^{page 211 note 1} This review covers the period up to the end of August 1973.

^{page 211 note 2} The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents, ed. Napier, A. S. and Stevenson, W. H. (Oxford, 1895), p. viii.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. Harmer, F. E. (Manchester, 1952).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} English Historical Documents 1, ed. Dorothy, Whitelock (London, 1955), pp. 337–5 and 440–556.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Stenton, F. M., The Latin Charters of the Asiglo-Saxon Period (Oxford, 1955).Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 1} Ed. Sawyer, P. H., Hist, R.. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall (Leicester, 1953, 2nd ed. 1963)Google Scholar; Finberg, , The Early Charters of the West Midlands (Leicester, 1961)Google Scholar; Finberg, , The Early Charters of Wessex (Leicester, 1964)Google Scholar; Hart, C. R., The Early Chariers of Essex (Leicester, 1957, 2nd ed. 1971)Google Scholar; and Hart, , The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} Finberg, , Wessex, p. 20Google Scholar. Cf. Finberg, , West Midlands, p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Tessier, G., Diplomatique Royale Française (Paris, 1962)Google Scholar; Dölger, F., Byzantinische Urkundenlebre (Munich, 1968)Google Scholar; and Bresslau, H., Handbucb der Urkundenlebre für Deutscbland and Italien, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1912–1931).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Barlow, F., The English Church 1000–1066 (London, 1963), p. 127, n. 2Google Scholar, and Finberg, , Wessex, p. 199Google Scholar, and ‘Fact and Fiction from Crediton’, West Country Historical Studies (Newton Abbot, 1969), pp. 65–9.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to AD 1100, ed. Bishop, T. A. M. and Chaplais, P. (Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 5} ibid. pp. xii–xiii and pls. xviii and xxiiib.

^{page 215 note 1} ibid. pp. xx–xxiii.

^{page 215 note 2} Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, ed. Bruckner, A. and Marichal, R. iii and iv (Olten, 1963 and 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} Bruckner, A., ‘Zur Diplomatik der älteren angelsächsischen Urkunden’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 61, (1965), 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} The Will of Æthelgifu, trans. and examined by Dorothy, Whitelock, with Neil, Ker and Lord, Rennell, for the Roxburghe Club (Oxford, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Chaplais, P., ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1965–1969), 48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diplomas of Exeter’, Bull. of the Inst. of Hist. Research 39 (1966), 1–34Google Scholar; ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1956), 160–76Google Scholar; ‘Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas on Single Sheets: Originals or Copies?’, ibid. 315–36; ‘Who Introduced Charters into England? The Case for Augustine’, ibid. 26–42.

^{page 216 note 1} Chaplais, , ‘Diplomas of Exeter’, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} Chaplais, , ‘Some Early Diplomas’, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} BM Cotton Augustus ii. 29; Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, ed. Bond, E. A. (London, 1873–1878 henceforward cited as BMFacs) 1, 1Google Scholar and Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. de Gray Birch, W. (London, 1885–1893Google Scholar; henceforward cited as BCS), no. 45.

^{page 216 note 4} Augustus ii. 29; BMFacs 1, 2 and BCS 81.

^{page 216 note 5} Chaplais, , ‘Origin and Authenticity’, pp. 49–52Google Scholar, and ‘Augustine’, passim.

^{page 217 note 1} The only churches to be considered are Canterbury, Rochester, London and Winchester and the monasteries of St Augustine's and Lyminge. The new edition, when it covers these churches, should show whether there are local archival reasons why authentic charters of the early seventh century have not been preserved in these houses.

^{page 217 note 2} BCS 3; Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 223–5Google Scholar. As Levison points Out, the address to Eadbald is misleadingly printed by Birch. It consists simply of ‘Ego Æthelberhtus rex filio meo Eadbaldo’. The following words belong to the proem.

