King Edgar's Charter for Pershore (AD 972)

'King Edgar's Charter for Pershore (AD 972)', Anglo-Saxon England 37 (2008): 31–78. © Cambridge University Press. Available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0263675109990159 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972)  .   S 786 is one of the so-called Orthodoxorum charters, a group of documents which provide important evidence about the Anglo-Saxon chancery, the development of charters in the tenth century, and the history of Pershore Abbey and the tenth-century Benedictine reforms. The document has therefore received a great deal of attention over the past century or so, but this attention has been focussed on the surviving tenthcentury single sheet, and so a second, significantly different version of the text has lain unnoticed. This second version is preserved in a copy made by John Joscelyn, Latin Secretary to Archbishop Matthew Parker. Among the material uniquely preserved in this copy are Old English charter bounds for Wyegate (GL), Cumbtune (Compton, GL?) and part of the bounds probably for Lydney (GL), as well as a reference to a grant by Bishop Werferth of Worcester. In this article both versions of the document are discussed and are published together for the first time, and a translation of the single sheet is provided. The history of the two versions is discussed in some detail, and the text of a twelfth-century letter which refers to the charter is also edited and translated. The so-called Orthodoxorum charters have long played an important role in our understanding of the tenth-century Benedictine reforms. They form a group of six charters, all purportedly issued between 959 and 993, and all surviving in multiple copies.1 They are usually considered as a group because they share many similarities in formulation, most notably the proems which are all very long, approximately the same, and in the same style of elaborate (and quite difficult) ‘hermeneutic’ or ‘poetic’ Latin.2 They are interesting with respect to the tenth-century Reforms because they all claim rights for their monastic beneficiaries such as the right to elect their own abbot from within their own 11 12 The charters are S 658 (Abingdon, dated 959), S 673 (Abingdon, dated 958 for 959), S 876 (Abingdon, dated 993), S 786 (Pershore, dated 972), S 788 (Worcester, dated 972), and S 812 (Romsey, datable 967 ! 975). In references to Anglo-Saxon charters, S " P. H. Sawyer, AngloSaxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968), followed by the number of the document. For these terms see M. Lapidge, ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (1975), 67–111, and M. Lapidge, ‘Poeticism in Pre-Conquest Anglo-Latin Prose’, in Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, ed. by T. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge, and J. N. Adams, PBA 129 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 321–37. 31 Peter A. Stokes community.3 They are also important for the debate over the production of royal charters.4 And they are of further interest because their authenticity has been debated for over a century. This latter debate is long and complex and can only be summarized briefly here. Two of the more recent protagonists are Simon Keynes and Susan Kelly; other important contributions include that by Eric John, and useful summarydiscussions have been published by both Charles Insley and John Hudson.5 In short, Simon Keynes (among others) has argued that only the latest of the group, S 876, is genuine and that the rest are forgeries, whereas Susan Kelly is one of several to argue that the earlier charters are genuine (with the exception of S 788, to which we shall return shortly). Both scholars have drawn on a long series of discussions which can be traced back nearly a century.6 The purpose of this article is not to solve the question of authenticity, although that question will certainly be in the background. Instead, the focus of this discussion is on one of these charters: the one from Pershore. This document, S 786, is unusual even by Orthodoxorum standards. It survives in an apparently original single sheet, the text of which is mostly legible but with patches of relatively extensive wear. The text is unusually long: the surviving single sheet is one of the largest to survive from Anglo-Saxon England and still the scribe could not fit all the text on the face despite his small hand but had to continue onto the dorse as well. The charter purports to be a pancart, namely a single document confirming a very large number – presumably all – of the estates held by the abbey. This format of the pancart was relatively common on the Continent but very few survive from Anglo-Saxon England, and all of the ones from there which we do have are questionable in some way; the very format is therefore grounds for suspicion.7 Given all these difficulties, the purpose of this paper is to compile and reevaluate the evidence which can be 13 14 15 16 17 For the significance of this group see especially C. Insley, ‘Where did all the Charters Go? Anglo-Saxon Charters and the New Politics of the Eleventh Century’, ANS 24 (2002), 109– 27, at 117. For this debate see especially S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’, 978–1016: a Study in their Use as Historical Evidence (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 98–104, and Charters of Abingdon Abbey, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 7–8, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2000–1) I, cxv–xxxi. Keynes, The Diplomas, pp. 98–100; Charters of Abingdon, ed. Kelly I, lxxxiv–cxv; E. John, Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies, Stud. in Early Eng. Hist. 4 (Leicester, 1966), pp. 199–206; Insley, ‘Where did all the Charters Go?’, pp. 112–13 and 116–17; Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: the History of the Church of Abingdon, ed. J. Hudson, 2 vols., OMT (Oxford, 2002–7) I, cxcv–cciv. For a full bibliography, see The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters <www.esawyer.org.uk> (last accessed 21 May 2008) under the Sawyer numbers listed above, n. 1. For pancartae, see especially John, Orbis Britanniae, p. 203; S. Keynes, ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, ANS 10 (1988), 185–222, at 203–4; S. Keynes, ‘Giso, Bishop of Wells (1061–88)’, ANS 19 (1997), 203–71, at 237. 32 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) gleaned from close examination of all the surviving manuscripts of S 786. The hope is that such a compilation will allow a better understanding of the Orthodoxorum charters in general and the Pershore one in particular. Indeed the importance of the manuscripts can readily be demonstrated as one of them, one which has long been known but apparently not closely examined, is not a copy of the surviving single-sheet charter as scholars have assumed but instead contains a significantly different version of the text, including three ‘new’ charter bounds which have not previously been studied. It is also of great importance for our understanding of Pershore Abbey, the transmission of documents, and the authenticity and larger context of the Orthodoxorum charters in general.    Peter Sawyer’s Annotated List gives five surviving copies of S 786, and this list is essentially unchanged in the Electronic Sawyer.8 There is a sixth manuscript: a modern transcript of Sawyer’s MS 2 made before the original was damaged in the Cottonian fire; this copy is generally very accurate and thus provides some readings which have otherwise been lost. The six manuscripts are therefore as follows: A London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 6 (s. x2) T London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, 163v–164r (s. xi2; contains only the bounds of Acton Beauchamp) V London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. vii, 29r–30v (s. xvi) D1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dodsworth 10 (S.C. 4152), 66r–67r (s. xvii; direct descendant of A; no bounds or witnesses) 2 D Oxford, Bodleian Library, Dodsworth 78 (S.C. 5019), 2r–3v (s. xvii; direct descendant of A; no bounds or witnesses) R Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 445, unfoliated; the text is labelled as from fol. ‘B. 160’ of exemplar (s. xvii; direct copy of T) These six manuscripts fall into three distinct textual groups, and these groups will now be discussed in further detail. The ‘Single Sheet’ Version (AD1D2) The earliest surviving copy of the document is Augustus ii. 6.9 This is a single sheet and is ostensibly original but, as noted above, its authenticity is by no means certain. It is unusually large: it is not perfectly square but measures 18 19 Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, pp. 250–1; Electronic Sawyer, no. 786. For another discussion of this manuscript see S. D. Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas: a Palaeography, Publ. of the Manchester Centre for AS Stud. 6 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 142–5. An edition of the text and translation of the Latin is given below, pp. 43–53 and 73–6. 33 Peter A. Stokes approximately 635 ! 530–40 mm, with a writing-frame of approximately 590 ! 495 mm;10 it is written in fifty-six long lines on the face and has an additional seventeen lines on the dorse.11 The text is quite badly damaged in places, particularly along the horizontal folds, in the lower right-hand corner, and about two-thirds of the way up the right-hand side of the face. The parchment was repaired at some point after the charter was reproduced in the facsimileedition of 1877.12 Unfortunately these repairs have obscured letters, so the facsimile is still a valuable witness. The scribe wrote the boundary-clauses in a smaller script than that of the main text, as was normal from about 940 onwards,13 but he used the same Insular letter-forms for both Old English and Latin; this practice of script was common up until about the start of Æthelred’s reign, after which charters were normally written in Anglo-Caroline for Latin and either Square minuscule or Vernacular minuscule for Old English.14 There is some influence of Caroline script in this scribe’s hand, however, and he did admit Caroline forms, though very infrequently: the phrase coapostolo paulo dedicatum habetur monachis in the middle of line 11 was written with three of the four occurrences of a and the first d all Caroline, as shown in Figure 1. Indeed, Caroline d and a are evident elsewhere in the document, although the round-backed ‘uncial’ d and singlecompartment a are both much more common. Similarly, tall essentially Caroline s is found before t, but the round majuscule s was normally used elsewhere, although low Insular s was also used occasionally.15 Finally, the 10 11 12 13 14 15 Thompson has noted that this is one of the two largest single-sheet charters to survive from Anglo-Saxon England, the other being BL Cotton Augustus ii. 38 (S 876), also from the Othodoxorum group. My measurements of Augustus ii. 6 are rather different from hers, however, and agree with Susan Kelly’s. See Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 20, and S. E. Kelly, ‘S 786’ (unpubl. material in preparation for her volume on the Midlands archives in the Anglo-Saxon Charters series). I thank Dr Kelly for generously providing me with a draft of her text well before publication. As noted by Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 145, no are rulings visible but, pace her, it is unlikely that the parchment was never ruled. Prickings are clearly visible on the left and occasionally on the right, and the scribe consistently maintained a very straight and horizontal baseline despite the extremely long lines of text, a feat that would require extraordinary skill if the sheet was not ruled. Much more likely is that the ruling was light and is no longer visible due to the poor condition of the parchment. Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, ed. E. A. Bond (London, 1873–8) III, 30. P. A. Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script, ca 990 – ca 1035’, 2 vols. (unpubl. Ph. D. dissertation University of Cambridge, 2005) I, 201–2; D. N. Dumville, ‘Specimina Codicum Palaeoanglicorum’, Collection of Essays in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies (Suita, Osaka, 2001), pp. 1–24, at 8–9. For this distinction see especially D. N. Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the MidCentury Phases’, ASE 23 (1994), 133–64, at 161–4. For these different forms of s in Anglo-Saxon script see N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. xxx–xxxi. 34 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) proportions are not obviously square in the way that one might expect for Square minuscule, and in particular the distinctive flat-topped a is entirely absent, the letter-form instead being more rounded and somewhat tear-drop shaped.16 Fig. 1 Variation in a, d and s in Augustus ii. 6 It is perhaps for these reasons that the script used to be dated to the eleventh century, but more recent palaeographers from T. A. M. Bishop onwards have tended to prefer the tenth century, and indeed the script seems not inconsistent with the claimed date of 972.17 In particular, as Dumville has shown, some Square minuscule which can be securely dated to the early 960s is unusually tall and narrow in its proportions and entirely lacks the flat-topped a, sometimes showing the Caroline form; it therefore has much in common with script of the early eleventh century.18 The hand of our single sheet is not so clearly tall and narrow as this form of Square minuscule, but it is written quite consistently 16 17 18 For the development of a at the end of the tenth century, see ibid., p. xxviii, and Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’, passim; for some other examples of tenth-century script showing non-Square a see Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 151–6 and plate VI. See The Victoria History of the County of Worcester, ed. J. W. Willis-Bund and H. A. Doubleday, Victoria County Hist., 5 vols. (London, 1901–26) IV, 151 and note (‘written in a hand about a century after its nominal date’, citing Frank Stenton); W. H. Stevenson, ‘Yorkshire Surveys and Other Eleventh-Century Documents in the York Gospels’, EHR 27 (1912), 1–25, at 6, n. 17 (‘about the middle of the eleventh century’); but then see P. Chaplais, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: From the Diploma to the Writ’, Prisca Munimenta: Studies in Archival and Administrative History presented to Dr A. E. J. Hollaender, ed. F. Ranger (London, 1973), pp. 43–62, at 49 (‘the script is contemporary’); John, Orbis Britanniae, p. 199 (‘nothing inconsistent . . . with its alleged date’, citing N. R. Ker); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 250 (no. 786: ‘s. x2’). For a reproduction, see Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 30. This script is Dumville’s Anglo-Saxon Square minuscule, Phase IV: see his ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 151–5. For the relationship between Phase IV Square minuscule, Anglo-Caroline, and the English Vernacular minuscule which emerged in the 990s, see especially Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, 200–8, as well as D. N. Dumville, ‘Beowulf Come Lately: Some Notes on the Palaeography of the Nowell Codex’, ASNSL 225 (1988), 49–63, and Dumville, ‘Specimina’, pp. 8–9. 35 Peter A. Stokes throughout, probably too consistently to be an eleventh-century imitation. Furthermore the forms of tall æ and e in ligature, as well as the mixture of round, tall and low s, are paralleled quite closely in some hands which were certainly or possibly written at Worcester Cathedral around the time of Oswald’s episcopacy, although those hands are otherwise quite different from this one.19 Unfortunately a full history of Anglo-Saxon Square minuscule is still to be written for the period from 960 until its demise in the early years of the eleventh century, and so dating a hand from this time at all closely is a perilous exercise.20 Nevertheless, the similarity in letter-forms and appearance with other single-sheet charters dated to the 960s is striking.21 A later date is still possible, but the short stints of Caroline script, as illustrated in Fig. 1, show none of the features which are characteristic of Anglo-Caroline minuscule from about the second quarter of the eleventh century.22 If this document is a forgery, then, it was surely written not long after the purported date, and the script suggests no more than thirty-five or perhaps forty years later at most. The single sheet received a relatively large number of alterations. Some of these are minor changes in Old English orthography which seem to have been made by the original scribe and which do not seem particularly significant except to indicate that some care was taken in writing and correcting the document.23 Perhaps related are some erasures of the Latin text, most of which are short and of little obvious significance. However, one erasure is much longer 19 20 21 22 23 The hands are in BL Additional Charter 19792 (S 1326: Worcester, dated 969 and reproduced in Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 28); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, latin 10575 (Worcester?, probably s. x/xi), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 12 (Worcester provenance; s. x2). For the dating of BN lat. 10575, see D. N. Dumville, ‘On the Dating of Some Late Anglo-Saxon Liturgical Manuscripts’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 10 (1991–5), 40–57, at 51; for CCCC 12 see Ker, Catalogue, pp. 41–2 (no. 30); for this form of Square minuscule, termed Phase VI by Dumville, see his ‘English Square Minuscule: Mid-Century Phases’, pp. 155–6, and Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, 95–6. For now see Dumville, ‘Beowulf Come Lately’, and D. N. Dumville, ‘The Beowulf Manuscript and How Not to Date it’, Med. Stud. Eng. Newsletter (Tokyo) 39 (1998), 21–7. As well as BL Add. 19792, for which see above, n. 19, other examples include those by ‘Edgar A’, specifically BL Cotton Augustus ii. 40, Cotton Augustus ii. 39, BL Harley Charter 43. C. 3, BL Cotton Charter viii. 28, and BL Stowe Charter 29 (S 687, S 690, S 703, S 706, and S 717, reproduced in Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 22, 23, 25, 24, and Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ed. W. B. Sanders, 3 vols. [Southampton, Ordnance Survey, 1878–84] III, 30 respectively). All five charters are apparently original and dated 960–3. Similarities between the script of Augustus ii. 6 and that of ‘Edgar A’ have also been noted by Kelly, ‘S 786’, and Chaplais, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery’, p. 49. For this script, called Style IV Anglo-Caroline by Dumville, see his English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030, Stud. in AS Hist. 6 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 128–31. Features characteristic of this style include the form of a and s, wedges on minims, and tapered ascenders, none of which are present in the script of Augustus ii. 6. For a full account of these alterations, see the edition of the text below, pp. 43–52. 