^{page 59 note 2} Cartularium Saxonicum (hereafter cited as CS), ed. W. de G. Birch (1885–93), no. 669.

^{page 59 note 3} Crawford Charters, iv.

^{page 59 note 4} Ibid., p. 65.

^{page 59 note 5} English Historical Review, xxix (1914), 702.

^{page 59 note 6} Drögereit, R., ‘Gab es eine angelsächsische Königskanzlei ?’, Archiv für Urkundenforschung, xiii (1935), 434Google Scholar; Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, ii (1954–8), 195Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 1} Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxxix (1966), 11Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 2} Crawford Charters, p. 67.

^{page 63 note 1} Crawford Charters, p. 2.

^{page 63 note 2} Finberg, H.P. R., Lucerna (1964), pp. 110–13Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 3} ‘.… ut ilia [sc. familia] earn sine expeditionis profectione. arcis pontis constructione. omnique regalium vel secularium tributorum seruitutis exactione. liberaliter ac eternaliter in perpetuum habeat. si autem … aliqui ex familia. quod libet iniquitatis facinus commisserint, hoc in eis iudicialiter atque regulariter uindicetur. predictus agellus in sua stabilitate. semper fratribus ad mensam. qui in antefato ergasterio, domino eclesie. domno prelato. humiliter fideliterque obtemperare uoluerint. firmus et inauferabilis perduret. nec habeant fratres licentiam. illum foras dandi. regi. episcopo. uel cuilibet homini. nisi alium maiorem atque meliorem. pro eius uicissitudinis commotatione. alia similiter cum cartula. perpetualiter hereditaria recipiant.’

^{page 64 note 1} Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vi (1955), 143–55Google Scholar.

^{page 64 note 2} Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, A. J. (1956), p. 31Google Scholar.

^{page 64 note 3} R. Drögereit, op. cit., pp. 335–436; Stenton, F. M., The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (1955), p. 54Google Scholar. Dr. Chaplais suggests that clerks of the Winchester scriptorium were employed for this purpose.—Journal of the Society of Archivists, iii (1965), 59Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 1} Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Wessex (1964), p. 205Google Scholar, n. 3.

^{page 65 note 2} The draftsman of CS 1074 was evidently convinced that they did so. This is a charter given by Edgar in 961, which reproduces verbatim the formulas of Athelstan's reign, including ‘sine jugo exosae servitutis’. But since this could be taken to imply complete exemption, a clause was added expressly reserving the three common dues.

^{page 65 note 3} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 927.

^{page 66 note 1} British Museum, Stowe charter 34; Ordnance Survey Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (1878–84), iii, no. 35.

^{page 66 note 2} CS 12 8 5, a Wilton charter.

^{page 66 note 3} J. M. Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici (1839–48) (hereafter cited as K), no. 744, dated 1031.

^{page 66 note 4} K 698.

^{page 66 note 5} Ælfmaer, K 629, dated 981; Ælfwine, K 641 (984); Æthelsige, K 687 (994) and a Hyde charter of 988 (Liber de Hyda, pp. 238–42; I have to thank Dr. C. R. Hart for this reference.); Eadric and Osulf, K 705 (1001).

^{page 66 note 6} Journal of the Society of Archivists, iii (1965), 60Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 7} cf. K 622, 632,633.

^{page 67 note 1} CS 1027.

^{page 67 note 2} Hoskins, W. G., The Westward Expansion of Wessex (Leicester Univ. Press, 1960), p. 33Google Scholar. The original belongs to the Marquess of Anglesey, When editing it (ibid., pp. 33–5), I remarked that no explanation could be offered of its presence among Lord Anglesey's muniments, most of which relate to the lands of Burton Abbey in Staffordshire. A highly probable explanation is that he inherited it from his ancestor William Paget, the first baron (1505–63), who is named by John Bale, in a letter dated 30th July 1560, as one of those who had collected many documents after the dissolution of the monasteries. Trans. Cambridge Antiquarian Soc, iii (1865–78), 173.

^{page 68 note 1} According to Mr. Bishop, Trans. Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. ii, 195, 196.

^{page 68 note 2} ‘ea condicione ut ipse habeat utensque feliciter fruendo possideat quamdiu vivat, et se de hoc migrante saeculo cuicumque illi placabile sit liberam … in perpetuum in eadem libertate relinquendi licentiam habeat.’

