 366 nn. 53 & 60
    • S 100. Comments, on the beneficiary, p. 142
    • S 105. Comments, treats as authentic, p. 112
    • S 110. Comments, 10th-century forgery but bounds and witness-list at least from 8th-century source; written by same (presumably Christ Church) scribe as S 230 MS 1, discusses formulation; on script, pp. 112, 114, 319, 378 n. 153
    • S 111. Comments, later forgery but bounds and witness-list probably from an early document, MS 1 s. x2 or x/xi, pp. 112, 114, 320
    • S 123. Comments, on beneficiaries, pp. 184-5
    • S 125. Comments, on Curringtun, p. 27
    • S 128. Comments, original, Canterbury formulation, pp. 119, 350 n. 36
    • S 132. Comments, spurious, forger perhaps used the record of a 795 synod, MS 1 written in imitative script, pp. 120-1, 320-1
    • S 140. Comments, bounds must have been added but remainder of text seems unobjectionable, date may be miscopied, p. 319
    • S 153. Comments, on scribe; contemporary or near contemporary, pp. 360 n. 70, 361 n. 76, 365 n. 39
    • S 155. Comments, original, pp. 114-15, 131, 321-2
    • S 156. Comments, spurious, may have been modelled on lost 7th-century charter covering same estates, pp. 102-3
    • S 160. Comments, treats as authentic, discusses location, pp. 26, 34-5, 201
    • S 161. Comments, on beneficiary, MS 1 contemporary, pp. 159-60, 358 n. 28
    • S 163. Comments, MS 1 original, Canterbury formulation although issued at Tamworth and covering land in Rochester diocese, pp. 169-70, 359 n. 67, 361 n. 76
    • S 164. Comments, treats as authenticauthentic, pp. 170, 361 n. 76
    • S 168. Comments, MS 1 original, pp. 15, 138, 353 n. 29, 360 n. 70, 361 n. 76
    • S 169. Comments, original, pp. 138, 353 n. 29, 359 n. 67
    • S 170. Comments, treats as authentic, pp. 138, 353 n. 29
    • S 176. Comments, treats as authentic, pp. 170, 361 n. 76
    • S 177. Comments, MS 1 contemporary, scribe also wrote S 177, pp. 360-1 n. 70, 361 n. 76
    • S 178. Comments, Worcester formulation, contemporary, pp. 138, 169, 359 n. 67
    • S 186. Comments, on historical background; scribe of MS 1 perhaps Archbishop Wulfred himself, also wrote S 187, pp. 135-6, 168, 360 n. 70
    • S 187. Comments, on background; scribe perhaps Archbishop Wulfred himself, also wrote S 186, pp. 136, 168, 360 n. 70
    • S 188. Comments, on historical background; original, scribe also wrote S 153, 1268 (witnesses only), 1436, 1482 (main text only), pp. 137, 360 n. 70
    • S 204. Comments, original, written in very poor English, pp. 174, 362 n. 94
    • S 230. Comments, 10th-century forgery; script, pp. 240-3, 317, 377 n. 153
    • S 232. Comments, spurious, probably forged in 10th century, pp. 240-3
    • S 233. Comments, pp. 183, 205
    • S 270. Comments, MS 1 11th-century, p. 360 n. 67
    • S 281. Comments, probably authentic, although witnesses have been tampered with, p. 200
    • S 282. Comments, not authentic but witness-list appears sound; MS not contemporary, pp. 162, 358 n. 42, 360 n. 67
    • S 286. Comments, pp. 145, 361 n. 76
    • S 287. Comments, copy written at time of Lulla's purchase, 'appallingly messy and inaccurate travesty'; Dunstan's endorsement in hand of s. x2, p. 173, 251, 378 n. 153
    • S 293. Comments, contemporary, pp. 147-8, 360 n. 67
    • S 296. Comments, contemporary; scribe also wrote S 1194, 1510, pp. 148, 360 n. 67, 361 n. 70
    • S 297. Comments, p. 361 n. 76
    • S 298. Comments, note on script, p. 324
    • S 300. Comments, West Saxon formulation, p. 169