36 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) than the others: it comes immediately after the list of estates and covers the space of about 125–30 letters or just over half a line of the charter.24 Erasures cannot usually be dated with any confidence, but this may be an exception: the last letter of the word which precedes the erasure, libertatis, seems to have been added or freshened-up: indeed, it looks as if this letter was accidentally erased along with the following passage and then written in again. Interestingly, this s has the same round form which is found elsewhere throughout the document and which is common enough in the tenth century but dropped out of use fairly quickly in the eleventh.25 The letter may have been written by a later scribe in imitation of the main hand, but if so then it was done with some sensitivity and skill; an alternative and perhaps more likely possibility is that the erasure and ‘freshening up’ were by the original scribe. One set of alterations seems to be quite different in character from the others. These are all found in the list of estates and hidages included in the grant. Several of the hidages have been altered, and these alterations do not seem to have been made by the main scribe: however, the hand looks Anglo-Saxon, insofar as one can tell from such a small sample, and so the changes were presumably made not long after the original document was written (although even a century later would be possible on palaeographical grounds, if not historical ones). In some cases, numbers were erased and different numbers were clearly written over the top. In other cases one cannot be certain of erasure but the spacing strongly suggests that this has happened. For example, the hidage for Sture now reads as ten (‘x’), but there is a gap after the numeral which suggests that the number was once longer. Similarly, the document does not specify the total number of hides, but there is a space where the number may once have been, and the letter immediately preceding the space looks like it was partially erased along with the hidage. Another possibility is that the hidages were left blank and filled in later, but most of the numerals do seem clearly to have been entered by the main scribe at the time of writing and so later erasure is the most likely explanation. Fig. 2 Examples of altered hidages in Augustus ii. 6 24 25 This gap is very clearly an erasure, as noted also by Kelly, ‘S 786’, pace Thompson, Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas, p. 143. Stokes, ‘English Vernacular Script’ I, Chapters III–IV, passim, and p. 197. 37 Peter A. Stokes Finally, one other set of interventions is visible in the document. These are sporadic underlines and one large caret-shaped symbol in the proem, one vertical stroke in the list of estates and another after the end of the first boundaryclause, and perhaps also a red bracket before another boundary-clause which is now almost entirely lost due to damage in the parchment. These marks may well have been added at different times, but the underlines and the caretsymbol appear to be in similar or identical ink, and this ink is noticeably darker than that used elsewhere in this document. These underlines and their significance will be considered shortly.26 For now it needs only be said that the charter which now survives as Augustus ii. 6 received careful attention, both when it was first written and possibly for quite some time thereafter. Fig. 3 Examples of underlines and the ‘caret’ symbol in Augustus ii. 6 Turning from this manuscript, there are two others which need also to be mentioned here. These are Dodsworth 10 and Dodsworth 78, manuscripts four and five in Sawyer’s handlist, both of which are now in the Bodleian Library in Oxford; the former is described in the summary catalogue as ‘a first draft of Dugdale and Dodsworth’s Monasticon, wherein practically the whole of its contents are incorporated’, and the latter as ‘notes from chartularies and monastic collections in the Cottonian Library’.27 Both copies descend from Augustus ii. 6 and both stop at the beginning of the vernacular bounds. Their relationship to Augustus ii. 6 is evident not only from the identical content but also because Dodsworth 78 begins with a sketch of the #$ which is found at the start of Augustus ii. 6, and both Dodsworth 10 and Dodsworth 78 contain notes referring explicitly to an exemplar in Cotton’s library.28 Furthermore, some illegible portions of the single sheet, including the long erased passage, are represented by dots in both copies. The copies are therefore of little use in establishing the text, particularly as Dodsworth 10 is extremely 26 27 28 See below, pp. 71–2. F. Madan et al., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1953) II, 872 (no. 4152) and 912 (no. 5019) respectively. ‘Ex Carta Originali penes Thomas Cotton Baronettum’ (Dodsworth 10, 66r); ‘collecta . . . in bibliotheca Cottoniana mense Decembris 1639 per me Rogerum Dodsworthe eboracensem’ (Dodsworth 78, i recto: the passage is part of the heading of a table of contents which includes the copy of S 786). 38 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) inaccurate, often containing lectiones faciliores which are ungrammatical or entirely nonsensical. Many of these errors can also be found in Dodsworth 78 but were subsequently corrected there, apparently by comparison with the original. These common errors suggest that the two copies were not made independently, and indeed one might assume that Dodsworth 10 was copied directly from Dodsworth 78.29 However, original and legible readings in Dodsworth 78 are left as lacunae in Dodsworth 10, a detail hard to explain if either one is a direct copy of the other. A case of eye-skip in Dodsworth 10 might seem to confirm copying from manuscript 78, as the skipped passage in the former (‘necnon . . . coapostolorum Paulo’) corresponds exactly to a complete line of text in the latter. However, this same passage also fits exactly between two vertical folds in Augustus ii. 6 and so the copyist may have skipped from one fold to the next while he was copying, a mistake which is easy to understand in a large document with such long lines. Indeed examination of separative variants seems to demonstrate that both copies were made from an intermediate and that Dodsworth 78 was then checked against Augustus ii. 6 at a later date. A sample of these variants is listed in Table 1, below. Augustus ii. 6 (A) Dodsworth 10 (D1) Dodsworth 78 (D2) liminibus luminibus die tu preclarus congregatio . . . . . . . . . . (series of dots) iuste aregeind the et LEANE, NAA, SUTN, LONGAH LONTRESNAA vrinam . . . (series of dots) eroba barratri . . . (series of dots) cum Saphyra iugiter . . . (series of dots) liminibus (altered from luminibus) dictu (altered from die tu or perhaps dic tu) præcluens (altered from præclarus) congregatio apto elegerit consilio . . . . . (series of dots) iuste (clear; not altered or inserted) a rege uidelicet (altered from ?tregeind the et) LEAHE, HAA, SUTH, LONGAH (clear, not altered) 7 on TRESHAA (clear; not altered) ueniam nec in theorica (clear; not altered or inserted) barathri incendiis trusus cum (last word altered from ?lugubris; incendiis unclear) Saphyra iugiter miserrimus cruciatur. (clear; not altered or inserted) dictu præcluens congregatio apto elegerit consilio secundum [. . .] abbatem iuste a rege uidelicet LEAHE, HAM, SUTH, LONGAN 7 on TRESHAM ueniam nec in theorica (written across fold) barathri incendiis trusus cum (written across fold) Saphyra iugiter miserrimus cruciatur. Table 1 Sample collation from AD1D2 29 A pencilled note on Dodsworth 10, 66r, has an O with a circle around it followed by ‘fol. 2’, a clear reference to the copy in Dodsworth 78; for these shelfmarks of letters within shapes see J. Hunter, Three Catalogues: Describing the Contents of the Red Book of the Exchequer, of the Dodsworth Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and of the Manuscripts in the Library of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn (London, 1838), pp. 76–82. Madan also noted that Dodsworth 10 was transcribed out of other Dodsworth manuscripts including number 78 but did not specify which parts were copied from which manuscripts; he cites as evidence a list on folio 6v of Dodsworth 10, but that list does not specifically mention Pershore. See Madan, Summary Catalogue II, 872 (no. 4152). 39 Peter A. Stokes ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ (TR) The second manuscript given in Peter Sawyer’s Annotated List is ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ which was compiled towards the end of the eleventh century at Worcester.30 This manuscript does not contain a copy of S 786, however: instead it contains the boundary-clause for just one of the estates in our document, namely that of Acton Beauchamp, an estate which was claimed by Pershore, Worcester, and also Evesham in the eleventh century.31 The compiler may have had a full copy of S 786 but selected only one boundary clause for inclusion, but this seems unlikely. Furthermore, the boundary-points are the same in all three versions but the phrasing of each version is different from the others, and it is hard to imagine why the phrasing would have been altered so significantly while the text was being copied. On balance, it seems more likely that the copy in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’ was drawn from a different exemplar than that of either Augustus ii. 6 or the transcript discussed below.32 The cartulary was damaged in the Cottonian fire, and material towards the front and back of the volume (including the bounds of Acton Beauchamp) can be difficult to read. However, a copy of the entire manuscript was made before the fire and is now preserved at Oxford; it is listed as R above. A note on the first flyleaf of the copy states that it was made for one Richard Graves of Mickleton and was used by Hearne in his edition of the cartulary. Several of the boundary-clauses in this copy have been recently collated against the original by the author of the present paper, and the transcript has generally proven to be very accurate and a useful witness for readings that are now lost.33 The ‘Transcript’ Version (V) This leaves Vitellius D. vii, a paper manuscript written in the sixteenth century which was burnt during the fire at Ashburnham House in 1731. The manuscript was made by John Joscelyn, Latin secretary to Matthew Parker, and is generally referred to as ‘Joscelyn’s notebook’ as it contains his transcripts of 30 31 32 33 The manuscript is BL Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, fols. 119–200. For a full edition, see Hemingi chartularium ecclesiæ Wigorniensis, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1723), for the manuscript, see N. R. Ker, ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, in his Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. A. G. Watson (London, 1985), pp. 31–59, and for the scribe of this portion see P. A. Stokes, ‘The Vision of Leofric: Manuscript, Text and Content’, Peritia (forthcoming). Victoria History, ed. Willis-Bund and Doubleday IV, 224–7; Hemingi chartularium, ed. Hearne, pp. 250–1. This has also been suggested by Kelly, ‘S 786’. For the texts see the bounds of Acton Beauchamp below, pp. 47, 54–5, and 57. For these collations, see LangScape: the Language of Landscape; Reading the Anglo-Saxon Countryside <www.langscape.org.uk> version 0.9 (last accessed 15 October 2008), boundaries for S 80, S 104, S 121, S 174, S 180, S 201, S 217, S 401 and S 1335. 40 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) charters, chronicles, and other historical and Anglo-Saxon texts.34 As a result of the fire the leaves are burnt all around the edges, usually with loss on all four sides, and comparison with descriptions in catalogues made before the fire reveals the loss of material at the start of the manuscript and the jumbled order of the leaves which remain.35 A few letters are lost at the edges of every page, and several lines are gone from the tops and bottoms. The pages are not ruled and the density of the writing varies significantly, but the leaves containing S 786 have between about forty-five and fifty-five long lines surviving on each page, with the remnants of several more lines visible at the bottoms of the pages. The text begins on a recto with the right-hand margin still visible, but the left-hand margin and the first few letters of each line are burnt away; similarly the right-hand edge of the text is lost on the following verso, and so on. The very end of the text has been burnt away but Wanley recorded a note which is now lost: ‘Habui ab Matthaeo Archiepiscopo Cant. et exhibita fuit per Parcivelum Creswel nomine Abbatis et Conventus de Parshoyer 15 Sept. an. 1537.’36 This seems to indicate that Joscelyn’s exemplar was at Pershore shortly before the abbey was dissolved in 1539 and that the original then came into the possession of Matthew Parker. The exemplar was not Augustus ii. 6, however, as Joscelyn transcribed a text significantly different to that of the surviving single sheet.37 The Latin proem is more or less identical, but the list of estates 34 36 37 For the activities of Matthew Parker and John Joscelyn with regard to Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, see especially R. I. Page, Matthew Parker and his Books: Sandars Lectures in Bibliography Delivered on 14, 16, and 18 May 1990 at the University of Cambridge (Kalamazoo, MI, 1993). For ‘Joscelyn’s notebook’ see especially The Recovery of the Past in Early Elizabethan England: Documents by John Bale and John Joscelyn from the Circle of Matthew Parker, ed. T. Graham and A. G. Watson (Cambridge, 1998), and J. S. Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook: a Study of the Contents and Sources of B. L., Cotton MS. Vitellius D. vii’ (unpubl. M. Phil. thesis, University 35 of Nottingham, 1978). Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook’, pp. 50–7. ‘I had it [the charter] from Matthew [Parker] Archbishop of Canterbury, and it was shown by Percival Creswell in the name of the Abbot and community of Pershore, 15 September 1537.’ H. Wanley, Librorum veterum septentrionalium . . . catalogus (Oxford, 1705), p. 240. This Percival Creswell seems likely to be the Catholic who worked for the financier Sir Richard Gresham and whose son was Joseph Creswell, a Jesuit exile during Elizabeth’s reign. See A. J. Loomie, ‘Creswell, Joseph (1556–1623)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. H Harrison, 61 vols. (Oxford, 2004) XIV, 157–8, and I. Blanchard, ‘Gresham, Sir Richard (c. 1485–1549)’, ibid. XXIII, 760–4, and also F. Edwards, ‘The Strange Case of the Poisoned Chalice’, Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 56 (1987), 3–82, at 14. The name also appears in London, The National Archives, E 159/310, the record of a suit of 1532 against the vicar of Acton in Chester enforcing the prohibition against clerics holding leases; the document is available online at <http://aalt.law.uh.edu/1529Statutes/leaseholding1532.html> (last accessed 17 April 2008) where it is listed as L55. This difference was noticed by Gale who has printed the texts in Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii. However, she has provided no discussion, noting simply that Joscelyn’s exemplar no longer survives. See Gale, ‘John Joscelyn’s Notebook’, pp. 194–5 and her Appendix II. 41 Peter A. Stokes is quite different, and three boundary-clauses, one very incomplete, are also included which are not known from anywhere else.38    All six witnesses were fully collated when preparing this edition; however, as noted above, the Dodsworth transcripts are direct copies of the surviving single sheet and so are omitted from the apparatus here except where they provide evidence for otherwise lost or uncertain readings. Augustus ii. 6, Vitellius D. vii, and Tiberius A. xiii have all suffered fairly extensive damage and thus portions of each are now illegible or burnt away, but in many cases these readings can be restored with some confidence. The photograph of Augustus ii. 6 which was printed by the British Museum in their series of facsimiles clearly shows a number of readings which have since been covered by repairs;39 these are provided in the text without comment, as are readings which have been recovered by examination and enhancement of a high-quality digital photograph of the single sheet. Similarly, if one or two letters are lost from the burnt edges of the pages in Vitellius D. vii, and if the reading is otherwise consistent with the remaining copies, then these losses are not noted. Alterations are generally noted, however, and the distinction is made between material which has been crossed out, represented here in strikethrough, and erased, represented here by a note in the apparatus. The vernacular boundary-clauses present additional problems to the Latin text. First, the charter bounds are only preserved in the Augustus and Vitellius manuscripts, so the Dodsworth copies are of no use in establishing lost readings. Second, although very many of the boundary-points are the same in the two versions, nevertheless the phrasing is significantly different, as often is the spelling. These differences are important and should be recorded but they are also too numerous and complex to include in an apparatus. For this reason the largely vernacular portion of Vitellius D. vii from list of estates through to the end of the boundary-clauses are not collated against that of Augustus ii. 6 but are printed separately afterwards. Where the two versions are printed separately, lost readings are supplied in square brackets where this can be done with some confidence, thus: ‘re[con]struction’. If lost text can be postulated by comparison with the other version but without any further evidence to support it then this text is again printed in square brackets but is also italicized to emphasize its more speculative nature, thus: [tentative reconstruction]. Ellipses ‘. . .’ indicate lost text which cannot be reconstructed, and angled brackets <> indicate supplied readings for which there is no space in the manuscript. 38 See below, pp. 57–65. 42 39 See above, p. 34. King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Latin ę in Joscelyn’s transcript is silently normalized to e, as is j to i and v to u, but ę is preserved when used in Old English. In the portion of text which is common to the Augustus and Vitellius manuscripts, the Latin orthography of the single sheet is followed and minor variations in the transcript are not noted; these differences include ecclesia, ecclesiasticus, decussatim, proh, Saphira, Britannię and once dipinxi in Vitellius for æclesia, æclesiasticus, decusatim, pro, Saphyra, Brittanie and depinxi in Augustus. Similarly the practice of the single sheet in the use of æ, ę, and e is followed throughout the (Latin) portions printed in common, and variations in the transcript are not noted. Old English wynn (!) has been normalized to w in all texts, and all abbreviations in both Old English and Latin have been silently expanded except for the Tironian nota (7) when used in the vernacular; this last abbreviation has been preserved because the scribe of Augustus ii. 6 used both ond and and as well as the nota and so no consistent expansion can be provided. Crossed thorn (") is silently expanded to #æt in the Augustus text and $æt in the Vitellius text in order to preserve the respective orthographies. No attempt is made to reproduce the punctuation or worddivision of either manuscript.40 BL Cotton Augustus ii. 6 a + #$b Orthodoxorum uigoris æclesiastici monitu creberrime instruimur utc illi oppido subiecti suppeditantes famulemur, qui totius mundi fabricam miro ineffabilique serie disponens, microcosmumd, Adam uidelicet, tandem quadriformi plasmatum materia almo ad sui similitudinem instinctum spiramine, uniuersis quę in infimis formauerate uno probandi causa excepto uetitoque preficiens, paradisiacae amoenitatisf iocunditate conlaterana Æua scilicet comite decentissimeg collocauit. Laruarica pro dolor seductus cauillatione, uersipellis suasibilisque tergiuersatione uiraginis pellectus anathematis alogiah ambro pomum momordit uetitum et, sibi ac posteris in hoc ærumnoso deiectus sæculo loetum promeruit perpetuum. Vaticinantibus siquidem profetisi et cælitus superni regis diuturna clandestino presagia dogmate promentibus, nitide orthodoxis eulogium ex supernis deferens, non ut Iudæorum seditiosa elingue fatetur loquacitas, sed priscorum atque modernorum lepidissimam ambiens facundiam, Arrianas Sabellianasque proterendo nenias anagogico infrustransj famine nosque ab obtunsi cæcitate umbraminis ad supernorum alacrimoniam patrimoniorum aduocans, angelus supernisk elapsus liminibus in aurem intemeratae uirginis ut euangelica promulgant 40 Many of the texts have also been translated and more fully edited by D. Hooke, Worcestershire Anglo-Saxon Charter-Bounds, Stud. in Anglo-Saxon History 2 (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 177–230 (no. 29) and D. Hooke, Warwickshire Anglo-Saxon Charter Bounds, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History 10 (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 67–71 (no. 8). A full edition and discussion by Susan Kelly is also forthcoming as part of the British Academy series on Anglo-Saxon Charters, a draft of which is Kelly, ‘S 786’. At the time of writing the LangScape database contained information about the bounds in S 786 but the semi-diplomatic transcripts were not yet available for display or word searches. See ‘Archives’ in LangScape (under the ‘Resources’ submenu; last accessed 15 October 2008). 43 Peter A. Stokes famina stupenda cecinisse uidetur carmina, cui æclesia tota catholica consona uoce altibohando proclamat: ‘Beata es uirgo Maria que credidisti, perficientur in te quæl dicta sunt tibi a Domino.’ Mirum dictu incarnatur uerbum et incorporatur, scilicet illud de quo euangelista supereminens uniuersorum altitudine sensuum inquit: ‘In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat uerbum’, et reliqua. Qua uidelicet sumpta de uirgine incarnatione antiquæ uirginis facinus demitur et cunctis mulieribus nitidis præcluens taumatibus decus irrogatur. Intacta igitur redolente Christi diuinitate passaque ipsius humanitate libertas addictis clementer contigit seruulis. Hinc ego Eadgar altithrono amminiculante Anglorum ceterarumque gentium in circuitu triuiatim persistentium basileus, ut huius libertatis altithroni moderatoris clementia merear optinere consortium, coenobio loco celebri qui ab huius prosapie solicolis Perscoranm nobili nuncupatur uocabulo situm, genetricique domini nostri semper uirgini Mariæ, necnon beato Petro apostolorum principi eiusque coapostolo Paulo, dedicatum habetur, monachis regulariter degentibus monastici aeternam priuilegiin concedo libertatem, quatenus post decessum Foldbrihtio abbatis egregii cuius temporibus hæc libertatis restauratio Christo suffragante concessa est quem sibi uniuersap præfati coenobii congregatio qapto elegerit consilio rsecundum regularia beati Benedicti instituta abbatemq r iuste ex eodem fratrum cuneo eligens constituats Huius priuilegii libertas deinceps usu perpetuot a cunctis teneatur catholicisu, nec extraneorum quispiam tyrannicav fretus contumacia inw prædicto xmonasterio ius arripiens exerceatx potestatis, sed eiusdem ycoenobii collegium perpetuæ ut prædixi libertatisy glorietur a2priuilegio. Sit autem prefatum monasterium omni terræne seruitutis eodem tenore liberum quo a precessore nostro, a rege uidelicet Coenulfo orthodoxe fidei strenuissimo, fuerat uti uetusto continetur priuilegio (Beornotho duce optinente) solutum, agri equidem qui ad usus monachorum domino nostroz Iesu Christo eiusque genitrici Marie, priscis modernisque temporibus, a regibus et religiosis utriusque sexus hominibus et a me ipso restituendo iure concessi sunt,a2 b2 Id est in Perscoran uidelicet [. . . . . .] mansic2, in Brihtulfingtuned2 x mansi, in Cumbrincgtune x mansi, in Pedneshamme ve2 mansi, in Eccyncgtune xvi mansi, in Byrlingahamme x mansi, in Deopanforda x mansi, in Strengesho x, in Bettesforda xf2, in Cromban [. . .]g2, in Stoce x, in Pyritune x, in Uuadbeorhan iiiih2, in Ciuincgtunei2 iiij2, in Broctunek2 iii, in Piplincgtunel2 x, in Snoddesbyri x, in Niuuantune vii, in Eadbrihtincgtune iiiim2, in Uuihtlafestune v, in Flæferthn2 v, in Graftune v, in Deormodesealdtune v, in Husantreo 7o2 on Meretune v, in Broctune iii, into Hleobyrip2 ii, [in] Langandune xxx, in Poincguuic vii, in Beornothesleahe iiiq2, in Actune iii, in Suthstocer2 7 on Hilleahes2 7 on Tresham 7 on Cyllincgcotan 7 on Ealdanbyri 7 Dydimeretunet2 7 Badimyncgtun 7 Uptun xlu2, in Deorham x, in Longanege v, on Lidanege vi, in Uuiggangeate vi, in Beoleahe vv2, Gyrdleahe vw2, in Sture xx2, in Bradanuuege xx, in Cumtuney2 v, in Uuiguuennanz2 x, et ad usum conficiendi salis duobus in locis xviii doliorum situs, on middelwic x, 7 on neodemestan wic viiia3, et duarum fornacium statio on Uuictune, et uas quod dicitur west rincge cum uno manso et dimidium mansi in loco qui dicitur Hortunb3: eiusdem perpetualiter sint libertatis. [. . .]c3 44 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Tempore siquidem quo rura quae domino deuoto concessi animo iniuste a sancta Dei æclesia ablata fuerant, perfidi quique nouas sibi hereditarias kartas usurpantes ediderunt sed in patris et filii et spiritus sancti nomine d3precipimus ut catholicorum nemo easdem recipiat, sed a cunctis repudiatę fidelibus in anathemate deputentur ueteri iugiter uigente priuilegio.d3 h3 Si quis uero tam epilempticus phylargirię seductus amentia (quod non optamus) hanc nostræ munificentiæ dapsilitatem ausu temerario infringere temptauerit, sit ipse alienatus a consortio sanctæ Dei æclesię, necnon et a participatione sacrosancti corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi filii Dei, per quem totus terrarum orbis ab antiquo humani generis inimico liberatus est. Et cum Iuda Christi proditore sinistra in partee3 deputatus, ni prius hic digna satisfactione humilis penituerit quod contra sanctam Dei æclesiam rebellis agere pręsumpsit, nec in uita hac practica ueniam nec in theorica requiem apostata obtineat ullam, sed æternis barathri incendiis trusus cum Anania et Saphyra iugiterf3 miserrimus crucietur.g3 h3 %is sindon &a lond gemæra &æra tun londa &e into perscoran belimpa'. [Pershore Estates] Ærest of piri forda on &a dic,i3 andlang dic on &a pyrigan, of &ære pyrigan on &one long[an mapuldre, of #am mapuldre on ceap manna w]yllan, [of $ære wyllan] to &am hl[æwe, be] 'ære h[læwe to #am bænincges byrig, of b]ænincgesj3 byrig to wealh ge[ate], of we[alh gea]te to mæ[r] cnolle, of mær [c]nolle on lind hoh, of lind ho on clottes more, of clottes more on mær p[ul] , ondlongk3 pulles on afene, of afene on caldan wyllan, of caldan wyllan on wyr' hlinc, of wyr' hli[nce on hor p]yt, [o]f hor py[tte o]n culfran mere, of &æm mere on hag[an weg, of hagan wege on b]roc [h]rycg, of broc hrycge on &a ealdan dic, of '[ære dic] on swyne, of swyn[e] on reod dic, of 'ære dic on weorces mere, of &ære mere on &a twycene, of &ære twycenan on &a hæsel ræwe ondlong streames on hor wyllan, of hor wyllan ondlong dic on cymman le[a]h[e], of 'ære leahe on sæfern ondlong sæfern to ham stede, of ham stede on ropleah geat, of &æm geate ondlong dic &æt on east mor &ær on &a rode, of 'ære rode on hea'eburhe weor'yg, of 'æm wor'ige ondlong hrycges to bysceopes swyn hege, on[d]long heges on beartan weg, of beartan wege on calfan leahe, &æt ondlong dic to hæ' halan, of hæ' halan o[n] &a ealdan dic, ondlang dic on piddes meres weg, of &æm wege on &a ealdan dic, of 'ære dic on wad b[eor]gas, of wad beorgan to &am hlyp geate, of '[am] geate on sealtan mere, of &am mere on su' mæduan, of 'ære mæde ondlong sices &æt on yrse, ondlong yrse on hwitan dune, of hwitan dune on lus 'or<n>l3, of lus 'orne on fulan pyt, of &am pytte on beornwynne den[e], ondlong dene &æt on hymel broc æt wudu forda, andlang broces on oxan ers, andla[ng] sices to &an stan gedelfe, of 'am stan gedelfe on &a dic, ondlong dic on hunig burnan, 7lang burnan &æt on hymel broc, ondlang broces to beccan leahe, on &a ealdan dic 7lang mær weges on ceafor leahe, of &ære leahe on &a heg stowe, of 'ære heg stowe on hennuc, a[ndl]ong hennuc &æt on &a 'orn ræwe eastrihte &æt hit cyme to &an rah hege, æfter [&]amm3 hege a be &am ofre, &æt eft on &a dic, &æt on pidelan stream, 7lang streames on afene, andlang afene &æt eft on piri ford.n3 [Wihtlafestun (North Piddle), Abberton, Naunton and Ælflædetun (Flyford Flavell)] (is sind &ara feower tuna lond gemæra wihtlafes tun 7 eadbriht[i]ncg tun 7 niwan tun 7 ælflæde tun. Ærest of pidelan on &a eald[an dic, of] &ære dic 7lang fura on 45 Peter A. Stokes &[a] heafda to winter burnan, of winter burnan on hina gemæran on &one ealdan weg, of &amo3 wege on tittan dune 7 of tittan dune on byligan fen, of byligan fenne on wixena broc, ondlang broces on pidelan, 7lang pidelan &æt eft on wihtlafes gemæra. [Flyford (Dormston?)] %is sind &a lond ge<mæ>rap3 into fle[fer'. Æ]res[t] of &am ealdan slæde on [wi]nter burnan, of &ære burnan on &ane swyn hege, 7lang heges on eomeres mæduan, of &am mæduan on hodes ac, of &ære æc 7lang heges to &æm wege, 7lang weges on winter burnan, 7lang burnan on herefer'es maduan, &onan in &æt sic, of &æm sice in &æne cumb, of &am cumbe on &a ealdan dic, 7lang dice in pidelan, 7lang pidelan to bradan hamme, a butan bradan hamm[e e]ft in pidelan, 7lang pidelan eft to &æm slæpe. [(Martin) Hussingtree] (is sind &a lond gemæra to husan treo. Ærest of &ære stræt 7long dic to bradan forde 7lang burnan onq3 seale weorpan, ondlang seale weorpan to col forda, of col forda 7lang &ære miclan dic on alr broc, 7lang broces on 'eornanr3 mor, of &am more 7lang dic on feower gemæra, of &æm gemæron to &orn lehe, of &orn lehe 7lang dic eft on &a stræt. [Longdon] %is sind &æs londes gemæra into langan dune. Ærest of sæfern on wifer'es mæduan hege, of &am heges3 on &one hricg, of &am hricge on &one wulf hagan midne of &am wulf hagan to &am 'rym gemeran, of &æm 'rym gemæran to pis brece, of pis brece to tidbrihticg hamme, of &an hamme on pyrt broc, 7lang broces to pyrtan heale, of peartan heal[e to ha]gan geate, of hagan geate to twy forde, of twy fyrde to luf bece, of luf bece betweonan dune, of &ære dune on hwitant3 cumb, of &am cumbe on swyn geat, of swyn geate 7lang ecge &æt on hæ' hricg, of hæ' ricge on senet ricg, of senet ricge on sec mor, of secg more on alr, of alre on orices pul, of orices pulle ef<t>u3 on sæfern. [Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton, and Wynburh Edisc] %is sindan &a lond gemæra into ceatewes leahe 7 to yldresv3 felda 7 to stan tune 7 to wynburhe edisce. Ærest of an burnan to cumbran weor'e, of cumbran weor&e to &ære mæran æc, of 'ærew3 æc to stan hlincan, of stan hlincanx3 to reade burnan, of reade burnan to healrey3 mere, of healre mere to &ære æc, of &ære æc to hagan leahe, of &ære leahe on secg broc, of secg broce to &an hean dore, ofz3 &an dore to bryd broce, 7lan[g b]roces &æt in glencincg, 7lang glencincg &æt in ledene, 7lang ledene to mær broce, of mær broce to brycg geleagan, of brycg geleagan on bradan ford on glencincg, 7lang glencincg to blacan mores forda, of blacan mores forda to &an halgan geate, of &an halgan geate to risc heale, of hrisc heale to &am ho, of &am ho a be wuda to &am [æsce], of &am æsce to &ære ecge, of [&ære ecge] to bradan leahe, of bradan leahe to fæles græfe, of fæles græfe to cram pulle to &am mær hege, of 'æm hege on s[æ]fern, of sæfern eft on an burnan. [Powick] (is sindon &a lond gemæra into poincg wican. Ærest up of sæfern on beornwoldes sætan, of beorwoldes sætan on hagan geat, of hagan geate on secg lages strod, of secg lahes strode on troh hrycg, of troh hrycge on tecles mor, of &æm [more] on baldan rycg, of baldan rycge on flotan rycg, of flotan rycgea4 on &a sme'an ac, of 'ære æc on lin[d] rycg, of lind rycge on abban dunes wican, of abban dunes wican in baldan geat, of baldan geate on cust leahe, of cust leahe in eadwoldincg leahe middewearde of eadwolding leahe on steapan leahe, of steapan leahe in '[a] greatan lindan, 46 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) of 'ære lindan on cardan stigele, of &ær[e] stigele in wearman dene to hreod broc geate, of &am geate on wæ'e burnan, 7lang wæ'e burnan &æt wi'utan &one snæd hege &æt to scir hylt geate, of scir hylt geate on codran ford, ondlang codran on c[r]om[a] &æt to 'ære ealdan stræt, ondlong 'ære stræt t[o] maw pul, 7lang pulles on temedan, 7lang temedan eft in s[æfern]. [Leigh] %[is sind]b4 &[a] land gemæra into beorno'es leahe. Ærest of eadwoldincg leahe an æcer, of &æm æc[ere on mer he]ge, 7long mer[e hege]s on sceanp[an] h[y]l, [of scean]pan hylle on wæ'e burnan, of &ære burnan on g[undenli]ng rycg, of &am rycge on codran, of codran to syl beame, of syl beame to crome, of crome to hwitan wyllan, of &ære wyllan to hagan geate, of hagan geate to &æ[re grea]tanc4 æc, of 'ære æc on &a sand sea'as, of 'am sea'an in temedel, of temedel on &a lytlan becas &anan [on grindles bec]e, of grindles bece swa &æt gemære lig' in tem[eda]n, of temedan onbutan eldres ege &æt eft in temedan, andlang temedan &æt eft in maw pul. [Acton (Beauchamp)] (is sind &a lond gemæra into ac tune. Ærest on horsa broc, of horsa broce in heafoc rycg, of heafoc rycge on bilincg brocd4, of byling broce in at leahe geat, of at leahe geate in &a hlydan, of &ære hlydan in bycera fald, of bycera [fal]de on sand ford, of sand forda in scotta pæ', of scottan pæ'e in gyslan ford, e4of gislan forda on sond burnan, of sond burnan on scead wællan, of scead wellan in lam sea&ane4, of lam sea'an in ledene, of ledene in lin leahe, of lin leahe in saltera weg, of sealtera wege in hean ofer, of hean ofre in su' broc, of su' broce in we[st broc, of] west broce in clæg wyllan, of clæg wyllan in æ'elstanes graf, of æ'elstanes graue