Charter: BL Harley Ch. 43.C.1

Description (from Electronic Saywer)

Bond 1878, p. 7, MS 1 rather later; Stevenson 1904, p. 322 n. 6, very suspicious; Robinson 1918, p. 17, spurious; Grundy, Hants. 1921, pp. 164-73, bounds cover the hundred of Chilcomb; Grundy, Hants. 1927, p. 340; Harmer, Writs, p. 373, authenticity not certain; Finberg, ECW, no. 40 and chapter vii, esp. pp. 230-3, authentic basis, passage relating to later hundred of Chilcomb is an interpolation; John 1965, p. 410 n. 3, pp. 414-16; Chaplais 1966/1 (= 1973, p. 55), forgery, MS 1 written at Winchester, perhaps s. xi1, in hand similar to that of the annals 973-1001 in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 173 (the Parker Chronicle); Hart 1970/1, p. 35 (no. 171), authentic basis; Biddle et al. 1976, pp. 256-7, on Chilcomb; Parkes 1976, p. 171 n. 1, on script; Dumville 1992, p. 60, forgery, script not especially close to that of the annals, suggests Chaplais's date for MS 1 may be too late; Keynes 1994/2, p. 1145, suspicious; Faith 1997, p. 34, cited.

Current location

Repository

British Library

Town or City

London

Shelfmark

Harley Ch. 43.C.1

Other information

Catalogue Numbers

S. 376

Format

Single-sheet

Date

909

Electronic Saywer (S. 376)

Bond 1878, p. 7, MS 1 rather later; Stevenson 1904, p. 322 n. 6, very suspicious; Robinson 1918, p. 17, spurious; Grundy, Hants. 1921, pp. 164-73, bounds cover the hundred of Chilcomb; Grundy, Hants. 1927, p. 340; Harmer, Writs, p. 373, authenticity not certain; Finberg, ECW, no. 40 and chapter vii, esp. pp. 230-3, authentic basis, passage relating to later hundred of Chilcomb is an interpolation; John 1965, p. 410 n. 3, pp. 414-16; Chaplais 1966/1 (= 1973, p. 55), forgery, MS 1 written at Winchester, perhaps s. xi1, in hand similar to that of the annals 973-1001 in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 173 (the Parker Chronicle); Hart 1970/1, p. 35 (no. 171), authentic basis; Biddle et al. 1976, pp. 256-7, on Chilcomb; Parkes 1976, p. 171 n. 1, on script; Dumville 1992, p. 60, forgery, script not especially close to that of the annals, suggests Chaplais's date for MS 1 may be too late; Keynes 1994/2, p. 1145, suspicious; Faith 1997, p. 34, cited.