^{page 217 note 3} Compare the otherwise unknown King Æthelwald (adulwaldi) who was converted by Bishop Justus, and was probably a subordinate king in (west) Kent during the reign of Eadbald. See Blair, P. Hunter, ‘The Letters of Pope Boniface V and the Mission of Paulinus to Northumbria’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter, Clemoes and Kathleen, Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 4} Titillus wrote the acts of the Synod of Hertford, preserved by Bede (HE iv.5); Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969), p. 352.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Chaplais, , ‘Origin and Authenticity’, pp. 8–9Google Scholar. Evidence that the writing of ninth-century royal diplomas concerning lands in Kent was organized on a strictly diocesan basis was presented in my unpublished Oxford D.Phil. thesis, ‘The Pre-Conquest Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury’ (1969). The point should be established by the volumes in the new edition for Rochester and Christ Church.

^{page 218 note 2} Chaplais, , ‘Origin and Authenticity’, pp. 59–61Google Scholar, and Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), p. lix.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} BCS 677 and 702; BMF acs iii, 3 and 5. The dialect forms are more common in BCS 702 than in BCS 677, so it is possible that they are not a guide to the scribe's origin, but have been copied into BCS 702 from a scribal memorandum listing the bounds and the witnesses, which had been written in the region of the estate, i.e. in Sussex or Kent.

^{page 218 note 4} BCS 746, 751, 771, 772, 773, 815, 876, 882, 883, 884, 890, 893, 909, 911, 937 and 1346.

^{page 218 note 5} Chaplais, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, pp. 163–5.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Ibid. pp. 166–76; Harmer, (Writs, pp. 10–13)Google Scholar argued fot writs in Alfred's time. Barraclough, G. (‘The Anglo-Saxon Writ’, History n.s. 39 (1954), 193–215)CrossRefGoogle Scholar understood insegel to mean a signet-ring carried as a sign of credence, and stressed that the use of comparable epistolary protocols does not prove that the royal writ as we know it later was already being used for the same purposes in Alfred's reign. The reference to ‘your lord's ærendgewrit and his insegel’ is from King Alfred's Old English Version of St Augustine's Soliloquies, ed. Hargrove, H. L., Yale Stud. in Eng. 12 (New Haven, 1902), 23.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} Harmer, Writs, nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 35.

^{page 219 note 3} BM Campbell Charter xxi.5; Harmer, Writs, no. 33.

^{page 220 note 1} Harmer, (Wrils, pp. 94–101)Google Scholar follows Bresslau in suggesting that the double-sided English royal seal originated with Cnut, who had two kingdoms, and that its design was modelled on the (one-sided) seal of Emperor Conrad II, whose Coronation in 1027 Cnut attended. Dr Chaplais (‘Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 175) draws attention to the numismatic evidence that Edward's seal may have been the work of the German engraver, Theodoric, who, it is suggested, made the dies for the coins of the later part of Edward the Confessor's reign. See Dolley, R. H. M. and Jones, F. Elmore, ‘A New Suggestion Concerning the So-Called Martlets in the Arms of St Edward’, Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies presented to F. M. Stenton, ed. Dolley, R. H. M. (London, 1961), pp. 215 and 220Google Scholar. The two positions are not incompatible.

^{page 220 note 2} Bishop, and Chaplais, , Facsimiles, pp. xii–xiii, xvi–xix and plsGoogle Scholar. ix and xxv a. Their tentative suggestion that the similar hands of BM Cotton Augustus ii.80 and Campbell Charter xxi.5(pls. i and v) might represent ‘the style of the royal chancery script’ under Edward the Confessor is doubted by Dr Chaplais in his more recent article, ‘Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 175.

^{page 220 note 3} Barraclough, ‘Anglo-Saxon Writ’, pp. 213–15.

^{page 220 note 4} BCS 337 and 363; Chaplais, , ‘Some Early Diplomas’, pp. 335–6Google Scholar. Compare Levison's judgement in England and the Continent, pp. 255–8.