on hengestes healh, of h[en]gestes heale eft in horsa broc. [South Stoke] %is sind &ara vii land gemæra into su' stoce. Ærest of mæddene westeweardre on beaduc hyl 7lang dene on badan pyt, of &am pytte on æsc wyllan broc, 7lang broces on afene, 7lang afene on broc hardes for[d, of &am] forda on swyn burnan, of swyn burnan on funtnes burnan, of funtnes burnan on bremer leah, of bremer lea 7[l]ang dene on stan leah, of stan lea on seonecan dene, 7lang dene on ehan feldes geat &onne on gate wyllan, of gate wyllan on cyncges crundlu, of cyncges crundlan 7lang dene on risc mere, of risc mere on æsc [de]ne, of æsc dene on hord dene, of hord dene on &one holan weg on luhinc wudu on file' leahe, of filet leahe on æ'elan wyllan, of &æm wyllan adune on stre[am], 7l[an]g streames up on hyrde wyllan, of hyrde wyllan on cyninga crundel, of cyninga crundele on rycg weg, 7lang weges on &one stapol, of &am stapole on &a hlydan, of &ære hlydan up andlang streames, of 'æm streamef4 be heafdan &æt on mihan lea easteweardne on &one garan up 7lang weges, of &am wege be heafdan &æt eft on mæd beorh. [Dyrham] (is sind &a land gemæ[ra i]nto deor hamme. Ærest of sulan forda on lodd[ra] wellan, &onon on byd yncel bi abban grafe to b[ry]de wyllan, &æt swa on eccan treo, &onon on miclan mædua &æt on byd, 'onne on hy geredincgg4 æceras 7 swa bi clop æcere ufa on sulig cumb, &onon on mus beorh &æt swa to æ'eredes wellan, 'onon on clæg weg be ciric stede &æt swa bi sadol hongranh4 on fearn beor[h . . . . . .]i4 wuda on gemær broc &æt eft on sulan broc. [Beoley] + %is sind &a land gemæra into beo leahe. Ærest of beo leahe on cundincg æceras, of cundincg æceran on fearn healas, of fearn healan on burh leahe, of burh leahe on geahes ofer, of geahes ofre on stan geat, of stan geate on wulferes wyllan, of 47 Peter A. Stokes &ære wyllan on deawes broc, of &æm broce on mapoldren [geat], of &æm geate on beardi[n]cgj4 ford, of bearding forda eft on beo leahe. [Yardley] (is sind &a land gemæra into gyrd lea. Ærest of gyrd lea on colle, of colle on mær dic, of mær dice on blacan mearcan, of blacan mearcan on &o[n]e hæ' garan on dagarding weg, of dagarding wege on ac wyllan, of ac wyllan on bradan apoldr[e, o]f 'ære apoldre on mæres 'orn, of 'an 'orne on smalan broc, of smalan broce on cinc tunes brock4, of &æm broce on dyrnan ford, of dyrnan for[da] on brom halas of brom halan on hwitan leahe, of hwitan leahe on leommannincg weg 'onan on colle, of colle on meos mor, of meos more on ciondan, of ciondan on spel broc 'onan on bulan wyllan, of bul[an] wyllan on &a langan æc, of 'ære langan æc [on] mundes dene, of mund[e]s dene on colle, of colle eft on gyrddl4 leahe. [Alderminster] %is sind &a land gemæra &æs londes &e lymp'm4 to sture, &æt is 'onne, æt ærestan denewaldincg hommes ende scyt on sture, &onne scyt se dic [&æt hit] cym' foran to byrnan scylfe, &onne &onan 7lang &ære ealdan stræte &æt hit cym' on mær bro[c], 7lang mær broces &æt hit cym' to langan dun[es e]nde &onon &æt hit cym' to po[s] hliwan, &onne of pos hliwan to sealt mere, of sealt mere on fugel mere, of fugel mere on steapan hlinc, of steapan hlince on bara broc, of bara broce ymb wydan cumb, of widan cum[be to h]æ' hyll[e], &o[non] on stan hlinces ende, &onon on r[u]m beorgas, &onne 'onan to cealc sea'an, of cealc se[a']an to til'egnes triowan, &onan to meox b[eor]hym, &onan to pehtun[e]s triowan, fram pehtunes triowan to pioles clifan, &æt 7langn4 pioles clifes middeweardes to clop hyrste, &onne of clop hyrste on &a dic &e lig' on sture. [Broadway] (is sind &a land gemæra to brada[n wege]. [Ærest] of mær cumbeo4 on pes broc, &onon on &a heafda æt west mæduwan, of west medwan on &a heaf[da] &æt on &istel me[re, of] &æm me[r]e 7lang slædes on pincan dene, of p[incan dene] &æt up on beornap4 dune ufew[ea]rde &onon on &one stapol, of 'æm stapole ofe[r] &one ealdan feld &æt on fugel hlæw, of &æm [hlæwe] on egsan mor, of 'an mor[e] up andlang dune &æt [on] bæddes wellan, of bæddes wellan on brer hlæw, of &æm hlæwe on nor' ham onbutan nor' ham 7lang &ære ealdan dic &æt on sand broc, of sand broce on bord ri'ig, of bord ri'ig on hor pyttes ri&ig, of hor pytte 7lang fura &æt on cadan mynster &onon on &a ecge &æt on &a sealt stræt, 7lang stræt on &a ealdan dic æt nanes mannes lande, of 'ære dic onq4 [vii] wyllan, of [seo]fanq4 wyllan on &ristlinga dene, of 'ristlinga dene ufeweardre &æt on &a ealdan dic æt wad beorhe, 7lang dic eft o<n>r4 mær cumbe. s4 Anno dominicæ incarnationis dcccc lxxiit4 scripta est huius munificentiæ singrapha his testibusu4 consentientibus quorum inferius nomina secundum uniuscuiusque dignitatem utriusque ordinis decusatim domino disponente caraxantur: v4 Ego Eadgar Brittannię Anglorum monarchus hoc taumate donum agie crucis roboraui. Ego Dunstan Dorobernensisw4 æclesie archiepiscopus eiusdem regisx4 beniuolentiam confirmaui. Ego Oswold Eboracensis basilicæ primas huic regali dono adsensum prebui. Ego A'elwold Wintoniensis presul edis canonica subscriptione manu propria depinxi. Ego Ælfstan Lundoniensis cathedre pontifex signum sanctæ crucis lætus impressi. 48 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Ego Alfwold Scireburnensis cathedre antistes hoc intepidus donum corroboraui.y4 Ego Brihtelm plebi Dei famulus huius regis dapsilitati lætabundus aplausi. Ego Alfwold legis Dei catascopus testudinem agie crucis iussu regis impressi. z4 Ego Ælfstan Rofensis sedis archimandrita tau[ma]z4 crucis agie hilaris imposui. Ego Eadelm commissarum plebium speculator hoc eulogium gaudens firmaui. Ego Wynsige Dei allubescente gratia spiritalis ouilis opilio hanc largitionem consolidaui. Ego A'ulf domino codrus amminiculante hoc donum tropheo sancte crucis confirmaui. Ego Ælf'ry'a5 præfati regis conlaterana hoc sintahma cum sigillo sancte crucis subscripsi. b5 Ego Ælfric abbas subscripsi. Ego Æscwig abbas conscripsi.c5 Ego Osgar abbas dictaui.d5 Ego Æ'elgar abbas impressi. Ego Cynewearde5 abbas depinxi. Ego Foldbriht abbas descripsi.f5 Ego Ælfeahg5 abbas confirmaui. Ego Sideman abbash5 corroboraui. Ego Osweard abbas con[sensi].i5 Ego Brihteah abbas impressi. Ego Godwine abbas cons[ensi].j5 Ego Brihtno' abbas ass[ensi].k5 Ego Germanus abbas firmaui. l5 Ego Ælfere dux. m5 Ego Oslac dux. Ego Æ'elwine dux. Ego Brihtno' dux.m5 Ego Æ'elweard minister.n5 Ego Wulfstan minister. Ego Ælfweard minister. Ego Ælfsige minister. Ego Æ'elsigeo5 minister. Ego Wulfricp5 minister. Ego Ælfwine minister. Ego Wulfgeat minister. Ego Wulfstan minister. q5 Ego Æ'elmær minister. Ego Eanulf minister. Ego Eadwine minister. Ego Æ'elweardr5 minister. Ego Ælfric minister. Ego A'elwold minister. Ego Alfwold minister. 49 Peter A. Stokes Ego Wulfmær minister. Ego Ælfweard minister. Ego Ælfelm minister. Ego Ælfrics5 minister. Ego Leofwinet5 minister. Ego Leofric minister. u5 Ego Ælfelm minister. Ego Leofsige minister. Ego Wulfric minister. Ego Godwine minister. Ego Ælfric minister. v5 Ego Ealdred minister. Ego Ælfeah minister.v5 Ego Leofstan minister. Ego Ælfric minister. Ego Æ'elweard minister. Ego Brihtric minister. w5 Ego Leofa minister. Ego Brihtric minister.w5 Prefatax5 quoque [. . .] trium iugerorum quantitas et duo predia, in famosa urbe quæ ab accolis dicitur Wygorneceastre accidunt, quæ sub eiusdem condicione libertatis perpetualiter in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi haberi precipio. [Endorsement] y5[XP] %IS [IS SE FREOLSE] 7 )ARA LANDA BOC [%E] EADG[AR] CINING GEU%E INTO PERSCORAN SWA HIS YLDRAN HIT ÆR GESETTAN GODE TO LOFE 7 SANCTA MARIANy5 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Fundacio Abbathiae de Persor per Regem Edgarum Ex Carta Originali penes Thomas Cotton Baronettum heading in D1 Edgari carta originalis de Abbatia de Persor heading in D2 . . . 7 sce Benedicte . . . heading (mostly lost to fire) in V + #$] om. VD1 ut] perhaps two letters lost at start of line V microcosmum] micocrosmum A formauerat] primauerat [fo]rmauerat V amoenitatis] e inserted A decentissime] ss underlined in pencil A alogia] alogie V profetis] prophetis V 6–8 letters erased after profetis A infrustrans] u altered from ?o V supernis] supernus V quæ] que tibi V Perscoran] Perscoram V c inserted A priuilegii] altered from priuilegium V Foldbrihti] Foldbrinti V quem sibi uniuersa] illegible A written as que . . . universa D1D2 apto . . . abbatem] illegible A written as a series of dots D1 secundum . . . abbatem] written as a series of dots D2 eligens constituat] eligens c lost to fire V 50 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) t u v w x y z a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2 k2 l2 m2 n2 o2 p2 q2 r2 s2 t2 u2 v2 w2 x2 y2 z2 a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 i3 j3 k3 l3 m3 n3 o3 deinceps usu perpetuo] usu perp lost to fire deinceps written twice V catholicis] lic lost to fold A extraneorum . . . tyrannica] neorum quispiam ty lost to fire V in] illegible A monasterio ius arripiens exerceat] lost to fire V very unclear A coenobii . . . libertatis] lost to fire V nostro] nostri D1 priuilegio . . . concessi sunt] lost to fire but passage seems to be followed by Tempore siquidem clause (see note d3 and pp. 60–1, Table 2) V large ^ added in black ink after sunt A Id est] collation against V ends here; for text of V see below, pp. 53–7. mansi] erasure before mansi in A Brihtulfingtune] i inserted, l on erasure A v] probably on erasure A x] possibly on erasure A . . .] numeral erased A iiii] on erasure A Ciuincgtune] g unclear; looks like c in A but clearly g in D1D2 iii] on erasure A Broctune] tune illegible in A but clear in D1D2 Piplincgtune] followed by illegible note in right-hand margin? A iiii] on erasure A Flæferth] l inserted A 7] om. D1 cl (but very unclear) D2 Hleobyri] h probably inserted (parchment damaged so unclear) A iii] perhaps altered A Suthstoce] S underlined A Hilleahe] second l inserted A Dydimeretune] second e perhaps on erasure A xl] very faint; perhaps partially erased or written in different ink A v] on erasure A v] unusual form; probably altered from x A x] probable erasure after which was part of numeral A Cumtune] first u unclear but fairly certain; perhaps o A Uuiguuennan] g unclear and perhaps c A Wicwennan D1 Uuicuuennan D2 viii] vertical line added after numeral A Hortun] underlined A Approximately 125–130 letters erased A precipimus ut catholicorum nemo . . . priuilegio] comes immediately before list of estates; first half of sentence (tempore siquidem . . . precipimus) lost to fire: see above, note a2 and below, pp. 57–8, 60–1, Table 2. V priuilegio underlined in brown ink A parte] ar illegible in A but clear in V, om. (rows of dots) in D1D2 iugiter] text ends here (with line of dots) D1 crucietur] underlined; remainder of line blank, perhaps erased A Si quis . . . crucietur] comes after bounds (see below, pp. 57–8, 60–1, Table 2) V dic] text ends here D2 bænincges] c inserted A ondlong] d inserted A 'orn] 'or A 'am] inserted A ford] thin vertical line added after ford A &am] &an A 51 Peter A. Stokes p3 q3 r3 s3 t3 u3 v3 w3 x3 y3 z3 a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 i4 j4 k4 l4 m4 n4 o4 p4 q4 r4 s4 t4 u4 v4 w4 x4 y4 z4 a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 gemæra] gera A on] inserted A 'eornan] cross-stroke of ' extremely faint, probably added, but ascender long like that of ' rather than d A hege] ge inserted A hwitan] h inserted A eft] ef A yldres] letter erased before y A of 'ære] of altered: letter before o erased, o formed from minim, f added; ' perhaps also an alteration A hlincan] h inserted A healre] e inserted A of] inserted A rycge] e inserted A %is sind] lost, but top of ' visible, as is top of a red bracket which precedes it A greatan] Birch and others printed blacan but greatan seems more likely given evidence of V and probable traces of g. See Stokes, ‘Rewriting the Bounds’. broc] c inserted A of gislan forda . . . sea&an] written in a smaller and more compressed hand A streame] a inserted A geredincg] c inserted A hongran] first n clumsily altered from ?r A beorh] approx. 5–6 letters lost after beorh; next word perhaps swa A beardincg] Bond and others printed beardyncg; obscured in manuscript but i clear in facsimile A broc] c inserted A gyrdd] perhaps on erasure; second d inserted A lymp'] ' inserted A 7lang] 7l probably on erasure A cumbe] first two letters unclear but pretty certainly cū, pace Bond and others, although suspension-stroke extremely faint and perhaps added A beorna] first letter unclear but pretty certainly b, pace Bond and others A vii . . . seofan] both extremely unclear; Bond printed asan for both, but V reads vii and this fits better for first word here; -san or -fan seems clear for second word; note also Seven Wells near modern Broadway at SP1235. A on] o A Text collated with V from here. dcccc lxxii] 972 (in ‘Arabic’ numerals) V his testibus] h inserted and est cramped; scribe first wrote iste for his te[stibus]? A Witness-list in five columns A Witness-list in long lines V Dorobernensis] altered from Dorbbernensis A regis] g inserted A corroboraui] conprobaui V (S 788 reads corroboraui) Ego . . . tauma] illegible in A Ego Ælftan [sic] . . . archimandrita tau[. . .] V tauma from S788 Ælf'ry'] illegible; Bond printed Ælf'ry' A Second column of witnesses begins here A New line begins here V verbs of subscription heavily abbreviated and sometimes ambiguous AV conscripsi] cons A coscrip V (so not consensi, pace Birch) dictaui] lost to fire V Cyneweard] y unclear but pretty certain; i unlikely, pace Bond, Birch and others A (S 788 reads Cineweard) Y clear in V abbas descripsi] lost to fire V Ælfeah] lfeah illegible; Bond and Birch printed Ælfhæh A Ælfhaeh clear in V Ego Sideman abbas] go . . . abbas illegible; Bond printed Ego Sideman abbas A clear in V 52 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) i5 j5 k5 l5 m5 n5 o5 p5 q5 r5 s5 t5 u5 v5 w5 x5 y5 Ego . . . consensi] Ego Osweard abbas illegible; verb written as con so ambiguous A con[sensi] lost to fire V consensi] cons A cos V (abbreviations ambiguous) abbas assensi] abb ass A abbas assensi lost to fire V Abbreviation ambiguous; Birch printed assensim [sic] prebui, presumably supplied from Oswald of York’s attestation, but assensi not uncommon in witnesslists. (S 788 reads assensi) Third column of witnesses begins here A New line begins here V Ego Oslac . . . Brihtno' dux] Ego Oslac, Æ'elwine, Brihtno' duces V Ego Æ'elweard minister] begins new line; minister omitted; all occurrences of Ego and minister omitted or lost from here on V Æ'elsige] sige illegible (but printed by Bond) A Wulfric] lost to fire V Fourth column of witnesses begins here A No new line here V Æ'elweard] lost to fire V Ælfric] lfric lost to fire V Leofwine] lost to fire V Fifth column of witnesses begins here A No new line here V Ealdred, Ælfheah] lost to fire V Leofa, Brihtric] lost to fire; end of page so further material may be lost V prefata] sic; V reads praefato (see below) XP 'is . . . Marian] badly worn; for reconstruction see below, pp. 66–7 A BL Cotton Vitellius D. vii, 29v–30v The following is only the portion of text which is significantly different from that of Augustus ii. 6, namely the list of estates, the bounds, and the appurtenances. The first three paragraphs of the document, the dating-clause and the witness-list are therefore omitted here but are included in the apparatus for Augustus ii. 6 above. [Hec] sunt nomina terrarum quę ad Perscoram pertinent: Brintulfingtona, Cum[brincg]tun, Æccingtun, Byrlingaham, Depaford, Strengeshoh, Cromban, Pyrigtun, Wadbeorhas, Cyfington, Broctun, Piplingtun, Snoddesb[yri], Graftun, Deormodestunb, Broctun, Fleferth, Wihtlafestun, Eadby[ri]tingtun, Niwantun, Langandun e(Tresham, Cyllingcotan, Ealda[n]burh, Dydemeretun, Badymingtun, Guthbrihtingtunc, Deorham, H[. . .]tund, Langaneg, Lidaneg, Wiggangeat, Cumbtun)e Mortun, Wy[.]landf, Stithaneg, Ceatewesleh, Yldresfeld, Stantun, Wynbur Ediscg, Bettesfordh, Poingwic, Wicereshami, Beornothesleh, Hohisylan, Actun, Husantreo, Meretun, Beoleah, Gyrdleah, Tæflanlæh, Greotan Cwelaleahj, Sture, Bradanweg, Wicwynnan, Stoce, Uptun, Hyldesle[h]. Prefato quoque coenobio trium iugerorum quantitas et duo predia in famosa urbe quę ab accolis dicitur Wigornaceaster accidunt, quę sub eiusde[m] conditione libertatis perpetualiter in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi haberi p[reci]pio, et ad usum conficiendi salis duobus in locis xviii doliorum situ[s] on middelwic x, 7 on neo'omestan wic viii, et duarum fornacium st[a]tio on Wictune et uas quod dicitur Westringe, cum uno manso e[t] dimidium mansi in loco qui dicitur Hortun, et dimidium mansi i[n] loco qui dicitur æt Westwuda; eiusdem perpetualiter sint libertati[s]. Hęc sunt termini illarum terrarum, quę in circuitu monasterii ualen[t] 150k manentes. 