Provisional Drogereit pdf

(p. 408) Of significance to us is the witness-list. It is signed by many ministers, but
apart from Oda, only two or three bishops and the same number of ‘duces’. Of the
bishops, Aelfheah, Diocesan of Wessex, signs, whereas Theodred of London, usually
the first signature, does not appear. One of the other bishops is the Diocesan of the
recipient. Perhaps what Liebermann first thought at the time of Aethelred applies
here: “Not every royal document comes from an assembly. A small permanent court
council must necessarily be discerned . . . This council most likely guided by the
king’s bishop (Aelfheah) . . . issued all those government writs . . .” 1 .
It is also likely that this charter was not issued by a gemot; the scribe, however, is
identical to the one who drew up the charters there i.e. according to this the king also
had the land books at the Witanagemot produced by his scribe.
But these charters show us one more thing. The king can donate his Bookland without
requiring further consent. If, however, witnesses do appear, then these are not
consenting witnesses, but simply evidentiary witnesses; for the king’s charter has to
have witnesses 2 .
Type III. Here the Witan consent in the Proem shows feebly through: “Audivi a
sapientibus et prudentibus . . . “ to which in the text the intervention states “pro . . .
matris meae prece . . .”. We now have to go back. In the first charter of this format
known to us (C. S. 780), it still states in the Context; “Idcirco cum consensu
heroicorum virorum . . .”, that the same scribe Ae. C. (see above p. 376), in the next
Boc of this type (C. S. 781), weakened the direct model for C. S. 869 to: “meorum
episcoporum testimonio ceterarumque fidelium astipulatione . .” It is signed by a
large number of witnesses. But the most noticeable thing is the external form of the
charter. It is the simple type of record, which we mainly find in private documents 3
and with Synodal laws, and drawn up on Anglo-Saxon land 4 . It is characteristic that
here, above all, the “Acta” is missing.
From the knowledge gained here 166 and the dependency of the scribes as described
above, (from the furthest back) Eadmund C
1 F. Liebermann, Assembly p. 17 f.
2 H. Brunner, loc sit, p. 158.
3 cf. C. S. 497 (Orig.); 519 (Orig.); 533; 557; 559; 570; 609; 637; 823 and the Oswald Charters.
4 cf. C. S. 162 (Orig.); 290; 309; 313; 322 (Orig.); 335 (Orig.); 378 (Orig.); 379; 384 (Orig.); 387; 430;
574; 575; 614. The king did not act as counterpartner here.
166 We refer here to the study by J, Braude, Die Familiengemeinschaften der Angelsachsen (Anglo-
Saxon Family Communities), Leipzig, Diss. 1932, p. 9 ff., where the author establishes several
characteristics, which, when put together, suggest that the charters being examined are concerned with
the conversion of Folk-land into Bocland. If Braude too considers that there are, in parts, incorrect
diplomatic conditions, thus reaching a conclusion that is hardly acceptable, then his studies certainly
require the attention of the diplomatics expert, as they will surely offer some useable results.
408