Show all data

• Metadata

  O'Donovan 1972. O'Donovan, M. A., 'An Interim Revision of Episcopal Dates for the Province of Canterbury, 850–950, I', Anglo-Saxon England 1 (1972), 23–44. 43 charters cited.

  • S 193. Comments, unpromising but may be acceptable, pp. 43-4
  • S 196. Comments, on dating, problems with indiction and regnal year, p. 43
  • S 204. Comments, dates 843 x 845, perhaps a slightly later copy, attestation of Bishop Deorlaf of Hereford is a problem, pp. 40-1
  • S 205. Comments, dating limits must be Dec. 840 x Nov. 845, p. 44
  • S 270. Comments, on a witness, p. 30
  • S 323. Comments, dates 825 x 839, p. 30
  • S 344. Comments, indiction fits 874, p. 30
  • S 349. Comments, spurious, p. 31
  • S 351. Comments, very suspect, p. 38
  • S 360. Comments, not convincing, p. 41
  • S 361. Comments, dated 900 with indiction for 904, may belong to late 900 with indiction misread, p. 41
  • S 379. Comments, witness-list belongs to 931 x 934, p. 36
  • S 391. Comments, belongs in intention to 931 x 934, p. 36
  • S 392. Comments, dates 937/8 x 939, p. 42
  • S 404. Comments, citing Whitelock, much of witness-list taken from S 544, pp. 36-7, 38, 42
  • S 406. Comments, indiction and epact for 934, witness-list consistent with 930, p. 41
  • S 407. Comments, indiction, concurrent and epact for 934, p. 36
  • S 414. Comments, suspect, witnesses belong to 937 x 939, p. 37
  • S 415. Comments, suspect, witnesses belong to 934 or 937 x 939, p. 37
  • S 417. Comments, reputable, indiction has been miscopied but all other dating details agree, p. 42
  • S 427. Comments, suspect, discusses dating problems, p. 37
  • S 430. Comments, dated 935 but with indiction for 934, p. 37
  • S 434. Comments, suspect, secular witnesses look more suitable to 931 x 934, but ecclesiastical witnesses belong to 937, p. 36
  • S 436. Comments, spurious, p. 38
  • S 450. Comments, suspect, probably based on material from 931, pp. 33, 36
  • S 471. Comments, probably misdated, pp. 32-3
  • S 475. Comments, citing Whitelock, may not be reliable, pp. 32-3
  • S 477. Comments, on subscription of Oda of Sherborne, p. 32
  • S 478. Comments, on problem of Archbishop Oda's attestation, pp. 32-3
  • S 511. Comments, indiction, regnal year and concurrent belong to 941, epact to 939, p. 33
  • S 559. Comments, unexceptionable but date may have been miscopied, p. 37
  • S 561. Comments, on date, p. 37
  • S 562. Comments, p. 37
  • S 576. Comments, not acceptable, p. 33
  • S 650. Comments, acceptable, p. 33
  • S 652. Comments, on attestation of Archbishop Brihthelm, indiction points to 959, p. 34
  • S 658. Comments, on dating difficulties, pp. 33-4
  • S 660. Comments, p. 34
  • S 1197. Comments, p. 30
  • S 1269. Comments, date 831 in much later endosement can be disregarded, p. 30
  • S 1271. Comments, indiction for 843, regnal year for 842 x 843, p. 44
  • S 1296. Comments, pp. 34-5, 36
  • S 1451a. Comments, pp. 34-5