53 Peter A. Stokes [Pershore Estates] Ærest of pirigforda 7lang dic on 'a pyri[gan], 'anan on 'ane langan mapolder, 'æt on ceap manna wyllan swa to n[. . .]l hlawe a be 'ęre ecge on mær cnol, 'anan on lind hoh, 'æt on clott[es] mor swa on mær pul, 'æt on afene swa on caldanm wyllan, 'æt on w[yr$]n hlinc, 'anan on hor pyt, 'æt on culfre mere swa on hagan weg, ['æt on] broc hricg, 'anan on 'a ealdan dic, 'æt on swine swa on reod dic, 'æt [on] weorces mere, 'anan on 'a twycene, 'æt on 'a hæsel ræwe swa [7]lang streames on hor wyllan, 'anan on 'a langan dic on cym[man] leahe swa on sæfern up 7lang streames to hamstede, 'a[nan] 7lang stræt east to wuda, 'æt on hea'e burge weor'i swa on hricges on bisceopes swyn hege, 'æt on beartan weg, 'anan [on calfan] leahe, 'æt 7lang dic to hæ' halan, eft 7lang dic on piddes meres w[eg on] wad beorhas, 'anan on sealtan mere swa 7lang sices on yrs[e], 7lango yrse on hwitan dene, 'anan east on 'æne fulan py[t] on byrn wynne dene, 'æt on hymel broc æt wuda forda, up 7lan[g bro]ces on oxan ears, 'æt to 'an stan gedelfe, 'anan 7lang dic on [hunig] burnan, 'æt eft on hymel broc, 7lang broces to beccan leahe [on] 'a dic swa 7lang mære weges on ceafor leahe, 'æt on 'a hege sto[we, 'a]nan on hennuc, 'æt on 'a 'orne ręwe, 'onan east on 'one rah [hege], 'æt be 'am ofre eft on 'a dic, 'æt swa on pidelan stream up 7[lang] streames on 'a ealdan dic, 'æt 7lang fura on 'a heafdu æ[t win]ter burnan swa on herefer'es meduwan, 'æt in 'æt sic, 'ana[n on] 'ane cumb swa on 'a ealdan dic, 'æt in pidelan, 'anan ymb [. . .] swa on pidelan, 'æt on afene up 7lang afene eft on py[rig] ford. [Flyford (Dormston?)] %is sint 'æra fif hida land gemæra to flefer'. Æ[rest] of 'am ealdan slæpe on winter burnan, 'anan on 'one swyn [hege], 'æt on et meres mæduan swa on hodes ac, 'æt 7lang heges on [$one] weg, 'onan on winter burnan swa on herefer'es m[æduan, 'anan] in 'æt sic, 'anan in 'ane cumb swa on 'a ealdan di[c in pidelan], 'anan ymbutan bradan hame eft in pidelan, 'a[nan eft to 'am] slæpe. [?, Chaceley and Longdon] %is sind 'æra xxx hida land gemæra [. . . . . . . . . .]p 7 to ceatewes leahe into langa[n] d[u]ne. Ærest [of sæfern on wi]fer'es medua hege, [of $am hege . . .] to 'rim [. . .]q [Powick (including Leigh)] [%is sind $æra . . . hida land gemæra to poincg wican. Ærest up of sæfern on beornwolde]s sæt[an $æt on hagan] geat, 'æt on secg leah[e]s s[trod, $æt on troh hricg, $æt] on tecles more, 'æt on baldan ricg swa on flotan ricg, 'anan on 'a [sme $an ac on l]ind ricg swa on abbandunes wican, 'æt in baldan geat, 'onan 7lang dune on Ea[dwoldi]ncg leahe middewearde 7 an æcer into beorno'es leahe, of 'am æcere on [. . .]r mær hege, 'anan on scearpan hyl swa on wæ'e burnan, 'æt on gundenling [ricg], 'ana on codran swa to syl beame, 'æt in crame 'anans on hwitan wyllan swa [on h]agan geat, 'æt on 'a greatan ac, 'anan on 'a sand sea'as swa in temedel, 'æt on ['a l]itlan becas, 'anan on gryndles bece, of 'am bece swa 'æt gemæra lige', 'æt on [tem]edan 7lang streames to eldres ege ymbutan yldres ege 'æt eft in temedan, [7la]ng streames eft on sęfern. [Acton (Beauchamp)] %is sind 'æra iii hida land gemæra æt ac [tun]e. Ærestt of horsa broce on heafoc ricg, 'anan on bylingu broc, 'æt in at leahe [geat] swa in 'a hlydan, 'anan on bicera fald swa on sand ford, 'æt on scotta [pæ]', 'anan on gislan ford, 'æt on sand burnan swa on scead wyllan, 'æt on 'a lam [sea]'as, 'anan on ledene, 'æt in linleahe swa on saltera weg, 'anan on hean ofer [in] su' broc, 'onan in west 54 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) broc swa in clæg wyllan, 'anan on æ'elstanes graf, ['anan] in henxtes halh, 'æt eft in horsa broc. [Martin Hussingtree] %is sind 'ara v hida land gemæra [æt] husan treo 7 æt mere tune. Ærest of 'ære stræt 7lang dic to bradan for[de 7]lang burnan on sala werpan 7lang streames to col forda, 'anan 7lang ['ær]e miclan dic on alr broc, 'anan on dyrnan mor swa on 'a dic, 'æt on feower [gem]æra, 'anan on 'orn leahe swa on 'a dic, 'æt eft on 'a stræt. [Beoley] %is sind ['ara] x hida land gemæra to beo leahe. Ærest of beo leahe on cunding æce[ras], 'anan on fearn healas swa on burh leahe, 'æt on iahes ofer, 'anan on [stan] geat, 'æt on wulferes wyllan swa on deawes broc, 'æt on mapoldren geat, ['anan] on beardincg ford swa 7lang dic, 'æt on arewe up 7lang streames on [. . .]v burnan, up 7lang burnan on febban leahe, 'onan on beadegy'e wyllan [. . .]stv rihte on byric æcer, 'æt on blacan pyt, 'anan on fos geat swa on [. . .]nv mere, 'æt on fugges treo swa eft on beo leahe. [Yardley] %is sind 'ara x hida [land] gemæra æt gyrd lea on colle. 'anan on mær dic swa on blacan mearc[an 'æt] on 'ane hæ' garan swa on dægarding weg, 'onan on ac wyllan, 'æt on 'a bra[dan a]poldre, 'anan on mær 'orn swa on smalan broc, 'æt on cyng tunes broc, ['anan] on dyrnan ford swa on brom halas, 'æt on hwitan leahe, 'anan on Leof[mann]incg wic swa on colle, 'æt on meos mor ufewearde 'anan on deope dæl, 'æt [cio]ndan swa on spel broc, 'anan on bulan wyllan swa on 'a langan æc, 'æt on [mund]es dene, 'anan on colle, 'æt eft in gyrd leah. [Alderminster] %is sindw 'ara x hida land ge[mæra] æt sture. Ærest of sture æt denewalding hemmes ende 7lang dic forn[on byr]na scylfe 7lang stræt on mær broc, swa on langan dunes ende, 'æt on pos [hliwan, ']anan on sealt mere, 'æt on fugel mere, swa on baldreding æceras, 'anan on [steapa]n hlinc, 'æt on horpyttes sic, 'anan on baran broc, swa ymbe widan cumb [on hæ$] hylle, 'anan on stan hlinces ende, 'æt on rum beorhas, swa 'onne on 'one cealc [sea$an, 'a]nan to til'egnes treowan, swa on meox beorh, 'æt on peoles dene 7lang [. . .]nx clop hyrste, 'anne 7lang dic in sture swa 'æt ealde ea den belige'. [Broadway and (Childs) Wickham] %is sind ['ara ]xy hida land gemæra æt bradan wege 7 æt wicwennan. Ærest of mær [cumb]ez on pes broc, 'anan on 'a heafdu, 'æt on west meduwa, swa eft on 'a he[afdu], 'æt on 'istel mere 7lang slædes on pincan dene, 'anan upon beorna [dune] ufeweard, et swa on 'one stapol, 'æt on fugel hlaw, 'anan on egesan mor, ['ana]n on langan dune, 'æt on bæddes wyllan, 'anan on brer hlaw, swa ymbutan [nor$ h]am 7lang dic 'æt on sand broc, of 'æm broce on bord ri'ig, 'anan on hor [pytte]s ri'ig swa up 7lang fura 'æt on cadan mynster, 'anan on 'a ecge, 'æt on ['a sea]lt stræt swa on 'a dic æt nanes manes lande 'æt on vii wyllan, 'anan [on $ri]stinga dene up 7langa2 dene, 'æt on 'a dic æt wad beorgeb2, swa eft on hor [cumbe].z [(South) Stoke] [%is sind] 'ara xc2 hida gemæra æt stoce. Ærest of mæddene westeweardre [on bead]o[c] hil, 'æt 7lang middere dene on badan pyt swa on æsc wyllan, 'æt on afene swa [on broc] heardes ford, 'anon on swyn burnan, 'æt on funtnes burnan swa on bre[mer lea]h 7lang dene on stan leah,d2 'anne 7lang seonecan dene middere [on ehan fe]ldes geate swa on gate wyllan, 'æt on cynges crumblu 7lang dene on [risc mere s]wa on æsc dene, 'æt ord dene, 'æte2 on 'one holan weg on luhhing [wudu on fil]e' leahe swa 55 Peter A. Stokes on sceortan graf, 'onan on æ'eling wyllan 7 [adune on stream] up on hyrd wyllan swa on cynges crundelf2, 'æt on ricg wegg2, 'anan [on $one stapol, $anan on] 'a hlydan, of 'am streame be 'am heafdon on mihan leah [easteweardne on $one garan up 7lang weges, $anon] be 'am heafdon, 'æt on mæd be[orh.] [Dyrham] [%is sind $ara . . . hida] land gemæra æt deor [hamme. Ærest of sulan forda on loddra wellan, $onon on by]d micel swa be abban [grafe to bryde wyllan, $æt swa on eccan treo, $onon on miclan] mæduwan, 'æt [on byd, $onne on Hygeredincg æceras 7 swa bi clop æcere ufa in sulig cumb, $onon on mus beorh, $æt swa to æ$eredes wellan, $onon on clæg weg be ciric stede, $æt swa bi sadol hongran on fearn beorh wuda on gemær broc, $æt eft on sulan broc.] [Lydney] [. . .]anh2 bæce, 'æt on mær broc, swa on neowern, 'æt eft on sæferni2. [Wyegate] [%is sind] 'æra vi hida land gemæra æt wiggan geat. Ærest of weg on clor br[. . .]j2 on clor leah, 'anan on preoste wyllan, 'æt on grenan hlaw, swa on [. . .] 'æt on smalan broc, 'anan on mylen broc, 'æt eft in weg. [Cumbtune] %is sin[d 'ara] v hida land gemæra æt cumb tune. Ærest of besewe springe 7[lang] broces on ræges slæd up 7lang dune on cumbtunes broc, swa y[mb] 'a fif æceras 'æt on wad beorh, 'anan on eneda mere, swa on 'a [. . .] æt rudan ofre, 'æt on holan cumb ufeweardne 'anan on mot hyl[le 7]lang weges, on cycggan cumb ufeweardne swa eft on bes wyl sp[ringe]. 7 Wærfer' bysceop gebocede anne hagan Æ'elune into Cumbr[incg]tune on Wigorneceastre . lxx . p . xlv . p .k2 ¯ ¯ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Brintulfingtune] for Brihtulfingtune Deormodestun] letter deleted after n (probably e) Guthbrihtingtun] prob. C altered to G H. . .tun] Approx. two or three letters lost to fire. (Tresham . . . Cumbtun)] sic: parentheses are in MS Wy[.]land] one or two letters lost; perhaps Wynland for Wenland (=Welland) Wynbur Edisc] two letters deleted after Wynbur (perhaps he?); fire-damage after Edisc but probably nothing lost (unless perhaps an e) Bettesford] + in left-hand margin before Bettesford Wiceresham] or perhaps Piceresham Cwelaleah] perhaps one letter lost after Cwela 150] sic (in Arabic numerals); cl deleted before number Approx. 2–3 letters lost. caldan] or perhaps ealdan (A reads caldan) wyr'] x in left-hand margin before hlinc 7lang] 7land Approx. 12 letters lost. One line lost from medua hege to to 'rim, then approx. 15–16 lines lost. Lost text is approximately the same length as the bounds of Longdon in the single sheet. Approx. 5–7 letters lost. 'anan] "anan Ærest] æres byling] perhaps altered from byinig Approx. 3 letters lost. sind] snid (very clear, with no confusion of minims) Approx. 6–8 letters lost. 'ara x] letter immediately before x illegible and could be part of numeral or preceding word. 56 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) z a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2 k2 cumbe] first boundary-point in A is unclear but probably cumbe; last boundary-point in A is cumbe 7lang] 7land beorge] messy deletion of one letter after this word x] space initially left blank, x inserted in pencil or very faint ink stan leah] stan stan leah &æt] "onne crundel] crumbel weg] altered from wæg Approx. nine lines of manuscript lost. Last lost line perhaps ‘. . . weg swa . . .’ sæfern] fæfern br. . .] letters lost due to fire, but first letter after b probably r Text followed by anathema (si quis uero), dating-clause and witness-list as in A; see above, pp. 48–50. Tiberius A. xiii, 163v–164r The text below is the portion of S 786 which is preserved in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, namely the bounds of Acton Beauchamp, as it appears in that manuscript but with lost readings supplied from the Rawlinson copy. [Acton (Beauchamp)] &is synd &ara iii hida land gemæra æt ac tune. Ærest of horsa broce on heafoca hrycg, of heafoc hrycge &anon on byling broc 7 swa in at leahgesb geat 7 swa onc &a hlydan, of 'ære hlydan on bikera fald, of dbikera falde ond sand ford, of sand forda &æt on scottae pæ' 7 swa on gislan ford, of gislan forda &æt on sand burnan, of &ære burnan on scead wyllan 7 swa on &a lam sea'as, of &am sea'an &æt on ledene, 7 of ledene in lin leahge, of lin leahge on saltera weg, of &am wegie on hean ofer 7 swa in su' broc, of su' broke on west broc, of west broke in clæg wyllan, of &ære wællan on Ælfstanes graf, 7f of &am grafe in Henxtes halh, 7 of &am hale &æt eft in horsa broc. a b c d e f heafoc] e inserted T leahges] h inserted R on] illegible due to fire-damage; probably inserted by original scribe T bikera falde on] illegible due to fire-damage T scotta] otta illegible due to fire-damage T 7] inserted T Comparison of the Texts The larger structural differences between the two versions of S 786 are summarised in Table 2, along with the other charters in the Orthodoxorum group. There are many more differences in phrasing and detail than are listed here, but the similarities between them are still evident, and both versions of the Pershore charter belong clearly in this group. Comparing the two versions of S 786 shows that they have essentially the same content as each other but that the order of this content has been reworked. Both have the same core and are based on the same model, the primary difference being the position of the list of estates and the block of boundary-clauses, as well as the section beginning 57 Peter A. Stokes tempore siquidem. Indeed the transcript and S 788 are unique among the Orthodoxorum group in the way they position this section and this suggests that the transcript might be a reworking of the single sheet. Specifically, the structure of Augustus ii. 6 shows some influence from the model of S 658 but is otherwise almost identical to that of S 673, except for the added list of estates and section ‘prefato quoque coenobio’. One might therefore speculate that the single sheet was drawn up from a model very much like that of S 673 and that the list of estates was inserted and the ‘prefato quoque coenobio’ added at that time. Perhaps, then, this text was subsequently reworked to produce the transcript version, with the list of estates updated, some boundary clauses added and reworked, the ‘tempore siquidem’ clause moved, the bounds placed before the anathema, and the ‘prefato quoque coenobio’ integrated into the list of estates. This order of material seems more logical and is more consistent with the usual structure of Anglo-Saxon charters and so is more likely to be the result of revision than the other way around. Moving from structure to detail, one important difference between the two versions is the list of estates claimed by Pershore, as noted above and summarized in Table 3. The two lists share a common ancestry as blocks of names are identical or very similar in the two versions. However, the differences are not simply the result of scribal omission or uninformed alteration as two estates are included in the single sheet which are not in the transcript, and fourteen estates are in the transcript but not the single sheet.41 The differences have proven difficult to explain and do not seem to correspond with obvious patterns in location, organisation, or holdings before or after a given date. A full discussion of the complexities of Pershore’s land-holdings is beyond the scope of this article and so I simply note the differences here and observe that both lists seem to reflect a fairly thorough knowledge of the community’s holdings, presumably at two slightly different dates. The boundary clauses are also different, as shown in Table 4: the order of the bounds is different and each version has details (and indeed entire bounds) which are missing from the other, but the versions are nevertheless not entirely independent. Most bounds do appear in both versions, and most of those common bounds have identical boundary-points. Kelly has noted that the phrasing in the bounds of the single sheet is very homogeneous and probably reflects some degree of standardization by the copyist, and indeed the same applies to the transcript. Such homogenisation is particularly evident in the 41 The two estates are Pensham and Libbery, and the fourteen are Guthbrington, H[.]ton, Meretun (probably Castle Morton), Wy[.]land (perhaps Welland), Stithaneg, Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton and Wynburgh Edisc, Wiceresham, Hohislan, Tæflanleh, Greotan Cwelaleah (Great Whitley?), and Westwood (Westwood Park). 58 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) single sheet where the first letter of each boundary-clause alternates between % and *. The only exception to this is the combined bounds of Chaceley, Eldersfield, Staunton and Winburh Edisc, where % is used as in the previous bounds of Longdon. Although there is no clear evidence that the combined bounds were inserted, it is perhaps significant that Longdon, Chaceley, and perhaps Eldersfield, Staunton and Winburh Edisc as well, were all incorporated into a single boundary-clause in Vitellius D. vii. Furthermore the % which begins the second boundary-clause in the single sheet is the smallest and least prominent of all the initials in that copy. Despite this homogenization in both versions, however, the phrasing in each is consistently different from the other. The bounds in Augustus ii. 6 almost always repeat the boundary-point, normally using the formula ‘of A on B, of B on C’. Those in Vitellius D. vii, on the other hand, do not normally repeat the boundary-point and usually instead use either #æt on, $anan on, or less often swa on. Although the boundary-clauses in the two versions are usually very similar, some show large structural differences. Perhaps the most notable of these is Powick and Leigh: these are given two separate bounds in the single sheet but are presented as a single combined estate in the transcript.42 Similarly, as noted above, the estates of Chaceley and Longdon seem to be combined in the transcript but are separate in the single sheet. Another interesting case is that of Acton Beauchamp: as discussed above, the boundary-clause for this estate survives in three versions. Even here, though, the boundary-points in the three versions are essentially the same, and even the spelling is quite similar, but again the phrasing is different. The third copy, that in ‘Hemming’s Cartulary’, is much less formulaic than either of the Pershore texts and does not seem especially close to either one of them. Other differences between the two main versions are relatively small but still significant. Della Hooke has argued from the single sheet that the estate of Broadway included Childs Wickham, and indeed the transcript version states this explicitly and so confirms her argument.43 The bounds of Beoley in the transcript contain some additional points which are not included in the single sheet: where the former includes only the southern and eastern boundaries, the transcript lists some ten further points.44 Some of these points can be identified relatively easily: the boundary follows the River Arrow (‘'æt on arewe up 7lang streames’), then probably runs along Dagnell Brook, as the modern boundary still does (‘on . . . burnan, up 7lang 42 44 For a full discussion, see P. A. Stokes, ‘Rewriting the Bounds: Pershore’s Powick and Leigh’, Anglo-Saxon Landscapes, ed. N. Higham and M. Ryan, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, forth43 Hooke, Worcestershire, p. 229, referring to S 1174. coming). For these southern and eastern boundaries, see Hooke, Worcestershire, pp. 219–21 (no. 291). 59 Peter A. Stokes Table 2 Structure of the Orthodoxorum charters. The dotted boxes indicate sections only found in S 786 and S788. 60 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) 61 Peter A. Stokes 6
!,-),(
6
%(
,%$./&"%(#./(!
2
'(-%
%(
/',%(#./(!
2
'(-%