    • S 316. Comments, contemporary, scribe also wrote S 328, 332, 344, 1195-7, pp. 360-1 nn. 67, 70& 76
    • S 323. Comments, dates 833 x 839, p. 354 n. 54
    • S 327. Comments, MS 1 is 9th-century, scribe also wrote S 331, 1276, pp. 360-1 n. 70
    • S 328. Comments, scribe also wrote S 316, 332, 344, 1195-7, pp. 360-1 n. 70
    • S 331. Comments, 9th-century, scribe also wrote S 327, 1276, pp. 360-1 n. 70
    • S 332. Comments, 9th-century, scribe also wrote S 316, 328, 344, 1195-7, pp. 360-1 n. 70
    • S 338. Comments, on background, pp. 34, 160-1
    • S 339. Comments, Canterbury formulation, pp. 169-70
    • S 344. Comments, contemporary but incompetently drafted and copied, scribe also wrote S 316, 328, 332, 1195-7, pp. 172, 360-1 n. 70
    • S 350. Comments, has Rochester formulation, contemporary or nearly contemporary, pp. 169, 359 n. 67, 361 n. 72
    • S 398. Comments, spurious, formulation not contemporary, witness-list impossible, pp. 220, 367 n. 82
    • S 477. Comments, spurious, forger used Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 220-1, 232, 326
    • S 515. Comments, spurious, pp. 220-1, 232, 326
    • S 537. Comments, spurious, draftsman probably not English, p. 232
    • S 546. Comments, authenticity uncertain, perhaps early forgery; discusses script, pp. 232-6, 378 n. 153
    • S 646. Comments, probably a personal gift to Oda, not intended to enrich Canterbury, pp. 224, 354 n. 55
    • S 702. Comments, probably a later copy of the 962 charter made at Dunstan's request after he acquired the estate in 968 (cf. S 1447), pp. 252, 377 n. 138
    • S 717. Comments, on script of endorsement, p. 378 n. 153
    • S 808. Comments, late forgery, p. 293
    • S 882. Comments, pp. 283, 384 n. 80
    • S 905. Comments, on scribe; authentic, pp. 277, 380 n. 16
    • S 914. Comments, spurious, discusses scribe of MSS 3, 9, pp. 257-9
    • S 950. Comments, authentic, Canterbury scribe, pp. 257-8, 273, 277-8, 288
    • S 959. Comments, may be a post-Conquest forgery based on a more restricted original diploma of 1023; on script, pp. 292-4, 388 n. 140
    • S 974. Comments, on beneficiary and background, p. 295
    • S 981. Comments, on background, pp. 300-1
    • S 985. Comments, entered in gospel-book by Canterbury scribe, very difficult to establish authenticity, pp. 288-90
    • S 986. Comments, on MS 2, p. 290
    • S 987. Comments, pp. 296, 387 n. 120
    • S 988. Comments, pp. 296, 387 n. 120
    • S 1047. Comments, on the scribe of MS 1, pp. 258 n. 14, 388 nn. 140 & 143
    • S 1088. Comments, p. 388 n. 140
    • S 1090. Comments, p. 308
    • S 1186a. Comments, pilheard may be error for Wilheard, p. 142
    • S 1188. Comments, pp. 138, 361 n. 76
    • S 1194. Comments, original, scribe also wrote S 296 and S 1510, pp. 141, 361 n. 70
    • S 1195. Comments, original, scribe also wrote S 316, 328, 332, 344, 1196-7, pp. 147-9, 361 n. 70
    • S 1196. Comments, scribe also wrote S 316, 328, 332, 344, 1195, 1197 (confirmation only), pp. 29, 361 n. 70
    • S 1197. Comments, contemporary, on scribe, pp. 147, 361 n. 70
    • S 1198. Comments, on donor, pp. 147, 150-1
    • S 1199. Comments, contemporary, reconstructs part of damaged witness-list, pp. 28-30, 361 n. 76
    • S 1200. Comments, original, pp. 148, 171, 361 n. 82
    • S 1202. Comments, treats as authentic, date 871 has no authority, pp. 151-2, 355 n. 78
    • S 1203. Comments, MS 1 written at the time of Plegmund's confirmation, pp. 173-4, 361 n. 77
