Provisional Drogereit pdf

(p. 419) C. S. 675 shortens the Sanction noticeably. It also contains a writing error,
although this will have been caused by the copier 197 . The dating clause has likewise
been curtailed, the individual sections have been changed around and the details are
wrong, without our assuming an oversight here. The list of witnesses also presents
difficulties. Eugenius of Strahtclyde, although he was subjugated in 926 198 , never
signs in genuine charters. We have no evidence as far as Bishop Benedictus is
concerned, Bishop Wulfhelm does not appear as a witness until 933 (see C. S. 965).
As far as we can judge, the lists of witnesses are invariably correct even in falsified
Abingdon charters. The fact that the names are badly spelt lends particular emphasis
to this suspicion: Aelfhael, Offerd, Aercberth, Huterd. They give rise to the suspicion
that there was perhaps a genuine model, which was used to produce a different charter
once it was no longer possible to read the Anglo-Saxon writing properly. The correct
names should actually read: Aelfheah, Osferth, Aescberht, Uhtred. The Gemot or
moot supposedly took place in Worcig Worthig. It is not possible to identify a
location with such a name during the Anglo-Saxon period, although there is a
Worthig.
C. S. 676 is only in existence by the fact that it was preceded by C. S. 675. The only
reasonable action would be to omit the Proem, which is insignificant to the content.
The text part is good, but it is not possible to decipher the dating clause. As regards
the phase of the moon indicated, it is not possible to determine any day falling on the
7th Ides during the entire year. We find the list of witnesses in two suspect Abingdon
charters 199 . The Subreguli are missing in these, yet the names are still correctly spelt.
for the section following the boundary clause. This curtailment is not explained Here
it would appear that we have a borrowing from a genuine charter. Among the
witnesses is Beornstan, which means that the 29th May of the given year (931) has to
be the earliest date 200 . According to the itinerary, the end of the year is out of the
question for the Gemot; for, on 12th November, Aethelstan issued a charter in Luton,
Bedfordshire. Now this charter is supposed to have been written in Welowe, a place in
Hampshire (like Worthy). Welowe lies considerably further than 100 km from Luton.
It is unlikely that more than 20 km would have been covered in a day's march 201 .
197 J. Stevenson certainly interprets it correctly in the Chronicon with “edacibus Acherontis”. The
mistake points to a genuine model for the presumably fake charter that was produced at a later date.
The incorrect section reads: “edaci bufa cherontis”.
198 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle II, 130.
199
C. S. 680 and 683. The formula for C. S. 680 is more frequently found in Eadgar’s work; C. S. 683
was copied by Eadgar A.
200 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I 106.
201 We are not in possession of any thorough analysis of travelling speed in the early Middle Ages.
However, according to information researched by Fr. Ludwig, Untersuchungen über die Reise- und
Marschgeschwindigkeit im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert (Studies on travelling and marching speeds in the
12 th and 13 th Centuries), Berlin 1897, p. 187: “For journeys made by the German Kaisers and Kings a
normal travelling speed of an average of 20 to 30 km per day can be assumed” we may conclude that it
would be less for the time under examination.
419