 
#
 
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
3(#./(!
20%
'(-%

%(
3,&%(#$''!
2
'(-%


%(
!)*("), 
2
'(-%


%(
.,!(#!-$)
2

%(
!..!-"), 
2
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
,)'(
!,-!
(/'!,&





%(
.)!
2




%(
3,%./(!
2

%(
/ !),$(
%%%%
$% #!
&.!,! 




%(
%0%(#./(!
%%%
$% #!
&.!,! 

%(
,)./(!
%%%



%(
%*&%(#./(!
2



%(
() !-3,%
2



%(
%//(./(!
0%%


%(
 ,%$.%(#./(!
%%%%
$ #
&.!,! 




%(
/%$.&"!-./(!
0

%(
&5"!,.$
0

%(
,"./(!
0


%(
!),') !-!& ./(!
0


%(
/-(.,!)


)(
!,!./(!
0

%(
,)./(!
%%%



!
%



%(
(#( /(!
222



%(
)%(#//%
0%%



%(

!),().$!-&!$!
%%%
$ #
&.!,! 


%(
./(!
%%%


%(
/.$-.)!




)(
%&&!$!


)(
,!-$'



)(
3&&%(#).(




)(
& (3,%



3 %'!,!./(!


 %'3(#./(


*./(
2&
$% #!
&.!,! 


%(
!),$'
2

%(
)(#(!#!
0

)(
% (!#!
0%

%(
/%##(#!.!
0%



%(
!)&!$!
0
$ #
&.!,!
",)'
2

3, &!$!
0
$ #
&.!,!
",)'
2



%(
./,!
2
$% #!
&.!,! 

%(
, (//!#!
22

%(
)'./(!
0


%(
/%#//!(((
2




!.

/-/'
)("%%!( %
-&%-
/)/-
%(
&)%-
20%%%
)&%),/'
-%./-
)(
'% !&1%
2

)(
(!) !'!-.(
1%
0%%%
!.
/,/'
"),(%/'
6
)(
/%./(!
!.
/-
+/)
%%./,
1!-.
,%(#!
/'

'(-%
%(
6
),./(

6
!,-),'
6

,%$./&"%(#./(!
/',%(#./(!
4%(./(
3,&%(#$'
!*"),
.,!(#!-$)$
,)'(
3,%#./(
 !),$-

3"%(#./(
,)./(!
%*&%(#./(
() !-!,%
,"./(
!),') !-./(
,)./(
&!"!,.$
%0!
$% !-
%$.&"!-./(
 3,%.%(#./(
%1(./(
(#( /(


-%,!-$'
3&&%(#).(
& (/,$
3 !'!,!./(
 3'%(#./(
"!!!"
!),$'

$% !-
!"
(#(!#
% (!#
%##(#!.
%2
$% !-
)'./(


-%
%0!
$% !-

!"
%
!!

!$ 
 
!!"
%"
 

!..!-"),

)%(#1%
 
!),().$!-&!$
 %
./(
$,!!
$% !-
/-(.,!)
!,!./(
)#!.$!,
.
"%0!
$% !-
!)&!$
!(
$% !-
3, &!$
!(
$% !-
&&
!
$
./,!
!(
$% !-
, (1!#
%13(((
!(
$% !-
1%.$
, (1!#
.)!
!(
$% !-
&.!,
 %.%)(
*./(


3& !-&!$
6
!"
""
"!!
!
"


!.

/-/'
)("%%!( %
-&%-

/)/-
%(
&)%-
20%%%
)&%),/'
-%./-

)(
'% !&1%
2


)(
(!)
)'!-.(
1%
0%%%

!.
/,/'
"),(%/'
6
)(
1%./(!

!.
/-
+/)
%%./,
1!-.
,%(#!

/'

'(-%
%(
6
),./(
!
"
 
'
&!
$ !$"
Table 3 List of estates in Augustus ii. 6 (left column) and Vitellius D. vii (right column). 62 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) 
!

!
!
!

! !
 
!

 







&



&










&
$$$


&
'


 #

 
 
 ! 




&



&


#'
'


&
 







&



&
&

! 





"


&
&
!


&

!







$


&








$


&
&
%








$


 &
&
 !





$


&
&

#

&
##





$

&
&
 









&
&




&

&

#

#
&


&





"


&
&
#




 
&
"


&
&
!
!


&
%



'
 
! 
!

 





&
&
!


 






#
!

&
# 
!

  
!

#
!

&&
!






 & 
 
 





&

!






&

&
 

!








&
 
 #





%



 
!


#%!






&
 

#




 

&
 








&
 

!





"

&
 
!
 






& 
  











&
 








&
 
%







&
&


%

 !