    • S 1204. Comments, original, date tampered with, probably orginally 968, pp. 27, 172-3, 325-6
    • S 1204a. Comments, scribe also wrote S 1268 (face only) and 1438 MSS 1, 2 (text and Canterbury witnesses only), pp. 151, 360 n. 70
    • S 1209. Comments, pp. 221, 371 n. 42
    • S 1210. Comments, spurious, p. 221
    • S 1211. Comments, contemporary, pp. 250, 378 nn. 143 & 153
    • S 1215. Comments, treats as contemporary, pp. 28, 378 n. 153
    • S 1222. Comments, cited, p. 298
    • S 1229. Comments, pp. 258, 295, 380 n. 14
    • S 1234. Comments, cited, pp. 307-8
    • S 1258. Comments, pp. 103-4, 116, 131, 352 n. 2
    • S 1259. Comments, contemporary, pp. 158, 359 n. 67
    • S 1264. Comments, contemporary, pp. 137-8, 159, 359 n. 67, 361 n. 76
    • S 1265. Comments, authentic, although all three elements of dating clause ae inconsistent, pp. 51-2, 155-7, 340 n. 49
    • S 1266. Comments, MS 1 contemporary, pp. 360 n. 67, 361 n. 76
    • S 1267. Comments, no suspicious features, pp. 136, 182, 363 n. 20
    • S 1268. Comments, original, witnesses on dorse added by second scribe, pp. 156-7, 357 n. 10, 360-1 n. 70
    • S 1269. Comments, scribe also wrote S 1197, p. 361 n. 70
    • S 1276. Comments, scribe also wrote S 327, 331, pp. 361 n. 70
    • S 1288. Comments, incarnation date tampered with, indiction narrows possibilities to 905 or 920, pp. 214, 369 n. 17
    • S 1291. Comments, pp. 240-1, 376 n. 113
    • S 1378. Comments, spurious, p. 384 n. 81
    • S 1386. Comments, cited, p. 290
    • S 1389. Comments, cited, p. 298
    • S 1400. Comments, contemporary, p. 388 n. 140
    • S 1414. Comments, Latin version of English will of 830s or 840s, with some later interpolations, date probably added, pp. 139-41, 323
    • S 1428b. Comments, p. 80
    • S 1431a. Comments, contemporary, pp. 126, 359 n. 67
    • S 1431b. Comments, contemporary, pp. 179, 359 n. 76
    • S 1434. Comments, original, pp. 184-5, 192, 361 n. 76, 364 nn. 28 & 31
    • S 1436. Comments, on estates, context, and scribe, pp. 104-5, 180-3, 322-3, 360-1 n. 70
    • S 1438. Comments, estate probably at East Malling; on background; on MSS and script; scribe of MS 1 also wrote S 1268 and 1204a, disputes identification with scribe of S 298, pp. 136-7, 146-7, 197-201, 323-5, 360 n. 70
    • S 1447. Comments, p. 249
    • S 1464. Comments, MS 2 written in gospel-book by same scribe at same time as S 1466, a later agreement concerning the same land, so cannot be contemporary, pp. 301-2
    • S 1465. Comments, dated 1035 in main Christ Church cartulary, but 1032 in a 15th-century list of benefactors, either date possible, pp. 295, 387 n. 117
    • S 1466. Comments, MS 2 written in gospel-book by same scribe at same time as S 1464, an earlier agreement concerning the same land, pp. 301-2
    • S 1467. Comments, pp. 293, 298-9, 387 n. 112
    • S 1471. Comments, pp. 105, 148, 302-3, 354-5 n. 65
    • S 1482. Comments, contemporary, written in two stages by different scribes (main text and Abba's subscription, then other subscriptions and Heregyth's bequest), there may have been little lapse of time between the two transactions, pp. 147, 354 n. 60, 360 n. 70, 361 n. 76
    • S 1488. Comments, pp. 286-7, 385 n. 89
    • S 1506. Comments, shows Christ Church estate being farmed to Kentish nobles, pp. 28, 236-7, 375 n. 95
    • S 1508. Comments, p. 173
    • S 1510. Comments, scribe also wrote S 296, 1194, pp. 148, 159 and 357 n. 22, 361 n. 70
    • S 1511. Comments, on Meopham, pp. 221, 371 n. 45