^{page 68 note 3} K 635 (A.D. 983), a meadow outside Winchester for Æthelgar, bishop of Selsey; K 640 (also 983), a fishery on the Darent for Ethelwold of Winchester. In both cases the property is outside the bishop's own diocese. K 647 (985) is a grant to the king's ‘faithful priest’ Wulfric, probably a royal clerk or chaplain. K 689, 690 deal with an estate pledged to Æscwig, bishop of Dorchester, by Archbishop Sigeric in return for a loan of ready money, and now ‘booked’ to him in order that he may restore it to Sigeric's successor.

^{page 69 note 1} K 719.

^{page 69 note 2} Crawford Charters, x, p. 23. It would be particularly interesting if we could agree with Dr. Chaplais that both the will and Ethelred's charter were written by the same scribe (Bulletin of the Inst. of Historical Research, xxxix (1966), 21Google Scholar); but there is a marked difference between them in the writing of the letter ð.

^{page 69 note 3} The Devonshire Domesday and Geld Inquest (Plymouth, 1884–92), p. 98Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 1} MS. Eng. hist. a. 2, no. iia.

^{page 70 note 2} The mistake is unfortunately repeated in Mr. P. H. Sawyer's Annotated List and Bibliography of Anglo-Saxon charters (Royal Historical Soc. Guides and Handbooks, No. 8), p. 135, no. 255.

^{page 71 note 1} W. G. Hoskins, op. cit., p. 14.

^{page 76 note 1} Feudal Aids, i, 373; Trans. Devon Assoc. (here-after cited as DA), liv (1922), 153 ; An Old Exeter Manuscript, ed. O. J. Reichel and W. E. Mugford (supplement to Devon Notes and Queries, iv) (Exeter, 1907), p. 26.

^{page 76 note 2} CS iii (dated A.D.704), 154(736),214(774,) 230 (779), 326 (808), 339 (811), 341 (812), 370 (822), 373 (823), 380 (c. 830), 381 (824), 411 (833),442(843),496(858),497 (859), 507(863). All of these are parchments which either are or appear to be contemporary with the transactions they record. Their consensus creates a reasonable presumption that where the text is preserved only in a later copy, as in CS 143 (725), 166 (718 × 745), 207 (772), the Old English bounds are an interpolation. In this respect the contrast between CS 229 and 230 both dated 779, the one from a twelfth-century cartulary, the other an original, is instructive.

^{page 76 note 3} 05225,245. Earlier examples are found only in late copies.

^{page 77 note 1} Crawford Charters, pp. 41, 44.

^{page 77 note 2} Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall (Leicester, 1953), pp. 21–32Google Scholar, reprinted in Lucerna, pp. 116–30.

^{page 77 note 3} CS 694. The phrase in Æthelwulf's charter ‘sive taxationibus quod nos dicimus witeræder' is clumsily altered to ‘atque expeditionalibus videlicet taxationibus', and bridge-work, which Æthelwulf had reserved, is not reserved by Athelstan.

^{page 77 note 4} Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of Wessex (Leicester, 1964), pp. 18 7–213Google Scholar. In her review of this book Professor Dorothy Whitelock argues at some length that both of Æthelwulf's ‘decimation’ charters are spurious. She seems to think the first one was probably concocted at Sherborne and Malmesbury after the Norman Conquest, when these monasteries were in contact (not before?), and she cites Athelstan's diploma of 933 as suggesting that Sherborne borrowed the immunity clause from Crediton instead of vice versa. She does not explain why the two decimation charters, if spurious, were dated ten years apart and provided with different preambles, verba dispositiva, anathemas, and witness-lists. Much of her argument runs counter to her own earlier observation that ‘from time to time formulae are revived after apparently being discontinued for a long period’ English Historical Documents, i (1955), p. 341). She concludes with the remark that before accepting any views based on the assumption that Æthelwulf's decimation charters are reliable, ‘one would like to see the diplomatic evidence set out’ (English Historical Review, lxxxi (1966), 102Google Scholar). It is in fact set out on pp. 206–13 of the book she is reviewing, where the texts in question are printed in full, with an apparatus criticus of variant readings from the oldest manuscripts.