^{page 221 note 1} Drögereit, R., ‘Kaiseridee und Kaisertitel bei den Angelsachsen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Germ. Abt. 69 (1952), 24–73Google Scholar. Drögereit's arguments on the ‘imperial’ charters of the tenth century were summarized by Loyn, H. R., ‘The Imperial Style of the Tenth-Century Anglo-Saxon Kings’, History n.s. 40 (1955), 111–15.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} John, E., Land Tenure in England (Leicester, 1958), pp. 95–8Google Scholar; ‘An Alleged Worcester Charter of the Reign of Edgar’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 41 (1958), 60–3Google Scholar; and Orbis Britanniae (Leicester, 1966), pp. 52–6Google Scholar; and Stengel, E. E., ‘Imperator und Imperium bei den Angelsachsen’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforscbung des Mittelalters 16 (1960), 15–72Google Scholar, repr. Stengel, E. E., Zum Kaisergedanken im Mittelalter (Cologne, 1965), pp. 289–342.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} BCS 289; Stengel, , ‘Imperator’, pp. 38–54 and 69–72Google Scholar. A better edition of this charter using ultra-violet photography is in Bruckner and Marichal, Chartae 111(no. 191).

^{page 221 note 4} Vollrath-Reichelt, H., Königsgedanke and Königtum bei den Angelsachsen his zur Mitte des 9 Jabrbunderts, Kölner Historische Abhandlungen 19 (Cologne, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} ibid. pp. 151–76. Miss Reichelt's rejection of BCS 195 and 196 is not based on any analysis of their diplomatic; neither the somewhat inflated style of BCS 195 nor the attestation of the otherwise unknown bishop, Badenoth, in BCS 196 constitutes grounds for suspicion. Her analysis of the ‘Aldhun affair’ involves a very forced interpretation of BCS 332 and she ignores the fact that Offa quashed not only Egbert's grants to Aldhun and to Christ Church (BCS 293) but also his grants to Rochester. Compare BCS 227 and 228 with BCS 257.

^{page 222 note 1} John, Land Tenure. See the important reviews by Whitelock, D. (Amer. Hist. Rev. 66 (1960–1961), 1009–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and further correspondence, ibid. 67 (1961–2), 582–4) and Loyn, H. R. (History n.s. 46 (1961), 233–5).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} John, E., ‘Folkland Reconsidered’, Orbis Britanniae, pp. 64–127.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} Volirath-Reichelt, , Königsgedanke, pp. 65–8 and 192–225.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} The references from Anglo-Saxon diplomas were collected by Stevenson, W. H., ‘Trinoda Necessitas’, EHR 29 (1914), 689CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 3. See also Nicholas, Brooks ‘The Development of Military Obligations in Eighth- and Ninth-Century England’, England before ibe Conquest, ed. Clemoes, and Hughes, , pp. 69–70 and 76–8.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 5} John, E., ‘The Imposition of Common Burdens on the Lands of the English Church’, Bull. of the Inst. of Hist. Research 31 (1958), 117–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. Land Tenure, pp. 64–79, and Brooks, , ‘Development’, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Studies of the bounds of individual charters in the last twenty years are too numerous to be fully listed here. Amongst the more important are: Thomson, T. R., ‘The Early Bounds of Purton and a Pagan Sanctuary’, Wiltshire Archaeol. Mag. 55 (1954–1955), 353–63Google Scholar; ‘The Bounds of Ellandune c. 956’, ibid. 56 (1955–6), 265–70; ‘The Early Bounds of Wanborough and Little Hinton’, ibid. 57(1958–70), 203–11; and (with R. E. Sandell) ‘Saxon Land Charters of Wiltshire’, ibid. 58 (1961–3), 442–6; Finberg, H. P. R., ’The Treable Charter’, Devon and Cornwall, pp. 20–31Google Scholar; ‘The Hallow-Hawling Charter’, West Midlands, pp. 184–96; ‘Some Crediton Documents Reexamined’, AntJ 48 (1968), 59–86Google Scholar, repr. with emendations as ‘Fact and Fiction from Crediton’, West Country Studies, pp. 29–69; and ‘Two Acts of State’, ibid. pp. 11–28; Gelling, M., ‘The Boundaries of the Westminster Charters’, Trans. of the London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc. n.s. 11 (1954), 101–4Google Scholar; Hart, C., ‘Some Dorset Charter Boundaries’, Proc. of the Dorset Nat. Hist. and Archaeol. Soc. 86 (1964), 158–63Google Scholar; and Bonney, D. J., ‘Two Tenth-Century Charters Concerning Lands at Avon and Collingbourne’, Wiltshire Archaeol. Mag. 64 (1969), 56–64.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Finberg, ‘Treable Charter’, ‘Hallow-Hawling Charter’ and ‘Some Crediton Documents’.