&

 
#
Table 4 Order of boundary clauses in Augustus ii. 6 (left column) and Vitellus D. vii (right column) 63 Peter A. Stokes burnan’). The ‘lea’ and ‘Beadgyth’s spring’ or ‘well’ (‘febban leahe, 'onan on beadegy'e wyllan’) could have been somewhere around SP061738, where the modern boundary leaves the brook, and ‘byric æcer’ seems likely to have been Birch Acre, which is on the modern boundary at SP069734. ‘Fos geat’ cannot refer directly to the Fosse Way, as that road ran some twenty miles south-east of Beoley, but was presumably a ditch in the area.45 The Ordnance Survey maps also show many pits in the area, any one of which could have been the ‘black pit’ (‘blacan pyt’). To establish the bounds more securely requires further investigation but it seems that at least some of these new points can be securely located. Three boundary-clauses are found only in Vitellius D. vii and are therefore ‘new’ insofar as they have not been studied before. One of these can be identified easily, namely Wyegate in Gloucestershire (‘Wiggangeat’). The second is Cumbtune, presumably the Comtune of Augustus ii. 6 which has not been identified but which Kelly has suggested should be near Broadway and Childswickham.46 Indeed it is striking that the bounds of Broadway and Cumbtune both include references to wad beorh, ‘woad barrow’. If these references are both to the same place, and if Hooke is correct in her reconstruction of Broadway’s bounds, then Cumbtune must be immediately south of Broadway in modern Buckland or Snowshill, Gloucestershire.47 The bounds of Cumbtune are not inconsistent with this as they contain several references to steep slopes which match the geography of that area (slæd, ‘valley’; beorgh, ‘barrow’; ofre, ‘bank’; cumb, ‘coomb’; hyll, ‘hill’), but locating specific features has not yet proven possible and the location of the estate is by no means certain. The third boundary-clause is very incomplete, with only the last four boundary-points surviving, and so it cannot be identified with absolute certainty. However, one of these points is neowern, a good candidate for which is modern Newerne near Lydney. As Kelly has pointed out, only three estates are named in the list of Augustus ii. 6 but are not covered by the boundaryclauses of that document, namely Longney, Lydney and Wyegate, all in Gloucestershire. Wyegate and probably Lydney have now been accounted for, and it is entirely possible that the bounds for Longney preceded those of Lydney in the transcript but are now lost to fire. Finally, a rather cryptic comment is included in the transcript after the bounds: ‘7 Wærfer' bysceop gebocede anne hagan Æ'elune into Cumbr[incg]tune on Wigorneceastre . lxx 45 47 Perhaps relevant here is a moat at SP084715, or perhaps Moss Lane at SP080695 if some cor46 ruption is allowed in the text. Kelly, ‘S 786’. The common points are ‘on &a ealdan dic æt wad beorhe’ and ‘swa y[mb] 'a fif æceras 'æt on wad beorh’ respectively; for the former, see Hooke, Worcestershire, pp. 226 and 229. The ‘besewe springe’ in the bounds of Cumbtune might also be a corruption of Broadway’s ‘seofan wyllan’. 64 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) . p . xlv . p’.48 This ‘Wærfer'’ was presumably Wærfrith, bishop of Worcester ¯ ! 872¯% 907 ! 915, who appears in a number of charters and other 869 records from this time, but none of these refers to this transaction with Æthelhun.49 Indeed it is unclear who this Æthelhun was, as several possibilities are evident: perhaps the most intriguing is Wærfrith’s successor as bishop of Worcester (907 ! 915 % 915 ! 922), but other possibilities include three different abbots and a Mercian dux.50 S 788: Somers Charter 16 Given the similarities between the two main versions of S 786, and given the good Old English in both, it seems that the two versions’ boundary-clauses, like the lists of estates, were produced relatively close to each other in both time and place, and that both were produced with detailed knowledge not only of Pershore’s holdings but also of the landscape itself. The question remains how the two versions relate to each other and why two versions were produced, but to progress with this some further documents must be considered. The first of these, Somers Charter 16, is not a copy of S 786 but is integral to any discussion of the pancart from Pershore. The Somers charter is in favour of Worcester Cathedral and dated 972. The document is now lost but it was printed by Smith and also summarized by Patrick Young.51 It has long been recognized that this document is a forgery, and specifically that the text is based very closely on that of S 786.52 Indeed, much of the text is identical, and the few changes are very crude indeed, such as altering the name of the abbot from Foldbriht to ‘N’ (for nomen), presumably because the forger did not know what name to insert. Given that there are two versions of S 786, however, the question that naturally arises is which version was used when fabricating S 788. For once there is little doubt: examination of the documents’ structures makes it clear that the forger used the transcript-version, not the single sheet. S 788 has exactly the same structure as the transcript, including the relative positions 48 49 50 51 52 ‘And Bishop Wærferth booked a haga to Æthelhune at Comberton in Worcester’. The numbers and abbreviations are obscure; possibilities include a sum of money (seventy pounds and forty-five pence) or an area of land (seventy perticae by forty-five perticae), but both of these seem much too large for a single haga. ‘Wærfrith 6’, Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England <http://www.pase.ac.uk> (last accessed 10 January 2007). ‘Æthelun 12’ through ‘Æthelun 18’ in Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England. Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, ed. J. Smith (Cambridge, 1722), pp. 775–7. Young’s text is preserved on 131r of Cotton Vitellius C. ix and has been described somewhat misleadingly as an incomplete copy of S 788; see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 252, and Electronic Sawyer, no. 788. E. John, Land Tenure in Early England: a Discussion of some Problems, rev. ed. (Leicester, 1960), p. 104; The Early Charters of the West Midlands, ed. H. P. R. Finberg, 2nd ed. (Leicester, 1972), p. 118 (no. 303). 65 Peter A. Stokes of the tempore siquidem and prefato quoque coenobio clauses.53 This means first of all that the forger was even less inventive than previously thought: his apparent changes to the structure of the single-sheet version are instead simply blind copying of the previously unnoticed transcript-version. More importantly, though, it suggests very strongly that a copy of the transcript-version was kept in the Worcester Cathedral archives. Indeed, to my knowledge the similarity of S 788 is the only evidence in favour of S 786 being described as from the archive of ‘Worcester (ex Pershore)’.54 The transcript-version might reasonably be described thus, but the cathedral archive may never have held a copy of the single sheet, let alone Augustus ii. 6 itself. The significance of S 788 in discussion of S 786 is manifold. It is important for questions of provenance, as has just been discussed. It is also useful for establishing the text of S 786 as it can supply lost readings, particularly given the extensive damage suffered by both Augustus ii. 6 and Vitellius D. vii. Of these lost readings, perhaps the most tantalizing is the endorsement. All but one of the Orthodoxorum charters has a rubric or endorsement of some sort, but for most this is the rather uninteresting Charta Eadgari Regis or similar. Those from Pershore and Worcester seem to have rather more to offer, but most of the evidence from Pershore is lost. Joscelyn’s transcript once had a heading of some sort but this has been almost entirely destroyed by fire; the only text to survive is the phrase 7 sancte Benedicte (‘and to Saint Benedict’). The single sheet had a lengthy endorsement but this was subsequently subjected to very heavy wear or erasure and has not hitherto been successfully read. However, new techniques in digital image-enhancement have helped significantly, and a large portion of the text can be recovered in this way.55 Furthermore, Smith printed 53 54 55 See above, Table 2. For this description see Electronic Sawyer no. 786, after P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, revised ed. by S. E. Kelly (Cambridge, 1994), p. 506. Most of the text was recovered from a digital photograph of the endorsement by mixing the red and blue channels at -56% and 100% respectively, then adjusting the levels and overlaying the result on top of the original image. For these and other techniques, see especially J. Craig-McFeely and A. Lock, Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music: Digital Restoration Workbook, Oxford Select Specialist Catalogue Publications (Oxford, 2006) <http://www.methodsnetwork.ac.uk/redist/pdf/workbook1.pdf> (last accessed 5 June 2008), and P. A. Stokes, ‘Recovering Anglo-Saxon Erasures: Some Questions, Tools and Techniques’, Palimpsests and the Literary Imagination of Medieval England, ed. R. Chai-Elsholz and T. Silec (forthcoming). Much more sophisticated techniques are being developed by Hao Zhang and Nick Kingsbury in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge but these were not sufficiently developed at the time of writing. For the principles involved, see especially N. G. Kingsbury, ‘Complex Wavelets for Shift Invariant Analysis and Filtering of Signals’, Jnl of Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 10 (2001), 234–53 and I. W. Selesnick, R. G. Baraniuk and N. G. Kingsbury, ‘The Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Transform’, IEEE Signal Processing Mag. 22 (2005), 123–51. 66 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) a vernacular clause at the end of his text of S 788, and the position and formulation of this clause suggests very strongly that it was the endorsement of the original charter. The note reads ‘'is is se freolse 7 'ara landa boc 'e Eadgar cyning geu&e into Wigera ceastre Gode to lofe 7 Sancta Marian 7 Sancte Benedicte’.56 That which can be read of the endorsement of Augustus ii. 6 suggests that its text is very close to that printed by Smith for S 788. Combining this assumption with image-enhancement, different lighting, and the sizes and shapes of otherwise illegible letters, a likely reconstruction of the text is ‘[XP] 'is [is se freolse] 7 &ara landa boc ['e] Eadg[ar] cining geu'e into Perscoran swa his yldran hit ær gesettan Gode to lofe 7 Sancta Marian’.57 Interestingly there is no sign of any reference to St Benedict here, unlike both S 788 and Joscelyn’s transcript; such a reference may have been particularly thoroughly worn but this seems unlikely and there is no evidence to suggest it, although there is sufficient space on the parchment. On the other hand, Sancte Benedicte is the one phrase that does survive in the transcript, and this with the other similarities in text suggest that the transcript-version once had an endorsement which was very close or identical to that of S 788, mutatis mutandis.  There are two pieces of evidence which demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that at least one version of S 786 was at Worcester, probably by the late eleventh century and certainly by the mid-twelfth. The first of these is S 788, which was produced at Worcester and which draws very heavily on the transcript-version of S 786, as discussed above: this suggests very strongly that either Joscelyn’s exemplar or a descendent of it was at Worcester, and it may not be a coincidence that this version is the one which contains a note relating to Wærfrith who was bishop there.58 However, we must also remember Joscelyn’s note, which Wanley preserved and which implies that Parker obtained his exemplar directly from Pershore.59 This document may have gone from Pershore to Worcester and back again, but perhaps more likely is that another copy of the same version was held in the cathedral archives. The second piece of evidence is yet another document: BL Cotton Augustus ii. 7, the next in sequence after the single sheet from Pershore. Augustus ii. 7 is a comparatively small piece of parchment measuring approximately 56 57 58 ‘This is the privilege and grant of lands which King Edgar gave to Worcester in praise of God and St Mary and St Benedict.’ ‘This is the privilege and grant of lands which King Edgar gave to Pershore just as his elders did previously in praise of God and St Mary.’ Letters in square brackets are postulated on the basis of S 788; all other letters have been read with a reasonable degree of confidence, either from the original manuscript or with the image-enhancement described above, n. 55. For the note, see above, pp. 64–5. 59 See above, p. 41. 67 Peter A. Stokes 240–5 ! 72 mm. It is written in a hand of the twelfth century and consists of a letter from Godfrey, archdeacon of Worcester, to one ‘Pope A’.60 The archdeacon refers to a charter, specifically an ‘original of this copy’ which has three seals attached to it:61 although the evidence is circumstantial it seems reasonable to assume that the he was referring to Augustus ii. 6. Certainly the sequential numbering of the two documents in Cotton’s library suggests that they have been associated since the seventeenth century, but such an association may have resulted from early modern rather than medieval activity. There is somewhat stronger evidence to support an early connexion, however. One such piece of evidence relates to the seals which Godfrey described. These were apparently those of King Edgar, Dunstan archbishop of Canterbury, and Ælfhere earl of Mercia. They have presumably been lost or destroyed – they certainly have not been identified to my knowledge – but if they were attached to Augustus ii. 6 then one would expect evidence of this to remain in the parchment, and there are indeed slits at the bottom of the single sheet. The evidence is not entirely straightforward, however. Two slits are clearly visible, one about 20 mm long and starting about 45 mm in from the left-hand edge, and the other about the same length and starting about 175 mm from the same edge. The bottom of the charter is in poor condition around the middle and right-hand side, however, and it has been repaired in places; it is therefore difficult to tell where any further slits may have been. Fortunately the nineteenth-century facsimile was printed before the repairs took place but this clearly shows five slits, all of similar length.62 This evidence is further supported by some early descriptions of the document which also mention the slits, although the descriptions are not entirely consistent.63 None of the slits is 60 61 62 63 The text is edited and translated in Appendix II of this paper, and I thank Simon Keynes for bringing it to my attention. Godfrey was archdeacon 1144 –1156 ! 7 and c. 1158 ! 9 – 1167 ! 8: see John Le Neve, Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066–1300, ed. D. E. Greenway, J. S. Barrow and M. J. Pearson, 10 vols. (London, 1968–) II, 105, and English Episcopal Acta 33: Worcester 1062–1185, ed. M. Cheney, D. Smith, C. Brooke and P. M. Hoskin (Oxford, 2007), pp. 180–4. Unfortunately there were three popes in succession during this time with the initial ‘A’: Anastasius IV (1153–4), Adrian IV (1154–9), and Alexander III (1159–81). ‘Noverit . . . quod contrascripti huius scriptum originale . . . sigilla tria . . . commendant.’ Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 30. For the fifth slit, see below, p. 70. G. Hickes, Dissertatio epistolaris, in vol. III of his Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus 3 vols. (London, 1703–5), p. 71: ‘verum charta illa, cui in collectione Cottoniana, . . . non tres (quod pace Seldeni dictum velim) sed quinque . . . incisuras habet’ (‘but that charter in the Cottonian collection has not three but five slits, pace Selden’). Selden described S 786 unambiguously and referred also to the letter of Godfrey; he did not specify that the charter was Cotton’s but this seems clear in the context. See J. Selden, A Brief Discourse Touching the Office of Lord Chancellor of England (London, 1671), pp. 2–3 (Ch. 2). Finally, six slits were described by Stevenson, ‘Yorkshire Surveys’, p. 6, n. 17, but (judging from the facsimile) his sixth slit looks more like accidental damage than deliberate cutting. 68 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) particularly neat or straight, nor are they any more than approximately parallel to the bottom edge, and it is possible that they are simply splits in the parchment, as can certainly be found elsewhere on the document. However, the presence of five such splits, all between the writing and the bottom edge of the parchment, all approximately horizontal and all approximately the same length, suggests human agency rather than accidental damage. The second piece of evidence for the letter’s association with the surviving single sheet begins with yet another early-modern manuscript. This is a copy of the archdeacon’s letter which was made by John Joscelyn and which survives in Corpus Christi College in Cambridge.64 The copy has the heading ‘Hoc scriptum appensum fuit magnæ chartæ de cœnobio Parshorensi in testimonium eius chartæ’.65 This states unambiguously that Godfrey’s letter was physically attached to the ‘great charter’ when Joscelyn saw it, and indeed it was apparently still so in the eighteenth century when it was described by George Hickes as being attached to a charter in Cotton’s collection.66 Joscelyn did not specify which ‘great charter’ he was describing, and so the letter could conceivably have been attached to the exemplar of Vitellius D. vii, but this would require an otherwise unknown charter to have been lost from Cotton’s collection some time after Hickes saw it. However, if the letter was indeed attached to the single sheet then one might expect to see physical evidence of this attachment. Neither Susan Kelly nor I have been able to find any evidence of stitching on either the charter or the letter,67 but other physical evidence suggests that the two documents were indeed joined. The pattern of folds in the single-sheet charter is somewhat unusual in that it has a pair of vertical folds down the centre, rather than a single fold. The two folds are about 18– 20 mm apart; the one to the left is approximately vertical, but the one on the right angles slightly towards the left as it comes down. Similarly, the twelfthcentury letter also shows two vertical folds which are themselves about 18 mm apart and again with the right-hand one angled slightly in to the left. Indeed, careful comparison of the two charters together reveals that the folds match 64 65 66 67 The copy is Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 111, p. 135, part of a small section written by Joscelyn and now bound between a twelfth-century cartulary from Bath Abbey and a set of transcripts by the antiquarian Robert Talbot. See M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1909–12) I, 242–3 (no. 111). I again thank Simon Keynes for bringing this copy to my attention. ‘This writ had been attached to the great charter from the monastery of Pershore in witness to that charter.’ ‘Verum charta illa, cui in collectione Cottoniana, Godefridi litterae suffixae cernuntur . . .’ (‘But that charter in the Cottonian collection, to which Godfrey’s letter has been attached beneath . . .’): Hickes, Dissertatio epistolaris, p. 71. However, Wanley made no suggestion that the two documents were attached: see Wanley, Librorum veterum catalogus, p. 258. Kelly, ‘S 786’. 69 Peter A. Stokes extremely closely, and this indicates that the two pieces of parchment were once folded together. Specifically, the lower edge of Augustus ii. 7 was once aligned with the bottom line of text in Augustus ii. 6, and on the horizontal axis the letter was apparently placed approximately in the middle of the single sheet. The problem of stitch-marks remains, but even this can probably be accounted for. The letter has been trimmed, at least along the bottom edge, as the bottom of the letters in a sixteenth-century note on the dorse have been cut off.68 Much more significantly, Augustus ii. 6 has a slit on the bottom between the two vertical folds, and the letter also has a slit at the same point between its corresponding folds. Furthermore, the bottom five lines of writing on the single sheet seem to be slightly more smudged than those immediately above, and these lines correspond to the area that would have been covered by the letter if it had been attached as just described. This difference in smudging is very slight and may be due to any number of other circumstances, but it does match the other evidence very well. Finally, Hickes’s description of the letter as suffixa (‘attached below’), rather than the more general appensa (‘attached’) used by Joscelyn, also suggests attachment at the bottom, although Hickes may not have meant the word so literally.69 None of these points is conclusive in itself, but in combination it seems certain that Augustus ii. 7 was attached to Augustus ii. 6 before Joscelyn’s time and also that the document which Archdeacon Godfrey described was most likely our surviving single sheet. Some questions remain, however. Godfrey wrote that the seals were attached to ‘the copy of this charter’; this implies that his letter was referring to a copy which lacked seals rather than the original which had them, but it seems entirely reasonable that a copy of the letter would have been stored with the original charter. The evidence seems to suggest that Augustus ii. 6 was the original at Pershore; Godfrey’s copy was probably derived from this, unless it was a copy of the other version and he, like so many after him, failed to notice the difference. Another question is that if Joscelyn saw Augustus ii. 6 with the archdeacon’s letter attached, and if he thought that seals had been attached to 68 69 For the note, see below, p. 77. See above, note 66. It is perhaps relevant that surviving single-sheet charters with parchment attached seem to be stitched along the bottom, although this stitching need not have been (and in some cases was certainly not) Anglo-Saxon. Examples include BL Cotton Augustus ii. 98 (S 163; Facsimiles, ed. Bond II, 9), BL Stowe Charter 17 (S 293; Facsimiles, ed. Sanders III, 17), BL Cotton Charter viii. 16A (S 416; Facsimiles, ed. Bond III, 3), and perhaps BL Cotton Augustus ii. 29 (S 1171; Facsimiles, ed. Bond I, 2), although the holes in this last document look very different and seem to have served a different purpose. For these, including digital photographs, see S. Keynes et al., ‘A Classified List of Anglo-Saxon Charters on Single Sheets’ <http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/singlesheets/ss-index.html> (last accessed 22 March 2008), nos. 33, 56, 91 and 2 respectively. 