^{page 78 note 1} Chadwick, H. M., Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), p. 183Google Scholar n.

^{page 78 note 2} Maitland, F. W., Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge, 1907), p. 269Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 3} CS 799; cf. CS 728.

^{page 78 note 4} CS 1303.

^{page 78 note 5} W. G. Hoskins, op. cit., pp. 26–9. I venture to propose a different interpretation of the eighth landmark, ‘where Rush-brook strikes on Nymet’. Stevenson, I think, was right in taking ‘Nymet’ here to mean the River Yeo, and the Rush-brook will then be the brook which joins the Yeo near Stopgate Cross (733055). From that point the boundary goes ‘east along Rush-brook to Sheep-brook’, which are identical with landmarks 65 and 66 of the Crediton boundary (above, p. 75). This interpretation implies that there were two Rush-brooks less than a mile apart, but such poverty of local nomenclature is no more surprising than the occurrence of two ‘Nymets’ in the Crediton bounds, one signifying the Troney, the other the western Yeo. My interpretation has the effect of excluding Bradiford from the grant to Ælfhere, and it is supported by Reichel's identification of Bradiford with the separate Domesday manor of Oluardesdona DA, liv (1922), 153Google Scholar n. 2).

^{page 78 note 6} The Devonshire Domesday and Geld Inquest, p. 252.

^{page 78 note 7} The Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall, 2nd ed. (1963), p. 14, no. 53; W. G. Hoskins, op. cit., p. 29, no. 52a.

^{page 79 note 1} H. P. R. Finberg, Lucerna, pp. 116–30. One rectification should be made. The modern name of ‘Lamford’ is ‘Lambert’, and old maps show a Lambert Cottage at 774945. The ford of landmark 5 (p. 126) is therefore in all probability East Ford (789955).

^{page 79 note 2} I have to thank Professor F. Wormald, Mr. N. R. Ker, and Mr. T. A. M. Bishop for giving me their opinions on the script.

^{page 79 note 3} Devonshire Domesday, pp. xxi, 252.

^{page 79 note 4} VCH Devon, i, 540; PND, p. 368.

^{page 80 note 1} DA, liv (1922), 159.

^{page 80 note 2} Devonshire Domesday, pp. 430, 512.

^{page 80 note 3} Cam, H. M., ‘Early Groups of Hundreds’, in Historical Essays in honour of James Tait (Manchester, 1933), pp. 13–25Google Scholar, esp. pp. 14, 15; Harmer, F. E., Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), pp. 266–70Google Scholar, 482–6; John, E., Land Tenure in Early England (Leicester, 1960), pp. 119–22Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 1} H. P. R. Finberg, Lucerna, pp. 99–112, 121–4; W. G. Hoskins, op. cit., pp. 7–22.

^{page 81 note 2} CS 799, the Brampford Speke charter.

^{page 81 note 3} CS451.

^{page 81 note 4} Crawford Charters, p. 44.

^{page 81 note 5} Ordgar, ealdorman of Devon, who died in 971, left two sons, one of whom was buried at Tavistock before 981. He may have been the Ælfsige of the Treable charter, for the ealdorman's other son, Ordulf, is recorded as freeing a serf at Bodmin ‘for the soul of Ælfsige.’—Lucerna, pp. 190–3.

^{page 81 note 6} Eighebera (Eggbeer), 2½ yardlands, with Lanforda (Lambert), 1 y., both held by Leofgar; Lantford (Great Lambert), 1 y.; Ceritona (Cheriton), 1 y.; Midelanda (Medland), 1 hide; Cuma (Coombe), 1 y.—all four held by Ælfstan. By 1086 Leofgar's portion has been divided between two holders.—Devonshire Domesday, pp. 514, 1088, 1158, 1160.

^{page 82 note 1} Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxxix (1966), 10, 32Google Scholar; but cf. T. A. M. Bishop, op. cit., p. 196: the date 1069 ‘may be no better than an earlier limit to the true date of writing’.

^{page 82 note 2} H. P. R. Finberg, The Early Charters of Wes-sex, pp. 120, 188. Two years later Beorhtric reserves bridge-work (CS 282; see also CS 389, dated 825). Fortress-work is not reserved in any Wessex charter of unimpeachable authority until 842 (CS 438).

