Page:St. Oswald and the Church of Worcester.djvu/36

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
32
ST OSWALD AND

Benevolentibus autem et augentibus and tradentur in manus gladii do not seem to occur in the guarding clauses of any other charters.

When we turn to B. C. S. 666, we are able to trace its language in other charters of the Worcester collection. The prooemium, indeed, is quite extraordinary, and to its odd phrases there seem to be no parallels. We may note, however, that evangelicum paradigma has occurred in the prooemium of B. C. S. 665.

Ut aliquid ex percepti mundanis regni distributions … quamvis minus dignum ad ecclesiasticae liberalitatis servitium expenderim. This is phraseology of King Offals time; the very mistakes, mundanis for mundani, and liberalitatis for libertatis, are but repetitions: see B.C.S. 202-5, 210, 226, 231, 239, 246, 251: several of these charters are forgeries, but based on genuine models.

But the charter chiefly drawn upon is King Burhred^s grant of the same property to Bishop Alhun (B. C. S. 509). From this comes the ungrammatical phrase Eatun iuxtaflumine Cearƿellan. And the whole of the guarding clause, Pax servantibus, &c., is taken from this charter. Accordingly, we can have no hesitation in dismissing both these charters (B. C. S. 665, 666) as spurious.


XVI

B. C. S. 700. Athelstan to Worcester monastery. Clifton-uponTeme. 930.

This is marked by Kemble as spurious, and no one will question his decision.

The reference to Anlaf—tropheum ex Anolafo rege Norannorum, qui me vita et regno privare disponit—is an anachronism: for Anlaf's legendary attempt on Athelstan's life on the night before Brunanburh was still seven years in the future. Historical references of this kind are almost invariably signs of forgery.

The date is given as ' 930 in the sixth year of Athelstan's reign'; but the indiction and epact belong to 934: see on this point the next charter.


XVII

B.C.S. 701. Athelstan to St Mary's. Wastill, Cofton, &c. 7 June, 930.

This again is rejected by Kemble. Its dating at once arouses suspicion: Anno dominicae incarnationis DCCCCXXX, regni vero mihi commissi VI, Indictione VII, Epacta III, Concurrente II, Septimis lunii idibus, luna XXI°.