Provisional Drogereit pdf

We have already encountered similar introductions of the Sanction (p. 384) in charters
of earlier times 130 . Apart from these few elements the work is all his own diplomatic
style. – The three types all have in common a characteristic that stands out, namely
the word “exinanitum” in the Immunity clause. Additionally there are a few forms
that connect one type to another.
Type I and II: “In nomine sanctae trinitatis”
“…succendetium sibi cuicumque libuerit…”
“..et post se cuicumque sibi placuerit…”
Type I and III: “seculariumque servitutum…” (Immunity clause)
We are also reminded of this last one when we come across it in the Immunity clause
of Type II: “…seculari servitio…”
On the whole the diplomatic of the three types differs enough for us to have to
examine each one separately.
Type I (p. 384)
The Proem is made up logically of three parts:
“Quamvis…Tamen….Idcirco…”
It works in conjunction with the gift.
“Quamvis decreta pontificum et verba sacerdotum…fixa sint. Tamen
plerumque tempestates et turbines…religio sanctae Dei aecclesiae dissipabitur ac
rumpitur. Idcirco incertum futurorum temporum statum providentes…profuturum esse
decrevimus. ut ea quae…definiuntur sertis litterulis…confirmentur.”
This Proem is repeated in all charters except C. S. 829.
The royal style is similar to that used by Ae. C in charter C. S. 821 (see above). It is
the final design of the royal style, which he took from Eadmund B and initially
reformulated a shorter version that appears in C. S. 780. According to the handeddown
charters, Eadmund C was already formulating these as a novice (see C. S. 791).
The Dispositive clause portrays an extremely personal diplomatic style:
“cuidam mihi fidelissimo…devotionis eius sollertia eiusdem placates
obsequio…dignatus sum impertiri…”
The disposal format is very long, as Eadmund C also includes the Pertinence and,
with his tendency to repeat himself, it is further expanded.
130 In C. S. 391 for Winchester and C. S. 439 for Rochester for example, the Sanction begins in a
similar fashion, yet we believe that an influence of Gregory’s dialogue is more likely (see Migne, loc
sit, Col. 236), where we find III 10 to be almost identical: “Praecipio tibi….”
We find a very similar Proem in C. S. 604 and 611 (both for Winchester); however, first of all the issue
of authenticity must be clarified.
384