^{page 82 note 3} English Historical Documents, i, p. 455. The scribe breaks off in the middle of a line with land mark 64, then begins a new line with a large initial and starts off again with a compressed version of 68 and 69. This suggests that he was not working from Crawford 11, in which the missing landmarks 65–7 are continuous and perfectly legible, but from some other manuscript which he was unable to decipher here. The same mistakes recur in the late fifteenth-century version printed as Crawford in; evidently this is based on Crawford 1, not 11.

^{page 82 note 4} Chaplais, op. cit., p. 10.

^{page 83 note 1} K 729.

^{page 83 note 2} It may be worth noting that Glastonbury preserved in its Landbok the text of a charter dated 729 by which King Æthelheard granted the abbey ten hides in the valley of the Torridge.—Finberg, Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall, p. 7.

^{page 83 note 3} Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, A. J. (Cambridge, 1939), p. 226Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 4} Devonshire Domesday, pp. xxi, 98. In this record the words ‘antequam rex Eduuardus by gnaret’ take the place of the usual ‘tempore Regis Eduuardi’.

^{page 83 note 5} Crawford Charters, pp. 9, 76; on the script, see Bishop, op. cit., pp. 195, 196.

^{page 84 note 1} The following should be added to those already cited: Hart, C. R., The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar; Chaplais, P., ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, iii (1965–6), 48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ’, ibid, iii, 160–76; John, Eric, Orbis Britanniae (Leicester), 1966Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 2} CS 720.

^{page 84 note 3} Stenton, F. M., The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (Oxford, 1955), pp. v, 11–23Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 4} English Historical Documents, i, pp. 337–49.

^{page 84 note 5} Stenton, op. cit., p. 20.

^{page 85 note 1} Lancaster, Joan C., ‘The Coventry Forged Charters’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxvii (1954), 113–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 85 note 2} Domesday Book records that Chilcomb, a manor belonging to the church of Winchester, was rated at only one hide, though it had land for sixty-eight ploughs. Behind this unusually favourable assessment lie a series of spurious or interpolated charters. When these have been discarded, there remain to be considered (1) a charter, in English, by Alfred the Great, which was read out in the presence of Ethelred II early in the eleventh century and survived until 1643, but is now lost; and (2) a writ of Ethelred II confirming Alfred's charter and decreeing that Chilcomb shall continue to be assessed at one hide for all purposes. Dr. Harmer, most judicious of editors, found no indications of falsity in this writ. She concluded that if it is a fabrication, the forger has succeeded remarkably well in giving it an appearance of authenticity. Concerning Alfred's charter Professor Whitelock remarks coldly that it ‘is not proved authentic by its survival until 1643’, and Dr. Chaplais declares —on what evidence?—that ‘it probably was no more reliable’ than the recognized forgeries. Brushing aside Dr. Harmer's suggestion that it could have been the source of certain textual similarities between Ethelred's writ and one of the forged charters, he declares them to be ‘so striking that they are likely to be the works of the same forger’. This is surely a gratuitous assumption. It is quite as likely that a forger would be careful not to repeat himself in so many words. Having thus done his best to under mine every one of the documents, Dr. Chaplais leaves the reader to infer that the unparalleled hidation of Chilcomb was obtained by fraud. Maitland was inclined to think so too, in spite of his own salutary warning against such nihilistic criticism, —Finberg, Early Charters of Wessex, pp. 220–48; Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, pp. 373–80, 395; Whitelock, , English Historical Review, lxxxi (1966), 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chaplais, , Journal of the Soc. of Archivists, iii (1965–6), 171Google Scholar; Maitland, op. cit., pp. 269, 497.

^{page 85 note 3} Ker, N. R., ‘Hemming's Cartulary’, in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke (Oxford, 1948), pp. 48–75Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 1} Finberg, Lucerna, p. 134. Professor White lock declares (Joe. cit.) that the presence of Swithun in both witness-lists of CS 423, another Winchester charter, shows that it has been tampered with. She would perhaps have reconsidered this judgement had she noticed that the anachronism is pointed out on p. 30 and the obvious textual emendation supplied on p. 16 of the book she is reviewing.