^{page 223 note 3} As for example BCS 335 of the year 811, which survives in two versions: BM Cotton Augustus ii. 10 of saec. ix (1) and BM Stowe Charter 10 of saec. x (2), which includes boundaries of two additional estates. An object lesson in the need to study the boundaries of charters in conjunction with the diplomatic, palaeographical and linguistic evidence (or with the collaboration of experts in these fields) is provided by the way in which Professor Finberg has had to retract the exciting conclusions that he first drew from the bounds of BCS 1331 and of the Treable charter of 976. Compare Finberg, Devon and Cornwall, pp. 20–31, with West Country Studies, pp. 44–61.

^{page 224 note 1} Professor Finberg's identification of the bounds of the famous South Hams charter of 846 (BCS 451), by which King Æthelwulf booked twenty hides of land to himself makes the estate covcr an area which in 1086 was assessed at more than three times this number of hides. Yet there is evidence to suggest that the hidage assessment of Devon and of Cornwall was remarkably stable in the tenth and eleventh centuries, for the four Devon boroughs in the Burghal Hidage are given a garrison drawn from 1, 534 hides, which equals the combined assessment of Devon and Cornwall in Domesday Book. For the Burghal Hidage, see Robertson, A. J., Anglo-Saxon Charters (Cambridge, 1939), p. 246Google Scholar. We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that men from Cornwall had to go to help defend and repair the boroughs in west Devon, and that the assessment of these shires remained unchanged over nearly two centuries. To maintain Professor Finberg's identification of the bounds of the South Hams charter, one would need to suppose that the assessment of this part of Devon was drastically increased between 846 and the early tenth century, when the Burghal Hidage was compiled. Evidence for such increases in assessment is entirely lacking.

^{page 224 note 2} O'Donovan, M. A., ‘An Interim Revision of Episcopal Dates for the Province of Canterbury, 850–950’, ASE 1 (1972), 23–44 and 2 (1973) 91–113Google Scholar. See also Dorothy, Whitelock, ‘The PreViking Age Church in East. Anglia’, ASE 1 (1972), 1–22, esp. 59–22.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Harrison, K., ‘The Annus Domini in some Early Charters’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 4 (1970–1973), 551–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He discusses BCS 42, 43, 51 and 72. Only BCS 42 has no evident connection with Wilfrid. Yet it shows Wilfrid's friend and protector, King Æthelred of Mercia, intervening in Kent by force in January 691 (‘dum ille infirmaverat terram nostram’) at a time when the see of Canterbury was vacant. Wilfrid was by this time again running into difficulties with the Northumbrian king, and his biographer claims that he had been offered the succession to the see of Canterbury by Archbishop Theodore himself. See Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 86–92Google Scholar. The problem of the succession to the see of Canterbury after Theodore's death will be fully discussed in my Early History of the Church of Canterbury, in preparation.

^{page 225 note 2} Harrison, K., ‘The Beginning of the Year in England c. 500–900’, ASE 2 (1973), 51–70Google Scholar. I am grateful to Mr Harrison for showing me a typescript of his article in advance of publication.

