Provisional Drogereit pdf

Of all the charters, C. S. 1066 occupies an exceptional position in that the signatures
(p. 425) were written by an auxiliary scribe using completely unique wording. Now,
if C. S. 1067 were genuine, one would have to assume that the auxiliary scribe made a
fair copy either of the entire document or of just the signatures. The former seems
less probable to us, as we cannot believe, from the style of the signatures originating
from it, that he would have kept so slavishly to the straightforward diplomatic of
Eadgar A. The latter seems equally unlikely, as it would have been strange if he had
written only the Eschatocol twice. And if this had been the case, then one factor that
stands out is that various words in this section of the charters are spelt differently.
This cannot be ascribed to the copier, as he, after all, copied everything precisely. For
example C. S. 1067 uses "e" throughout, whereas the auxiliary scribe uses "ae".
Other examples are:
C. S. 1066: Monarchus; priamas; blebi; intepidus; trofheum
C. S. 1067: Monarcus; primas; plebi; intrepidus; tropheum
Also, the boundary clause suppresses the generally standard introduction: "This synt
tha land gemaera to ..."
There remains one last possibility i.e. that a third scribe copied the entire charter,
whereby he replaced only the name of the piece of land with the new name, forgot the
introduction to the boundary clause and changed the oddly written words. But we
think that this happened not at the time when the charter was allegedly drawn up, but
significantly later.
C. S. 1095 names the recipient in an unusual manner. In the case of a monastery the
following sentence is always found in addition to the name:
".... ad usus monachorum inibi degentium..."
The statement that the parcels of land were broadly spread is not familiar to us from
genuine charters; neither does this seem to correspond with the land-book meaning
which specifies fixed boundaries. The sentence itself can also be challenged on the
basis of its wording:
"Thises land gemaera syn gemaene sua thaet lith aefre aecer under aecer."
The dating clause is distinctly curtailed. Eadgar's signature is false. Oscytel is not
written with the Anglo-Norman u in genuine charters. Hence this charter will not be
genuine.
C. S. 1099. Here we have "mansas" instead of "cassatos"; "noto .... appellatur"
instead of "nobili ... appellatur". In the Scripta line "quorum inferius nomina
notantur" is changed to "quorum hic nomina carraxantur". Aethelwold signs with
"consensi" like the bishops and all "y"'s are dotted. Now we find on the same page of
the Cartulary all the "y"s without dots (see C. S. 1074). This leads us to the
conclusion that, in the first instance, the copier had a model, which already featured
the dotted "y". At the beginning of the 60's, however, the character
425