70 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) this document – indeed the seals may still have been in place at that time70 – then why did he chose to copy the other version? Although there are many possibilities, perhaps the simplest is that he made his copy before he was aware of Augustus ii. 6. Joscelyn’s comment in his notebook that he obtained the original from Matthew Parker suggests that he may have copied it in Cambridge or Lambeth before going to Worcester or Pershore.71 Although it is unknown when Parker obtained the exemplar which Joscelyn copied, the comment at least allows the possibility that it was acquired not long after the abbey was dissolved in 1537, at a time when Parker was still Master of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge and when Joscelyn was still a young child. Furthermore, Augustus ii. 6 may never have been at Worcester at all: Godfrey could have travelled to Pershore, or the document could have travelled to the archdeacon. Joscelyn may then have found Augustus ii. 6 some time during the period 1560–77 when he was prebend at Hereford and spent time at Worcester collecting manuscripts and making transcripts, as demonstrated not only by the number of Anglo-Saxon books from Worcester Cathedral which entered Matthew Parker’s library but also by the number of texts in Vitellius D. vii which he copied directly from manuscripts at Worcester.72 Joscelyn would therefore have had ample opportunity to find any document if it was at Worcester, and it is entirely likely that he would also have travelled the nine miles or so to Pershore to examine the holdings there, just as Leland had done a generation or so before.73 Whatever the case, someone at some time seems to have compared the two versions and to have recognized the differences between them. As discussed above, some words in the single sheet have been underlined in a dark ink, and a caret-symbol added.74 These annotations are not random, however: the ones in dark ink all correspond precisely to the points where the two texts deviate (see below, Table 5, and compare above, Table 2). There is insufficient evidence to date the annotations at all closely, but the darker ink is not typically Anglo-Saxon, and a possible candidate for adding them must again be John Joscelyn. There is little doubt that he saw both versions of the charter, given 70 71 72 73 The seals were missing by the time Selden described the document in the 1670s (A Brief Discourse, pp. 2–3), but they may perhaps have been present still in the sixteenth century. See above, p. 41. Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Wigorniensis made in 1622–1623 by Patrick Young, ed. I. Atkins and N. R. Ker (Cambridge, 1944), pp. 9–11; see also N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 2nd ed., Royal Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 3 (London, 1964), p. 206; and M. Budny, Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: an Illustrated Catalogue, 2 vols. (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997) I, xlv–xlvii. For Leland’s movements and acquisitions for King Henry VIII, see Catalogus Librorum, ed. Atkins and Ker, pp. 8–9, as well as J. Leland, De rebus Britannicis collectanea, 2nd ed., 6 vols. 74 (London, 1770) IV, 160. See above, p. 38. 71 Peter A. Stokes his copy of the one and his copy of the letter attached to the other. It may also be significant that dots are visible in the left-hand margin of Joscelyn’s notebook alongside the last three boundary-clauses. These dots appear to be in the same ink as the main text and are presumably Joscelyn’s. Unfortunately we cannot be certain if any other bounds had similar dots because the left-hand margins of most pages have been destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, it is a striking coincidence that the boundary-clauses which are so marked are precisely the ones which are not found in the single-sheet version, and this may also suggest comparison of the two versions. Perhaps, then, our early-modern antiquaries had noticed the difference in texts which most twentieth-century scholars had not.75 Annotation Reading in Aug. ii.6 Reading in Vitell. D.vii Pencil underline Ink ‘caret’ Ink underline Vertical line Ink underline Ink underline decentissime collocauit concessi sunt. ^ Id est in Percoran Actun Suthstoce [Start of group] wic viii | et duarum fornacium Hortun: eiusdem perpetualiter . . . uigente priuilegio. Si quis uero . . . Vertical line Red bracket [Bounds of Whitlafston] [Between bounds of Powick and Leigh] crucietur. 'is sindon &a lond gemæra decentissime collocauit concessi sunt. Tempore siquidem Stock Upton [Not in group] wic viii et duarum fornacium Hortun, et dimidium mansi uigente priuilegio. [Hec] sunt nomina . . . [Bounds of Whitlafston omitted] [Powick and Leigh have single boundary-clause] libertatis. Hec sunt termini Ink underline Table 5 Annotations in Augustus ii. 6. Those in dark ink are given here with grey background.   Many questions still remain from this discussion. The precise relationship between the two versions has not been fully elucidated, nor the question why they were both apparently produced at about the same time. Perhaps one hint towards an answer is the number of alterations to Augustus ii. 6; it almost looks as if this is an early working copy, although the script seems too careful and consistent for a simple draft, and even if it was first planned as such the seals clearly indicate that it was later deemed authoritative. However, Pershore’s land-holdings were very unstable during the first third or so of the eleventh 75 Another possibility is that these were added when the text was reworked to produce the transcript version, if this was the sequence of events; see above, p. 58. 72 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) century, as Edward the Confessor gave most of its estates to Westminster.76 This instability may explain the need for alteration, if Augustus ii. 6 was indeed kept at Pershore and updated as events unfolded. The threat to Pershore’s holdings could also help to explain the need for two early charters, as additional documentation may well have helped any attempts to retain the land. It also suggests that both versions were drawn up between the purported date of 972 and the irrevocable loss of estates to Westminster during the Confessor’s reign. An alternative factor may be the fire which burnt down Pershore Abbey, apparently in the first few years of the eleventh century;77 the original document could have been destroyed then and a new version drawn up almost immediately afterwards, and the palaeography and philology both seem to allow such a date. The monks at Pershore may have already lodged a copy at Worcester before the fire but need not necessarily have used this when recreating their archive, instead updating the text by use of other records. This is all speculative but it might explain the need for two different versions produced in such quick succession, and the number of erasures and alterations in the single sheet could also reflect a somewhat haphazard production. Certainly the Orthodoxorum charters remain a fascinating but complex source of evidence for Anglo-Saxon England during the tenth century, but it is also worth remembering that their importance and interest extended well beyond the Norman Conquest, with the two versions from Pershore demonstrably receiving attention at least once in almost every century from the eleventh to today.78  :     .  This translation includes all of the Latin text but omits the bounds and witness-list. It was first made independently of Hudson’s edition and translation of the closely related 76 77 78 S 1143–46; compare also 174v–175r of Domesday book: Domesday Book: a Survey of the Counties of England ‘Liber de Wintonia’ compiled by direction of King William I, ed. and trans. J. Morris et al., History from the Sources, 38 vols (Chichester, 1975–) XVI.8 (174c–175b). Leland, Collectanea I, 242 and 244; J. Leland, The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, 3rd ed., 9 vols. in 5 (Oxford, 1770) V, 2. Note also the statements of witnesses recorded in an attempt to establish Pershore’s holdings after the monastery was again burned down and their register destroyed in the thirteenth century; the document is BL Add. Charter 42,605 and was printed by R. Dodsworth and W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 vols. (London, 1655–73) I, 205–8; see also Victoria History, ed. Willis-Bund and Doubleday II, 128 and 130. I thank Rosalind Love for her comments on the translations in this paper, and Simon Keynes for his assistance and comments; any errors that remain are, of course, entirely my own. I also thank the Isaac Newton Trust and the Leverhulme Trust for their financial support, without which much of this would not have been possible. 73 Peter A. Stokes Orthodoxorum charters from Abingdon.79 However, his translation was used to help correct and improve this one, and my debt to him will be evident to anyone who compares the two. By the counsel of orthodox men of ecclesiastical strength we are most frequently instructed that we, entirely subjected subjects, serve Him who, arranging the fabric of the whole world in a marvellous and ineffable sequence, set up the microcosm (namely Adam), most fittingly with Eve side by side (namely as a companion) with the joy of paradisiacal delightfulness. Adam was formed at last with four-formed material and inspired with nourishing breath to a likeness of Himself, and He placed him over all things which He had formed in the world below except for one thing forbidden as a test. Led astray – oh woe! – by diabolical sophistry, enticed by the chameleonic and persuasive virago’s subterfuge, with the prohibition silenced, the glutton bit into the forbidden fruit, was cast down, and fully earned perpetual death for himself and his descendants in this wretched world. Since the prophets were foretelling and disclosing with hidden doctrine the highest king’s eternal prognostics from heaven, a shining angel brought down from on high the good word to the orthodox, not as the factious loquacity of the Jews speaks ineptly, but encompassing the most agreeable eloquence of the ancients and moderns, rendering useless the Arian and Sabellian incantations by crushing them under foot with mystical speech, and calling us from the blindness of powerless darkness to the tearlessness of heavenly inheritances; the angel slipped down from the thresholds on high and is seen to have sung amazing songs into the ear of the undefiled virgin, as the evangelical utterances promulgate; the whole (namely catholic) church cries out to her by bellowing high with one voice: ‘Blessed are you, virgin Mary, you who believed; those things will be fulfilled in you which were told to you by the Lord.’ Amazing to say, the word is made flesh and is made body, namely that of which the evangelist, towering above with the height of all perceptions, says ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God’, and so on. That is, after this incarnation was taken up from the virgin, the crime of the ancient virgin is removed and on all women is bestowed glory renowned in its shining marvels. Thus after the sweet-smelling divinity of Christ was left untouched, after his humanity had suffered, happily liberty came to the bounden servants. Hence I Edgar, by the support of the high-throned one ruler of the English and the other peoples living all around far and wide, so that I may deserve to obtain participation in this liberty by the mercy of the high-throned governor: to the monastery held to be located in that famous place which is named by the inhabitants of this race with the noble name Pershore, and dedicated to Mary the ever-virgin mother of our Lord and also to blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, and to his fellow apostle Paul; to monks living by the Rule I grant eternal liberty of monastic privilege, insofar as after the death of the exemplary abbot Foldbriht in whose times this restoration of liberty has been granted with Christ favouring it, let the whole congregation of the aforementioned monastery appoint as abbot him whom it will have elected for itself with a fitting council, choosing him rightly from that same troop of brothers according to the regulating institutes of blessed Benedict. 79 Historia Ecclesia, ed. Hudson I, 60–5 (S 658), 94–9 (S 673) and 140–50 (S 876). 74 King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) Let the liberty of this privilege be held hereafter in perpetual use by all catholic people, and let no outsider, relying on tyrannical obstinacy and seizing the right of power, exercise it in the aforementioned monastery, but may the community of the same monastery glory in the privilege of perpetual liberty as I have said before. Moreover let the aforesaid monastery be free of all earthly servitude in the same way in which it had been freed by our predecessor, namely by King Coenwulf, the most vigorous in orthodox faith, just as is contained in an ancient privilege which Earl Beornoth obtained: indeed the fields which were granted to our Lord Jesus Christ and his mother Mary by me myself restoring that right, for use of the monks in times ancient and modern, by kings and religious people of both sexes, that is namely [. . .] hides belonging to Pershore: ten hides at Bricklehampton, ten at Comberton, five at Pensham, sixteen at Eckington, ten at Birlingham, ten at Defford, ten at Strensham, ten at Besford, [. . .] at Croombe, ten at [Severn] Stoke, ten at Pirton, four at Wadborough, three at Chevington, three at Broughton, ten at Peopleton, ten at Snodsbury, seven at Naunton [Beauchamp], four at Abberton, five at Wihtlafestune, five at Flyford, five at Grafton [Flyford], five at Dormston, five at Martin Hussingtree, three at Broughton [Hackett], two at Libbery, thirty at Longdon, seven at Powick, three at Leigh, three at Acton [Beauchamp], forty at South Stoke, Hillesley, Tresham, Kilcott, Oldbury, Didmarton, Badminton and [Hawkesbury] Upton, ten at Dyrham, five at Longney, six at Lydney, six at Wyegate, five at Beoley, five at Yardley, ten at Alderminster, twenty at Broadway, five at Compton; ten at [Childs] Wickham, and sites of eighteen vats in two places for the purpose of manufacturing salt, ten at Middlewich and eight at Netherwich, and a station of two furnaces at Witton and a vat which is called Westrincge, with one and a half hides at the place called Horton [Hampton Lovett]; let them hold the same liberty in perpetuity. Since, at the time when the lands which I have granted with devout mind to the Lord had been unjustly taken away from the holy church of God, some treacherous men, usurping the hereditary charters, issued new ones to themselves, yet in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we have commanded that no catholic should accept these same charters but they should be considered as having been repudiated in anathema by all the faithful with the old privilege thriving continually. But if some madman is so led astray with the folly of avarice (which we do not wish) that he should try with impudent daring to infringe this abundance of our munificence, may he be estranged from the community of the holy church of God and likewise from participation in the sacred body and blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God through whom the whole orb of lands has been freed from the ancient enemy of the human race, and may he be numbered on the left side with Judas, betrayer of Christ, unless first he shall have humbly repented with due satisfaction that he presumed to act as an insurgent against the holy church of God; may the apostate not obtain any forgiveness in this active life nor rest in the contemplative one, but may the most miserable man be driven into the eternal fires of the Pit with Ananias and Saphira and tormented without end. [. . .]80 80 The charter bounds are given here but these are not translated; for further details see above, n. 40. 75 Peter A. Stokes In the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 972 the written contract of this munificence was written with these witnesses agreeing whose names are recorded below, laid out each in its own order according to the authority of each, with God supporting. [. . .]81 Also to the monastery falls the aforementioned quantity of three iugera and two praedia in that well-known city which is called Worcester by its inhabitants, which (quantity) I grant to be held under condition of the same liberty in perpetuity in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.  :    ,      The text and translation of Godfrey’s letter is provided below. Two manuscripts were collated for this text: A London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii. 7 (s. xii) C Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 111, p. 135 (s. xvi) The principles of editing are the same as those used for S 786 above.82  a Reuerentissimo domino et patri A. summo pontifici, minimus sanctitatis suęb seruus Godefridus dictus Wigornensis archidiaconus, offerre domino incensum dignum in odorem suauitatis. Inter cetera uirtutum indumenta quę decent seruum bonum et fidelem presertim coram domino suo, ualde necessarium estimo sinceritatis et ueritatis ornamentum. Si quis enim huiuscemodi uestem nuptialem non habuerit, nonc intromittetur ad nuptias, sed eicietur foras, nec ascendet superius, ut sit honor ei coram simul discumbentibus. Quia qui sine ueritate est, patrifamilias placere non potest. Ego itaque, ut tamen non loquaturd os meum opera hominum, huius rei gratia ueritatis emulator existens, ad ueritatem uocatus, ueritati testimonium perhibeoe, ut ex temporali ueritatis exequutionef ab eo qui ueritas est ueritatem mereamini mercedis ęternę. Nouerit itaque sanctitas uestra uerum esse quod contrascriptig huius scriptum originale in uirtute sanctę trinitatis sigilla tria, trium personarum autenticarum, ad ueritatem triplici confirmatione commendant. Est autem sigillum primum illustris regis Ędgari, secundum Sancti Dunstani Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, tercium Alferi ducis Merciorum. Sicut ex diligenti litterarum impressarum inspectione euidenter accepi. Operetur igitur si uobis placet filię uestrę sanctę Persorensis ęcclesię detrimentum intolerabile. Operetur inquam infra pietatis paterne uiscera compassionem, compassio restitutionem, restitutio consolationem, et quę ex toto fere defecit, quia non erat qui adiuuaret; nunc, nunc tandem, cum acceperitis tempus iustitias iudicandi, sentiat prophetam esse in Israelh, 81 The witness-list is found here, for which see above, pp. 48–50. 76 82 See above, p. 43. King Edgar’s Charter for Pershore (AD 972) eoque efficatius, quoniam et domnusi abbas et ceteri fratres inibi Deo seruientes per uitę quę coram Deo est sanctitatem et ab hiis qui foris sunt testimonii sani meruere celebritatem. Valeat in perpetuum Sanctitas Vestra. n Hic A. fuit Alexander tertius cuius tempore Galfridus Nothus Henrici Secundi fuit Archidiaconus Wigornensis, Lincolnensis, etj Eboracensis et Cantuariensisk, et postea anno 1174 electus episcopus Lincolnensis. Ut Mattheus Parisiensis, et Mattheus Westmoniensis anno praedicto. Et anno 1178 decorauit eum cingulo militari. Et Florilegus anno 1182 dicit Galfridum renunciasse ministerium episcopalem ex superbia generis. Hic Galfridus fuit 32 Archiepiscopus Eboracensis anno dominil 1189 factus, et eo anno impetitus fuit per Hugonem Dunelmensem et Hubertum Sarum, ut eo anno scribit Walterus Couentrensis.m n Vide Wilhelmum Nouiburg libro secundo capitulo 22 et libro quarto capitulo 2.n a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Hoc scriptum appensum fuit magnæ chartæ de cœnobio Persoran Parshorensi in testimonium eius chartæ heading in C sue] tue C non] noti C loquatur] loquantur C perhibeo] exhibeo C exequutione] execucione C contrascripti] conscripsi C Israel] isrł A Israel C domnus] dominus C et] om. C et Cantuariensis] inserted A domini] om. C Hic . . . Couentrensis.] written on dorse in an early modern hand in A; written at end of text in C Vide . . . cap. 2.] marginal note to preceding paragraph in A; written after preceding paragraph in C  To the most reverend lord and father, Pope A, Godfrey, called Archdeacon of Worcester, the least servant of your Holiness to offer the lord an incense worthy in the odour of its sweetness.83 Among other clothing of virtues which above all befit a good and faithful servant before his lord, I hold especially necessary the ornament of sincerity and truth. For if anyone shall lack wedding clothes of this sort he shall not be admitted to the wedding but shall be thrown out the door,84 nor shall he go up higher so that at the same time there be honour for him before those sitting at the table.85 Because he who is without truth cannot please the head of the family. Accordingly, so that my mouth speaks not the works of men,86 for the sake of this matter being exceedingly zealous87 for the truth, called to truth, I offer witness to truth, so that, out of a moment’s execution of the truth, from him who is truth you might deserve the truth of eternal reward. And so may your Holiness know that it is true that three signs of three authenticating 83 87 Ecclus. XLV.16. Gal. I.14. 84 Matt. XXII.12–13. 77 85 Luke XIV.10. 86 Ps. XVI.4. Peter A. Stokes people in virtue of the holy Trinity do commend the original of this copy to the truth with triple confirmation. For the first is the seal of the most famous King Edgar, the second of St Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, the third of Ælfhere, earl of Mercia; I have accepted it as evidently thus from careful inspection of the letters which have been stamped on it. It could, therefore, affect an intolerable loss for your daughter the holy church of Pershore if it pleases you. It could, I repeat, effect compassion with the mercy of paternal love, compassion could bring about restitution, restitution consolation, and that is something which has been almost entirely lacking because there was noone who would help; now, now at last, since you have accepted that it is time to judge with right judgements,88 let him know that there is a prophet in Israel,89 and all the more efficaciously, since both the lord abbot and the other brothers serving God there through the holiness of a life in God’s sight as well as from those who are outside the community have deserved a cause for celebration at sound testimony. May your Holiness fare well in perpetuity. This A. was Alexander III, in whose time Geoffrey90 the bastard son of Henry II was archdeacon of Worcester, Lincoln, and York (and Canterbury), and afterwards was elected bishop of Lincoln in 1174 (as Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westminster under the aforementioned year).91 And in 1178 he was knighted. And Florilegus says that in 1182 Geoffrey had renounced his bishopric out of pride of birth.92 This Geoffrey was made thirty-second archbishop of York in 1189, and in that year was attacked by Hugh of Durham and Hubert of Sarum, as Walter of Coventry writes for that year.93 See William of Newburgh, Book 2 Chapter 22, and Book 4 Chapter 2.94 88 90 91 92 93 94 89 Ps. LXXIV.3. IV Kings V.8. Sic: the author of this note has apparently confused Archdeacon Godfrey with Geoffrey Plantagenet, archbishop of York. Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, RS [57], 7 vols. (London, 1872–83) II, 295. For Joscelyn’s knowledge of these texts, see Graham and Watson, The Recovery of the Past, pp. 89–90 and 100–101 (J2.77–8 and J2.100–101). For so-called ‘Matthew of Westminster’, see also Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, Historia minor, item, ejusdem Abbreviatio chronicorum Angliæ, ed. F. Madden, RS [44], 3 vols. (London, 1866–9) I, xx–xxvii. ‘Florilegus’ is again ‘Matthew of Westminster’: see Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, xx, for discussion, and Rogeri de Wendover liber qui dicitur Flores historiarum ab anno domini MCLIV, ed. H. G. Hewlett, RS [84], 3 vols. (London, 1886–9) II, 128–9 for the text. Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria: the Historical Collections of Walter Coventry, ed. W. Stubbs, RS [58], 2 vols. (London, 1872–3) I, 372; Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 85–6 (no. J2.69). Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, RS [82], 4 vols. (London, 1884–9) I, 154–5 and 300–301; for Book 2, see also William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs, ed. P. G. Walsh and M. Kennedy, 2 vols. (Warminster, 1988–) II, 90–3 (text) and 189 (commentary); for Joscelyn’s knowledge of William of Newburgh, see Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 81–2 (no. J2.60). 78