^{page 225 note 3} Grumel, V. (‘La Chronologie Byzantine’, Traité d'Études Byzantines, ed. Lemerle, P. 1 (Paris, 1958), 193–205)Google Scholar has the best discussion of the use of the autumn equinox as the beginning of the civil year, and hence of the indiction, in the eastern Roman Empire; he also shows its association with the feast of the conception of St John the Baptist (24 September in the west, 23 in the east), and with the birth of Emperor Augustus (23 September), and fixes as precisely as possible the change from the equinoctial indiction to that beginning on I September. Long after this change eastern liturgical calendars continued to record the beginning of the indiction and the conception of St John on 23 September. The most likely source of the transmission of the equinoctial indiction to England is, as Grumel suggests, a Roman calendar with some eastern entries. An English calendar of saec. xi(2) (Cambridge, University Library, Kk. v. 32) has under 24 September an addition of saec. xi–xii, ‘Hic incipiuntur indictiones et finiuntur’. See English Kalendars before AD 1100, ed. Wormald, F., Henry Bradshaw Soc. 72 (London, 1933), 78Google Scholar. The source may, however, have been Bede rather than calendar tradition.

^{page 226 note 1} Poole, R. L., Studies in Chronology and History (Oxford, 1934), pp. 38–55Google Scholar. Levison, (England and the Continent, pp. 265–79)Google Scholar and Harrison, (‘Beginning of the Year’, pp. 55–9)Google Scholar have destroyed Poole's theory that Bede's Year of Grace began on 24 September. Kirby, D. P. (‘Bede and Northumbrian Chronology’, EHR 78 (1963), 517–18)Google Scholar has drawn attention to the difficulties of fixing the date of the Synod of Hatfield from the regnal years of the kings listed in the protocol; in particular he notes that Kentish charters (BCS 36 and 44) suggest that King Hlothere succeeded in 674 rather than 673. Cf. Bede, HE iv.17. This, together with Bede's date for Æthelred of Mercia's succession (675; HE v.24), points to the synod having taken place in 680 not 679. Chaplais (‘Some Early Diplomas’, pp. 324–5) emphasized that Bede's indiction both began and ended on 24 September, i.e. the change occurred on the 24th, probably at sunset; Bede could therefore regard an event which happened on 24 September as occurring on the last day of the old indiction, and he therefore dated the Synod of Hertford 673 rather than 672. Taken together these facts explain why Bede dated these councils 673 and 680, and suggest that he was right to do so. The only evidence for the ‘Greek’ indiction in England may therefore be a chimera.

^{page 226 note 2} Carlton, C., Descriptive Syntax of the Old English Charters, JL ser. practica 3 (The Hague, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 226 note 3} Oldest English Texts, ed. Sweet, H., Early Eng. Text Soc. o.s. 83 (London, 1885), 420–60.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} ibid. p. 424.

^{page 226 note 5} Thus the charters described by Sweet as ‘Kentish’ (ibid. pp. 443–53; nos. 34 and 37–44) were regarded as pure West Mercian by Vleeskruyer, R. (The Lift of St Chad (Amsterdam, 1953), p. 47)Google Scholar, but as Kentish with some influence of Mercian spelling by Campbell, A. (Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1964), §§ 307 and 314Google Scholar, and The Vespasian Psalter, ed. Wright, D. H. and Campbell, A., EEMF 14 (Copenhagen, 1967), 85–6)Google Scholar and as Kentish by Wilson, R. M. (‘The Provenance of the Vespasian Psalter Gloss: the Linguistic Evidence’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), 302–4.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} Sisam, K., ‘Canterbury, Lichfleld, and the Vespasian Psalter’, RES n.s. 8 (1956), 1–10 and 113–31.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} Bullough, D. A., ‘The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to Ælfric: Teaching Utriusque Linguae’, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Stadi sull' Alto Medioevo 19 (1972), 466–78.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 3} Lowe, E. A., English Uncial (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar, and Codices Latini Antiquiores II: Great Britain and Ireland, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar; Ker, Catalogue; and Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1954–1958), 185–99 and 323–36, and 3 (1959–63), and 93–5 and 412–23Google Scholar; ‘A Charter of King Edwy’, Bodleian Lib. Record 6 (1957), 369–73Google Scholar; and English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} Ker, N. R., ‘Hemming's Cartulary: a Description of the Two Worcester Cartularies in Cotton Tiberius A.xiii’, Studies in Mediaeval History presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. Hunt, R. W., Pantin, W. A. and Southern, R. W. (Oxford, 1948), pp. 49–75Google Scholar, and Wormald, F., ‘The Sherborne Cartulary’, Fritz Saxl Memorial Essays, ed. Gordon, D. J. (London, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, E. O., R. Hist. Soc., Camden 3rd ser. 92 (London, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} Finberg, , Wessex, pp. 16–18 and 214–48Google Scholar, and Hart, , ‘The Codex Wintoniensis and the King's Haligdom’, Land Church, and People: Essays presented to H. P. R. Finberg, Agricultural Hist. Rev. 18 Supplement (1970), 7–38.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} Stenton, , Latin Charters, pp. 19–20Google Scholar. Compare Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 78, where a layman even gets the settlement of a land dispute entered into the gospel book of the local cathedral church (Hereford).

^{page 228 note 5} John, E., ‘An Alleged Worcester Charter of the Reign of Edgar’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 41 (1958), 54–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘St Oswald and the Tenth-Century Reformation’, JEH 9 (1958), 147–68Google Scholar, repr. Orbit Britanniae, pp. 234–48; ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 42 (1959), 61–87Google Scholar, repr. Orbit Britanniae, pp. 154–80; ‘Some Latin Charters of the Tenth-Century Reformation’, RB 70 (1960), 333–59Google Scholar; ‘Some Alleged Charters of King Edgar for Ely’, Orbit Britanniae, pp. 210–33; ‘The Church of Winchester and the Tenth-Century Reformation’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 47 (1964–1965), 404–29.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} John, , Orbis Britanniae, pp. 207–9 and 228Google Scholar, and ‘Church of Winchester’, pp. 405–7, and Chaplais, , ‘Origin and Authenticity’, p. 60Google Scholar, and ‘Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 165.

^{page 229 note 2} John, ‘King and Monks’, passim.

^{page 229 note 3} John, ‘St Oswald’, and ‘The Altitonantis Charter’, Land Tenure, pp. 162–7.

^{page 229 note 4} Darlington, R. R., The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory, Pipe Roll Soc. 76 (1962–1963), xii–xixGoogle Scholar, and P. H. Sawyer, ‘Charters of the Reform Movement: the Worcester Archive’, forthcoming in the publication of the Rergularis Concordia Conference of 1970. I am indebted to Professor Sawyer for showing me a copy of his article before publication.

^{page 229 note 5} John, , Land Tenure, pp. 80–139.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 1} John, ‘Some Latin Charters’. The charters are BCS 1046, 1047, 1187, 1282 and 1284 and Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, ed. Kemble, J. M., 6 vols. (London, 1839–1948Google Scholar; henceforward cited as KCD), no. 684.

^{page 230 note 2} KCD 684 and BCS 1282. Cf. Chaplais, , ‘Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 165.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 3} John, ‘Some Alleged Charters’; Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, , pp. 454–5Google Scholar; and Pope, J., ‘Æfric and the Old English Version of the Ely Privilege’, England before the Conquest, ed. Clemoes, and Hughes, , pp. 85–113.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 4} Finberg, , Wessex, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 5} ibid. p. 199. The quotation comes from Stenton, , Latin Charters, p. 15Google Scholar, where Sir Frank was criticizing Stevenson's hasty and unbalanced comments upon some of the Muchelney charters; but Stenton's overall appreciation of Stevenson's methods of detailed diplomatic analysis is shown on pp. 7–10 of the same work.